Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics

[Dave]

Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
J. Marvin Herndon
Transdyne Corporation
San Diego, California 92131 USA
June 30, 2005

Abstract
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
continental 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.
Communications: [e-mail] NuclearPlanet.com
Key Words: plate tectonics, geodynamics, protoplanet, Earth expansion, subduction

Introduction
For more than a century, scientists have recognized that opposing margins of continents
fit together in certain ways and display geological and palaeobiological evidence of having in the past been joined. In the nineteenth century, Suess1
envisioned a vast palaeocontinent that had broken up and partially subsided into the ocean floor. Suess’s
concept was subsequently recognized as untenable because continental rock is less dense
than ocean floor basalt. Early in the twentieth century, Wegener2 also proposed that the
continents at one time had been united, but subsequently had separated and drifted
through the ocean floor to their present positions. Wegener’s theory of continental drift,
generally not accepted for half a century, was revived in the 1960s, mainly as the result of
investigations of oceanic topography3-6 and palaeomagnetism7-9, and modified to become
plate tectonics theory.

Widely accepted at present despite certain unfounded fundamental assumptions, plate
tectonics theory is predicated upon the idea that ocean floor, continuously produced at
mid-oceanic ridges, moves like a conveyer belt, ultimately being subducted and recirculated by assumed convection currents in the mantle10-12. Indeed, compelling evidence, e.g., seafloor magnetic striations, exists to support the idea of seafloor being continuously produced at mid-oceanic ridges, moving away from the ridges and being subducted, for example, by entering oceanic trenches. To date, however, there is no direct, unambiguous evidence that mantle convection and/or mantle circulation actually
takes place; in fact, there is some evidence to the contrary13. Moreover, there is no
evidence that oceanic basalt can be repeatedly recycled through the mantle without being
substantially and irreversibly changed. Yet, mantle convection/circulation and basalt
recycling are fundamental necessities for the validity of plate tectonics. Furthermore,
plate tectonics theory does not in and of itself provide an energy source for geodynamic
activity.

In 1933, Hilgenberg14-15 first published his observation that, on a sphere with a radius of
about one half of the Earth's present radius, the continents more-or-less fit together like
pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and, notably, form a uniform, continuous shell. Ideas that, at
some time in the past, the Earth's radius was significantly less than its present value and
that the separation of the continents occurs as a consequence of volume expansion of the
Earth have been discussed for more than half a century16-20. As an alternative to plate
tectonics theory, classical Earth expansion theory, as espoused by Carey21 and others, has
met with resistance because of the lack of knowledge of an energy source of sufficient
magnitude and because it is predicated upon the idea that Earth expansion occurs mainly
along mid-oceanic ridges and occurred during the last 200 million years, as the oldest
ocean floor is no older than that22. Moreover, some argue, geological folding observed in
various places, including in many mountain ranges, appears indicative of lateral stress
rather than vertical uplifting.

Neither plate tectonics theory nor classical Earth expansion theory, I submit, is an
adequate description of the dynamics of the Earth as a whole. Here, I propose a strikingly
new theory that reconciles certain elements of those two seemingly divergent theories into one unified theory, designated Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics. I propose
that whole-Earth dynamics, as viewed from the surface, is characterized primarily by the
following two distinct, but related, processes: (i) the formation of decompression cracks
(often near continental margins), and (ii) the in-filling of those cracks with basalt
(produced by volume decompression in the mantle), which is extruded mainly at midoceanic ridges, solidifies and traverses the ocean floor by gravitational creep to regions of
lower gravitational potential energy, ultimately plunging downward into distant
decompression cracks, thus emulating subduction23. As shown below, much of the
evidence presented in support of plate tectonics supports Whole-Earth Decompression
Dynamics, but without necessitating mantle convection/circulation. Moreover, the
timescale for Earth decompression is not constrained to the last 200 million years, the
maximum age of the current ocean floor.

