An Interesting Comparison: Earth vs Apples

I did a simple math today. I have been trying to compare the rates of Earth’s expansion with the apple’s growth. Let us assume that Earth expands globally 4 cm/year. Its diameter is roughly 12,756 km. An apple is maybe ready in 3 months with the final diameter 10 cm.

This means that Earth would change its diameter by 4/1,275,600,000 per year. Now I try to take this fraction and apply it on the apple. We get 0.31 nanometers.

The annual global diameter increase of the Earth is roughly the same as the diameter increase of an apple by 0.31 nanometers. Do we have instruments that are able to decide whether an apple grows when we talk about nanometers?

‘Subduction Zones’ – Reality vs Conventional Visualizations

How do the conventional visualizations of subduction zones reflect the reality? It is maybe worse than one would expect. I decided to find a few pictures of what should the presumed ‘subduction zones’ look like and compare them with seismic tomography images (= reality). Amazing how distant from the reality the visualizations really are.

First, let’s have a look at the seismic tomography image published in 2001 by Zhao, D. in the journal Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors:

We see there a continental block and the oceanic crust precipitated on it from the basaltic bath. Now try to compare the image with a few interpretations of subduction and subduction zones.

The first image comes from Wikipedia, it is well known. You can find the original image under https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq1/plate.html. It is an illustration by Jose F. Vigil from This Dynamic Planet. Just compare it with the real image above. There is no isolated plate inside the ‘bath’ in the image above, the crust is just precipitated on the block.

Another image comes from the animation made by geoscientists of the Charles University in Prague (available online here: http://geo.mff.cuni.cz/vyzkum.htm#Geodynamika). Again, it doesn’t reflect the reality observed via P-wave seismic tomography:

The last image, maybe the one most distant from the reality, comes from YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryrXAGY1dmE). It is an animation from the BBC documentary. Amazing that it has more than 2.6 million views 🙂

We see that the reality of ‘subduction zones’ as it can be seen via P-wave seismic tomography has rather nothing to do with ‘conventional’ interpretations of sliding plates. A better explanation would be a simple precipitation of the crust on the continental block from the basaltic bath. You can read more in my previous blog post: http://expandingearthresearch.org/jan/2018/03/16/subduction-without-subduction/

Subduction without Subduction

Last week, we made a progress in analogue modelling of the so called ‘subduction zones’ without the process of subduction, just only via material cooling. The first ever experiment we performed was the one with Tonga/Lau Region, you can watch it here:

We have learned a lot and based on the last experiment, we made a new experimental device and decided to run a new long-term project – SuZo-WiSu (Subduction Zones Without Subduction). The aim of the project is to create the subduction zones, as we observe them via P-wave seismic tomography, without the process of subduction. The aim is to study material cooling on the interfaces in deeper parts of materials via numerical and analogue modelling.

New Experimental Device

The experimental device is very simple. It consists of:

  • heat source
  • desk
  • glassy ‘Section of Earth’
  • continental oblique granitic block
  • oceanic crust excavator
  • paraffin wax (oceanic crust)

First, we put hard pieces of paraffin wax into the ‘Section of Earth’. Then, we light up the heat source and wait. We put the continental block inside the section and wait again. The process of material solidification is starting.

The solidified oceanic crust.

Now, it’s time to get the oceanic crust. We carefully raise the continental block and get the sample of the oceanic crust with our excavator.

The final results are here:

We see that we are able to create the so called presumed subduction zones also via cooling of a material. Without need for subduction. Here you can watch a video where I briefly explain the basic pillars of the new SuZo-WiSu project.

Problems

At the beginning of our experiments, we had a few problems. The biggest one was with isolation, as you can see here:

Every time you create a new device, you must test it and search for mistakes you made. We also had problems with the first desk. It almost exploded due to stress field that arised when lighting up the heat source. We decided to use a new desk that has really a shape of a desk, the last one was like ‘pool’ that we made out of 5 single glassy desks.

The previous ‘pool’ almost exploded.

Chthonian Theory at FameLab

On the 10th of March 2018 was organized Czech FameLab competition in Prague. ‘FameLab is the world’s leading science communication competition. Participants have just three minutes to win over the judges and crowd with a scientific talk that excels for its content, clarity and charisma.’

I was talking about Zealandia/South America fitting and the Chthonian Theory. 5 contestants made it into the round 2. I congratulate and wish all the best in the next round. Hope the talks will be online soon.

You may newly find a link to a lecture on Chthonian Theory on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chthonian_planet

Chthonian Earth Theory: A New Video

Chthonian Theory states that the Earth started its existence 4.6 billion years ago as a gas giant. The fusion ignition of the Sun stripped away the Earth’s outer shells and thus it became a chthonian planet. Approximately 180 million years ago started its rapid expansion as a result of force balance between the cracked rigid mantle and previously highly compressed interior. The expansion led to a creation of the oceanic lithosphere and Earth’s primordial heat loss. It is a competing theory to the theory of plate tectonics and thus e.g. rejects a process of subduction.

