All posts by Chris Shinghirtis

Faith in the Earth

Earth and the Deity
This year I have a special note for Earth Day and it is that a new spiritual beginning is starting which has thus far not been noticed. More and more I realize that the old religions have started to take note of how truly beautiful the Earth is, and how we all must come to understand that Earth is God’s finest creation in some ways. Yes we live on Earth, and yes humans are the subject of most religious texts, but we have all come to realize that human beings without the Earth just cannot be. As much as God may have loved humanity, he most certainly meant that humanity must love and get along with his own supreme creation, Earth.

Today as I was coming back from a morning trip I listened to the news on the Radio. Suddenly a group of Catholic nuns came on the Air and offered a prayer of sorts for the Earth. Though they mentioned Genesis and how God gave humankind dominion over the world he created-at least as far as we know the world he created for us which may not certainly be exclusive, there is enough in the bible to indicate that we must be respectful of the Earth, and love the Earth. The group of nuns promised their love for the Earth and asked their listeners, and all Catholics to respect and love the Earth. (Meanwhile the radio station was certain to disavow any responsibility for whatever the nuns were saying.)

Well, so what is the news in this? To be honest, all my life I have sensed a conflict between the Christian church and the naturalists, and again to be honest, it has put some resistance in my heart, for the Church! All my life, I have trusted nature. To me there is no beauty greater than Nature’s. For me, anyone who says they love God, but that God is not nature is to me not able to grasp the truth. For me the truth has always been, and always will be, that Nature is God. If the Earth and Sky are beautiful, and pure, they are also truth, and are the body of God. For me, there can be no separation of God, or for that matter Christ and Nature. Christ loved God, his father, but his father, was supreme Nature, and he loved Nature. At least this is what I am capable of believing. And I cannot believe in a God that is separate to Nature. God and Nature must be one and inseparable.

So for the first time in a long time I heard something quite encouraging this morning. The Catholics(though I am not Catholic) represent a very large and well established segment of Christians. If these nuns can come on the air and openly declare their love of nature, and their love of Earth, I am encouraged. They perhaps are now “officially” coming to the point where they too can love the Earth equally with God. Perhaps they too, “officially” can accept the Earth and all of Nature, as being really one with God, an Emphanisis (manifestation) so to speak ,of the holy living force that pervades all of existence.

Moreover, I have hints that others are moving in this direction also. There is seemingly amongst all the world’s major religions a growing feeling it seems to me of the importance of Earth; the importance and truth of Nature. I will not say that the major religions are identifying God with Nature as I do personally, but it seems all, whether they be priests, or rabbis, or imams, or Buddhists, or Hindus all seem to be growing more certain of the necessity of directing their sacred love towards not only the Deities they acknowledge and worship, but towards Nature, which is, if nothing more, the vessel by which the holy living spirit in all religions, is attained.

The Ancients
The ancients were of course more closely associated with Nature. Their gods were in fact Natural, or sometimes human principles personified. And from that basic understanding, the Greeks, as one example, moved to a more mundane, practical understanding of these natural principles that were deified by their priests, in the formation of science and philosophy. In reality this was the evolution of the concept of the Deity.

When Christianity was born, there seemed to be a form of competition between the religion of the Greeks and Romans and the new Christians; and thus the Christians tended to dissociate themselves from Nature. After all Christ was seen as having lived in the tomb and at that time the Church seemed to base its beliefs on the sacred life within the tomb, away from passing, irreverent time that keeps nothing alive from ultimate corruption and death. The promise of resurrection was for the early Christians within the tomb where Jesus lay and rose into heaven. That is the promise for all Christians: namely that one day, they too will rise into heaven from the dark tomb where only death remains. These Christians believed that they have been saved, and that one day, they too will ascend into the eternal, and become with the supreme living force that forever abides in the world. So this in itself led the early Christians to turn away from nature and its passing, fading, alluring, though ultimately deceptive beauty.

Of course there was the Platonic past and his own-Plato’s tendency- to dismiss or belittle the passing beauty and temporary truth of nature in favor of the permanence of the “world beyond” and this too I think led the Church away from the beauty of nature.

Further, it is likely that the Egyptian civilization, from which the founding Judaism was seen to arise , since Moses was an Egyptian prince, and the Jews were in some sense fledgling Egyptians, at least they would have seemed as such to the early Christians, would serve as a source of power and leverage for the early Christians. Since the early Christians were no doubt involved in a number of intellectual battles with the elder Greeks and their once formidable religion, which was now decayed by Roman pragmatism. That Judaism in some ways derived from the older civilizations of Egypt and Babylon added a sense of credence that maybe this “new” religion, Christianity had yet more sturdy foundations than did the Greek religion. After all the early Christians knew that the Greek civilization, high and mighty as it was a few hundred years before, was indeed preceded by the great eastern civilizations and in some ways based on those civilizations, or aided by those civilizations. No less an authority than Aeschylus said so in his play the “Egyptians” and so there was an affinity towards the elder civilizations and their practices.