Protoplanetary Origin of Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
Planets generally consist of concentric shells of matter, but there has been no adequate
geophysical explanation to account for the Earth’s non-contiguous crustal continental
rock layer, except by assuming that the Earth in the distant past was smaller and
subsequently expanded. The principal impediment to the idea of Earth expansion has
been the lack of knowledge of a mechanism that could provide the necessary energy24-25
without departing from the known physical laws of nature26. In 1982, Scheidegger27
stated concisely the prevailing view, "Thus, if expansion on the postulated scale occurred
at all, a completely unknown energy source must be found." Recently, I disclosed just
such an energy source that follows from fundamental considerations23.
The so-called “standard model” of Solar System formation, which assumes the
condensation of dust from a tenuous nebular and subsequent agglomeration into
successively larger grains, pebbles, planetesimals and then planets is wrong and leads to
the contradiction of terrestrial planets having insufficiently massive cores. Instead, I have
shown the consistency of Eucken’s 1944 concept28 of planets raining out in the central
regions of hot, gaseous protoplanets29. The Earth, together with its complement of lost
primordial gases, comprises a protoplanetary mass remarkably similar to the mass of
Jupiter. I have shown that formation of Earth, from within a Jupiter-like protoplanet, will
account for the compression of the rocky Earth to about 64 percent of its current radius,
yielding a closed, contiguous continental shell with whole-Earth decompression
commencing upon the subsequent removal of its protoplanetary gaseous shell23.
Gravitational energy of compression, stored during the Jupiter-like protoplanetary stage,
may be seen as the primary energy source for subsequent Earth decompression during its
approach toward a new hydrostatic equilibrium. To a much lesser extent, nuclear fission
energy and radioactive decay energy30-32 may augment the stored energy of
protoplanetary compression, heating the interior of the Earth, and compensating to some
extent for the cooling that results from decompression.

Principles of Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics
After being stripped of its great overburden of volatile protoplanetary constituents,
presumably by the high temperatures and/or by the violent activity, such as T Tauri-phase
solar wind33-36, associated with the thermonuclear ignition of the Sun, the Earth would
inevitably begin to decompress, to rebound toward a new hydrostatic equilibrium. One
may envision the initial rebounding to result in a global system of major primary
decompression cracks appearing in the rigid crust as the internal shells expand,
decompressing to lower densities. The locations of initial primary decompression cracks
are identified presently as the basalt feeders for the global, mid-oceanic ridge system.
As the Earth subsequently decompresses and swells from within, the deep interior shells
may be expected to adjust to changes in radius and curvature by plastic deformation. As
the Earth decompresses, the area of the Earth’s surface increases by the formation of
secondary decompression cracks often located near the continental margins and 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.

Whole-Earth decompression should have commenced promptly upon removal of
protoplanetary hydrogen and other volatile constituents. However, the timescale for the
Earth’s full rebounding from protoplanetary compression may be long, even extending
into the present; witness, for example, the relatively minor rebounding of northern land
masses, following post-Pleistocene deglaciation, being measured in thousands of years37.
A much, much longer time may be expected for rebounding from compression due to
protoplanetary-scale loading by approximately 300 Earth masses of volatile constituents.
The timescale for decompression may be related to the pre-degasification protoplanetary
thermal state, to the dynamics of degasification, especially the cooling that might have
been involved, to mantle properties, to the cooling that results from decompression, and
to the time required to replace heat lost by decompression cooling.

The Earth appears to be approaching the terminus of its decompression. If the Earth is
presently decompressing, length of day measurements should show progressive
lengthening. Such measurements, made with increasing precision over the last several
decades, show virtually no current lengthening38, implying no current secondary
decompression crack formation. The formation of secondary decompression cracks might
be episodic, though, like the release of stress by major earthquakes, or secondary crack
formation may have ended forever. But major decompression cracks are still
conspicuously evident, for example, circum-pacific trenches, such as the Mariana Trench.
The complementary Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics process of basalt extrusion
and crack in-filling, however, continues at present.

Secondary crack formation and the in-filling of those cracks are complementary elements
of the same Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics process. Even in the absence of
current secondary decompression crack formation, an estimate may be obtained of recentperiod Earth decompression by considering the amount of in-filling basalt presently being
produced. One may make the rough assumption that, over an arbitrary period of time, the
rate of secondary crack volume formation at the Earth’s surface is equal to the volume
rate of extruded basalt. The volume rate of extruded basalt is thus related to the rate of decompression. The high-end estimate of 15 km3 /yr for current basalt production leads to
an estimated annual percent increase in radius of only about 5 X 10-10, a value not
inconsistent with length of day measurements. Much higher basalt extrusion rates
undoubtedly have occurred in the past, as the present estimated annual percent increase in
radius, if constant over the lifetime of the Earth, would have only resulted in a 2 percent
increase in radius.

