Mass Vortex Theory [MVT] asserts that the Asteroid Belt in our solar system is composed of some leftover remains form a planet which the Theory calls Smithereens. Other large remnants of Smithereens rebounded, hitting Mars and Venus before moving on to the center of the Parent Vortex or ricocheting over the center to end up in the Kuiper Belt. Makemake is an object in the Kuiper Belt that has residual spin from the original Smithereens planet.
The idea that the Asteroid Belt is due to a shattered planet was embraced in the past, but it has fallen out of favor with modern scientists. The reason it is not accepted is:
a) There is not enough mass in the Asteroid Belt for a planet; only 4% the mass of Earth’s Moon
b) The material in the Asteroid Belt does not show the kind of shock effects that are expected from a planet-scale collision
c) The different chemical composition between asteroids indicates that they did not come from a common single-planet source
In this post, I would like to show why these objections do not apply to Smithereens in the context of Mass Vortex Theory. The rationale involves two key aspects of the Killer Crash.
1. Smithereens (the planet closer to Mars) had just formed; it was still very hot.
2. Conservation of momentum with an elastic collision means that the shattered pieces of Smithereens would have velocity away from the Crash site moving back towards the Parent Vortex; i.e., moving in the opposite direction of the velocity prior to impact.
(1) and (2) negate objection (c), explained as follows.
Consider the process of planet-formation set forth by Mass Vortex Theory [MVT]. The protoplanet starts to spin; compaction begins. The iron-heart compacts most quickly into the super hot core [C for core].Then heavier elements compact into a layer around the core [H for heavier], At the same time, Then the outer layer has the lighter molecules and steam [L+S for lighter and steam] — plus a vast shell of inert gas atoms which do not compact. The asteroids show a similar differentiation.
There is reason to believe that Mars has a lot of carbon in its mantle [justification is beyond the scope of this post], so with the clumpy composition of the Parent Vortex, Smithereens – a neighbor of Mars – could easily have had a concentration of carbon. Carbon is the 4th most abundant element in the universe which also supports the odds that generous carbon would be present in the mantle of Smithereens. 75% of the asteroids in The Asteroid Belt are carbonaceous asteroids, C-Type (according to Wikipedia). Thus, C-Type asteroids match up with H-type material in the formation of Smithereens. Metal-rich M-Type asteroids match up with the C-type material at the center of Smithereens. Silicon-related molecules make up a portion of the H-type material; silica-rich S-Type asteroids are about 17% of the asteroids in the Asteroid Belt. H-type basalt molecules are in the V-Type asteroids and these form about 6% of the asteroids present in the Belt.
Shattered pieces of Smithereens with the most compact and heaviest molecules — H-type and C-type — are the ones which bounced away from the Crash Site with enough momentum for substantial travel. Some of the light atoms and molecules kept right on going beyond the Crash site to form the moon Hyperion and the Pheobe ring around Saturn. Hyperion shows its formation from light rocky molecules compacting around gases. The Phoebe ring of Saturn in retrograde motion is most likely composed of light material from Smithereens. The Wikipedia article on “Asteroid_belt” says “it is thought that many of the outer asteroids may be icy;” to the extent that this is true, it puts the L+S material in the outer ring of the Asteroid Belt (furthermost from the Sun).
Given that Smithereens had not fully solidified, the differently-composed parts of the just-forming planet shattered in a characteristic manner. This is reasonable and expected. These pieces from the collision exhibited conserved momentum in a variety of ways in keeping with the material of the shattered piece. Therefore, the different chemical composition of asteroids with their distribution actually confirm the MVT planet formation process.
(1) negates objection (b).
The shock effects expected from two modern-day planets are different from the breakup of a softer recently-formed planet.
(2) negates objection (a).
