The Formation of Earth's Climate and Space Travel
- RICARDO GOMES RODRIGUES
- 10 de jan. de 2024
- 17 min de leitura
Atualizado: 21 de jan. de 2024
The idea that there is a glacial frigid period is a distortion, leading one to believe that there is an "ice age" that alternates with warmer periods. There are no ice ages! Only variations in emissions from the Earth's radioactive core. In some periods there is a significant drop in average temperatures; in others an increase, and these periods alternate, mingle and vary constantly, as can be seen from the Milankovitch curves below.
What I mean is that there is no frigid period where temperatures drop to the point of covering the planet with a glacial cape, making everything and everyone shiver from the cold. There is no such thing! These periods, when average temperatures drop significantly, do not mean cold, per se, but hot and dry in the equatorial, tropical and subtropical regions, and the temperate regions and near the south and north poles become colder and drier.
The key to understanding these cyclical climatic variations as demonstrated by the Milankovitch curves is to consider not only the fall in average terrestrial temperatures, but also a significant decrease in evaporation levels, which in regions of higher latitudes cause an accumulation of precipitation, which causes the advance of glaciers.
In the equatorial and tropical regions the environment is dry, characterized by stable dry and hot weather with very stable skies, with very hot days and frigid nights, and this can last for months to years. Eventually, plumes from deep within Earth's powerful radioactive core cause emissions of energies that cause strong atmospheric disturbances from the colder northern regions toward the warmer south, expanding along the equator, following the rhythm of the Earth's staggering rotation around the Sun. As a consequence, that extremely stable atmospheric "wall" of Brigadeiro's sky collapses in a perfect storm, causing a formidable downpour with intense rains and levels of precipitation never seen before; since they can last for several weeks, causing floods of catastrophic proportions, causing falls of devastating masses that wash the land in immense alluvium.
An area of Brazil that catches my attention as an example of the consequences of this type of phenomenon is the immense crack of almost 40 km wide opened in the Guimarães plateau in Mato Grosso, which at the height of the Cuiabense lowlands; From the top of the Chapada dos Guimarães, it is possible to observe how the Cuiabá River was able to open a crack of such immense proportions in the relief of the Guimaraens Plateau.
The Cuiabá River as it stands today is quite modest for such a spectacular result, and at the same time so catastrophic for the relief of this region of Mato Grosso. Certainly, this is the result not only of modest monsoon rains as it is today, but of violent climatic "eruptions" with intense rains of catastrophic proportions that "regularly" throughout the geological ages (periods of thousands of years) afflict not only this region of Cuiabá, but the entire relief of Central Brazil. The effects of these phenomena of the so-called ice age in Brazil, not only open formidable cracks in the relief of the Brazilian Plateaus, but also wash and silt up their highest peaks, cutting them off with incredible alluvial washes, turning them into "Chapadas". These "Chapadas" can be observed everywhere, not only in Mato Grosso, but also in Goiás, Minas Gerais, Bahia, in short, throughout Central Brazil.
The Milankovitch curves should not be seen as a historical series of climatic variations of the last million years. Such extensive historical data series lose their meaning, since they do not reveal the full complexity of climate variations. See if it's possible to calculate a data average of 1 million years? The statistics of mathematics has its limitations. The Milankovitch data reveal only variations in emissions from the Earth's radioactive iron core, not climatic or surface temperature variations of the lithosphere.
The problem lies in the intermediate data that do not reveal what happens between extreme points up (warmer) or down (colder) of the Milankovitch curves, hastily deducing that there were (or are) cyclical periods from 80,000 cold years to 20,000 warm years, borrowing from statistics the famous 80-20 rule for stock calculations. The weather is not storable! What I mean by this is that in a period of 1 million years the climatic variations are so intense that, statistically, anything can happen. Following the Milankovitch curves, what actually happened to the Earth's climate? The answer lies not in climate variations, but in variations in emissions from the Earth's radioactive core.
Milankovitch demonstrated in his work the statistical emission and decay (cooling) curves of the core of Planet Earth. But, the question remains: what actually happened to the Earth's climate as a result of this decay (cooling) of our planet's core?
The answer lies in the intense climatic variation that does not allow us to clearly establish that in fact there were regular cycles from 80,000 cold years to as many 20,000 warm years. What can be assumed is that there were cold and dry periods in the high latitudes, and hot and dry periods in the equatorial and tropical regions, followed by devastating storms that expanded along the equatorial axis, as well as expansion, advance and retreat of glaciers in the regions near the north and south poles.