Geological Features
Plate tectonics, despite certain unfounded underlying assumptions, has enjoyed wide
acceptance because it appears to describe many of the geological features that result from
Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics. There are subtle and profound differences,
though, as shown by the following brief remarks on global and regional geological
features.

The principal surface manifestation of the Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics is the
in-filling of secondary decompression cracks, located mainly near continents, with basalt
extruded from mid-oceanic ridges. The following observations of oceanic features and
the consequences of down-plunging slabs, usually arrayed as supporting plate tectonics
theory, are, I submit, consequences of Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics: ocean
floor magnetic striations, transform faults, island arc formation, guyot formation,
contributions of seamounts to coastal geology, and the generation and distribution of
earthquakes. These have the same basis and understanding in Whole-Earth
Decompression Dynamics as in plate tectonics. But there are global, fundamental
differences between Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics and plate tectonics,
especially as pertains to the growth of ocean floor, to the origin of oceanic trenches, to
the fate of down-plunging slabs, and to the displacement of continents.

In Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics mid-oceanic ridges are thought to be the sites
of the original, global system of primary decompression cracks which serve as persistent
extrusion-basalt feeder-channels. There is no evidence that the mid-oceanic ridge system
represents the edges of mantle-convection cells as implied by plate tectonics. Ancillary
basalt extrusion also occurs from hot-spots, non-mid-oceanic-ridge feeders, such as those
responsible for the formation of Hawaii and Iceland. Hot-spot basalt may ultimately fill
secondary decompression cracks or it may add to continental mass directly or as
incorporated terranes.

In Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics, oceanic trenches, such as the Mariana Trench
and others that rim the pacific basin, are thought to be surface manifestations of
decompression cracks, more or less continuously being formed as the Earth decompresses
and, notably, continuously being in-filled. Indeed, mantle seismic tomography results can
be interpreted as imaging in-filled decompression cracks. There is no evidence that
oceanic trenches represent the edges of mantle-convection cells as implied by plate
tectonics and no reason to believe that the more-or-less lateral motion of moving seafloor
can in and of itself produce trenches. In Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics, oceanic
troughs are thought to be partially in-filled decompression cracks.

Since Suess1, understanding the process of mountain building has been hampered by
conflicting evidence in a complex geological framework39 and by limitations imposed
through incorrect theories. For example, plate tectonics, while allowing for the
development of lateral stress, is capable of admitting only asymmetric uplift by plate
underthrust. Similarly, classical Earth expansion allows for symmetric uplift, but not
lateral stress. In Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics, on the other hand, both
processes are possible. Lateral stress occurs for the same reasons as in plate tectonics and,
additionally, occurs as a consequence of the formation of secondary decompression
cracks. Symmetric uplift may also occur during decompression and asymmetric uplift by
plate underthrust.

Grand Overview
There has long been a duality of thought on the nature of the circumstances that gave rise
to the planets of our Solar System. In 1944, on the basis of thermodynamic
considerations, Eucken28 suggested core-formation in the Earth, as a consequence of
successive condensation from solar matter, on the basis of relative volatility, from the
central region of a hot, gaseous protoplanet, with molten iron metal first raining out at the
center. For a time hot, gaseous protoplanets were discussed40-42, but emphasis changed
abruptly with the publication by Cameron43 of his diffuse solar nebula models at
pressures of about 10-5 bar.

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the so-called “equilibrium condensation” model
was contrived and widely promulgated44. That model was predicated upon the
assumption that the mineral assemblage characteristic of ordinary chondrite meteorites
formed as condensate from a gas of solar composition at pressures of about 10-5 bar.
During those years, scientists almost universally believed that the Earth is like an
ordinary chondrite meteorite. Consequently, the idea that dust agglomerated into grains,
pebbles, rocks and then into planetesimals seemed, superficially at least, to explain planet
formation and planet composition. The problem, as I have shown, is that “equilibrium
condensation model” is wrong45 and the “standard model” of solar system formation
would result in the terrestrial planets having insufficiently massive cores, a profound
contradiction to observations29. Massive cores are instead indicative of terrestrial-planetcomposition-similarity to enstatite chondrite meteorites, whose highly-reduced state of
oxidation may be thermodynamically stable in solar matter only at elevated temperatures
and pressures29,46,47.