But these practices of the Christians were often antithetical to nature. Like the Egyptian priests of old, the new religion too tended to lean towards the worship of the grave, forsaking the present for the timeless destiny, when the dead would awaken in great triumph with their Lord. Indeed, Plato, the greatest mind of the ancient world, had paved the way with his belief in a perfect “great beyond” in favor of this imperfect temporary world. Thus the Christians had in many ways forsaken the Natural world as the place of the devil, the place of evil, the place where Jesus himself found and was tempted by the devil. The unpredictable Natural world of the Greeks, which now was in ruin, was to be replaced by the “cultured vine” of the Jews, as Paul would say.

This attitude would eventually overcome all resistance and become the foundation of Byzantium which ruled for a thousand years and was probably the chief impetus to the rise of Mohammed, whose teachings would one day replace it. But the underlying attitude towards nature, seems indeed to have heavily influenced Mohammed as well. For though the Muslims viewed God as ultimate master all movement, they also tended to think that most of the time a human being would be tested by nature in his or her devotion to the supreme God the totality of all living force.

My Memories
As a child I remember going to church and hearing a line in a chorus that puzzled me. The chorus went something like this “and Jesus will use the Earth as his footstool to ascend to heaven” and when I heard this line, I asked my father what this meant and he simply told me that Jesus would ascend into heaven by stepping on the Earth. But deep down it always troubled me that the Earth was treated as unimportant to Jesus, or worse yet as something to be overcome or dismissed. Indeed, there seemed never any good news for nature. Nature was shut out in the dark tomb like the vault of the Church. At least so it seemed to me.

As I grew older I realized that many people, especially in the past, thought of Nature as something wild and untamed and thus something to be feared and avoided. My own father, I remember, often had the attitude that the wild was not something to love, but something to shelter one’s self from. Yet as someone who grew up, and lived, in large cities I felt the exact reverse. I longed for the Natural which I considered always a healing energy that humanity could never live without, and must never live without. But it would seem that for us, we who live in a time when we can put great distances between ourselves and the natural environment, would indeed long for the pristine wild, whereas those in the past who could not do the same, and for whom Nature was always a single step away, if that, the safety and predictability of the city, the “polis” of civilized, sheltered life , away from the frightening uncertainty of the wilderness, was by far the most desirable way of life for any reasonable person of faith.

Thus the Christian church, in the early days, was certain to long for the warmth, and order of the civilized, family life. As also , still battling the pagans, and their natural beliefs, it made Nature antithetical to the ideals of the church. For this reason there seemed to be much against nature in the literature and the practice of the early Christian church. This sentiment was not very much changed over the two millennia because there was simply no reason to change it. Up until the modern era, nature was still supreme, and nature was still responsible for some very bad events in the lives of the faithful.

Most Religions Seemed Averse to Nature
But it makes sense also that this sentiment might apply to the other religions as well. Since all people were facing the dangers of the exposed world, they were all most likely pushed into a “civilized” worship of their deities within the shelter of their temples and mosques.

Thus the major religions most likely, to some degree or other would have some difficulty coming to a positive interpretation of the natural in favor of an idealistic , separate, immaterial world in which their deities could exist unsullied by the rudeness and sometimes base coarseness of the wilderness, and the wildlife within it.

To be sure there was always a holy feeling associated with the beauty of Nature. This is why most of the famous shrines of the major religions tend to be located around some of the more remarkable natural settings. Such as for example Mount Sinai located in the wilderness of the beautiful desert, even if forbidding for example. Or the monasteries located on Mount Athos. No better example of the primordial entanglement of natural beauty and deity could be given than Aires’ rock in Australia. But all these could be tolerated at a distance. They were places where God, in some sense conquered nature, or ascended above nature and left there a beauty meant to signify that ascendancy. But these places were merely the exception in most cases. Civilized life , in itself, was by its very design a shelter from the vagaries of nature.

This is not to say that there were never any rebellions against the notion of a corrupt nature. The Renaissance is the greatest and most long lasting of these rebellions. A rebellion that one might argue never stopped. Philosophers, at times, throughout the ages, would argue the beauty and ultimate salvation of Nature, but more often than not, as with Kant and Hegel, would themselves degenerate to a dark repudiation of the objective truth for some special esoteric formula that explained Nature in human ways. No matter how hard Science tried to set the objective world stand on its own, Philosophy, would at last view determine that only the esoteric language of humanity could ever be the source of reason for Nature, as well as God. The world was anthropocentric, just like God. Anything having a different language than the one we could fashion, was mere appearance and not to be taken seriously.

Though I don’t want to insist on this point, for in the end, anything anyone might say will always be subject to the variation of the real world, in the end, the view seemed to prevail that Nature was not to be trusted. It was not divine. It was an illusion.

Attitudes are Changing
Today, however, things have changed. We have all the shelter we need and realize that this shelter has a tendency to become dirty. Here in our big cities insincerity and waste products resulting from “civilized” life can be as antithetical to religious purity as nature ever was or could be. With the rising temperature and constant reminder that our climate may well have been affected by the pollution of our “civilized” life, the tendency now is for a reawakening of the natural within religious worship.

