Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics

[wolram]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507001

Title: Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
Authors: J. Marvin Herndon
Comments: Submitted to Current Science (India)

The principles of Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics are disclosed leading to a new way to interpret whole-Earth dynamics. Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics incorporates elements of and unifies the two seemingly divergent dominant theories of continential displacement, plate tectonics theory and Earth expansion theory. Whole-Earth decompression is the consequence of Earth formation from within a Jupiter-like protoplanet with subsequent loss of gases and ices and concomitant rebounding. The initial whole-Earth decompression is expected to result in a global system of major primary decompression cracks appearing in the rigid crust which persist as the basalt feeders for the global, mid-oceanic ridge system. As the Earth subsequently decompresses, the area of the Earth's surface increases by the formation of secondary decompression cracks, often located near the continental margins, presently identified as oceanic trenches. These secondary decompression cracks are subsequently in-filled with basalt, extruded from the mid-oceanic ridges, which traverses the ocean floor by gravitational creep, ultimately plunging into secondary decompression cracks, emulating subduction. Much of the evidence presented in support of plate tectonics supports Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics, but without necessitating mantle convection/circulation or basalt re-cycling. Moreover, the timescale for Earth decompression is not constrained to the last 200 million years, the maximum age of the current ocean floor.

One for Andre?

 

[Andre]

great paper Wolram, thanks. I remember other work from the author, the geonuclear generator. Seemingly plausible but with more questions raised than answered. I glanced tru this once. A most brilliant attempt to harmonize the expanding Earth ideas with plate tectonics. Nothing wrong with that, however..

I can think of a few question though af hand. If Earth started like a gas giant then the insolation combined with the compression must have ensured a (near) molten earth. A bit hard to harmonize that with that oldest zirconium crystal of what? 4,5 billion years of age? Next I think a gas giant close to the sun is bound to loose a lot of hydrogen to the sun first, due to outgassing effects with reduced gravition at a far distance from the earth. Consequently the abundance of water would be a lot less. Finally I was playing with other toys ideas which would have gas giants like Jupiter start off like normal terrestrial planets first. But hastily admiting that these are very wild thoughts.

 

[NorthJet]

Forgive me if I am not interpeting this correctly. But his sequence happens after the Earth was formed? Please excuse my ignorance, I am just trying to understand. From what I gather, on a basic sense, rocks on this Earth were put under tremendous heat and pressure, and subsquently formed an atmosphere and water (via amino/nucleic acids). Does this decompression happen at this stage? As way to maintain some sort of global equallibrium?
Thank you.

 

[sage]

as far as i know, according to current models, ice giants like uranus and neptune would never have formed.since they are there,planetary accretion theory needs a lot of revamp.anyway, what's wrong with current plate tectonic theory?also i do not understand why material will sink back in a continuously expanding earth. new material should emerge while older material should remain on the surface. so why is the entire ocean floor not more than 200 million years old? Earth is 5 billion years old, and if Earth has expanded to nearly double its size in this time, and if the rate of expansion is steadily decreasing with time, then 200 million years ago 95% of the expansion should have been over. so 95% of the Earth's surface should have older than 200 million years. but instead the entire oceanic floor (about 60% of Earth's surface) is far younger. how will you explain this. moreover Earth days are increasing as a cosequence of gravitational tug of war with the moon. so the theory's explanation of increasing length of days do not stand to scrutiny.

 

[Andre]

Interesting ideas, sage. I agree. When you have a new idea, make sure the old one is not holding up.

Incidentely, since we have that zirconium cristal of some, what? 4,4 billion years of age or so, it's suggested that Earth has is current morphology and temperature a lot longer than some genesis theories would suggest. So why do we have gas giants.

Anyway, don't be surprised when a totally other idea would fit those gas giants much better than the current one. That is, if the current explanations fail to explain everything.