Rather than the presently popular idea of Earth formation solely from the accumulation of
small bodies subsequent to the dissipation of hydrogen and other volatiles into space, I
have suggested29, as has Eucken28 and others, that, prior to the ignition of thermonuclear
reactions in the Sun, the proto-planetary Earth formed as a giant gaseous Jupiter-like
proto-planet. This concept is more consistent with observations of close-in gas giants in
other planetary systems48. Such a giant proto-planetary-Earth would be expected to have
a differentiated core of enstatite-chondrite-like alloy-plus-rock overlain by nearly 300
Earth-masses consisting of hydrogen, noble gases, and other volatile constituents. Under
such a great overburden of gases and ices, the relatively non-volatile chondrite-like alloyplus-rock constituents, which now comprise most of the Earth, would be compressed by
gravity to about 64% of the present day Earth radius23.

Decompression of the Earth may be seen as a direct consequence of the subsequent
removal of hydrogen and other volatile constituents, presumably during the
thermonuclear ignition of the Sun. After being stripped of such a great overburden, the
Earth would rebound, tending toward a new hydrostatic equilibrium. Gravitational energy
of compression, stored during the Jupiter-like proto-planetary stage, may be seen as the
primary energy source for driving geotectonic activity, augmented to a much lesser extent
by nuclear fission and radioactive decay energy49.

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. This is Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics.

References
1. Suess, E. (1885) Das Antlitz der Erde (F. Tempky, Prague and Vienna).
2. Wegener, A. L. (1912) Geol. Rundschau 3, 276-292.
3. Dietz, R. S. (1961) Nature 190, 854-857.
4. Hess, H. H. (1962) in Petrologic Studies: A Volume in Honor of A. F. Buddington
(Geological Society of America, Boulder), pp. 599.
5. Le Pichon, X. (1968) J. Geophys. Res. 73, 3661-3697.
6. Wilson, J. T. (1965) Nature 207, 343-347.
7. Vine, F. J. & Matthews, D. H. (1963) Nature 199, 947-949.
8. Blackett, P. M. S. (1961) Proc. R. Soc. Lond A263, 1-30.
9. Creer, K. M., Irving, E. & Runcorn, S. K. (1957) Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond.
A250, 144-156.
10. Peltier, W. B. (1989) Mantle Convection (Gordon and Breach, New York).
11. Davies, G. F. (1977) J.R. Astron. Soc. 49, 459.
12. Runcorn, S. K. (1965) Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A258, 228-251.
13. Yoder, H. S., Jr. (1990) J. Volcan. and Geotherm. Res. 43, 1-36.
14. Hilgenberg, O. C. (1933) Vom wachsenden Erdball (Giessmann and Bartsch.,
Berlin).
15. Hilgenberg, O. C. (1962) Neues Jahrb. Geol. Palaont. Abh. 116, 1-56.
16. Scalera, G. (1990) Phys. Earth Plan. Inter. 62, 126-140.
17. Carey, S. W. (1976) The Expanding Earth (Elsevier, Amsterdam).
18. Creer, K. M. (1965) Nature 205, 539-544.
19. Egyed, L. (1957) Geol. Rdsch. 46, 101-121.
20. Halm, J. K. E. (1935) J. Astron. Soc. S. Afk. 4, 1-28.
21. Carey, S. W. (1988) Theories of the Earth and Universe - A History of Dogma in
the Earth Sciences (Stanford University Press, Stanford).
22. Khramov, A. N. (1982) Paleomagnetology (Springer-Verlag, Heidleberg).
23. Herndon, J. M. (2004) arXiv:astro-ph/0408539 30 Aug 2004.
24. Cook, M. A. & Eardley, A. J. (1961) J. Geophys. Res. 66, 3907-3912.
25. Beck, A. E. (1961) J. Geophys. Res. 66, 1485-1490.
26. Jordan, P. (1971) in International Series of Monographs in Natural Philosophy
(Pergamon, Oxford), Vol. 37, pp. 202.
27. Scheidegger, A. E. (1982) Principles of Geodynamics (Springer-Verlag,
Heidelberg).
28. Eucken, A. (1944) Nachr. Akad. Wiss. Goettingen, Math.-Kl., 1-25.
29. Herndon, J. M. (2004) arXiv:astro-ph/0408151 9 Aug 2004.
30. Hollenbach, D. F. & Herndon, J. M. (2001) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 11085-
11090.
31. Herndon, J. M. (1994) Proc. R. Soc. Lond A 455, 453-461.
32. Herndon, J. M. (2003) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 3047-3050.
33. Lehmann, T., Reipurth, B. & Brander, W. (1995) Astron. Astrophys. 300.
34. Herbig, G. H. (1962) Adv. Astron. Astrophys. 1, 47.
35. Joy, A. H. (1945) Astrophys. J. 102, 168.
36. Lada, C. T. (1985) Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 23, 269.
37. Mc Connell, R. K. (1965) J. Geophys. Res. 70, 5171-5188.
38. Chao, B. F. (1994) in The Geoid and Its Geophysical Interpretation, ed. Christou,
P. V. a. N. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida), pp. 285-298.
39. Ollier, C. D. & Pain, C. F. (2000) The Origin of Mountains (Routeledge, London).
40. Kuiper, G. P. (1951) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 37, 1-14.
41. Kuiper, G. P. (1951) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 37, 383-393.
42. Urey, H. C. (1952) The Planets (Yale University Press, New Haven).
43. Cameron, A. G. W. (1963) Icarus 1, 339.
44. Larimer, J. W. & Anders, E. (1970) Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 34, 367-387.
45. Herndon, J. M. (1978) Proc. R. Soc. Lond A363, 283-288.
46. Herndon, J. M. & Suess, H. E. (1976) Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 40, 395-399.
47. Herndon, J. M. (2005) Current Science (India) 88, 1034-1037.
48. Beer, M. E., King, A. R., Livio, M. & Pringle, J. E. (2004) arXiv:astroph/0407476 22July 2004.
49. Herndon, J. M. (1993) J. Geomag. Geoelectr. 45, 423-437.