Even bad things that happen, are often viewed as the “Wrath of God” by extreme religious personalities. Though one might argue that is no progress, in reality I think it is. I believe that most disastrous events in the past were more probably to be explained as a corruption of Godly purpose, whereas these days, at least, it’s seen as the willful intent of God, by the most extreme religious personalities. Though, again some of you might question this assertion and its merit for mention, I would respond that these extremist religious commentators are often like barometers of the weather. They predict the general attitude to soon emerge. In this case, though it is nonsense to think that God is punishing us, at least there is the tendency to believe that God is not separate from Nature.

The truth is emerging that Nature is indeed synonymous with God in effect. Nature is the most authentic manifestation of the deity. The order and reason of Nature to many is undeniably sentient in some sense. Our present Global Warming problems could indeed be due to a “reaction” to the enormous amounts of pollution that are now causing the Earth to “react” in a negative way. Some have in the past, seen a certain living order to the Earth from a scientific perspective-the Gaia theory . Yet, when we say that there is a living order in some part or all of Nature, we are in some ways implying the existence of life in the Natural being and that life is always indicative of a belief in a deity.

Increasingly, most sects of the major religions seem inclined to think of God as being intimately connected with Nature, even if not the same as Nature, and this in itself is a great leap forward for these religions. It allows for them to communicate honestly with greater numbers of people, and makes it easier for these religions to more easily base the reasoning of their beliefs on everyday existence. Moreover an existence everyone on Earth shares , therefore, the Natural existence which is universal.

This development, if it could gather momentum, could lead eventually to a sort of agreement within the major religions that though the details of the deity may be interpreted differently, in essence all share the same world of God. Nature, the most supreme manifestation of God, is universal. A Christian can just as easily as a Jewish , or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist follower agree that the foundation of the deity is really the same, whatever the details may be-and indeed, only the Deity can know why there must be differences amongst us. Yes, these details are not unimportant, and I in no way wish to imply that they are unimportant. The “details” of religious belief are in fact the essence of the belief system enacted by Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Christian, Hindu or any other, but there is an open door through which all can at least communicate, and that door is sacred Nature; especially since it is becoming obvious to all, no matter their religious order, that without cooperation, we are not likely to survive as a species at this point in time.

Thus, for me, Earth day was a revelation of a different sort this year. For once in my life I found a way to connect the Christian faith of my father, and mother to the Earth and do so without reservation. I also , for perhaps the first time, saw an opening through which peace might proceed between all “naturalists” no matter their religious affiliation, for all religious orders must come to agree that Earth, Sun, Moon, and Stars- these are indeed sacred to all, and must be so, for if the Deity is not to be found in these, the most majestic beings of Nature, then how can we maintain the omnipresence of the divine spirit? We can all agree on that, and that may well be a common sacred starting place for the common spiritual evolution of civilization.

Post Script
You might ask why I have gone down this spiritual path today. Why have I delved into religious aspects? What is the point of going from my last post, difficult and technical at best, to this, a spiritual proclamation? Because, in the end, all our motives for science and truth descend from this basic instinct to seek the higher knowledge-the higher truth and rationality of God. This is not mysterious, not strange, not difficult to understand. From time immemorial humanity has tried to understand the supreme principles of Nature and has through most of that time-in most cases – come to the conclusion that Deity is the supreme principle of Nature’s order. But as if not satisfied with that alone, science came to be a kind of extension of the holy study of God. To those who would say Deity is a matter of faith, I would answer that so is the number system[1], yet all of science is based on some formulation of the mathematical J

Copyright 2012


[1] Since when does one plus one equal two? Only if one has faith that the numbers refer to something qualitatively equal since you can never actually prove that two objects are exactly equal.

Is the Earth Cooling?





Does the Earth have Variations in Core Heat Radiation?

As we have seen over the past ten years there seems to have been an increase in seismic and volcanic activity around the planet. Those who would deny this would deny that three major tsunamis in ten years is simply not “normal” in any ten years span. These events should on average happen every fifty to one hundred years on average as far as our experience will tell us.

The same may be said of volcanic activity, in that it also has seemingly been increasing over the past ten years. There have been major swells and rumblings in nearly all the large volcanic areas, including Yellowstone which for awhile was raised to a threatening level a few years ago, though it has, I believe of this writing, subsided in activity somewhat, the rest of the Vulcan world has not. There is increased activity in Iceland, Hawaii, Indonesia, Chile, and the south pacific that cannot simply be dismissed as “average” though perhaps not affirmed as statistically significant either.

Unfortunately, we simply do not have much real data on the variations of such seismic and volcanic activity over the eons. We are able to see some of the big eruptions, and perhaps tie in some large releases of tephra and soot to some local volcanic eruption if it is large enough; but overall it is difficult to know how much activity seismic activity ranges over the eons. A large explosion in Indonesia will perhaps leave only a small trace in the Arctic ice fields and thus not indicate the severity of the explosion or increase of volcanic activity over the entire Earth. Thus ice deposits are only partially valuable in determining these departures from normal activity.

There is a high probability that future studies may well reveal massive swings in seismic activity, even over relatively short spans, as more and more data is gathered. It is nearly impossible to assume a constant or linear progression of volcanic activity. Even if the Earth were cooling steadily or if it were in a steady state, much less increasing in heat radiation over the eons, there would be a necessary corresponding reflection of this in the volcanic activity of the planet. Even if the Earth had remained constant in heat radiation over its entire life span, probability would indicate large random variations due to various causes-thus work remains to be done in determining these variations more precisely.

