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
You can participate in Astrophysics research into high-energy cosmic rays by participating in the CRAYFIS project via your smartphone.
The CRAYFIS project is a collaborative effort by scientists from University of California Irvine, Univ. of Calif. Davis, New York Univ, Yandex School of Data Analysis and others. It aims to get broad participation of smartphone users to install their app to collect data.
The camera of the smartphone is the collector. “The CRAYFIS app operates in a manner similar to a screensaver. When the phone is connected to a power source and the screen goes to sleep, the app begins data-taking. No active participation is required on the part of the user after the initial download and installation.” –crayfis.io/about
The next part in the Continental Cataclysm Series after Birth of the Earth involves taking a close look at the high-energy cosmic rays that bombard the earth.
The CRAYFIS-related academic paper [Observing Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays with Smartphones] references a particle flux on the ground (Earth’s surface) caused by particles striking Earth’s atmosphere. However, my research indicates that there are many incoming high-energy particles that go straight through the sparsely populated atmosphere to hit the surface directly. The CRAYFIS paper indicates that the particles have so much energy that they are not deflected my Earth’s magnetosphere. Ok, but there is another phenomenon, geo-effective particle showers.
You see, high-energy particles tend to travel in groups referred to as clouds. Each cloud has a macroscopic magnetic field. Depending on the orientation of the poles, the cloud can pass through Earth’s magnetosphere. A NASA scientist, Nicky Fox, published the following regarding coronal mass ejections [CMEs] from the sun, but the same phenomenon happens with inter-galactic and inter-solar-system clouds of high-energy particles.
“When these disturbances arrive at Earth, they do not always have the same effect. The factor in determining how much the Earth will be effected by a CME is the direction of the magnetic field – in particular, the north-south direction, or ‘z’ component. When the z component is positive, this corresponds to a northward field, which has little or no effect on the Earth. When the z component is negative, however, this corresponds to a southward field. When the interplanetary magnetic field is southward, it opposes the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field. In the same way that the different poles of a bar magnet attract (in contrast to like poles repelling), an interaction between the two magnetic fields will occur, allowing the energy from the solar wind to enter the Earth’s protective shield – the magnetosphere.”
When a cloud of high-energy particles has a magnetic field with poles opposite to Earth’s magnetic field, the cloud passes through. In this case, the cloud of particles is said to be “geoeffective.”
According to Doug MacDougall – Nature’s Clocks (2008) – scientists have known about high-energy particles hitting atoms in the atmosphere to produce carbon isotopes since the 1940’s. Carbon-dating is based on this. However, scientists have not paid attention to the possible fusion events that are possible from high-energy particles hitting rocks on the surface of the Earth. More on this later, with the next part of the Series: An Earth Science Scandal.
For now, consider being part of the big particle detector array that is needed to study these ultra-high energy particles. Join the first and only crowd-sourced cosmic ray detector. Observe the energies of incident particles for yourself!
I learned about Kepler-78b via the TV Series: NASA’s Unexplained Files, on the Science Channel. The problem is also explained on this Astronomy Picture of the Day [APOD] page for Kepler-78b: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap131105.html.
“Even though Kepler-78b is only slightly larger than the Earth, it should not exist. … Models of planet formation predict that no planet can form in such a close orbit, and models of planet evolution predict that Kepler-78b’s orbit should decay — dooming the planet to eventually merge with its parent star.” —APOD
According to scientists, the position of Kepler-78b so close to its sun – 40 times closer than Mercury is to our sun – could not have happened if the current academic explanation for solar system formation [Sun-First Theory] is really correct. The planet [Kepler-78b] would have had to: form within its nascent sun/star, establish its orbit within this young sun, and then retain its orbit as its sun contracted into a smaller sphere.
According to Mass Vortex Theory, on the other hand, a planet can form at practically any radial distance from the center of the parent vortex. When a dense big pocket of atoms can no longer follow the curved path of the vortext due to its velocity and mass, then it exits the stream of gases comprising the parent vortex. Once it exits, then gravity and the conservation of angular momentum are the dominant rules that affect the planet’s orbit. The gravitational interaction involved is between the planet’s center of mass and the parent vortex’s center of mass (for the part of the vortex that is within the planet’s orbit). Therefore, the presence of Kepler-78b is understandable, no problem.
In Mass Vortex Theory, the sun does not become present until later in the development, after the planets are fully formed. At some point, prior to the birth of the Sun, the center of the Parent Vortex starts to luminesce as atoms follow a tight circular path. Thus, light shines from the center of the system prior to the Sun being born. The planets, however, form in darkness or semi-darkness; any light was from possible distant stars and the beginning of a glow at the center of the Parent Vortex.
