This conceptual research work investigating the sustained unrelenting unidirectional movements of tectonic plates away from the ‘heavier’ African plate since the break-up of Pangea in the Jurassic period, has resulted in some unexpected findings and conclusions:
The development of the equation relating the circumferential stress forces (F) causing tectonic movements to the radius of (E) eccentricity provides the initial platform for estimating the forces responsible for tectonic, orogenic and metamorphic processes. These calculations are based on the observation that the tilt and precession movements of the planets closely mimic the behaviour of unbalanced rotating bodies where the centre of mass (COM) is not coincident with the axis of rotation.
The validity of mathematically modelling the Earth as an unbalanced rotating body on a ‘fixed gravitational axis’ has in the past been challenged as being totally incorrect in that the Earth and other planets are considered to be ‘freely rotating bodies about the centre of mass with zero Moment of Inertia’. This assumption was made despite Kepler’s second law clearly showing that both the orbital and rotational velocities of planets, especially whilst travelling in an elliptical orbit, are rigidly controlled by the mutual gravitational pull between the Sun and planets (Section 7). The objections to the proposed mathematical model are unfounded as the model used is both viable and validated.
Furthermore, for the planet to be rotated about a stable axis by the gravitational pull of the Sun, the COM of the planet must be offset from that axis to allow the gravitational pull to yield a ‘torque’ force. If the COM was positioned on the axis of rotation, the gravitational force would just ‘pull’ the planet as distinct from causing it to rotate.
This above observation resulted in the totally unexpected conclusion that from (3) above, the establishment of the axis of rotation of the planets is a direct consequence of the COM being offset from a symmetrical position.
This above-stated observation, which is applicable to all the rotating bodies, may well explain why the planets (except Venus and Uranus) all rotate with the same hand as does the Sun and exhibit a similar tilt angle to the Earth and in many cases a similar rotation period.
The ‘wobble’ of the Sun may well be caused by the continuously variable but mutually gravitational pull of the planets on the asymmetrical and possibly moving COM.
The initial northward movement and the break-up of Pangea may well result from the centripetal upward and outward forces separating Antarctica from Pangea followed by the differential circumferential stress forces acting in concert with the radial centripetal forces at the higher latitudes, in moving the continental plates towards the Pacific Basin
Thesimplevectordiagram (Fig24A) giveninthe text demonstrating the radial centripetal forces causing the circumferential divergent mid- ocean ridge, will have the same appearance as if these boundaries were created by convection currents. It may thus be feasible that the centripetal radial forces and the circumferential tensile forces which can act either in opposition or in unison (Fig 27) can be used to replace the present conventional circulating current forces
The determination that the forces primarily driving tectonic plate movements are directly related to the rotation of the planet Earth has by implication made convection currents and magma intrusion a consequence of tectonic activity and as such have a passive rather than an active role
The forces involved in the ‘Cycle of Planet Regeneration’ shown in Fig 31 allows each stage to be examined and where possible estimated.
The introduction of the following new terms into the geological vocabulary is proposed: ‘Differential Circumferential Stress Forces ‘(DCSF) ‘Pushed Continental Crust’ (PCC), ‘Radius of Eccentricity’, ‘Gravitational Crank Coupling; (GCC) and ‘Cycle of Continuous Lithosphere Regeneration’ (CLR)