If we have a difficult time determining the historic behavior of volcanism on Earth, we have almost no way of determining historic earthquake activity with any dependability. Earthquakes do not leave long lasting records of their effects on Earth, at least not the smaller ones. Thus any increased activity over say a span of one hundred thousand years a million years ago would be virtually undetectable in our time. Therefore, it goes without saying that we have very little basis for denying an increased activity over the past ten years! Still, many geologists today admit that there has been an increase in earthquake activity in point of fact.

Glacier Melt is Causing the Earthquake Activity

However, these tend to dismiss this activity as being caused by the warming climate. They believe that the melting glaciers have allowed the Earth to expand as the weight of the glaciers has receded. This can in my view account for some very local activity at the poles perhaps, but would not easily explain the large earthquakes witnessed in Japan and Indonesia or Chile. In fact, thus far there have not been to my knowledge any records of large seismic movements in the pole regions of the Earth. Thus there is some difficulty in assigning the glacier melt to the increased seismic activity world-wide.

A few weeks ago, as of the writing of this post, there was a report about certain regions of the Earth expanding. These regions were around the equator and thus could not in any way be attributed to glacial activity. If this is true, and there are certain areas of the Earth expanding, then we must assume that for some reason there are deep changes in the Earth’s crust. For whatever reason, we must assume some large changes may be affecting the crust, and thus possibly affect seismic activity as well.

Is the Earth Cooling?

The standard theory concerning the radiation of heat from the Earth had been that the Earth was cooling down since its original creation. It had been assumed that as the planet settled down from its molten state it must have cooled substantially and continued to cool down to the present time. However after awhile it became evident that this might only be partly true. Yes the Earth likely did cool down from its original state, which probably was a molten state, but that this cooling has not continued at a steady state and that perhaps the Earth is not cooling down now.

The fact is that the Earth generates too much heat to be explained by the standard theory which is that tidal friction from the moon, as it is admitted at present, is the only source of heating of the Earth. It became necessary to look for another mechanism for this heat production and soon enough the idea of radioactive elements at the core might be the actual cause of the extra heat emanating from the Earth.

It had been noticed that asteroids seem to have a higher abundance of radioactive materials than are available on the Earth’s surface. So where had all this material gone to, if indeed the Earth is actually formed by the impact of asteroids and comets[i]? Well it could be in the core because such material is heavy and it probably sank to the core as the Earth cooled from its molten state[ii]. So it was assumed. The Earth therefore was not colder at present, only because radioactive material was warming up the core. This along with a little heat generated from the lunar and solar tides might explain why the Earth had not cooled down more over the eons since its creation. Yet when all was summed up once again, it simply did not explain the excess heat radiated by the Earth.

So the Earth was not cooling down without a fight. So much was true. The Earth radiates too much heat to be cooling off at the original rate imagined.

Earth’s Atmosphere insulates Heat Radiation

As we have maintained before, the Earth’s atmosphere may be insulating the heat loss. It is well known that carbon dioxide, both through natural and man-made causes will prevent heat from escaping into space. This will prevent solar heat from escaping, but also prevent infrared radiation from the Earth’s core from escaping as well. Thus there is some reason to believe that if indeed we are releasing carbon dioxide as a byproduct of our industries and transportation there is an added concern that it may be impeding the escape of core heat as well as solar heat. We have already mentioned that this may lead to increased volcanic activity as well as seismic activity. What we have not made clear as yet is that if in fact the Earth is not cooling-at least not cooling significantly, or too quickly, or more significantly, if it is actually increasing its heat output for any reason at all, then we may deduce that the excess carbon dioxide released by our industries over the past one hundred fifty years may well result in a significant amplification of any natural increase in Earthly core radiation. Thus if the Earth is actually heating up instead of cooling down as was supposed, there is then the grim possibility that after burning three billion years of carbon fuels in 150 years, we may wind up significantly amplifying any effects from a natural rise in core heat radiation-even if it turns out to be cyclical and temporary in nature!

Does the Earth go through Cyclical Variations in Heat output?

So let’s just summarize what we have so far. The Earth is not cooling down without resistance. There is heat generated from the Earth and it may well be enough to keep it from cooling down for many eons to come. Heat is being radiated back into space, and it is apparently more than it is receiving from the Sun or supposed by the calculation on frictional forces from the Moon and Sun. Moreover we cannot know for certain that the Earth is not actually warming up rather than cooling at the present time. So much is quite possible.

Thus if the Earth goes through periodic stages of increased core heat radiation, the presence of excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may well amplify such effects because the heat would not be allowed to escape normally as in a low CO2 atmosphere. Theoretically this heat would build up and being that the case, would probably result in excess volcanic activity, especially at the magma-crust boundary, and this would probably cause an increasing frequency of volcanism and seismic activity.