*Image above was created from a picture of our sun from the Sun Dynamics Observatory [GSFC NASA] with sunspots of a known size that could be used in comparison to Earth and Kepler 78b; the image for Kepler 78b is an artist conception by Karen Teramura which I re-sized and placed in the ecliptic. Imaging of Kepler-78b from space telescopes or probes is not available.
The following appear to be discrepancies between current theory and observed behavior. See if you agree. This kind of discrepancy points to the need for a new theory.1
Let “Sun-First Theory” be the label for the current academically-accepted theory of solar-system formation.
1. Fictitious process going from initial ingredients to protoplanet to planet.
Vesta is a large asteroid in the Asteroid Belt which was recently investigated by the DAWN space probe. Given that Vesta does not get larger over time, then how did any of the planets get larger via the means specified by Sun-First Theory?
NASA has identified Vesta as a protoplanet.2,3 And a protoplanet is supposed to be a cosmic body that is in the process of becoming a planet.
According to Sun-First Theory, the sun forms first, then as left-over material rotating in a disk around the sun gets cooler, very small bits of rocky material become present; then rocks collide to form larger astronomical objects.4 There is a known issue in going from rocks that are a few centimeters to a few meters, because the rocks are apt to collide and bounce apart (elastic collisions) rather than stick together.4
With all the material orbiting the sun in the disk with its initial angular momentum, how did the required large number of collisions occur at all? The material in the asteroid belt models the conditions that Sun-First Theory conjectures for the time when boulder-sized rocks rotate in a disk around the sun. The rocky objects in the asteroid belt have different sizes and orbit around the sun in the disk area of the ecliptic (a plane coincident with the Sun’s equator) between Mars and Jupiter. [See image above.] What we find is that the initial angular momentum is conserved and the space between rocks is preserved so that there is no means to cause the rocks to aggregate into larger and larger units.
This observed behavior is at odds with the behavior specified by Sun-First Theory for growing a planet.
*The diagram above “shows a bird’s eye view of our asteroid belt, which lies between the orbits of Mars (red) and Jupiter (purple). NASA’s Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE, will see hundreds of thousands of asteroids with diameters larger than 3 kilometers (1.9 miles). The green dots represent populations of asteroids – yellow illustrates the populations WISE is expected to see.” —NASA
2. Presence of a planet that is too close to its star.
Kepler 78B is a planet in a different solar system (an exoplanet). According to Sun-First Theory, it would have had to form within its star in order to have its current orbit.
From Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013-25:
“Kepler-78b is a planet that shouldn’t exist. This scorching lava world circles its star every eight and a half hours at a distance of less than one million miles – one of the tightest known orbits. According to current theories of planet formation, it couldn’t have formed so close to its star, nor could it have moved there.”
Two different teams have confirmed the presence of 78B with its properties.5
I hope this shows that there are problems for Sun-First Theory due to observations of actual phenomena. Additional issues/problems are raised in the book, The Birth of the Earth. We will visit in coming posts how observed phenomena are best explained by Mass Vortex Theory, including Kepler-78b.
1 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn; published by The University of Chicago, 1962, 1970
2 “Huge Asteroid Vesta Actually an Ancient Protoplanet” by Mike Wall, Space.com Senior Writer, May 10, 2012 [http://www.space.com/15630-asteroid-vesta-protoplanet-dawn-spacecraft.html] and other online articles.
3 “Mystery World Baffles Astronomers” Release No.: 2013-25; October 30, 2013 https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?News_ID=36264 accessed 6/16/2015
“The asteroid Vesta is unique: Unlike all other minor planets, that orbit the Sun within the main belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, Vesta has a differentiated inner structure: A crust of cooled lava covers a rocky mantle and a core made of iron and nickel – quite similar to the terrestrial planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. Scientists therefore believe this onion-like built asteroid to be a protoplanet, a relic from an early phase of planet formation more than four and half billion years ago. All other protoplanets either accumulated to form planets or broke apart due to violent collisions.”
4 Why Geology Matters by Doug MacDougall; published by University of California Press, 2011.
5 News: “Exoplanet is built like Earth but much, much hotter” by Elizabeth Gibney; 30 October 2013 http://www.nature.com/news/exoplanet-is-built-like-earth-but-much-much-hotter-1.14058; Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2013.14058 accessed 6/16/2015