Feel free to enjoy my last lecture on ‘Chthonian Earth Theory’ with English subtitles. The lecture was held on 20 December 2017 at the Faculty of Science of the Charles University in Prague.

Of course, I will appreciate a feedback from you 🙂

New Animations – It’s Time to Think About 3D…

Last week I created a few simple 2D simulations of what a planetary expansion with ridges (expansive ruptures) could look like. We all know that geodetic stations on Earth indicate horizontal motions and so I am trying to deal with it also via expansion.

Here you can read my last post on blog: http://expandingearthresearch.org/jan/2018/02/11/horizontal-motions-on-earth/

It is really interesting to see that the continents may really move as the Earth expands. Now, I am in 2D, which is the first step towards better understanding of what the 3D reality actually looks like. The motions are ‘special’ since the blocks don’t move at the same speed in all places. The (angular) motion is the fastest near the ridges, then it gradually slows down.

Here is a simulation for one ridge:

Here for two ridges:

And finally three ridges:

I would appreciate any comments or even simulations from you. And now, it’s time to make it 3D 🙂

Horizontal Motions on Earth

We are able to precisely detect various horizontal motions on Earth thanks to devices like GPS today. Geodetic stations around ridges move as the ridges generate new and new basalts. Wait. Do they really move?

In order to correctly interpret such motions in centimeters or millimeters, we need to look at the situation from a planetary view.

There is a group of satellites orbiting the Earth. They are able to localize a geodetic station. If the station was put on the north pole, the localization would indicate 90° N. If it was relocated to a new position, say 1000 meters from the pole, the GPS localization would give a new locality 1000 meters farther away from the previous one on the north pole. It is evident that a forced motion of the station from A to B indicates a change of its position. It is no problem to evaluate a distance between the points A and B and if needed, also the velocity, if the station was relocated for example over a period of one week.

What would happen, if the station was put inside a rock massif and was left to the mercy of Earth? The station will probably move again. Now, we have got two options how to explain it.

Positions and horizontal motions of geodetic stations (DGFI-TUM – http://www.dgfi.tum.de/research/reference-systems/).

Earth with Constant Radius

The first option that crosses your mind would be that the station moves because of some forced motion (like in our previous example). This means that a certain area of Earth’s crust really moved – slided over Earth from A to B. Like a train going from one station to another station. Or like a person going to work and then back home. This is one of the foundation stones of plate tectonics and the measured motion is considered to be a proof of continental drift.

Move of a station from A to B on Earth with constant radius.

Earth with Variable Radius

Some of you wonder, how is it possible that I continue with a list of possible explanations. In addition, the paragraph will be divided into two.

A complement – if a body with constant mass changes its size, we may take it as a point. Thus the influence of volume changes on the GPS satellite trajectory won’t be taken into consideration from the physical point of view. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether the Earth changes its size or not, the satellite’s orbit and orbital period will be the same. There will be the pole (90°) according to the reference net all the time.

Expansion over the Whole Surface

An example of expansion over the whole surface is a balloon. When we blow up a balloon, all points on its surface move at a roughly constant velocity and direction. Since they have united directions, they don’t change their coordinates. The station at the pole would stay at the pole. We wouldn’t be able to measure any horizontal motion. The only motion would be the vertical one.

Move of a station from A to B on Earth with expansion over the whole surface.

Expansion with Expansive Ruptures

The second option is to tear the balloon to pieces and change its size by adding new (balloon) material inside the ruptures. The added material doesn’t expand after addition. Now, only the area of the ruptures expands – surrounding parts are rigid and don’t expand.

This kind of expansion goes for Earth. It leads to changes of positions of geodetic stations. With this expansion, the station doesn’t stay on the pole. It moves away with respect to closest expansive ruptures (ridges). The motion occurs perpendicularly to the ridges.

There occurs a move of a station with the expansion with expansive ruptures.

So what?

Let’s take India. When we have a look at the measured vectors on India (picture above), we see that they lead somewhere to NE. As with the vectors in other parts of Eurasia. Now, there is a question whether we push India towards Eurasian mass like a high-tonnage icebreaker or whether we realize that there is a massive expansive rupture to the south from India. This rupture leads from Alaska to Europe through the Red Sea. And that the spread of this rupture makes those cm-shifts measured in Eurasia or also India.

India and a massive spreading expansive rupture to the south (modified after https://portal.gplates.org/cesium/).

