Venus may hold a clue to the Earths Core dynamics-and a warning
We have seen many earthquakes over the Earth in the past ten years, and the size and power of these earthquakes has been unusual. According to many theorists, these earthquakes are due to the thaw of ice fields over the poles. But this can hardly explain the massive earthquakes in the pacific that we have witnessed in Indonesia, Chile, and Japan, all with complimentary tsunamis of very large and destructive proportions.
The idea is that global warming does not have anything essential to do with these quakes, but as we shall see soon, this may be too shallow an assumption after all. We have a nearby planetary neighbor that may well warn us of what may happen if the internal constitution of a planet becomes unstable.
The Core of Venus is in total command of her Climate
Venus is a planet that we have come to realize may hold more insight into the future of our planet than ever before realized. This planet is a sister to the Earth, nearly the same size. But what we see on Venus is an explosion from the core that has turned the planets surface to an unthinkable hell. If anyone doubts that the core of a planet can affect the surface climate they need not look further than Venus to see why thats a bad idea. Venus core is invading its surface and the invasion is of a violence and destruction that even an invasion a million times less potent should arise on Earth, we would in all likelihood be looking at the end of human life on our planet. What is disconcerting is that we may well be seeing the first such signs now.
see Venus Retrograde Motion Second Look
In order to explain the dynamics of what may be happening inside the core of Earth we have looked to Venus for some hints, since her core is visibly dictating what happens on her surface.
Venus is a strange planet
Venus is a strange planet. One thing strange about it is that though it is the size of Earth roughly, it seems to give off much more radiation in the form of heat. Though in many ways the sister of Earth, Venus is the best example of a hellish volcanic oblivion ever uncovered. A planet where volcanic eruptions have seemingly run amok. A planet where gigantic shield volcanoes seem to have reshaped the entire surface and have in the process dumped huge amounts of Carbon Dioxide and other poisons into the atmosphere making it a most inhospitable place for human life. Yet this is not really why its weird.
This is a planet where winds at the top of the planet whip around at 300 miles an hour, but which at the surface amount to little more than soft breezes. Yet what soft breezes! They are hundreds of degrees hot, and weigh more than a large tractor trailer. Thus a small breeze on Venus would have the same effect on a man as would getting shoved around by a Peterbuilt trailer. There is no water, there is no shelter, and the temperature on Venus seems to be homogeneous no matter where you are. The poles are as hot as any other place. Of all the depictions of hell ever attempted by various artists in history, none could do justice to the surface of Venus: but this in itself does not make the planet strange.
No, Venus is strange because of all the planets it is the only one that is rotating in a retrograde motion. All planets in the Solar System, and the vast majority of moons all rotate in the direction of their orbit around the host body. Earth for example rotates in the same direction as that which she orbits the Sun, therefore going East. The Moon also revolves around its own axis in the direction of her orbit around Earth. All planets seem to have that characteristic, except for Venus.
But there is more strangeness to Venus. The fact is she shows no sign of any impact with a large body of any kind. There is no trace of her having her orbit deformed by some encounter with a moon, or stray planetoid of some kind. In fact her orbit is the most perfectly circular orbit in the Solar System! That is very strange. A planet suffering such catastrophic paroxysms as we see on the surface of Venus, would be the perfect candidate for an encounter with a rogue planet or Moon. But her perfect orbit would be a strong argument against any such encounter.
Moreover, she is rotating at a right angle to her orbit around the Sun. Not like Uranus which is rotating on its side and probably has had an encounter with a planet in its past. No, Venus shows no perturbation of either its perfect orbit, nor of its polar angle relative to the orbit she has taken around her parent star.
All these facts are quite strange. They dont seem to fit together except if we assume that the planet probably caused its surface cataclysm on its own, and stranger still, probably caused its retrograde rotation on its own.
