What Caused Venus Retrograde Revolution-and the implications on Earth’s Global Warming

Venus may hold a clue to the Earth’s 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 planet’s 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 that’s 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 don’t 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 Sun’s own pull, since the Sun would have the tendency to tidal lock the planet’s 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 doesn’t 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 it’s 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 don’t 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 planet’s 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 planet’s 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 it’s 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 don’t 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 Jeanne’s 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 would’nt 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 planet’s 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 hasn’t 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 don’t 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 Sun’s 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.

Conclusions

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 planet’s 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 Earth’s 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.  It’s 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

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.

Global Warming: Vulcanism