This force must have been a factor in diverting the southward movement of glaciers eastward. The centrifugal force produced by the earth's rotation operates in the same way as gravity in that it's force is proportional to the product of the mass and distance.
But where gravity is inversely proportional to the distance between the centers of gravity, the centrifugal force or Coriolis Force is directly proportional. This means that the Coriolis Force counteracts gravity. If the earth rotated about sixteen times as fast as it does now, objects at the earth's equator would be weightless because the Coriolis Force and gravity would be equal.
It is the Coriolis Force that limits the size of planets. For a planet to remain together, obviously the gravitational force must be stronger than the Coriolis Force. Asteroids are different in that they are held together by structural bonds rather than gravity so that the Coriolis Force can exceed the gravitational force.
The banding of clouds in belts parallel to the equator can be seen on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and, Neptune. Venus is also covered by clouds but displays no banding because it's slow rotation gives it a weak Coriolis Force. The earth spins fast enough for the Coriolis Force to affect the winds and ocean currents as well as the path of glaciers, but not fast enough to cause the banding effect in the clouds.
Now, I would like to expand on the Coriolis Force some more.
I find that it actually has far more of an effect on the earth than is realized. Consider the glaciers that moved from the polar regions during the ice ages to drastically reshape the land. Where did the vast amount of energy to drive these glaciers come from? There must have been a force pulling the glaciers southward. This is where my Equatorial Force comes into play.
Picture a hollow sphere about 15% filled with water. Now suppose the sphere was made to spin faster and faster. The water would cling, by centrifugal force, to the equatorial region of the sphere. This is the portion of the sphere equidistant from the poles where centrifugal force would be the greatest.
I recall a ride at a nearby amusement park years ago in which riders would stand against the wall in a cylindrical room that would be made to spin. The floor would then drop away, leaving the riders stuck against the wall by centrifugal force.
Since the earth is spinning around the axis through it's poles, it means that objects at the poles are under the same gravity as objects at the equator but the ones at the equator are under more centrifugal force, which counteracts gravity. Thus, identical objects at the equator weigh less than those at the poles. If there is a large stretch of fluid on level ground, that which is closer to the equator will weigh less than that nearer the poles and thus the fluid will be pulled toward the equator in the same way as the water in the hollow sphere, as long as the fluid is free to flow.
Now consider the rivers of the world. There are four directions a river can flow: north, south, east or, west. According to the Law of Averages, the flow in the four compass directions should average out about equal in the world as a whole. But I find that to be far from the case.
By far, the preferred direction of flow for rivers in the world is in the direction of rotation and toward the equator. If all the water in all the rivers are considered, far more water flows east than west and far more water flows toward the equator than away from it. The rotation of the earth accounts for the eastward bias of rivers and glaciers, as well as winds and ocean currents. But another manifestation of the Coriolis Force that I am introducing here, the Equatorial Force, accounts for the preferred flow toward the equator.
South America is an ideal example of both manifestations of the Coriolis Force on river flow. The Amazon River is the largest river in the world. It flows near the equator. It's direction of flow is eastward and many tributaries flow from both north and south toward the equator to meet the river. The eastward bias is very apparent as some of the tributaries begin in the far west of the continent near the Pacific Ocean but instead of emptying into that ocean, are pulled eastward across the continent.
The great rivers of Asia, such as the Ganges, the Tigris/Euphrates, Mekong and, Irriwady all show the dual bias in their flow eastward and toward the equator. On a map of India, it is easy to see how there are more river outlets on the east coast than on the west.
The Danube River in Europe clearly displays the eastward and equatorial biases. All of Britain's major rivers flow eastward, except the Severn, which flows southward, toward the equator. The Niger River in Africa actually begins near the Atlantic Ocean but flows east and south (toward the equator) away from the ocean until it joins it further away.
The reason that this Equatorial Force and the eastward bias, caused by the direction of the earth's rotation, are not more apparent is that there are a significant number of rivers that flow in directions opposite to it. It is important to remember that the primary flow of water if from high to low and that the Coriolis Force will only be a factor when water is on level ground. The Coriolis Force cannot overpower gravity, if the ocean is to the north or west and there is highland to the south or east, then the inevitable flow will be north or east and the force will not be apparent.
In Europe, the Rhine, Seine and, Vistula Rivers flow northward and westward, against the Coriolis Force but this is only because of the mountains and high ground of central Europe. Even though the rivers of India clearly manifest the eastward bias caused by the earth's rotation, some rivers begin near the west coast but flow eastward, the Narmanda River still flows in the opposite direction.
The Nile and the Congo Rivers in Africa are two of the greatest rivers in the world and seem to contradict my hypothesis as the Nile flows northward and the Congo westward. But both actually begin in the southern hemisphere and flow into the northern hemisphere. This could mean that the two rivers are pulled toward the equator by the Equatorial Force and then continue northward. The Congo River seems to cross the equator going northward and then is pulled back toward it and loops around.