But here is where the argument may run into some protest. Some will say that Venus would be affected by the Earth-Moon system which together is quite massive and relatively close to the planet. Venus will be affected by the Earth-Moon system each time she goes around the Sun at least once per Venetian year. The double system would tug on her surface and tend to slow any pro-grade rotation while the system picks up speed and moves further away from the Sun. Thus the Earth-Moon System would tend to drag on the surface of Venus slowing its normal rotation down while using that energy to move further away from the Sun, as the Moon is known to do to the Earth. But there are problems with that theory.
One problem is that if this were so, then Venus orbit would have been eccentric. Especially if Venus were once closer to the Earth Moon system. The passage of Venus by the Earth and Moon more than once an Earth year would certainly indicate a tendency for both orbits to deform if there had been enough tug at any time in the past to slow down the pro-grade rotation of Venus. Yet there is no such deformity of orbit at all.
The same argument may be made of Jupiter. If Jupiter had been closer to Venus at some time, and it had been close enough to slow down Venus normal rotation then we should expect some sort of deformity of orbit or oscillation of axis of revolution much like the procession that the Earth experiences due to the movement of the Moon. It is unlikely that Earth-Moon, or Jupiter would cause a significant enough slow down on the surface of the planet to cause its retrograde rotation.
However, some might say that this would depend on how fast the planet was rotating to begin with. If Venus was not rotating very quickly, or if the planet were rotating retrograde from the start of its life in the Solar System then it would be possible for Earth-Moon, or Jupiter to tug on the surface enough to cause a retrograde motion. But once again the evidence will not support this theory.
If Venus had started out with a retrograde revolution, the force and tug of the Sun would quickly have brought it out of its nearly perfect circular orbit. It is almost impossible for a planet to form in a retrograde revolution and not be knocked out by the Suns own pull, since the Sun would have the tendency to tidal lock the planets revolution and thus force it into a pro-grade revolution In the direction of its orbit. There is one last problem to assuming a local reason for Venus retrograde revolution about its axis and that would be Mercury.
As small as Mercury is it would encounter Venus many times since it orbits with a much higher angular momentum(therefore goes around the Sun more times in a single Venetian orbit.) Admittedly if Mercury had been closer, there might be a case for this had Mercury not been so small, and had there been a corresponding deformity in the orbit of Venus around the Sun. This might be especially true if Venus revolution was very slow to begin with. But this too would necessitate a wobbly motion around its own axis and for the most part the planet Venus doesnt seem to have the wobbly motion that Mercury would have caused had it been significant enough to tug on the surface of Venus to the point where it reversed its revolution around its axis.
An extra-orbital force strong enough to affect the revolution of Venus would almost certainly cause either large wobbles in the axis of the planet, or some orbital deformation. None of these are present in the case of Venus.
Having said all this however, I should also state that the perfect orbit could have been contributed by all the above in that if the planet Venus was nudged into a perfect orbit around the Sun by the various actions of her neighbors it might well lead to a condition where in fact the retrograde orbit could actually form! Now this contradicts all the above statements however, even if that happened by pure chance, and it would be a very improbable turn of events that these planets would conspire with such forces to get Venus into a nearly perfect circular orbit, it would all still have to be related to the paroxysms we see on the surface of the planet. So if in the very unlikely event that Mercury and the Earth-Moon system and Sun conspired to get Venus into a perfectly circular orbit around the Sun, this would still necessitate the explanation of the surface disturbances- since the planet is exploding from the inside, and that is difficult to explain by mere surface interactions.
For all these reasons, this planet is very strange. Things just dont add up with this planet. Yet we have few clues as to what might cause it to lie near dead around its axis of revolution. Unless the planet experienced a force from within which was sufficient enough in power to change the direction of revolutionary motion! As we will see, there is a possibility that the planets core dynamics actually interfered with its own spin, and the remnants of that interference can be seen on its surface.
Why did Venus explode?
