Home arrow Mars & Solar System arrow Articles arrow Cosmic Rays and the Expanding Earth
Cosmic Rays and the Expanding Earth PDF Print E-mail

It has long been known that there is a close correlation between the amount of cosmic rays that reaches the surface of our planet and geological activity. In years with above average cosmic radiation, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes tend to be more frequent and more energetic than in years with below average cosmic radiation. So much is known. However, what exactly it is about cosmic rays that causes our planet to react as it does is not clear. Little can be found on the internet. Few have attempted to come up with a mechanism to explain the correlation, so I decided to do some research and calculations myself to see what I could find on my own. As it turned out, quite a few things can be said based solely on simple facts freely available on the web:

First, it is clear that cosmic rays are mostly Hydrogen and Helium ions zipping through space at tremendous speeds. 90% of cosmic rays have atomic number 1, and only 1% of them have an atomic number higher than 2. Cosmic rays are in other words mostly very light stuff. But because they are whizzing about at close to light speed, they carry a lot of energy. A single particle can reach energy levels comparable to a baseball moving at 90 km/hour, which is an awful lot of punch for something as small as a cosmic ray.

Another important fact is that cosmic rays are very abundant. On average, every square meter of our planet is hit by 10,000 impacts per second. That is a lot of impacts and one might assume from this that there must be a tremendous amount of matter involved. But that is not the case. The total rest mass off all cosmic rays reaching our planet add up to a mere 320 grams per year (See Appendix A). This is an astonishing small amount considering the rate of impacts and the fact that cosmic rays set off earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

However, when we include in our calculations the speed at which these 320 grams of particles are moving we get a very different picture. We are no longer confronted with a tiny little collection of matter, but with an enormous energy.

The total kinetic energy of cosmic rays impacting the surface of our planet over a year is comparable to a cube of rock with 2 km wide sides being dropped from a height of 12 meters (See Appendix B). That's a rock the size of a small mountain, so the energy involved is of tectonic proportions.

If all the energy from cosmic rays was to be absorbed by our planet and turned into pressure, it would be enough to push the above-mentioned mountain 12 meters up every year. Alternatively, thousands of mountains could be pushed up a few millimetres, so the fact that an increase in cosmic radiation result in more earthquakes and volcanic eruptions is in this perspective no wonder at all.

Quite clearly, it is the kinetic energy of cosmic rays and not their amount that has a measurable effect on geological activity.

This means that the geological model best suited to account for cosmic rays must be one where energy rather than matter plays a central role. A model requiring a lot of matter cannot be satisfied by our calculated results. A model in which energy plays a central role, on the other hand, is much more likely to fit, and therefore help us understand what's going on.

For expansion tectonics, this means that the hollow Earth model comes out far better than the solid Earth model, because the hollow Earth model has heat and pressure as the driving force of expansion while the solid Earth model has added matter as its driving force. A hollow, gas filled planet can turn energy into pressure, while a solid planet has no such mechanism. A solid planet can only grow through added matter.

Some may argue on behalf of the solid Earth model that the energy of cosmic rays can be converted into matter, and that this should be included in our consideration. After all, there are tremendous energies involved that could in theory be converted into mass. But this argument has two problems to it. Firstly, there is no known mechanism in which energy can be turned into matter. Secondly, even if there exists such a mechanism, the kinetic energy of cosmic rays will be far from sufficient to produce the required amount. The energy that can push a small mountain 12 meters up if converted directly into pressure can only produce about 100 grams of mass (See Appendix C). Clearly, converting energy into mass is a terribly inefficient way to produce pressure. Such a mechanism, if it existed, would have no effect as far as adding matter to our planet.

There is simply no way to use cosmic rays to defend the added mass hypothesis, and so we end up with the conclusion that the hollow Earth model is best suited to account for the observed facts.

Furthermore, the hollow Earth model can account for the fact that the expansion process is accelerating. Two mechanisms inherent in the hollow Earth model work towards an acceleration in the speed of expansion. Firstly, the crust of our planet becomes thinner with expansion, and therefore less resistant to further expansion. Secondly, the gas filled hollow at the centre of our planet becomes larger and therefore able to convert more cosmic radiation into pressure. The more inflated our planet becomes, the quicker the expansion will be.