[Dave]

21st Century Earth Dynamics Part 1


21st Century Earth Dynamics Part2

[Dave]

The Fluid Dynamics of Whole Earth Decompression Theory
January 1st, 2011
David Freed MLS(ASCP)^cm
Originally posted as part of: ‘Expanding Earth Theory and Noah’ (November 6th, 2006)

With respect to the scientific community, I offer the following theory for serious consideration. Dr. J. Marvin Herndon said in a 2006 radio interview, when you are on the right track the pieces simply fit together.

The Fluid Dynamics of Whole Earth Decompression Theory (FD-WEDT) adds an overlooked dimension to an expanding earth. It also provides additional mechanism for an expanding earth through decompression and suggests a wetter consequence than formerly considered.

Fluid Dynamics demand
1. The sequence of decompression was violently rapid.
2. That the gasses, followed immediately by the fluids, would have exploded from their confines cracking ‘Planetoid Pangea’ like an egg.
3. Fluid dynamics demand that the gasses, followed immediately by the fluids, would have reached their hydrostatic equilibriums more rapidly than the semi-solids of mantel decompression.
4. Transforming Planetoid Pangea into an ocean planet, for an unspecified period of time, until the continued decompression of the mantel pushed the tectonic plates up through the surface of the waters as they continued to grow in elevation.

Ponder
The crust of earth is broken into individual continental plates separated by obviously younger sea floor basalts. This observation has first fueled plate tectonics and continental drift theory. Then, later fueled the theories of expanding earth. However, no plausible mechanism to power either concept had ever been suggested until “Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics” J. Marvin Herndon PhD. 2005. (WEDD)1


As a Geophysicist, he pursued an understanding of the primordial conditions that facilitated the mineral components of earth to exist in their present composition, concentration, and density. His calculations suggest that planet earth originally ‘rained out’ from within a large gaseous Protoplanet that appeared much like planet Jupiter. Arnold Euken suggested these exact same conclusions in 1944 Germany.2,3

1. In fact, both scientist paint Protoplanet Earth as:

a. Potentially 300 earth volumes in size
b. The rocky planetoid at the center of this gas giant rained out from within this gas giant.
c. This process easily explains why the planetoid’s inner core is concentrated with heavy elements; the outer core is of iron and nickel, the mineral components formed to their present composition, concentration, and density.
d. The gravity well and pressures formed by such an enormous size Protoplanet causing the central planetoid to be compressed to approximately 65% of earth’s present size.

