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
The givens of Mass Vortex Theory are: a nebula (or part of a nebula), 10 big pockets of iron atoms (iron and other metal atoms), and a black hole. Atoms from the nebula pack in more densely around the pockets of metal atoms. We’ll call these dense regions protoplanets. When the black hole becomes present, it acts like a big sink-hole. The nebula starts to go down the drain which creates a kind of whirling vortex.
At some point, a protoplanet has too much mass and momentum to remain in the curved path of the Parent Vortex, and it moves radially out of the Vortex (as covered in a previous post). Like a baseball pitcher using his fingers to spin a baseball, the streaming gases of the Vortex act like fingers around the protoplanet to spin it as it exits the Parent Vortex. Thus, the protoplanet transitions into an orbit around the Vortex’s center-of-mass with spin.
The further away a planet is from the center singularity, the less curvature the Vortex has. With less curvature, the pinwheel arm of the Vortex has more time to drag the planet and create a faster spin. This effect is the reason that planets further away from the center of the Solar System spin more quickly.
The iron atoms in the nucleus of a protoplanet had microscopic magnetic domains (a known property of iron). Given the low temperature of the Vortex gases and protoplanets, these domains would line up in a single direction to make a big magnetic field (known physics for iron with a temperature less than the Curie temperature). Then, when the protoplanet starts to spin, the magnetic domains move. This causes the magnetic field to vary in such a way that it produces an electric field. [A changing magnetic field produces a changing electric field and a changing electric field produces a magnetic field according to known physics: Maxwell’s Equations]. The electric field is experienced by the non-metal atoms around the magnetic material in the central area.
Craters at the north and south pole of a planet provide evidence of how the layers of a planet form in the presence of an electric field. (Pictures are offered in the book, The Birth of the Earth, of craters on Mercury, Mars, and Neptune.)
The new electric field causes atoms to line up in a way that overcomes the forces keeping them apart. They bond to form molecules. This rapidly reduces the space between atoms by 10^9. This rapid formation of molecules and minerals in combination with gravity results in rapid compacting of material around the iron atoms. This causes the iron atoms to compact around the center also. A lot of heat is generated in this process.
The layered Earth as we know it reflects the results that we would expect from this process.
Did you know that granite has a higher melting point than the rock in the mantle below? But according to the current standard theory (Sun First Theory), granite is supposed to result from the cooling off period after the whole protoplanet was a hot melted sphere from collisions of rocky objects.
The rapid formation of molecules and minerals in combination with gravity results in rapid compacting of material around the iron atoms, forming a spherical shape. The iron atoms at the center of the rocky sphere become a solid core.
The heat from this phenomenon:
- melts the outer shell of metal around the central core
- melts the rocky material around the liquid metal
- creates steam between layers
- creates steam that rises from the planet as a whole
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