As long as most of our planet's internal gases remain contained within the crust, expansion is likely to speed up. This will continue until a time when major venting causes most, if not all the internal gases to escape into our atmosphere. At that point the expansion will slow down and stop. However, when that time comes, our planet will have turned itself into a gas planet with an enormously thick atmosphere. Earth will no longer be anything like it is today.

Once expansion has passed a slow initial build up, it becomes rapid in geological terms, and this helps explain why we do not see expansion happening everywhere. Planets tend to be either rocky pre-expansion objects, or gas covered post-expansion objects. In our solar system, we have the gas giants as examples of post-expansion objects, and we have Mercury and Mars as examples of pre-expansion objects, while Venus and Earth are both in a rapid expansion phase.

Whether Mercury and Mars will ever get into a rapid expansion phase depends on their internal chemical make-up. What is needed for expansion is not only energy, but something to turn energy into pressure. A planet must have a reservoir of gas and liquids inside of it to expand. Without any liquids or gas, cosmic rays will do little more than heat up the rocks and minerals of the planet. No pressure will arise and there will be no expansion.

The fact that Mercury and Mars have undergone very little if any expansion, despite being much more exposed to cosmic rays than Earth, is an indication that there is very little gas and liquids inside these two planets. Conversely, the fact that Earth is expanding, despite relatively modest cosmic ray exposure, is an indication of a plentiful reservoir of gases and liquids at its core.

Observable data strongly suggest that Earth is a hollow gas filled sphere, expanding due to internal pressures. It is also apparent that cosmic rays are a major driving force in the expansion process. Although unlikely to be the only source of energy for our planet's expansion, we have found in cosmic rays a substantial source of kinetic energy, ready to be converted into pressure.

Having found in my previous essay a viable theory of gravity to support the hollow Earth model, we now have the additional benefit that we also have a viable source of energy. Furthermore, the hollow Earth model can explain why some planets expand faster than others, and why expansion accelerates over time. This is in addition to why surface gravity increases with expansion, explained in earlier essays.

As evermore phenomena are being explained by the hollow Earth model, and theoretical problems are being solved, the model's appeal keeps increasing. Hopefully, it will soon be seen as at least as serious a model as any of the others.

Related Reading

Effects of increasing cosmic radiation:

Morton Spears and the Capacitor Model of Gravity:

About cosmic rays:

About cosmic rays:

Appendix A

To calculate the total rest mass of cosmic rays reaching the surface of our planet, we can use the following data:

1. Every square meter of Earth's surface is bombarded with an average of 10,000 particles per second.
2. Earth has a total surface area of 510 * 10^12 m²
3. There are 31.5 * 10^6 seconds per year
4. The average rest mass of a cosmic ray is about 2.00 * 10^-24 g

From this, we get a total of 5.10 * 10^18 impacts per second for all of our planet, which adds up to 160 * 10^24 impacts per year.

Assuming that all the impacts are consumed by our planet, the total mass added through cosmic rays is a mere 320 grams.

Appendix B

To calculate the total kinetic energy equivalent of cosmic rays reaching the surface of our planet, we can use the following data:

1. Most extreme energy measured for a single particle was equivalent to a baseball moving at 90 km/h
2. Weight of baseball is a little under 150 grams
3. Typical energy of cosmic rays are 10^-12 that of the most extreme
4. Our planet is impacted 160 * 10^24 times per year

From this, we get that a typical impact has the kinetic energy equivalent of 150 * 10^-12 grams moving at 90 km/h, and that the total kinetic energy equivalent of all impacts over a year is 24.0 *10^9 metric tonnes moving at 90 km/h.

That is equivalent to a cube of rock with 2 km sides and density of 3 kg/l ploughing into our planet at the speed of 90 km an hour.

To attain 90 km/h speeds through free fall, a drop of about 12.5 meters is required.

Appendix C

To calculate the mass equivalent of the total kinetic energy, we can use the following data:

1. Total kinetic energy of cosmic rays over a year is 24.0 *10^9 metric tonnes moving at 90 km/h.
2. Formula for kinetic energy is Ek = ½ mv^2
3. Formula for Energy to mass conversion is E = mC^2
4. Speed of light is 1 * 10^9 km/h

From this we get Ek = 97.2 * 10^12 metric tonnes km^2/h^2.

Converting Ek into mass, we get 97.2 grams.

*** PLEASE *** SHARE ON FACEBOOK ETC!Facebook!StumbleUpon!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites! title=
Next >