The geologically observed lowering and elevation of sea levels are local, not global phenomena.
To imagine that the immense amount of ocean water that is a result of the cooling of the planet can decrease or increase drastically is an exaggeration. In the end, whether there can be a global lowering of sea levels; The question that comes next is where did this immense amount of water go? Accumulated in glaciers? This would be to give too much climatic relevance to the effects of cooling at high latitudes, since in contrast to the increase of glaciers near the poles is the drying up in equatorial and tropical regions, which are followed by formidable downpours.
If glaciers are periodically accumulated in the polar regions; Formidable alluvial floods impact the tropics. So where is all this water from a supposed lowering of the level of the oceans going?
The level of the oceans remains more or less constant due to their high volume. Variations in coastal levels in the region of the State of Florida in the United States, near Miami, are local phenomena resulting from climatic variations, but they cannot be taken either globally or as a typical sequence of the variation in ocean levels.
We must not forget that the phenomena of the Earth's climatic variations go hand in hand with the consequent variations in its relief. For this reason, climate and relief go together to form a relief-climate system. But then, what causes Florida's shoreline variations?
Answer; the variations in emissions from the radioactive core of Planet Earth! The Earth's lithosphere is a small cap on top of a smoldering radioactive core that suffers the shaking consequences of volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, and everything else that shakes from the air to the sea, forced both by emissions from the Earth's radioactive core and by gravitational forces, affecting both relief and climate.
The variations in the coastlines result from these local vibrations of Planet Earth, not meaning that there has in fact been a global lowering of the level of the oceans. After all, where would so much water go?
For those who live on an extensive plain, and make a 360-degree turn looking at the horizon; no doubt for this person the Earth is flat, and all the climatic effects that affect them come from the Sun, the vegetation, and/or the rivers that make up this extremely flat environment in which they live.
This may be a classic example of the flat-earther error of reasoning from classical antiquity applied to today's environmental and climate issues. This flat-Earth error of today's climatologists is to consider the phenomena of Nature as local events and not global.
When this flat-Earth point of view is generalized to explain the movement of glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere, then we are at the mercy of the inhabitants of the high latitudes of Planet Earth in their "cultural" predominance over the present day, disregarding the global phenomena that happen in other parts of the Planet, which, if not invalidate, make the "climatic" explanations of the Universities of the northern region of our planet, closer to the North Pole, as the starting point that explains not only natural phenomena, but also, to constitute a northern, dogmatic, ideological and pamphleteering science that aims to reinforce these cultural "predominances" that the United States and Europe try to foist on us as the maximum of scientific truths.
The movements of glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere, close to the Arctic, are the result of the sharp drop in average variations in global temperatures, due to lower emissions in the Earth's radioactive core in its cooling process. However, this is not the complete description of this cooling phenomenon that northerners in the high latitudes insist on calling the "ice age."
The advance of glaciers for those who live in the high latitudes does not mean that this is a global phenomenon. As average temperatures decline; In equatorial and tropical regions there is a dryness imposed by the lower levels of evaporation that create a hot and dry environment, raising a very stable "wall" of atmospheric air that can remain so for months, even years.
The persistence of these phenomena creates very hot dry days and cold nights. But an abrupt variation in the Earth's core is enough to cause an atmospheric disturbance that knocks down this climatic stability in a torrential downpour, which devastates the relief through formidable movements of blocks of land, and floods of alluvium, which almost immediately reshape the region's watersheds.
Just take a closer look at the relief and geography of the city of São Paulo, here in Brazil, and one can clearly see how the basins of the Tietê, Tamanduateí and Pinheiros rivers are being reshaped to create a wider basin, which through the geological ages of hundreds of thousands of years are detonating the spike of Paulista Avenue. leaving only a very faint fringe that separates the flood areas of the Pinheiros River, from those of Tamanduateí and Tietê on the other side of the 9 de Julho Avenue tunnel.
On the north side of the Tietê waterfront, at the height of Vila Maria, it can be noted that the limits of the Serra da Mantiqueira impose a restriction on the advance of erosion in that direction, blocking the floods to go in a south and west direction; pushing the flooded areas of the Pinheiros River towards the valley created on Avenida 9 de Julho on the one hand, and on the other, the joint action of the Tietê and Tamanduateí rivers are excavating from Tiradentes, 23 de Maio Avenue and surrounding areas to erode the artificial "continuation" of the 9 de Julho Avenue valley in the Bela Vista region, created by the tunnel under Avenida Paulista at the height of Masp.
