Looking at the Center of the Milky Way Galaxy in Infrared
Credit Hubble: NASA, ESA, & D. Q. Wang (U Mass Amherst);
Credit Spitzer: NASA, JPL & S Stolovy (SSC/Caltech)
Birth of the Earth BlogMass Vortex Theory
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.
It occurred to me that people would be curious about how in the world I came up with Mass Vortex Theory.
As I started thinking about the beginning of the Solar System, my thinking returned to theoretical work about construction and raw materials from my work on theoretical foundations. It seemed to me that the raw materials of the Solar System must include atoms from all different elements. Thus, I considered a big mix of atoms from naturally occurring stable elements to be present. I learned about nebulae later. A nebula as an initial “given” of Mass Vortex Theory is described here. Also, I did some research and found out that every planet had an iron-nickel core. So it made sense that clumps of metal atoms, mostly iron, were present in the earliest stage.
Then, I knew that somehow the system goes from this initial condition of static stuff in space to a state where there is angular momentum of planets. So, I thought about how a big bunch of stuff might go from being “at rest” to then having angular momentum.
Bath water in a tub which then goes down the drain after the stopper is removed came to mind. From my previous work on theoretical foundations of physics, I know that there is a resevoir of pure mass (which I call massfluid) outside of space. Thus, envisioning a hole in space going to that resevoir seemed to be the most simple way to achieve the needed angular momentum. As I started thinking about it, I envisioned an image of a spiral galaxy, and I looked up some images, and thought “yes, like this.” Later, I learned that black holes are at the center of spiral galaxies. Pretty cool. So the system I envisioned has a precedent in nature. A black hole as an initial “given” of Mass Vortex Theory is described here.
As I did research on the idea of a vortex, I found out about cyclonic separation and it fit beautifully for what happened with protoplanets falling out of the stream of the Parent Vortex into a steady-state orbit.
This is how my journey of discovery for solar-system-formation got started… after I learned that I needed to deal with solar-system-formation to explain the initial conditions of Pangaea for Cataclysm Theory.
The initial givens of Mass Vortex Theory are:
An initial nebula in space is not far-fetched; many are present throughout the universe. The ten large groups of iron-nickel atoms claimed by Mass Vortex Theory are feasible given: a) the atomic weights of these metals, b) the abundance of iron in the universe, and c) the observed heterogeneity of other nebulae in the cosmos that birth solar systems.
Mass Vortex Theory posits a black-hole singularity that becomes present in the nebula. Some readers may want to think of this as a kind of exotic form of a Standard-Theory black-hole, i.e. a place in space that hosts very dense matter. The conception of a black hole in Mass Vortex Theory is that it is an actual hole in space filled with pure mass. Mass flows through the hole to another dimension, a non-spatial dimension comprised of pure mass. Like a big reservoir of water where water flows in and out via pipes, pure mass flows in and out of space.
For now, please suspend your disbelief regarding the nature of the singularity. The important thing is that there is a black-hole singularity and it causes the Parent Cloud to turn into the Parent Vortex.
The initial nebula is called the Parent Cloud. When the singularity becomes present, all the mass of the Parent Cloud (including the pockets of metal atoms) starts moving towards the black hole. Just as water from a bathtub cannot all flow out the drain at one time, the mass of the Parent Cloud cannot flow out of space through the black hole at one time; therefore a vortex forms. This is a known phenomenon of physics involving the secondary flow associated with a drain-hole (i.e. a sink). The mass of the Parent Cloud flows towards the singularity, but it cannot all fit through the “sink” at one time, so it is deflected to move around the “hole.”4 The fluid dynamics of a sink-vortex secondary flow is beyond the scope of this post, but it worth noting that it is a known phenomenon which produces angular momentum when the system did not start with angular momentum.
This sink-vortex flow phenomenon is also present in the universe on the scale of galaxies, since spiral galaxies are composed of vortex flow around a black hole.
The gases of the Parent Cloud act like a fluid. We will call the resulting vortex the Parent Vortex. The point-like nature of the singularity and gravity cause the Vortex to flatten into a swirling disk (just like spiral galaxies).
1 “Mini Black Holes Easier To Make Than Thought” by Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor, March 12, 2013; http://www.livescience.com/27811-creating-mini-black-holes.html, accessed 6/17/2015
2 “Extra dimensions, gravitons, and tiny black holes” published by CERN; http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/extra-dimensions-gravitons-and-tiny-black-holes accessed 6/17/2015
3 “Primordial Black Holes: sirens of the early Universe” by Anne M. Green; published by Cornell University; March 2014; arXiv:1403.1198 [gr-qc]
4 Ask A Scientist, DOE Office of Science; “Why does water run down a bathtub drain in a swirl;” by Burr Zimmerman http://www.stab-iitb.org/newton-mirror/askasci/phy05/phy05136.htm
A previous post introduces the Parent Vortex and the initial givens for the formation of the Solar System. Each of the 10 densely populated regions of atoms around the 10 big clumps of iron atoms is a protoplanet. A protoplanet is like a big “particle” within the gaseous flow of the Parent Vortex. Each of these big particles is not necessarily spherical at this point. Gravity and rotational motion combine to create a system that separates these big “particles” from the mainstream flow. This behavior is called cyclone separation (or cyclonic separation).
I really like the explanation in Wikipedia. The article in Wikipedia provides the physics of what happens in cyclonic separation. It sets up the criteria for the case where forces balance so that a particle has no incentive to spiral inwards to the center, nor fly away from the center. This happens when the radial velocity has caused enough drag force to counter the centrifugal and buoyancy forces.
From the equations of motion, we find that “if the density of the fluid is greater than the density of the particle, the motion is (-), toward the center of rotation and if the particle is denser than the fluid, the motion is (+), away from the center.” For the 10 densely populated regions, the particle is denser than the fluid, so it moves radially away from the center of the Vortex, until it is no longer present within the Vortex flow. The protoplanet “particle,” however, retains its angular momentum and goes into orbit around the Parent Vortex’s center of mass.
Cyclone technology for vacuum cleaners works using the same physics. So validation for the physics of cyclone separation is provided every day through the fact that people find cyclone-technology vacuum cleaners efficacious for the removal of dirt, dust and allergens.
Our solar system had 10 protoplanets in its nascent vortex. It is possible that an arbitrary solar system could not have any protoplanets. Or there could be more than 10.
No protoplanets means that in the initial nebula (i.e. the portion of a nebula which birthed the system), there were no big clumps of metal atoms. This would happen if metal atoms were well-mixed within the parent cloud, or the system had a very small amount of metal atoms, i.e. the system was metal-poor. The ability for a parent vortex to have no particles explains why some stars do not have orbiting planets. Near as we can tell, Barnard’s Star is one of these; it does not have a planetary system. There is a claim by a reader (Ronald) here, Barnard’s Star: No Sign of Planets, that Barnard’s Star is a type of star that is known to be metal-poor.