Venus seems to have changed its entire surface over the past six hundred million years. What could cause this? Well there is only one probable answer and that would be that it exploded from the inside out. This would explain the new surface that we see. But why? And moreover what would cause this planet to reverse its revolution in the process? Whatever happened to Venus it would have been major. Somehow this planet became so hot that it reversed revolution during some massive internal event! But what would be so huge an event as to reverse a planets revolution around its own axis?
Did Venus really have a pro-grade revolution to begin with? In all probability yes . If not it would be the only planet in the solar system to defy those constraints and would be one of only a few bodies in the entire solar system to have such a revolution, as most moons also tend to revolve in a pro-grade motion around their axis. So it is safe to say this planet had a pro-grade revolution to start out with. Secondly if it had been born with a retrograde revolution its orbit would have degenerated around the Sun by now. The present state of Venus seems to indicate that Venus grew up as a normal child of the Sun but somewhere something dire changed inside her. So what went wrong?
The dynamics of Heat distribution within a planetary core
The fact is that we really dont know the specifics of how heat is distributed from the core to the surface of any planet, not even the Earth. Most of all this is speculation. However we do know a few things about the conditions of the planets to be able to take a fair guess as to what may be happening inside their depths. To those that would say this is only speculation, in the end, everything we have ever known is in reality speculation based on a limited set of facts which are also interpreted according to speculative norms established by general consensus.
Curving distribution of heat from the core
The most important postulate that I have come to accept is that when a heat current departs from the core it will encounter an immediate angular velocity deceleration. This is important to understand because it is a critical element in the construction of a workable model. As the heat disperses from the core it will probably cause an expansion of material that it encounters in a rather simple construct. Thus matter would immediately expand in all directions when it encounters a heat impulse. But something else would happen as well. It would slow down its angular velocity relative to the point from the core where it expanded. Thus let us say we have a clump of matter M on the surface of the core. Now when this matter M receives a heat impulse from within the core(we assume the core is radiating heat in pulses as was assumed by Fourier) thus this matter M will expand crudely in all directions but especially away from the core! But since the core has an angular velocity v, as the matter M moves away from the core, on average it will begin lagging behind the main body of the core due to the larger distance now needed to travel-assuming no gain in net total angular velocity due to the heat, which is a fair assumption. Thus as the radius increases, we have a deceleration in angular momentum and a lag of the matter M from the core in general. Now the adjacent matter, M2 we can call it, which is next to M1 but with a greater distance from the core will also receive the heat impulse and will also expand. But it too will encounter an angular momentum deceleration. And it too will lag! Now all this by itself would indicate that matter would move away from a spinning core and into the opposite direction.
This will create a Current of sorts that will flow away from the direction of spin. Thus on Earth the current of heat flow will flow West. At least most of the time. Sometimes however, it may well reverse its course when the heat flow ceases to be enough to move west relative to the core spin. Thus if the current as a whole overtakes the spinning core in absolute velocity, then it may well flow East relatively. However, this would only be an apparent movement. The current flow direction would not actually change just as a runner might be running west on a ship moving east. Thus heat flow may still move west, but as an entire structure it is moving east relative to the core. However as a matter of absolute directional flow, a point on the surface of the current would probably be moving east relative to the core at times at the heat emanating from the core begins abating.
Newtonian Equal and Opposite Reaction
However, as important is to realize that these impulses will cause a Newtonian reaction. Thus as M1 and M2 and M3 etcetera move away from the core they will react with an equal and opposite reaction in the direction of the spinning core! Thus they attain the expansion but will at the same time cause an increase in angular velocity to the core!
A nice way of putting it would be like this: We have a huge spring located on the core and it begins to stretch from internal sources(thus this spring is not pulled from the end, but is pushed apart at the each atomic location within the spring.) Now this spring will push away from the core and out towards the surface of a rotating sphere. Now ordinarily we might assume that this push on the core would have no effect on the angular velocity of the core, since it is pushing down on the core. But this is not true.