These descriptions may be a good example of how climatic variations in tropical regions reshape watersheds through formidable floods during these periods of cooling, which the inhabitants of the higher latitudes insist on calling "ice ages." It can be seen that these northern visions of "ice ages", here in São Paulo, are detonating the spike of Paulista.
The conclusion is simple: climate is the persistence of the effects of the relief-climate system through the geological eras that explain the existence of deserts and forests, and not the local effects of the incidence of the Sun, the movement of glaciers, or even by imaginary variations in the level of the oceans.
In the early days of the formation of our Planet Earth, a smoldering core in contact with cold outer space expelled material forming a fragile contact surface.
The heavier chemical elements condensed, and were deposited in this area of contact between the nucleus and the boundaries of space. The lighter material rose above the heavier ones in the form of gases, and both were trapped by the force of gravity, forming a tenuous layer of contact between this primordial smoking core and the space aether.
In a subsequent moment, the heavier material deposited at the bottom of this fragile contact area, through the intense heat of the Earth's core, caused the chemical elements to evaporate, which, in contact with the tenuous colder atmosphere, condensed, precipitating back in liquid form towards the more solid material below.
Again the process was repeated; The intense heat continued to stimulate intense evaporation, which rose to the highest and coldest levels, precipitating in liquid form, similar to the sizzle of a pasty product in contact with a very hot griddle.
This process, repeated billions of times, carried out a spontaneous chemical separation; a more solid, tougher layer deposited at the bottom of contact with the core; A liquid layer was placed on top of the solid, and a more tenuous gaseous part was on top of them all.
The intense gravitational forces resulting from the planetary mass of this proto-planet Earth kept these elements, solids, liquids and gases, gravitating around the steaming core.
These physicochemical processes, repeated over and over again, were "refined" until a solid terrestrial "crust", a liquid "ocean" and an atmospheric "air" were formed.
Thus, these reactions established a physicochemical equilibrium relationship between the very hot terrestrial core; the solid and liquid crust with the atmospheric gaseous part.
These physicochemical reactions repeated the same ancestral processes as in the beginning: in contact with the crust heated by the core, the liquids evaporated and rose, and in contact with the colder gases they precipitated back in the form of rains and storms, thus forming a terrestrial proto-climate.
The core continued to expel plumes that rose through volcanic ducts in the crust, and depending on the speed, temperature and pressure formed harder rocks (granitic) that rose more slowly, forming the base of the Earth's crust.
The fastest rising elements formed an upper layer of more fragile volcanic rocks that were constantly eroded on contact with the surface. Again, over time, and with these processes being repeated over and over again, there was a stability of equilibrium in the physicochemical reactions, resulting in a complex specialization that formed the tectonic plates, the atmosphere and the Earth's climate.
However, the primordial basic process persisted; The warming of the tectonic plates caused the evaporation of the liquids, which rose and precipitated in the form of rain. This precipitation eroded the Earth's crusts, depositing salts on the bottom of oceans and valleys.
The upward movement of the core plumes, in defiance of gravitational forces, pushed the plates against each other, forming underneath the plates in contact with the hot core, a wake that recycled the surface chemicals back into the core, which were expelled back through the volcanic ducts in the form of eruptions. which, in turn, generated hard granitic rocks and a variety of more tenuous ones, expelling as a consequence a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere that in contact with constant rains precipitated, reacting with the rocks, ending up, in one way or another, at the bottom of the oceans.
It was not CO2 that was responsible for the formation and maintenance of the Earth's atmosphere and climate, but rather the repetitive and complex physicochemical processes originating in the Earth's core, which was slowly cooling.
You may notice that the Earth's atmosphere model is not at all like the "greenhouse" in a garden. The "greenhouse effect" of gardens is produced from temperatures "controlled" by the warming provided by the Sun.
This process of the "greenhouse effect" has nothing to do with the "continuous" formation of the atmosphere, and its most obvious consequence is the Earth's climate, which is the result of the "continuous" repetition of that ancestral physicochemical process described above: the heated core causes evaporation of liquids, which rises in the form of vapor and precipitates in the form of rains and storms.
