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
Mass: 15 Earth masses
Mass: 0.0123 Earth masses
Semi-major axis: 100,000 km
Velocity: +/- 7.7 km/s
I tried to reduce the Earth’s mass +/- every lunar orbit by 1 Earth mass. Here are some results:
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.
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.
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.
Let us assume that Earth expands globally at a rate of 4 cm/year. The acceleration due gravity on Earth’s surface can be calculated as follows:
We know the Earth’s mass and its radius. The value of acceleration for radius 6,378,000 m is:
If we change the value of radius to 6,378,000.04 m, we get:
The ESA’s GOCE Probe (2009-2013) was able to detect the variations of gravity at levels of 1 mgal, which is quite high accuracy, but not for the purpose of expansion measurement.
Let us take the first value and mark the levels of GOCE’s accuracy:
The red color marks GOCE’s accuracy, the green color marks the field of changing gravity due to expansion.
The next problem is that the gravity field has many temporal variations (atmosphere, water redistribution, sand, soils), which is another negative (noisy) effect. Thus the accuracy with respect to expansion would be even worse.
Another technique is a GPS measurement via vertical changes. Have a look at the DTRF2014 image made by the Technical University of Munich:
We see there no data from the oceanic floor. The data from Canada or Greenland (the same with Norway) indicate a clear expansion.
The problem of such data is that the Earth’s surface is in a constant motion (centimeters to meters). Another problem is the number of stations – one cannot cover the whole surface. One would also expect that the expansion would be noticeable primarily on the oceanic floor.
One can easily notice that the shape of continental blocks is often oblique = not perpendicular to the surface. Have a look at the scheme:
As the Earth expands, the hot basalts are ‘pushed’ to the surface. And thus the blocks logically ‘wear out’ from the bottom, which is leading to typical oblique shapes at the block/oceanic lithosphere boundaries.
Subduction is a process that makes physically no sense. Have a look at the P-wave tomography picture of a presumed subduction zone from Zhao, D. (2001) published in the journal Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors:
We see that the blue path strictly respects the oblique section of the continental block. The force of gravity is perpendicular to the surface. One would expect that if the subducting plate had sank down deep into the mantle thanks to gravity, it would have moved with respect to gravity. This is not the case.
For unknown reasons, the plate chooses the path that is adjacent to the continental block. The next thing is that such ‘choice’ results in overcoming the resistance force that is at the continental block/oceanic lithosphere boundary.
The better explanation for the observed relations in the picture would be a simple precipitation/solidification of basalt from the ‘basaltic bath’ at the boundary.
‘Subduction is a geological process that takes place at convergent boundaries of tectonic plates where one plate moves under another and is forced or sinks due to gravity into the mantle. Regions where this process occurs are known as subduction zones.’ (Wikipedia)
These are the two first sentences from Wikipedia. But one can ask – Does subduction exist? Could the zones be just crustal zones of solidified basaltic material from depth at the oceanic/continental lithosphere boundary?
I decided to make a very simple experiment. I prepared a paraffin wax and created a wooden continental block. The block was inserted into the liquified wax. The ‘oceanic crust’ was created in few minutes. But the most important part was the oblique section of the continental block. What will appear there?
This is an image of a ‘subduction zone’ via P-wave tomography from Zhao, D. (2001) published in the journal Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors:
We see there a sharp contrast between the continental block(s) and oceanic crust (blue color). As been already mentioned, the image should visualize the so called subduction zones, which are presumed parts of Earth where oceanic lithosphere should slowly slide into the deeper parts of the mantle.
My experiment showed that the wax cooling led to a creation of a thin layer at the surface (air/wax boundary – max. 2 mm) as well as at the continental block/oceanic lithosphere boundary (wooden block/wax boundary – max. 1 mm).
The reason for the observed phenomenon is that the wooden block became colder than the inner parts of the wax container. So the wax could solidify there. The fastest wax solidification was seen at the container glassy walls. If the block was made from another material like glass or granite, we would probably see even thicker layer at the wax/continental block boundary.
I think that the first experimental results represent a very good reason to think about the ‘subduction zones’ in a quite different way, maybe even easier way. I hope that more detailed experiments will follow.
The Earth’s interior is hot – the temperature of the core is roughly the same as the temperature of the solar surface, which is more than 5000 K!
The planets, esp. bigger planets = gas giants, are heated by a process called Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism. It is known for planets Jupiter and Saturn. Bigger celestial bodies like our Sun radiate also via fusion processes. The chthonian planets keep the heat produced by the mechanism.
Gravitational potential energy of a chthonian planet can be calculated as follows:
One can simply count all the ‘potentials’ from the center of the planet towards the surface R – mass of concentric spheres times mass of concentric shells.
Scientists Kelvin and Helmholtz tried to explain the energy emitted by our Sun via the potential energy in the late 19th century. However, Arthur Eddington showed that the mechanism would allow the Sun to shine only for millions of years. Later, the fusion processes were described.
Thus the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism is rather interesting for generation of heat deep inside gas giant planets and derived chthonian planets.
It is known that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. The oldest known rocks found in Canada/Australia are almost as old as this age.
Creationism teaches us that our ‘world’ is only thousands of years old and thus tries to find an evidence for ‘young Earth’. Here, creationism is wrong. Conventional paleontology accepts that Earth is 4.6 billion years old, but strictly connects the age of the Earth and the age of life on Earth (evolution based on magmatic petrology). And here, conventional paleontology could be wrong.
What if life on Earth is much more younger than the age of our planet?
Here I cite: ‘Mass extinctions manifest in Earth’s geologic record were turning points in biotic evolution. We present 40Ar/39Ar data that establish synchrony between the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary and associated mass extinctions with the Chicxulub bolide impact to within 32,000 years. Perturbation of the atmospheric carbon cycle at the boundary likely lasted less than 5000 years, exhibiting a recovery time scale two to three orders of magnitude shorter than that of the major ocean basins. Low-diversity mammalian fauna in the western Williston Basin persisted for as little as 20,000 years after the impact. The Chicxulub impact likely triggered a state shift of ecosystems already under near-critical stress.’
When reading the abstract, one would await at least one photo linking the obtained data and the fossilized mammalian fauna in the strata. There are no photos and thus we can easily conclude that the 65/66 Ma events do not belong to the fossils. The fossils may be much more younger with their fossilization at the 65/66 Ma basements. Each scientific paper operating with dating of mass extinction events has to provide a clear link.