The majority of the mass of Smithereens transferred some momentum to Illo and changed direction to move away from the Crash site back towards the Parent Vortex. The broken-up pieces of Smithereens then joined the fast-moving flow of the Parent Vortex and blended in to it. One big piece of Smithereens’ iron-heart coupled with Earth’s protoplanet to become the Moon. Why expect ALL of the shattered pieces of a planet to stay in the the region of the Asteroid Belt? If you think about it, a crash that would cause the break-up of a planet should cause fragments to travel away from the crash site.
The Christian Science Monitor Weekly reported in its October 5, 2015 edition that Enceladus, a moon of Saturn has an ice layer with a global ocean on the surface of a rocky sphere, under the ice. NASA also believes that Jupiter’s moon Europa has the same type of layers. This is explained by Mass Vortex Theory [see pages 38-39] because moons have a mechanism of formation that is similar to planets. In the case of a moon, however, the planet’s magnetic force overpowers the moon’s magnetic force. The interaction between these two magnetic forces, causes a mechanical force that: a) stops the moon from spinning and b) repels the moon from it’s location to further away where it is finally stopped by the planet’s gravity. [This type of repulsive mechanical force between two objects with parallel magnetic fields is part of known physics.]
Sun-First Theory, which is the current standard theory, asserts that planets and moons are formed from dust, molecules and grains orbiting the Sun after it ignites. Even though they all have the same angular momentum (like asteroids in the asteroid belt), they somehow hit each other and get stuck together to form rocks. Even though rocks usually have elastic collisions (i.e., they bounce off each other), the idea is that somehow small rocks have inelastic collisions leading to ever bigger rocks until a) the rocks get very big, and b) they get molten (due to the heat of impacts alone) and spherical (due to size). Thus, part of the definition of a planet is that the “object” cleared its orbit (or in other words, it “removed debris and small objects from the area around its orbit”)—see previous post: Proposed Definition of a Planet. How does this theory of rock collisions explain the layered structure of Enceladus and Europa, with global oceans and ice layers?
Image credit: NASA and JPL
“The Birth of the Earth” provides a new explanation for the way in which a super-huge cloud of atoms developed into the solar system that we see today. This explanation called Mass Vortex Theory suggests a new, more simple definition of a planet.
First: Mass Vortex Theory predicts that all the planets in the same solar system will have orbits that are for all practical purposes in the same plane. Let’s call this plane, the Parent Disc.
Proposed new definition:
An astronomical body/object is a planet if and only if it:
a) orbits a star in the Parent Disc
b) has intrinsic spin
The Parent Disc will usually be the ecliptic which cuts through the sun’s equator. However, Kepler 56 is an example where the plane determined by the parent vortex does not cut through its star’s equator.*
A planet is created when the dense group of iron-heart with its atom-mist exits the Parent Vortex because it has too much mass (or inertia) to follow the curve of the Parent Vortex [cyclone mechanics]. It moves radially outward, away from the center, falling out of the Parent Vortex flow into motion along an orbital path. This is the key behavior that leads to a planet.
The Parent Vortex grabs the porous outer region of a protoplanet as it exits, causing it to spin. Moons do not have intrinsic spin, neither do asteroids in the asteroid belt.
Pluto is an interesting case. It presents the same face to Charon and Charon presents the same face to Pluto. This type of angular momentum with rotation consistently showing one face to axis of rotation is indicative of moons. Pluto does not orbit the sun in the ecliptic, and for this reason alone is not a true planet. The axial tilt associated with the axis of Pluto’s angular momentum is 120° ; Venus’ axial tilt is 177° and Uranus is 98° . Most likely, Pluto was formed via the protomoon method [see page 38, Birth of the Earth] and started out as a moon of Illo.
In comparison to the definition proposed here, the current definition of “planet according to the International Astronomical Union is:
An object that:
- orbits the sun
- has sufficient mass to be round, or nearly round
- is not a satellite (moon) of another object
- has removed debris and small objects from the area around its orbit
1 Schombert, Jim; University of Oregon Astronomy 121 Lecture notes,Pluto Orientation diagram
* Most likely, when the inner Vortex Ring flipped to form the star Kepler 56, the next Rings out also moved (instead of maintaining their original orientation) so that the counter-rotating rings comprising this K-56 “sun” shifted around the black hole and did not maintain the original orientation with respect to the Parent Disc.