Unfortunately the result of these volcanic eruptions, will be a long term release of more CO2, and would further amplify and reinforce the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere and thus continue to make things worse. Thus we may have reached a point where we are in fact causing a feedback effect in the core temperature of the Earth! Should even a small relative rise be experienced, for us, an extremely vulnerable human society, living under extremely complex and delicate conditions, may result in a catastrophe of unheralded proportions as this heat may well be trapped by the extra CO2 and cause increasing volcanic activity. This activity itself would actually increase the levels of Co2 in the atmosphere and thus amplify the Greenhouse effect!

That is, if this mechanism is as described here. Fortunately, at least from a psychological stand point, we cannot as yet prove this. We simply do not have the datum or the analytical tools or experience required to “conclude” the verity of these possibilities. A time period of ten years on the geological time scale is frankly insignificant. If in fact we are experiencing a direct result of the aforementioned feedback mechanism, in such a small time period, then it would still be difficult to know what to expect in the near future. It could be anything from minor earthquake activity, or volcanic eruptions, to dire destruction. Problem is we just wouldn’t know, even if this mechanism described proved to be true, which frankly it is not. Much would depend on how much CO2 is being trapped, and this we can measure. But much more would depend on how much core heat is being trapped and this we can’t seem to measure, or at least it has not been measured as far as I know of this writing. This is a good experiment however. We may be able to measure any rises in temperature of the core simply by measuring the temperature of lava emerging from Volcanoes, or even measure the temperature of particular areas of land. This would take a very long time however, to get anything like a good reading. However we certainly know that the seas are in fact warming, as is the atmosphere. Is the warming of the seas being caused by a rising sub-surface temperature? Could well be. We don’t know yet.

However, even if we could get a good measure on the rate of heating in the core, or rather the sub-surface, we would still not have a good idea of how much this will affect the core itself. We do not really know what this extra heating is going to do. It may be that the Earth is extremely sensitive, and the result of that could be catastrophic. Or it could be that the Earth core is not particularly sensitive to any small rise in the sub-surface temperature. If so, then we may be out of the woods for awhile and perhaps conservation would help us avoid further disaster. Also, we cannot really know how accurate any readings are in human time scale, being that the Earth lives in Geological time scales, where a million years, would for our time scale experience be little more than what is a few hours.

Heat Radiation from the Core

Thus no matter what the final state of the Earth’s direction may be, whether it is heating, or cooling, or remaining the same, the same mechanism would apply: the Earth is radiating heat from the core in the form of waves of rising and falling amplitude. These waves would have many determinants, including density, pressure, heat, and insular qualities throughout the body of the planet. Temporal variations would apply. However, all told the radiation from the core would almost certainly proceed in waves. Thus there would not be a steady radiation of heat from the core as has been maintained for so long. The radiation of heat from the core would vary over time.

The primary reason for this variation is that the core has a different make up than the surface. The core is likely made of very dense materials packed together due to the compression of mass towards the center of the Earth. No matter what the material, whether Iron, or any other kind, it is certain that the high compression would yield less insulation than would the Earth’s crust and magma border at the crust. The insulation characteristics at the surface or near surface are likely greater than at the core since the material is less able to transfer heat that a highly compressed core material would probably transfer with more ease[iii]. We should also point out that the high heat and pressure at the core may well have a reverse effect since the higher a temperature the less likely it will respond to small increases in over all temperature. Thus there may be a tendency for the core heat to hoard until sometime when so much extra heat is trapped that it must be released in large waves. Issues such as these remain a serious concern for geologists at least on theoretical grounds. In the end all that can be said is that there is a great deal of uncertainty concerning the possible behavior of the Earth’s core when it comes to radiating heat over time and this should concern us.

However, once again our limitations will apply: we really don’t know enough about how any material behaves at the pressure and temperature that exists at the Earth’s core, or sub-surface. The truth is all our knowledge is deduced from very limited applications here on Earth under special laboratory conditions. This is not going to be enough to describe the true conditions of what is happening at the Earth’s core, any more than the Hadron collider would be able to describe the true state of a star’s core.

We do know that the Earth core temperature is higher than at the surface. This difference will cause a constant radiation of heat from the core to the surface and as we are well aware this will come in waves. The question is how large are those waves going to be, and what will be the effective period from peak to peak, that is, what is the frequency of these waves going to be?

We cannot doubt that there is heat radiating from the core, nor can anyone seriously doubt that this heat plays a vital role in the surface temperature. We need only look at San Francisco’s temperature to see what the ocean currents do for the climate, imagine what the sub surface currents may do to the temperature of the crust and sub-surface. It is most likely that the oceans are being warmed by this heat, and the rise in ocean temperature may well indicate a rise in core heat radiation.

The only real questions here are whether the Earth’s core temperature can rise even temporarily and thus cause an increase in radiation and volcanic activity at the same time.