In 1933, German scientist Otto Hilgenberg demonstrated, with a series of models, that the zig-saw puzzle fit of the continental plates fit together across the Pacific as well as the Atlantic to form a planetoid approximately 65% smaller than earth’s present size.1,4

Further evidence for this 65% smaller planetoid actually comes from the mistaken theory of super-continent Pangea. The notion of a super-continent grew from the observations of apparent land bridges across oceans.5 The obvious zig-saw puzzle fit across the Atlantic is apparent to everyone. However, continental drift theory has the continents swimming their way around the globe mating up in multiple combinations to include all their land bridge evidence; while a 65% smaller planetoid with all of the continents fitting together to form a continuous concentric crust shell simultaneously satisfies all the evidence. Super-continent Pangea was actually planetoid Pangea.

2. The next step in for WEDD involves the primordial conditions of the entire solar system.

a. Herndon sees an eruptive solar event sweeping the inner solar system.
b. Herndon suggests that this may be the moment when the sun first ignited, but I amend that to include any eruptive event of sufficient size.
c. The blast wave from this eruptive event clearing the inner solar system.
d. The blast wave ejecting gaseous atmospheres from the inner planets.

3. Once Protoplanet Earth’s giant gaseous atmosphere was reduced:

a. The gravity well and pressures upon planetoid Pangea reduced.
b. Followed by a decompression of once planetoid Pangea into present day earth.
c. Evident by secondary decompression cracks.

4. WEDD satisfies the mechanism for:

a. Why earth minerals exist today in their present composition, concentration, and density.
b. An expanding earth
c. Continued spreading of the ocean sea floors from mid oceanic ridges.
d. Continental drift and plate tectonics
e. Earthquakes
f. Volcanology
g. A-biotic Oil Theory

The Fluid Dynamics supplements the decompression sequence with the following supportive evidence.

1. An eruptive solar event:

a. Any eruptive event that could sweep the inner solar system as Herndon suggest had to be sudden and catastrophic.
b. The ejection of Protoplanet Earth’s giant gaseous atmosphere also sudden and catastrophic.

2. A sudden and catastrophic decompression of once planetoid Pangea demand that the gasses, followed immediately by the fluids, would have exploded from their confines cracking ‘Planetoid Pangea’ like an egg.

A logical and obvious prediction of Le Chatelier’s Principle: If you disturb a system that is at equilibrium, a change will spontaneously occur to restore the system to a state of equilibrium.6

Testable evidence for this is easily gathered from the simplest of observations.

1. Purchase a carbonated beverage at sea level.
2. Bring it to my living room in the Colorado Rockies. Elevation 8278’ or better yet – take it to any mountain pass near me.
3. Now look directly down the barrel of the container and open it.
4. This simple change in atmospheric pressure has a sudden and catastrophic impact on the contents of the container.
5. The gasses, followed immediately by the fluids, explode from the container.
6. This simple observation is easily repeatable and easy to document.
7. Predictions from this simple observation supported by Fluid Dynamics Boyle’s Law, Dalton’s Law Charles’s Law, Graham’s law, Henry’s Law, Ideal Gas Law, Combined Gas Law, Kinetic Theory of Gasses, and Le chatelier's principle.6-11

Correlating my simple observation to planetary geophysics requires the assumption that planetoid Pangea’s mantel contained potentially high quantities of gaseous and fluidic materials to produce an explosive event.

Japanese researchers have investigated the moisture content of the earth’s mantel. Measurements indicate that the average predicted H2O content of the mantel to be about 0.19% by weight. Based on what they witnessed in their lab, the researchers concluded that more water probably exists deep within the Earth than is present on Earth's surface—as much as five times more.12
Earth today is 2/3rds Ocean, that is sometimes miles deep, and yet, these Japanese researchers predict as much as five times more water is still trapped within the mantel of the earth. Even today water escapes the mantel as water columns venting from the sea floors and through every volcanic eruption.

Carry this assumption back to the first moments of decompression and fluid dynamics demand that the gasses, followed immediately by the fluids, would have exploded from their confines initially and subsequently providing an additional mechanism for an expanding earth through decompression.