Mass Vortex Theory as set forth in “The Birth of the Earth” also helps to answer the curiosity that NASA has about water on Mars.
During compaction, steam (and methane) is given off by the hot mantle and crust. Therefore, Mars has water between its crust and mantle (as explained in “The Birth of the Earth”). Also, while its ice layer was present, Mars had water vapor under the ice layer that condensed as the planet cooled. This condensation fell to the surface of the planet, and collected in depressions. Mars did not have a big basin in its crust, like Earth, so water would have been distributed over the whole surface, but, probably not deep enough to cover hills and elevated regions. Having an ice layer provided a kind of hot house effect which kept the temperature consistently more temperate across the whole planet and supported liquid water. Once Mars’ ice layer was striped away, the water both froze and started evaporating. All the surface ice eventually evaporated. However, some of the molecules in material on the surface could still retain amounts of H2O (hydrates).
News on September 28, 2015, revealed a discovery of some small amounts of salt water on Mars per the image above [image credit: JPL-CALTECH/NASA, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA]. I believe that it will be found that this salt water is due to a chemical reaction. There are salts on Mars that could possibly react at the right temperature with an element from the atmosphere or dust (transported by surface winds) to produce small amounts of salt water.
The desire to find water on Mars is so that it could support human life for Mars pioneers. It is possible. If human drilling capacity improved so that we had the ability to drill through the crust to the water discontinuity layer below [between mantle and crust], then explorers could obtain a source to provide sufficient water.
What I am very interested to learn about is the atmosphere and surface water of Jupiter under Jupiter’s ice layer. Is there enough light getting through at the poles that vegetation is present? Also, what is it like under Saturn’s ice layer?
“Birth of the Earth,” page 37, talks about how the atmosphere of a planet starts with the light atoms of the protoplanet that are: a) above the surface of the rocky planet and b) under the ice layer. It is further explained on page 37 that due to the lack of a magnetosphere on both Venus and Mar, the ice layer has been scrubbed away and the atmosphere eroded. The image above from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (a project of NASA) shows an X2 flare and a coronal mass ejection from the Sun which caused energetic particles to be pushed out across the solar system—a stronger, more energetic contribution to the every-day common solar winds.
The week of November 4, 2015, NASA released information to verify that they see the atmosphere of Mars being striped away by the solar winds. Here is a video from Space.com regarding Mars Atmosphere Being ‘Stripped’ By Solar Wind.
From the New York Times article on this matter:
But new readings from NASA’s Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution mission — Maven, for short — show that when Mars is hit by a solar storm, the ferocious bombardment of particles from the sun strips away the upper atmosphere much more quickly.
…The air disappears in mainly two ways. Sometimes an electron is knocked off an atom in the upper atmosphere, and then the charged atom is accelerated away by the electric and magnetic fields of the solar wind. Particles of air can also be knocked into space through collisions with incoming solar wind particles, like billiard balls.
It is nice to have this rigorous confirmation with details regarding the mechanisms for how the atmosphere-striping behavior happens at the atomic level.
National Geographic has produced a video that explains what science textbooks currently teach about how Earth and other planets in our solar system formed.
The Standard Theory explanation starts with a nebula (like Mass Vortex Theory). Then it conceives of a situation in which atoms of the nebula move towards the center of gravity—neglecting kinetic energy and overcoming coulomb forces between atoms (which are much stronger than gravity)—so that a situation called “gravitational collapse” is realized. Standard Theory posits that this leads to fusion of hydrogen in the dense ball of material around the center of gravity.
This video picks up with the Standard Theory chronology after this, after the sun formed. Thus, Standard Theory posits that the sun formed before the planets which is why I call it Sun-First Theory.