The Sun has little to do with the Earth's climate, which is the result of physicochemical reactions from the cooling of the planet's core. Realize that there is a huge difference between the greenhouse effect that can affect the plants in a garden, and the complex formation of the Earth's climate. They are completely different processes!
The question that comes next is this: then do all the physicochemical processes of formation of Planet Earth apply to the formation of everything in the Universe? The answer is that there is no reason why we should be unique in the planetary formation of our Universe.
So, it doesn't matter if Suns, (Stars) or Planets, everything must follow the same physicochemical principles of formation. Why not! Following this reasoning, all the elements of the Universe begin as an immense smoldering nuclear reactor, and gradually come into contact with the cold space ether condensing a small layer at its edges that here on Earth we call the lithosphere (Earth's crust).
If our Sun doesn't have this little cap, it's because its physicochemical processes, although different, are similar. I mean that the atomic composition of the Sun was generated by the Universe in such a way that its revolting core is so hot and powerful that it does not generate solid elements, but rather, perhaps, liquid plasmas and radiation in the form of luminescence that would play the role of the gaseous here on Earth.
But as you can see, the "principle" is the same in the "cooling" process, that is, its ability to generate solid, liquid, and gaseous chemical elements. However, depending on the "dimensions" of the radioactive "furnace" generated in their formations, some elements become Stars (Suns) and others remain as Planets.
Some Planets like Jupiter may have had a promising start, but that faded over time to establish themselves as a gigantic gaseous "ball" without the strength to go ahead and become a Star (Sun). Then, our Sun established itself as the most powerful radioactive element, not only because of the "capacity" and "size" of its revolting furnace, but also because of its gravitational pull that captured several planets in its orbit, Earth included.
The formation of the Earth was undoubtedly due to its distance and the course of its orbit in relation to the Sun. In the position in which it is situated, the core of our Planet takes longer to cool, that is, in 4.5 billion years, it is in this "cooling" situation in which it currently finds itself.
Mars, farther away, has cooled faster, and Venus is still very hot. The influence of the position relative to the Sun is important in the configuration of the physicochemical processes that exist from the core to the atmosphere. However, it is not the sun's rays that influence our atmospheric climate, but the processes that exist from the Earth's core.
Looking closely at pictures of the surface of Mars and Venus, we see that there are no varieties in the solid rock formation of these planets. Just monotonous basaltic rock formations resulting from volcanic eruptions. The conclusion is that the material expelled by its core rose, or came into contact with the coldest region of outer space, very quickly, forming through its physicochemical processes this type of more fragile volcanic rock.
On Earth, the large amount of water existing in these same or similar processes, due to pressure and temperature conditions created a certain diversity in the rock formation of our crust (lithosphere).
The existence of abundant water in the formation of the Earth, and under the pressure and temperature of its core, combined with the size of the Planet and its gravitational force, worked like the gas inside a soda, expelling magma through rapid or slower volcanic eruptions, forming the varieties of chemical elements that currently exist on the Earth's surface.
Volcanic rocks of faster formations that have risen to the surface; more resistant granitic rocks from slower formations that have established themselves at the base of contact with the core, and the existence of water and gases that make up the atmosphere and condition our climate.
On Mars and Venus, due not only to their position in relation to the Sun, but also due to their size and dimensions of their gravitational forces, combined with the existence of very little water, the same physicochemical processes of the Earth were not created, thus being unable to generate the varieties of chemical elements that exist on Earth. from rocks to water, passing through gaseous elements, thus constituting a tenuous atmosphere, a monotonous crust of basaltic rocks, and their inability to form aqueous elements or abundant water.
There has probably never been a formation of water in liquid form on Mars or Venus as there is on Earth. As a result, Mars is constantly plagued by solar rays that pulverize the atomic structures of its fragile volcanic rocks, turning them into dunes.
Its physicochemical processes were unable to generate atmosphere and, therefore, climate. At most, powerful dust storms are observed, which certain instabilities of its tenuous atmosphere are capable of generating, blowing away the dunes left behind by the merciless bombardment of the sun's rays on its surface.
The case of Venus is similar; its proximity to the Sun slows down the cooling of its core, which in the absence of abundant water in its physicochemical processes generates volcanic rocks and hot vapors that disperse in space and are able to be retained by its tenuous atmosphere, the product of a gravitational force much weaker than that of the Earth. This loss of energy through outer space gives Venus that luminescence aspect that here in Brazil we call the Dalva "Star".
Since Jules Verne in the 19th century, the possibilities of space travel have electrified our civilization.
