The early solar system was donut-shaped, meteorite study suggests

Interesting report and paper cited. This site presently shows 6796 exoplanets, the number keeps getting larger and larger now here,

An observation I make here about these numerous exoplanet systems documented now. Look at the mass found in the range 0 to 3 au from the parent stars. I found 4131 in that distance range, average mass 4.544 Jupiter, or 1444 earth masses. Compare to our solar system, we have much less mass in the solar system inside 3 au or closer to the Sun than many exoplanet systems identified now. There is much to chew on concerning disc simulations used to explain the population we see today.
I think there is a lot of observational bias in the positions of exoplanets in the star systems we have the technology to partially observe. Big planets orbiting close to small stars are a lot easier to find than large planets far from large stars and small planets close to large stars.

So, there really isn't statistically sufficient data yet, for the purpose of assigning probabilities to planets that could have water and plate tectonics and a protective magnetic field, etc. etc.
A torus area indicates helical orbits, not elliptical orbits. I think our planets and their moons are in one turn helical orbits too. But our successful satellite elliptical orbits have blinded us to it. Check out the orbits of the ringlets.

And I also believe because of the directional forces on the helix, they are self correcting self stabilizing orbits.

These TWO orbits, one small stretched out rotation, forming the larger rotation. Two angular momentums. Locked angular momentums. A change in diameter in the small orbit, changes the length of the large orbit. A change in the large orbit, will cause a change in the small orbit. These are square changes, perpendicular changes, balance changes. Angular changes.

I have read where all planets have a toroidal debris field around the Sun.

Close radar inspection is needed, but will be hard to reference. Or find an orbit thru a debris field and look at the tracks.
The 2-body gravitational dynamics make for a flat, elliptical orbit.

But, put a lot of mass in a disk around a large mass body, and a smaller body orbiting the larger body within the disk of other matter will likely oscillate across the disk. That would produce something similar to a helical orbit, but not a round helix. It is the mass in the disk that is bringing the smaller body back and forth across the disk, We see this type of orbit for stars like our Sun around our galactic center
We can only observe and measure 2D at long distance. And that's hard enough. Guessing size with angle is no good without distance. UN-measured unseen travel can change velocity and period. There is way too much play for an accurate guess.

That's just my opinion, no one else.

Let's stay local. Look at those ringlets. They have multiple turns of their trajectory around their planet. They seem to have the same pitch too. Have any measured the inner pitches against the outer pitches?

Do all small ringlets on all the planets do this? Are the ringlets in plane? Or make their own plane? Is half the pitch above plane and half the pitch below? Planet pitch is.

If I was studying gravity I'd be glued to this. And I would want to bust a portion of it see how the ringlets respond.

I've heard some say that if it were disturbed the whole thing would come apart. It was suppose to be in perfect balance.

My spitball is just the product of many others. But an early donut in any system doesn't surprise me. Nor is cause. And I have only my words to convince with. Can't prove a thing.
There is evidence supporting the hypothesis that the Sun formed, as do most stars, within a cluster. The embryonic cloud fragmented and formed many stars. Some clouds can form as many as one million new stars.

The orbits of our planets, and another variable or two, limits that early cluster to be less than 3000 stars forming with the Sun. These stars, of course, are close to one another. And the more massive stars tend to form much quicker.

So, I am curious if the extra heat needed with these results could be from a nearby (say 1000 AU) very hot early neighbor? It would not have stayed this close for millions of years, of course.
Good point, Helio.

Similarly, the potential for the rogue planet from one star system impacting the obits of planets in neighboring star systems seems much greater while the stars are close together.

Do we have estimates for how long other stars were close to the Sun, starting about 4.6 billion years ago? Do we know what stars those were and where they are in today's observations from Earth? I suspect not. The Sun has been around the galactic center about 20 times (20 "galactic years") since the Sun formed, so I doubt we can extrapolate the "N-body problem" backwards enough without it becoming too unstable to be reliable.
Some interesting comments in this thread. Today this site shows 6802 exoplanets now,

Just looking at those in the range 0 to 3 au from the host stars shows that many systems are filled with much more mass and larger exoplanet sizes than we see in our solar system from the Sun out to 3 au distance. 4133 confirmed 0 to 3 au from their parent star and you can look at the radii size too. 5.334 earth radii size is average compared to our solar system distribution. The NASA archive site,, 5678 exoplanets with 0 to 3 au count 5023, average radii size 5.94 and average distance 0.304 au. Basic data like this I feel should be clearly presented to the public when presenting information on habitable exoplanets and how many aliens could be buzzing around in the MW today :)
Yes. The NASA table is much larger. But you seem to show more radii results with NASA’s site though it has fewer exoplanets, hence more exos with radii data. Is this correct?

To get more radii results, I’ve started using planet mass and a density table.
Helio, when you compare the NASA site with the .eu site, you will get different results, some are close others not so. Just look at exoplanet distances 0 to 3 au from host star and total number of exoplanets reported. The NASA site shows 5023 exoplanets, the .eu site when reporting 6802 total, showed 4133. I am surprised the experts do not call attention to the obvious differences between our solar system configuration 0 to 3 au from the Sun (Mercury to asteroid belt) when looking at data for other stars showing exoplanets.

Latest posts