If you stand on an idea of an icebreaker, then this idea from plate tectonics doesn’t make sense, well, we would assume that the Earth’s radius is constant. If we stand on the idea of spreading expansive rupture, the Earth’s radius will slightly change in reaction to measured horizontal motions.

The (angular) position of the geodetic station (position 1 vs position 2) is changed in reaction to radius increase. An example with one ridge.

We learned at school how one calculates the circumference of a circle, the circumference equals roughly 6.28 times the radius. In other words, the change in radius from 1 to 2 results in the change in circumference from 6.28 to 12.56. We see that the surface change is more evident than the radius change in absolute numbers. Thus our chances for measurement of radius increase are lower.

No, Earth is not hollow :) What about ultracondensed iron?

Sometimes we hear that if Earth expands, it must be hollow. For conspiracy fans – unfortunately, it is not hollow.

Have a look at a plot from Anneli Aitta (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223535839_The_identity_and_quantity_of_the_light_matter_on_each_side_of_the_Earth%27s_inner_core_boundary):

Densities as a function of pressure.

We see there densities of Earth’s interior from 0 to 360 GPa (center of Earth). The thick solid line marks the PREM densities calculated by Dziewonski and Anderson (1981). The two upper lines (dotted and thin solid) mark densities for solid and liquid iron. We see that they are +/- related to what we observe in the Earth’s interior.

The question is whether the interior is stable or metastable. In other words, does iron tend to relax?

Have a look at the situation a bit closer. Hydrostatic pressure is created by gravity and depth, thus gravity and depth create in fact the environment in which the iron may exist (at those densities). Once you take some particle from a depth A to a lower depth B, it changes its volume and density – the density decreases. Once the density decreases, the hydrostatic pressure of lower layers decreases as well. And so on and so on.

Earth is cooling via ridges where new basalts are generated – heated material rises, cools and the basalt solidifies. The primordial heat of Earth is releasing via deep systems of cracks and the heated material rises – the particle from depth A moves to lower depth B. As a result, as been already mentioned, the density decreases and thus the volume increases – Earth is expanding.

It seems that Earth’s expansion is driven by heat release, but the Pangea breakup was a brittle and rather spontaneous global event. Continental lithosphere has been connected together for a very long time – approximately 4.3 billion years, what had happened there?

Playing with Gravity Simulator and Earth-Moon System

There exist a lot of gravity simulators across the internet, some of them are good, some of them are bad.

I decided to try the Gravity Simulator from

http://www.orbitsimulator.com

in order to visualize the behavior of Moon with respect to Earth that is gradually losing its mass from 15 Earth masses (+/- Uranus) to 1 Earth mass. Can we explain the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system via the Chthonian Theory?

Random Input Parameters

Earth

  • Mass: 15 Earth masses

Moon

  • Mass: 0.0123 Earth masses
  • Semi-major axis: 100,000 km
  • Eccentricity: 0
  • Velocity: +/- 7.7 km/s

I tried to reduce the Earth’s mass +/- every lunar orbit by 1 Earth mass. Here are some results:

Simulation.

The first results with random values showed that the Chthonian Theory can provide good explanation for the Earth-Moon system angular momentum (evolution).

What we observed:

  • The Earth-Moon distance is getting bigger.
  • The velocity of Moon is getting lower – from approximately 7.7 km/s to today’s value 1 km/s.
  • The finer and longer the mass loss, the smaller the eccentricity changes.

Angular Momentum of the Earth-Moon System

Most of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system is in the orbital motion, which is in contrast to other moons in our solar system. The orbital angular momentum of the Moon is more than 80 % of the total angular momentum.

Moon.

Today, the most prevailing idea related to the origin of the Moon is the ‘Giant-Impact Hypothesis’ – a giant body should have smashed into the Earth more than 4.5 billion years ago, which is a nonsense idea for the chthonian theory based on at least two reasons:

  • The hit would probably cause the water to vaporize and
  • it would cause the ultracondensed matter in the interior to relax too quickly.

The Earth’s spin rates were higher at the beginning. So it is assumed that Moon has been moving away from the Earth, because of angular momentum conservation. The whole effect was caused by the slowdown of Earth’s rotation (tides).

According to chthonian theory, there were no oceans like today until 180 Ma (icy sarcophagus). This means that the spin rates were quite high 180 million years ago and the rotation slowdown was caused also by Earth’s expansion.

The most probable hypothesis for the formation of the Moon is that the Earth-Moon system was formed from the +/- same accretion disc. The Moon even has Earth-like composition. The high angular momentum of the system was made by the Earth’s initial gas giant stage.

The gas giant planets are spinning fast:

  • Jupiter: 9 h 56 min
  • Saturn: 10 h 42 min
  • Uranus: 17 h 14 min
  • Neptune: 16 h 6 min

And the universe is full of much faster spinning gas giant planets.