The most likely case is that the Earth’s core, or at least its sub-surface temperature is not constant. Of this we can be nearly certain I think. All things in nature vary, why would this not vary? The cycles of the Sun’s activity, the Lunar perturbations, and the planetary attractions over billions of years will have caused some kind of variation in the heat output of the core. It is possible that a rise in CO2 may have also caused a rise in core temperature as well. It may be the case that the period of the Dinosaurs, the cretaceous, was in fact an indication of higher sub-surface radiation and the expansion of the Earth’s crust to compensate, this would explain the shallowness of the seas and increased volcanic activity, as to put it simply, the Earth bulged due to the excess heat. It has been noted that Yellowstone today is expanding. It has also been recently noted that the Earth’s crust has expanded over the past thirty years. Could this be due to increasing heat from the core? Is this due to the rise in CO2 acting as a significant insulator? There is certainly reason to be concerned. There is my opinion at least as much reason to be concerned of that, as we are concerned of climactic change. If CO2 can inhibit the atmosphere from releasing trapped heat, why not inhibit the Earth’s crust, why not inhibit the oceans?

In the end this question should not be ignored. The consequences of a warmer climate would be serious enough. The consequences of a warming core, would be life threatening.

Layered Differential Revolution

The Earth may be experiencing a differential revolution. That is to say that the surface of the Earth is being dragged by the moon’s gravity, as we have mentioned before. Recently it has been confirmed that in fact the core of the Earth is moving faster than the surface. However, it is most likely that this effect exists throughout the Earth’s body and begins at the surface and extends all the way to the core. This Layered Differential Rotation would cause an increase in heating due to inherent friction throughout the entire body of the Earth, and that this phenomenon may not have been accounted for thus far in determining the heat released by the Earth; this heat source would not end until the Moon reached it’s maximum orbital height millions if not billions of years from now!

I pose the following line of reasoning:

Think of a rotating globe having a radius r….now if suddenly this rotating globe had a contraction to say r/2, the globe would spin faster around its axis due to the conservation of angular momentum….true?

Now then what if this globe were to expand? If it were to expand then angular momentum conservation would require that the globe slow down its rate of angular rotation…..true?

However, what happens to the Earth when it is subjected to the Moon’s pull is that a certain part of the Earth expands more significantly than the deeper parts…however, that part, that high tide, will have the requirements of conservation of angular momentum as well and thus that part would lose some angular velocity.

However….in this case the expansion will not be proportional…the part of the globe nearer to the moon will expand faster, disproportionately faster….as will the part farther from the moon, the antipode….thus angular momentum will be conserved, but not in proportion to the rest of the body….those parts expanding more rapidly nearer to the Moon at the Lunar high tide, and those parts further away, at the antipode during the second tide-will slow down disproportionately to those deeper parts expanding more slowly..thus…you will have differential rotation since you will have a differential in angular velocity!

Now the argument would be that the Earth is solid and thus when the moon tugs on a small part of the Earth, it will immediately effect the deeper core as well through a direct mechanical force. But this is not so all the time. Tensor analysis can easily demonstrate that you would have a sheer from the higher levels to the lower deeper levels. I believe you may take the Tidal equations of La Place and apply them to the entire Earth’s structure directly in that they will consistently apply a differential force throughout the entire body of the Earth. In due time the Earth would behave much like the oceans do, only far more slowly. Thus the effects of the Moon’s gravity on the ocean’s tides, will also apply to the entire body of the Earth, after billions of years of repetition a marked deformation will take place. Over time, due to the constant repetition of these forces, due also to the differences in mass density, faults would develop over these tidal force regions-even in a solid core for that matter after so many repetitions. The Earth’s mantle being molten may in fact experience instantaneous tides and differential rotations. But slowly a differential motion and rotation would be the consequence of billions years of the same tidal force being applied. The recent confirmation of a differential rotation at the core itself would tend to strongly support this idea. Thus the Earth has a Layered Differential Rotation, and it is subject to tidal forces all the way to its core.

Differential Tangential Velocity

There is also a second mechanism which is that as the tide accelerates towards the highest point of Lunar gravitational pull, we will say it is the center of mass for the Lunar body, the Earth will gain inertia, just as the oceans gain inertia when they accelerate towards the Lunar center of mass. However just as the ocean tides continue past the center of mass point and create a tidal bulge ahead of the Lunar maximum, so will the rest of the Earth. There is therefore a tidal surge ahead of the Moon. The Moon will tug on this tidal surge which is ahead of it as it travels around it’s orbit and thus the tidal surge will actually pull on the Moon and thus accelerate it to a higher orbit. However, this also means that the Moon is going to slow down those particles that are nearest to it more than those which are further away, and deeper towards the sub-surface and core. Thus you will have a differential deceleration from the surface to the core. Once again the particles closer to the Moon will be affected more by the gravitation of the Moon than will the deeper particles. Thus there is in addition to the Differential angular velocity an actual differential deceleration that is slowing the Earth’s rotation in favor of a higher Moon orbit. Thus the Earth’s surface will slow down faster than the core. This too would explain the recent findings of the difference between core and surface velocity.

We must assume that over eons the various layers will develop their own inertial properties and a semi-permanent difference in velocity would occur.

What this likely means is that as the Earth grinds from layer to layer all the way to the core, heat will be released due to friction throughout the entire body of the Earth, and a a marked deformation will take place.