After all, is it possible to travel through space? What's the truth in that? What we do know is that the objects that travel through outer space carry with them the powerful protective mantle of their atmosphere, such as Planets, Stars and Suns, since they were formed and structured from the conditions of the Universe itself. But, then, what is the "environment" of the Universe that allows one to travel through it.
That's the problem, the Universe doesn't have, or isn't, a medium. In fact, there is no "space" per se, that is, a distance between one point and another.
There are stellar bodies such as Planets that "orbit" larger bodies because they have been "captured" by the atmosphere of Stars, or Suns, which have greater gravitational forces.
What determines the existence of celestial bodies are these initial "conditions" of their existence, that is, the accumulation of "cosmic dust" that, "agglutinated", form corpuscles that become Planets and Stars. This "agglutination" of colossal amounts of particles generates powerful gravitational forces that rotate, giving a rounded shape to the formed objects.
The Universe is formed from the weak forces that keep electrons spinning around its atomic nucleus, which in turn bind through the strong forces to other atoms, forming the elements of the Periodic Table, such as hydrogen, oxygen, helium, iron, or gold and silver.
It is the union of these weak and strong subatomic forces of the nuclei of atoms that together end up generating the powerful gravitational forces that shape everything that exists in the Universe and its physicochemical processes. The Universe is not a "medium" where you can calculate distances, define routes and energy consumption to move from one point to another.
Celestial bodies (Stars and Planets) gravitate around each other, depending on the power of their gravitational forces that originated them.
These bodies do not travel, but orbit, and there is a very big difference between these concepts. The main difference is that when they orbit; Objects are stuck in a trajectory, invalidating the idea of traveling from one point to another following a desired course. This type of travel does not exist in the Universe because, as I said before, there is no medium, but rather conglomerates of celestial bodies gravitating around each other.
The idea of the existence of a space is an abstract concept of a purely didactic nature to understand what the Universe is.
The immediate conclusion is that the Universe is governed by the laws of entropy, passing from organized elements (Stars and Planets) through the negative entropy that shape them, using weak and strong subatomic and gravitational forces towards their future decompositions; going back to their original basic atomic elements (positive entropy).
Traveling through the Universe is, then, a trajectory from the past to the present without having a future, being governed only by the laws of entropy. There is no concept of travel time in the Universe, since there is no means or distance to be traveled, only the formation of the atomic past towards a present orbit.
If we wanted to go to Mars we would face these "environmental" problems of the Universe, of which the main ones are that we are unable to define a determined course, since everything orbits around gravitational forces, there is no path and a travel time, and more, we do not have organized structures (spaceships) with their own gravitational force to follow a trajectory and a course. In addition, we originate from the formation of a Planet (Earth), and do not have our own atomic existence like Planets and Stars.
The result of attempting interstellar travel is that we would be bombarded by cosmic rays that destroy any organized form, which has no formation of its own originating from gravitational forces, which in the final analysis are the only protective layers for following any "trajectory" through space, which, as we said, does not have a medium, but only orbits bodies with greater gravitational forces.
Our hypothetical trip to Mars would not go very far, because we do not have any protective cover of an atmosphere generated by a gravitational force, in the same way, that we do not have propulsive engines to be captured by the orbits of other Planets to make the necessary corrections towards a desired "course".
Long before we reach Mars, we would lose our way into the unknown, without the ability to orbit a given object; without a protective cover against the cosmic rays that decompose everything, and yet, without a powerful driving force of its own such as gravity.
The possibilities of space travel come up against the fact that we are creatures of Planet Earth, formed and created by terrestrial environmental conditions with past, present and future.
Any attempt to distance ourselves from the protective mantle of our Earth's atmosphere, and its gravitational pull, is a tremendous risk.
The Earth's gravitational pull has shaped our bodies so that when we jump, spin, or somersault, these same forces quickly recompose our internal organs to their original positions.
In the prolonged absence of severity, this protection ceases to exist, which can cause a myocardial infarction, or even strokes and irreparable damage to internal organs.
So, putting it all together, the prolonged absence of gravity; the non-existence of a "middle" in the Universe; The inability to define one's own trajectory and course, as well as the lack of an atmospheric protective cover, would derail our attempts to travel through space. The laws of entropy, strong and weak subatomic forces, as well as gravitational forces are what govern our Universe.
Prof. Ricardo Gomes Rodrigues
Sao Carlos, November 6, 2023, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Comentários