3. Fluid dynamics demand that the gasses, followed immediately by the fluids, would have reached their hydrostatic equilibriums more rapidly than the semi-solids of mantel decompression and volcanic excretion.

This is just an obvious restatement of pre-existing gas law and fluid dynamics.6-11,13 The difference here is in the predicted impact on the planetary scale during the decompression sequence.Which is:

4. Transforming Planetoid Pangea into an ocean planet, for an unspecified period of time, until the continued decompression of the mantel pushed the tectonic plates up through the surface of the waters as they continued to grow in elevation.

The rigidity of trying to maintain the earth’s diameter constant throughout the ages has caused many false assumptions. The continental plates never traveled the distances suggested by continental drift theory and super-continent Pangea never existed on a lopsided planet that would have wobbled its way through space.

FD-WEDT corrects both false assumptions, as well as, providing a plausible mechanism for a global flood event. Answering the questions of where did all the water come from and just where did the water go when it receded.

As empirical evidence to support this conclusion, I offer Dr Herndon’s secondary decompression cracks. Cracks resulting from the decompression sequence, forming primarily at the boundaries of the tectonic plates and expanding sea floor basalts. Cracks then erased by the infilling by expanding sea floor basalts spreading from their mid-oceanic ridges.1

Remaining secondary cracks are seen today as oceanic trenches. To this list, I add both the Grand Canyon and the new decompression crack forming in the Horn of Africa between the Red Sea Rift and the Gulf of Arden Rift.

The Grand Canyon is just another secondary decompression crack that the Colorado River naturally fell into carved by the mass exodus of waters from across the land. Examine its location between the Colorado Plateau and the 6000’ drop to the Arizona desert floor.

The most recent secondary decompression crack appeared almost overnight, in 2005, as a 60km-long rift ripped the country of Ethiopia and growing 13 feet wide in just three weeks. Geologists agree that this crack will eventually lead to Ethiopia's eastern part tearing off from the rest of Africa and a new sea filling in the gap.14,15

Further evidence of the decompression sequence is seen in the Sea Mount record. The size of mount combined with the interval between mounts must give evidence to rate of expansion and direction of sea floor movement.16

However, the grandest scale of observable evidence is in the geophysical formation of the Colorado Plateau, The Grand Canyon, and the American West in general. In the accepted version of events tells the story of how the Rocky Mountain Range pushed its way up in elevation along with the entire Colorado Plateau. This uplifting displaced the inland sea that once occupied Wyoming. During the millions of years of growing and stressing to lift the highest peaks to their zenith, slow and gradual erosion carved out the American West. Just look at the millions of years to carve the Grand Canyon alone.17

The towering formations of Utah’s Monument Valley, Bryce Canyon Formations, and the sand stone sculpting of natural arches near Moab Utah are all said to have been carved over the millions of years, of freeze thaw cycles, and slow continuous erosion. Harder soils being left behind as the softer ground eroded away.18-20

Countless washes, cuts, and gulches dominate the western topography. All formed by erosion. The height of the formations over the scale of thousands of square miles add up to a lot of missing soil. An absolute unimaginable amount of soil is missing. Where did this soil go? The only explanation has to be that it all went downstream. That takes us through the Grand Canyon. Now to the previous missing soil, we must add the volume of missing soil from the Grand Canyon itself. Further downstream we go and I ask you to Ponder this question: Where is the delta?

Millions of years of slowly eroding all that missing soil out of the American West should have built a delta the size of Texas.21 Instead, the Colorado River terminates into a relatively deep box canyon shaped Gulf of Baja California; which is void of the mysterious missing soil. Therefore the current version does not satisfy this question of the delta.

Also from the American West I offer the evidence of ‘balance rocks.’ There are a few teetering boulders throughout the West famed by tourist. However, if you spend time in the West you soon realize that balance rocks come in infant combinations scattered through the entire West. Yet conventional thinking tells us that all these balance rocks survived the millions of earthquakes required to grow the Colorado Plateau and the Rocky Mountains.

On the contrary, I offer again the simplest of observations. A magician can yank the silk tablecloth from under the china table setting. However; my only hypothetical attempt would throw most of the china crashing to the floor, in a sudden and catastrophic event, but even I could leave a few things standing, just as a sudden and catastrophic creation of the American West would leave balance rocks standing in infinite combinations.