Due to the deceleration of angular velocity of the expanding spring as it pushes towards the surface, it will begin to curve! It will begin to curve away from the direction of the spinning core in general. Thus the equal and opposite Newtonian reaction will be in the direction of the spinning core! The core gains speed as the hypothetical spring expands towards the surface since it will expand in a curving direction as it gets further and further away from the core. Note that this is on average of course. There will in theory be an infinite number of infinitesimally small springs if we were to set this problem up mathematically, and these springs would of course have to interact making a real interesting math problem. But in general the springs would behave in this way with less and less force exerted the higher the latitude or height from the equator. Furthermore, the higher towards the surface this expulsion moves, the greater the deceleration will be.
Thus we are saying that as a planet expands from the core, there will be a twisting action where the core will be sped up while the expansion slows down in relation to the spinning core due to the Newtonian reaction. Thus there are two principles at work: first is the angular deceleration as matter expands from the core to the surface, and second there is an equal and opposite Newtonian reaction towards the direction of the spinning core. We have therefore a twisting phenomenon where higher layers will twist around the core until such time as the heat gradient from the core slows down in which case we may actually see a reversal of this phenomenon where the those layers closer to the surface actually contract in the opposite direction of the original expansion as the heat dissipates.
This would mean that heat discharges from the core are indeed cyclical just as the magnetic field seems to be cyclical.
Formation of Current
We have yet to discuss the possible formation of a current of heat expulsion. Thus as the heat is expunged from the deeper parts of the planet and encounter an angular momentum deceleration they would of course tend to move away from the spin direction. On Earth that would mean moving to the west near the equator. But actually it would not be a movement, but an apparent movement. Thus it would appear to an observer that there is a heat current moving west. But in reality the movement would still be to the East, just slower, the way a man walking West is still moving East but only appears to be moving West relative to the ground. Yet this would cause a current to form as heat is expunged from the core and begins to slow down and gather momentum in the opposite direction, and in the Earth again would be a Westward movement. Thus we would have a current of heat and possibly matter moving in the opposite direction of the core spin.
However, this would not remain that way forever. As the heat from the core is expunged, it will at some point in time slow down the rate at which heat is transferred to the current. In fact, at some point in time, after many smaller oscillations, it would of necessity begin to contract, just like a spring. And this contraction would move towards the core spin direction. At that time, we would be looking at an increase in core spin speed as all those angular velocities come together and the conservation of angular momentum makes the core spin faster.
But it seems probable that such a cycle would last for millions, if not hundreds of millions of years when it came to matter flowing to and from the core and thus affecting the core spin velocity. But this would not be so when it came to the actual heat current.
Thus the physical expansion and contraction of the Earth might take millions of years, but the actual flow of heat would probably have a much smaller period. We could envision a scenario where a Planet expands over millions of years, and then contracts as the overall heat flow cycles through periods of expansion and contraction.
Heat Moving out of the Core Generates Electricity
The heat moving from the core would almost certainly generate an electric current in the general direction of the heat conduction. Thus we would see the generation of an electric current as heat moved though a highly pressurized, extremely hot magma in the Earth, that could well act a lot like a gas and be subject to some of Jeannes theories where gas will sport an electric current due to changes in temperature and pressure.
As atoms of any substance are compacted and then subjected to great heat there will be a general tendency for the electrons to flow or move from Atom to Atom, or flow together in a plasma like fashion. This flow would not be like that in a copper wire, but rather would mimic the flow of heat and would be unruly in many ways. However, wherever there is electron flow there is an electric field and a corresponding magnetic field.
Thus the heat flow from the core will generate an electron flow towards the surface.
What does this say about Venus?
As the core of a planet ejects heat into the surface regions of a rotating sphere it will also increase its spin velocity-eventually. But it will also create a combined current going in the opposite direction of the spinning core and moving towards the surface!
But what does that imply? That as the core cools down by ejecting excess heat there must be a current of heat and material expansion in the Earth that is moving West! Moreover the greater this current is the faster the spin of the core must be.