Tectonic Movements Caused by Differential Rotation


This same Differential Rotation is likely the chief cause of the Tectonic Plate movements. As the Moon lifts the continents upward, they lose angular velocity and the lower regions pass them by. The fault structure of the Earth would strongly indicate this as you can see that the continental drift seems westward as the relatively smaller North American continent for example is being moved westward, torn apart from the large Eurasian continent as it accelerates towards the Pacific ocean. It could well be that he formation of high mountain regions may well accelerate this motion and so as mountain regions formed in the western United States it accelerated the actual movement west and the system developed its own feedback amplification. The higher the mountains grow, the greater the differential movement, the greater the mountains grow. In any case, this much is speculation, but it seems plausible.

The differential tangential velocity will also result in a force being generated against these plates. Thus the tectonic movements are most probably caused by a differential rotation, a differential deceleration and possibly to convection as well.

The Earth may not be Cooling

In the end however, it is important to understand that this mechanism of Layered Differential Rotation must cause the release of vast amounts of heat deep within the body of the Earth. Thus far we have assumed that heat generation was limited mostly to the surface of the Earth and due to nothing more than the minor tidal deformation. We have reason to believe now that this deformation is far more extensive and probably far more long lasting. Thus there is here good reason to suspect that the Earth may not be cooling after all. This may have significant consequences down the line. A variable rate of radiation heating from the core would mean there are times when the Earth gets hot all over. Such times may be more frequent than we have thought, and the effects of Carbon Dioxide release into the atmosphere may well amplify these effects significantly.

P.S. This same differential Rotation would explain the heat production of Jupiter without resort to nuclear material at the core. If different parts of Jupiter are rotating at different rates, or if this differential rotation is present throughout the depth of the planet, then it would serve to explain the huge amount of heat present in the planet. No doubt this would be caused by the drag of its moons, and the drag of the Sun.

Note how Uranus has no such heat source, and note also how it lays on its side with no constant tidal effects even from the Sun, and with no significant Moons. Despite being a virtual twin to Neptune, yet Neptune is a far more dynamic planet and a far warmer planet as we have stated before in an earlier post.



[i] There is a new theory that Earth and planets were formed by the remaining material in the nascent solar system, after the sun reached critical mass. I very strongly disagree with this theory as you will see later. This theory fails to explain what is an obvious characteristic of the solar system.


[ii] Another point which I strongly disagree with. Heavy material may survive in space but the idea that it would survive on a molten planet is unlikely. The excess heat and pressure will speed up the radioactive decay of these heavier elements and besides this, once again the idea violates a basic characteristic of the solar system which again I will explain shortly in a future post.


[iii] I would like to say that I am certain of this last conclusion about the insular differences between the core and the crust, unfortunately this is only speculation since we just don’t know what the Earth’s core really is made of or how it behaves in regards to the heat that is either formed there or trapped there or both.

Did BP Drill into An Asphalt Volcano?






                As we all know BP has had a terrible accident in the Gulf Of Mexico and it has resulted in historic levels of pollution.  The final figure is still not determined, but we may be talking about as much a  two hundred million gallons of oil having been released into the Gulf Of Mexico from the broken well cap.

                As of the day of this writing they have managed to cap the well, but there are fears of seepage nearby, and BP is making the claim that it is testing the cap for integrity, while at the same time testing the well for integrity. Apparently there is some question about how well sealed the pipe leading to the well  is, and I  believe a far more serious question of how well sealed  is the well itself.

                BP is now claiming to be running seismic tests along the ocean bottom, testing for leaks, but as we shall see there may be a far more serious reason for running these seismic tests.

Asphalt Volcanoes

                As far as I know, and I admit this is not all that much, for full disclosure, the Gulf of Mexico does have a lot of natural seepage of Methane and some Oil along the ocean bottom. This is probably one of the reasons for oil companies to have clustered around this area in the first place, and one of the key reasons for there to be 27,000 sealed, or abandoned wells in the Gulf of Mexico, which are themselves becoming a matter for serious concern.  However, the BP well may be of particular interest, and seepage of this well is likely to indicate a more hazardous concern than normal seepage along the ocean bottom.


                In 1973 a group of scientists were doing some tests along the ocean bottom in the Gulf of Mexico, near the Yucatan peninsula, and apparently near the point of impact of the supposed Dinosaur Killer Asteroid in Chicxulub Mexico when they discovered something quite strange.  A sea mount, or an under water volcano that had erupted asphalt, or oil.  Upon conducting more tests they discovered that this was common around the area known as Campeche Knolls  near the Yucatan at an ocean depth of around 3000 meters.  This was to be the first such example of an Asphalt Volcano.

                By our time quite a few others have been discovered.  These volcanoes apparently are filled with  both Methane and Oil and instead of erupting lava, or igneous rock are instead erupting  Methane and Oil.   The ocean floor is pocked with sea mounts, and though not all of them are Asphalt Volcanoes, many are likely either Asphalt Volcanoes or Mud Volcanoes which erupt mud instead of Lava or Oil, or Methane. 

                Oil and Methane need volcanic heat to be produced.  Thus anywhere there is Oil or Methane some kind of geological activity has cooked the oil or gas, either in the present or the past.  If the “cooking” took place in the past, there is perhaps nothing to worry about. But if the “cooking” is still going on, then there is much to worry about.