If the earth had a smooth and uniform surface, the Equatorial Force and the eastward bias of the Coriolis Force would be much more apparent. But it doesn't and I find that this has not yet been pointed out. Some rivers flow westward, opposite the earth's rotation, and away from the equator. But it cannot be denied that if all the water in all of the world's rivers is considered, far more water flows east than west and far more flows toward the equator than away from it and there must be some explanation for this since the flow in each of the four directions should be roughly equal, according to the Law of Averages.
Now, let's go back to glaciers. Since we can see that the rotation of the earth is such a powerful force in the flow of the world's rivers, why should it not be the explanation of the movement of glaciers southward, especially since the lakes created by glaciers clearly show the influence of the eastward rotation of the earth. The glaciers could not have gotten their tremendous force from solar energy alone but were pulled southward by the rotation of the earth.
THE CORIOLIS FORCE AND PLATE TECTONICS
Now, let's go on to the next step. We know that the continents were once all together in one piece. I have made other observations concerning this system as explained in postings earlier on this blog, "The Lunar Shield Zone Hypothesis" and "The Story Of Planet Earth". But something must have pulled these continental pieces apart, just as some force must have pulled the glaciers southward. A vast continent, weighing endless trillions of tons, does not just drift around like a piece of wood on the sea.
What about the Coriolis Force and it's sub-force, the Equatorial Force? I cannot find that this has yet been suggested. The eastern and western hemispheres split apart due to a chain of volvanic activity underground. The result of this is today the so-called Mid-Atlantic Ridge, an underwater mountain chain that runs north-south under the Atlantic Ocean.
In another posting on this blog, "The Lunar Shield Zone Hypothesis", I showed an illustration of how the continents underwent a dramatic shift northward. Since the original one-piece continent would unbalance the weight of the spinning earth, causing one of the poles to migrate to it's center of gravity, we can assume that Antarctica is the remains of this original continent, called Pangaea.
This would mean that when that super-continent broke apart, due to volcanic activity under it, the continental pieces were pulled toward the equator by the Equatorial Force. They continued northward by momentum after crossing the equator until the Equatorial Force, acting in reverse at that point, brought them to a halt. This is why today, the vast majority of the land on earth is in the northern hemisphere.
MACROSCIENCE
.
When a structure of some kind or a project is large enough, we must begin to consider the effect that the earth's rotation has on it. At our scale, the effects of the earth's rotation are negligible and we have no need to even consider it. But on a very large scale, this begins to change and I thought it appropriate to give it a name.
The earth rotates eastward and thus eastward momentum is added to any object or structure that occupies a large enough area of the earth's surface. Any such structures will also be pulled toward the equator. For example, at the equator, the force will be purely eastward while at the South Pole, it will be purely northward.
This force on the structure will be proportional to it's mass multiplied by the area of the earth's surface that it covers. This force is, in effect, produced by differences over a large area in the Coriolis Force, which is the centrifugal force created by the earth's spin.
An ideal example of macroscience is, of course, the tectonic movement of the continents across the earth's surface over millions of years. The continents are extremely massive and cover a vast area of the earth's surface so that the force produced by the earth's rotation varies from one side of the continent to the other, thus pulling it along.
Glaciers in the northern hemisphere have an eastward, as well as a southward, momentum. Also, it can be seen that if all of the rivers in the world are considered, far more water flows eastward than westward and far more flows toward the equator than away from it. Hurricanes move westward because the earth rotates eastward underneath them and they are pulled somewhat northward, away from the equator because the earth's relative spin becomes greater as we move away from the equator.
This force is extremely slight on our human scale but the truth is that if we carefully balance a pole on it's end, it is slightly more likely to fall either eastward or in the direction of the equator. The force on a radio tower or tall building is likewise slightly stronger eastward and toward the equator.
This knowledge could definitely be helpful if we were planning a canal to move a large volume of water. It could be designed so that the earth's rotation could "help the water along". If the Australian Government ever decided to move Ayers Rock, it would be easier to move it eastward with the earth's rotation or northward to the equator.
If a ship could be built large enough, it could "sail" on the earth's rotational force without any other means of propulsion. Of course, it could only ever "sail" eastward or toward the equator by this force. Likewise if a man-made structure was large enough, the effects of this force on it would have to be considered.
What about erosion? Particularly that of mountains. The highest mountains in the world are eventually worn down by erosion over millions of years. Could it be that the fact that the earth's surface covered by the mountain is heavier than the adjacent areas not covered by a mountain, creating differences in the Equatorial Force from one side of the mountain to the other and thus contributing to the eventual "pulling apart" of the mountain?
No comments:
Post a Comment