Energetic expansion-contraction due to planetary heating
Essentially it would imply that instead of imagining an expanding planet as slowing down its angular velocity-which it would do at the surface regions, we may be forced to admit that it does not do that at the core! In essence the hotter a planet gets the higher the cyclical frequency of expansion-contraction will become following Fourier dynamics. It might imply that as a planet gets hotter the faster it is forced to spin as the expansion-contraction cycle gets more and more energetic. Thus we can imagine a planet that warms up for some reason and then begins to experience an increase in its cyclical expansion and contraction due to heating. But each time it releases heat it will gain some overall spin velocity-this again due to a combination of Newtonian action-reaction, and decreasing angular velocity curvature of the force of thermal ejection. Thus the hotter a body gets the faster it will have to spin to get rid of that excess heat. We might also have to conclude that the faster a body will actually orbit around its keeper star since the excess axial revolution would cause the body to seek a higher orbit due to the dynamics of a spinning body in orbit.
Venus atmosphere may have interrupted heat flow from the core
It would appear that Venus generated so much heat from the core that with help of Jupiter and the Earth Moon system which both tug on its surface revolution that the pro-grade revolution was reversed! The reason? A possible obstruction to heat flow due to Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
As the core of Venus ejected both matter and heat it would create a current in the opposite direction of its spin.
But why wouldnt the faster spinning core make up for that loss of pro-grade motion? Since the spinning pro-grade core would benefit from the Newtonian reaction? The reason may well be the greenhouse effect. As the heat built up in the planets subsurface it would not allow the current to discharge its heat and thus would cause the core to keep on firing heat impulses into the surface areas. Furthermore, it would eventually make the current as hot as the core! A scenario like this would eventually cause any spin in the core to be surrendered to the outlying areas especially if a cooling contraction never takes place. While a planet successfully discharges its heat from the core it allows for the planet to contract and thus give up its angular momentum back to the core again. This is to say therefore, that any gain in spin velocity is probably not going to be found during the heating stage of the planet, but during the contraction, or cooling stage as the planet begins cooling and the outer spinning layers approach the core thus adding velocity to the core! When this process is finished more spin should be gained! But with Venus, this stage probably hasnt happened yet and for all we know it may never happen. The fact that there is no magnetic field present on Venus would strongly indicate that there is no spinning core at all! If there were we would have seen a magnetic field.
As the planet expanded from the heat and encountered the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect it did not cool enough to go through a contraction stage and thereby adding spin velocity to the core. Thus as the planet expanded its outer layers would have slowed down. But because the heat was trapped within the atmosphere there would never be a contraction. Therefore the planet slowed down and eventually reversed its spin. Add to this possible scenario the external forces of friction by the Earth and Mercury and the Sun and the planet was doomed to develop a retrograde motion.
Slightly different scenario is also possible
A few odds and ends. Venus is roughly the same size as Earth. It is roughly the same density of Earth. What this means is that the planet has not expanded sufficiently to warrant the suspicion that the retrograde motion around its axis is due to mere expansion. The planet simply has not expanded all that much. Another interesting point is that Uranus which lies on side as it circles the Sun has been found to be hotter at the equator than at the Sun facing pole. This is an astonishing fact and would lend credence to the idea that heat is dispersed at the equator and not at the poles. This might mean therefore that the reason our North and South poles are so cold is because heat is dispersed at our equator and not at the poles; this instead of simply assuming that the reason is because they dont get enough light from the Sun! Thus the expansion-contraction thermal cycle is supported by the findings on Uranus.
As for Venus, we can safely say that the combined forces of the Sun, Earth-Moon system, Mercury and Jupiter would have contributed to the damping of any pro-grade motion the planet may have had originally. However, the reversal would have to be caused by something very unusual. Since there is no evidence of an external event of sufficient energy to cause a reversal in revolution, we are forced to look for something else. This would be an internal event.