                There are some structures near to the New Horizon BP well that seem to be sea mounts.  It is quite likely that BP drilled very close or on top of one of these Sea Mounts.  Any seepage from such a Sea Mount is probably going to be volcanic in origin.  The nature of Asphalt Volcanoes is complex, and the theories behind them are far from standard.  In other words we really don’t know all that much about them. Other than they are deep below the ocean floor most of the time, as is the New Horizon oil well, which is 14000 feet below the Ocean bottom.   At these depths, and under such pressure, any human activity is extremely unpredictable.  It’s much like being on another planet.



                Again I cannot say this for fact, but there is a very good chance that BP drilled into an Asphalt Volcano.  Moreover, this Asphalt Volcano may have been active.  It is also likely that this was the original reason for the eruption which resulted in the explosion at the surface. 

                If they did in fact drill into an Asphalt Volcano, then they drilled into a highly unpredictable, highly unstable ground which may well be geologically active.  BP would not likely tell any of us if it did do this or not, and again, I cannot say for a fact that they did. But I can say that those structures near the well are likely sea mounts, and that some of them probably are Asphalt Volcanoes, whether dormant, or  active.

Government Responsibility

                Now as I readily admit that I do not know the answers to these questions. Did BP really drill into an Asphalt Volcano, and so near to the American Coast?  And so near to New Orleans with its huge population?  I don’t know, and I don’t even believe anyone has asked BP this question and even if they did, is it really likely that they have to answer this question at all?  Who is going to know barring an informant from within the company telling us what the actual plan was when they first began the drilling?  Who is going to tell us?

                The answer to this question is the United States government.  BP got the license to drill during the time of the Bush presidency. Bush as everyone knows , was himself once active in the pursuit of oil, and had as a younger man drilled a number of oil wells for none other than the Saudi Arabians looking for oil in Texas, as if they didn’t have enough in Saudi Arabia.  So I would assume that Bush would know something about the drilling of these wells so near to the coast of the United States of America.

                                In the end, however, the only entity responsible for the safety of the American people is the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  Only this entity is trusted with the responsibility of keeping the American people safe from possible harm.  Thus it is the responsibility of this entity to spend whatever money is needed to make certain that it understands the activities of any business entities seeking to do business in or around the nation!  It behooves the Government of the United States to be fully aware and fully involved in the activity of any private local or multi national corporation that seeks to do any business in the United States of America, for only the United States government is fully entrusted with the safety of the American People, and any statement to the contrary is to me sheer  pseudo political ideology mired in ulterior motives having usually to do with the special interests of greed!  The United States government and not BP not Shell, not Goldman Sachs,  for that matter are responsible for the well being and safety of the American people, but the government of the United States itself.   It is for this reason that the United States government must understand the nature of these Asphalt Volcanoes so near to shore, and it is for this reason that it must spend tax dollars to inspect these policies, and procedures, and possibly to assist the private entities expeditiously if they are deemed safe and advantageous to  the American State.


Future Policy.


                I find this disaster to be a possible turning point, not only for the United States, but for any democracy having as its charge the safety and well being of its people.  Here we have a perfect example of why you cannot simply allow private enterprise to do as it is wont to do.  I respect private enterprise, to be sure, and in defense of BP, yes we do need the oil.  But the reality is that only the United States government is directly responsible for the well being of the American people, and this is its primary interest and motive for existence. Only the United States government can say with some level of  authority that it is reasonably safe to drill into an Asphalt Volcano so near to land, and so near to a densely populated city as is New Orleans.   Let it be known that this issue is key to this disaster.  It is ultimately the official policy that must balance our theoretical knowledge, and the practical  risks involved in drilling into an Asphalt Volcano for oil or gas!  This is the last calculation that must be made and it can only be made my  a responsible government if the possible risks will affect the well being of a particular people, as does this disaster affect the well being  of the American people along the Gulf Coast.


                I will not here lend my opinion on the soundness of drilling into such geological structures as Asphalt Volcanoes, or Mud Volcanoes for oil and Gas.   A catastrophe sometime ago in Indonesia when an oil company drilled into a Mud Volcano that is now continuously spewing out thousands of cubic meters of mud on what was  farmland and sea shore should have been enough for governments to take notice as to the dangers of drilling in geologically active areas.   Why was the United States of America, the most powerful richest nation on Earth caught off guard like this? 

                Again, I am not proceeding here with the assumption that I know what policy should be, or technical procedure,  but that there in fact should be a policy of some kind. It does not take a genius to know when drilling into a volcano could well be a dangerous undertaking hardly worth the risk. Especially when seemingly so little is really known as to the true nature of these volcanoes.  I am only making the claim, that our government should know, and is fully responsible if the rights of its people are violated or vouchsafed by an irresponsible entity. Only the government has this responsibility towards its people, not BP.  If this area was not geologically stable then the government should have known about since the research was there, there is no excuse.

P.S. Again, I cannot say that I know for sure that BP did anything at all wrong. I cannot know. But those structures near the well are sea mounts.  And there are sea mounts on the other side of the Gulf that are in fact Asphalt Volcanoes.  Enough to ask these questions honestly.  Enough for the government to look into.