On the Expanding Earth and Contracting Moon

Authors: Golden Gadzirayi Nyambuya

Exactly 100 years ago, German scientist Alfred Lothar Wegener (1880-1930), sailed against the prevailing wisdom of his day when he posited that not only have the Earth's continental plates receded from each other over the course of the Earth's history, but that they are currently in a state of motion relative to one another. To explain this, Wegener setforth the hypothesis that the Earth must be expanding as a whole. Wegener's inability to provide an adequate explanation of the forces and energy source responsible for continental drift and the prevailing belief that the Earth was a rigid solid body resulted in the acrimonious dismissal of his theories. Today, that the continents are receding from each other is no longer a point of debate but a sacrosanct pillar of modern geophysics. What is debatable is the energy source driving this phenomenon. Herein, we hold that continental drift is a result of the Earth undergoing a secular radial expansion. An expanding Earth hypothesis is currently an idea that is not accepted on a general consensus level. Be that it may, we show herein that the law of conversation of angular momentum and energy entail that the Earth must not only expand as a consequence of the secular recession of the Earth-Moon system from the Sun, but invariably, that the Moon must contract as-well. As a result, the much sort for energy source driving plate tectonics can (hypothetically) be identified with the energy transfers occurring between the orbital and rotational kinetic energy of the Earth. If our calculations are to be believed -- as we do; then, the Earth must be expanding radially at a paltry rate of about 1.50+/-mm/yr while the Moon is contracting radially at a relatively high rate of about -410+/- mm/yr.

Comments: 12 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2012-12-10 03:23:49

Unique-IP document downloads: 198 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus