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
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.
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!
Mass Vortex Theory [MVT] asserts that the Asteroid Belt in our solar system is composed of the leftover remains of a planet which the Theory calls Smithereens.
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) was just beginning to form; it was not a fully formed planet.
2. Conservation of momentum 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. The protoplanet starts to spin; compaction begins. The heavier elements are at various stages of compacting [H for heavier] — forming a layer around the metal-rich iron-heart. At the same time, the iron-heart is in the beginning stages of compacting [IH for iron-heart]. 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. Depending on when the Killer Crash happens in the formation of Smithereens, you might see some very dense basalt material [B for basalt]. 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 the heterogeneity of the Parent Vortex could easily have a concentration of carbon in the atom-mist of Smithereens, a near neighbor of Mars. Carbon is the 4th most abundant element in the universe which also supports the odds that generous carbon would be present in the atom-mist 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 IH-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 IH-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, sheared off from the protoplanet, to form the moon Hyperion. Hyperion shows its formation from light rocky molecules compacting around gases. The Phoebe ring of Saturn is most likely composed of light material from Smithereens also. 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). The carbon-rich material is revealed as that which transferred momentum to Illo and then remained close to the Crash site.
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 the breakup of a fully-formed planet would not be expected in the break-up of a just-forming 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 within 1 au of the center and blended in to it. (Although, we can wonder if maybe a big piece of Smithereens’ iron-heart accreted around Earth’s protoplanet to seed 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 (partially solidified) planet should cause fragments to travel away from the crash site.
“The Birth of the Earth” spends attention on results from the Killer Crash going from the Crash site out towards the Kuiper Belt, the Illo side of the Crash. This post provides the balance to consider what happens on the Smithereens side of the Killer Crash.
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