There are several ways that this internal event could contribute to the observed spin direction. The one given above is only one of those ways and this should be kept in mind. Another and perhaps as plausible by which the Venetian Retrograde revolution may be produced is by a combination of orbital forces and a disruption of the heat discharging system of the planet. However, this would not necessarily require the impact of a retrograde heat current. This could conceivably happen if only the planet increased its size rapidly due to a sudden heating. The possibility of a Greenhouse event however, is still required and would be integral to such a theory. Thus as the planet expanded, the spin slowed so quickly that a retrograde motion resulted. This might however be corrected by the Suns tendency to enter a Tidal Lock with the planet. Since the Sun exerts a far greater force on the planet than does Mercury, Earth, Moon and Jupiter. We could also however, reason, again as plausible that these bodies, Sun Moon, Earth , Mercury and Jupiter conspired to destroy the Pro-grade motion of Venus and that this event is what triggered the internal explosion of the planet. This would be due to a yet simpler theory that perhaps planet could no longer rid itself of its internal heat due to the slowing of spin- as was mentioned above for the sister theories, and thus exploded.
However, even if this simpler model is true, it would not in the least affect the theory of heat discharge. Therefore the expansion-contraction thermal discharge cycle would be effective, but it may not have played a critical role in the reversal of Venus retrograde revolution.
To summarize briefly we can say that Venus appears to have been heating up because of the Differential Layered Rotation drag imposed on it by the Sun, Mercury, Earth , Moon and Jupiter, which eventually slowed the planet down. However, as the heat built up in the core something interfered with its cooling. The possibility exists that the real reason may be traceable to its atmosphere. Firstly as the spin slowed, either due to contraction or an internal dynamic, the situation became more pronounced and the planet became unable to discharge its heat. As this happened the spin mechanism was disrupted as well and even further resulting in what appears to be an explosion of the core. Though not something likely to happen to Earth, the implications of a troublesome core should act as a warning that the core of a planet may well affect its atmosphere, or vice versa.
So as we can see a few closely knit theories would serve to explain what happened on Venus. However, its what they have in common that should concern us most. This would be the Greenhouse effect. The probability is that the Greenhouse effect on Venus to some degree aggravated the heat discharge mechanism. The result may have been an explosion of the core! If the Earth were to experience a phenomenon one millionth as effective as what Venus experienced, the results would be catastrophic for the human species. We could not endure even the very beginnings of such a phenomenon as the core would begin to heave up, and volcanic explosions and earthquakes would make our complex lifestyle nearly impossible. Thus it gives us good reason to pause, and look at the planet Venus and have no doubt that this planet is being affected by its core! And this planets greenhouse mechanism is likely a crucial element in the hellish destruction we see on its surface and climate. Would the Earth wind up like Venus? Probably not, but the increasing dynamics of heat discharge would make for a very inhospitable planet to an extremely sensitive species that requires stability to survive.
P.S. I have not as yet discussed the full impact of such a theory on the magnetic field of the Earth, but the fact that we are seeing the magnetic field weaken may indicate that the surface heat flow dynamic has reached a temporary maximum. This is not good. This would mean that heat is no longer being discharged efficiently through the surface and thus heat is building up beneath the Earths surface; this is only a temporary condition in all probability, but temporary in geological times could mean fifteen thousand years and it might cause some very interesting events, some of which might be very unpleasant.
There is yet one more implication of the above and that would be this: A fast spinning planet with an atmosphere will also spin and churn the atmosphere thus allowing it to both thin out, as well give it the ability to absorb more heat and dissipate this heat into space. On Venus both these mechanisms were severely disrupted with the decrease in spin and thus had to have also contributed to the rising temperatures. There is little doubt that Venus is an unlucky coincidence of multiple factors, as with most disasters. Its unlikely that this happens to most planets. Yet there seems to be strong evidence that Mars too has a dead core and may also stop spinning in the future, though its two satellites , though tiny, may help to prolong its spin.
Copyright © HotCoreEarth.com No unauthorized reprint or Copy is allowed without express written permission