A sudden and catastrophic uplifting of the Rocky Mountain Range and the Colorado Plateau appears visually consistent with the American West. Huge sections of crust tilted up from uplifting pressures below. Protruding out of the ground in an angular display of layered rock strata.

Some soils may have become supersaturated submerged beneath the waters of Oceana. The subsequence rising of the continental plates through the surface of Oceana, in a sudden and catastrophic manor, would have caused a massive receding of waters flowing from the surface of the newly elevated land mass. Torrents of receding waters potentially powerful enough to carve the American West and flushed the missing soils far out into the Pacific instead of forming a delta, while leaving balance rocks throughout the area.

In conclusion, FD-WEDT compliments the decompression sequence with the application of just simple basic principles to better define the decompression sequence. It also adds supportive mechanism for an expanding earth through decompression. Suggesting that variations in equilibrium points between gasses and fluids verses semi-solids would dictate that Protoplanet Pangea submerged beneath the flood waters of water world Oceana, for an unspecified period of time, until the continued decompression of the semi-solid planetary mantel pushed the land masses back up through the waters surface as they continued to grow in elevation to present day earth.


References:

1. J. Marvin Herndon, Whole-earth decompression dynamics, 10 December 2005, Current Science, Vol. 89, NO. 11

2. Eucken, A., Physikalisch-chemische Betrachtungen über die früheste Entwicklungsgeschichte der Erde. Nachr. Akad. Wiss. 1944, Goettingen, Math.-Kl. (used from secondary sources)

3. J. Marvin Herndon, Protoplanetary Earth Formation: Further Evidence and Geophysical Implications, August 30, 2004, understandearth.com

4. Hilgenberg, O. C., Vom wachsenden Erdball, 1933, Giessmann and Bartsch, Berlin (used from secondary sources)

5. Lois Van Wagner, The Great Continental Drift Mystery, 2001, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute

6. Brady, J., E., Holum, J., R., Fundamentals of Chemistry, 3rd ed., 1988, John Wiley & Sons Inc. N.Y.

7. Segal, B., G., Chemistry Experiment and Theory, 2nd ed., 1989, John Wiley & Sons Inc. N.Y.

8. Mark J. McCready, Professor and Chair of Chemical Engineering, Introduction to hydrodynamicStability, University of Notre Dame

9. G. K. Batchelor, University of Cambridge, An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, May 2000, Cambridge University Press

10. Kleinstreuer, North Carolina State University, Engineering fluid dynamics: an interdisciplinary systems approach, May 1997, Cambridge University Press

11 Drazin P.G., Hydrodynamic Stability, 2002, Cambridge University Press

12. Ben Harder, Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas, March 7 2002, National Geographic News

13. J. Wang and D. D. Joseph, Potential flow of a second order fluid over a sphere or an ellipse, 2003, Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota, J. Fluid Mech., 511, 201-215.

14. MacGregor Campbell, Giant crack in Africa formed in just days, 04 November 2009, New Scientist: Environment 22:17 04

15. Sean Alfano, New Ocean Forming In Africa: Researchers Observe Formation Of Ocean Basin In Ethiopian Desert, Dec. 10, 2005 CBSNEWS tech, ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/10/tech/main1115779.shtml

16. USGS, The long trail of the Hawaiian hotspot, May 1999, United States Geological Society: pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/Hawaiian.html

17. Richard A. Young and Earle E. Spamer, Colorado River Origin and Evolution, Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Grand Canyon National Park in June 2000, 2001, Grand Canyon Association

18. USGS, Uplift and Erosion of the Plateau, Geological Survey Bulletin 1393: The Geological Story of Arches National Park, January 2007, usgs.gov

19. National Parks Service (NPS) U.S. Department of the Interior, Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah. 2010, www.nps.gov

20. Walker, J. D., and Geissman, J. W., Geologic Time Scale: Geological Society of America, 2009, Geological Society of America, 3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradoplateau/timescale

21. Seybold, H., Andrade, J., Herrmann, H., Modeling river delta formation, 2007, The National Academy of Sciences of the USA, Geophysics, (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 October 23; 104(43): 16804–16809)

The Fluid Dynamics of Whole Earth Decompression Theory