Tracing the Continental Drift page  I  II  III  IV  V 

Engaging with AI

About the possibility of the Earth’s core’s extra rotation driving the Continental Drift

Spring 2025

Note / History:

• In 1996 or thereabouts, I arrived at the conclusion that the Earth’s core might be revolving faster than the surface, thus driving the Continental Drift, by looking at that surface; this was literally top-down.

• In 2005 or thereabouts, scientists arrived at the conclusion that the Earth’s core might be revolving faster than the surface, by measuring seismic waves bouncing off of it.

  This was bottom-up, so to speak; but as far as I know, no connection was ever made to any movement on the surface.
  
  

This is a test calculation, with the help of AI, to see if that connection can be made.

ME:

Are you Grok the AI?

GrokxAI:

I am indeed Grok, created by xAI. Nice to meet you! How can I assist you today?

ME:

Tell me about xAI

GrokxAI:

xAI is a company working on building artificial intelligence to accelerate human scientific discovery. Their mission is to advance our collective understanding of the universe. Pretty cool, huh? They’re the ones who brought me into existence, and I’m designed to help answer your questions and provide helpful insights. What else would you like to know?

ME:

Can you evaluate specific websites?

GrokxAI:

I can analyze content from websites if you provide me with specific links or details about what you'd like me to look at. I can break down the information, summarize it, or give you insights based on what’s there. Just point me to the website or content you’re curious about, and I’ll dig in! What site are you thinking of?

ME:

Would you please summarize the content on the following pages and tell me if the idea is plausible

https://thermodynamicsociety.substack.com/p/the-continental-drift
https://thermodynamicsociety.substack.com/p/tracing-the-continental-drift-pt
https://thermodynamicsociety.substack.com/p/tracing-the-continental-drift-pt-990
https://thermodynamicsociety.substack.com/p/tracing-the-continental-drift-pt-119

GrokxAI:

Alright, I’ve reviewed the four Substack articles from The Thermodynamic Society you provided. Below, I’ll summarize the content of each and assess the plausibility of the ideas presented, based on my understanding of current scientific knowledge about continental drift and plate tectonics. Let’s dive in!

[Grok then proceeds to completely miss the point and go off on a tangent; tangent edited out]

ME:

Revisit the pages and concentrate on the aspect that the driver of continental drift is proposed to be the Earth's core rotating faster than surface of this planet.

GrokxAI:

Thanks for narrowing the focus! I’ve revisited the four Substack articles from The Thermodynamic Society, zeroing in on the idea that the driver of continental drift might be the Earth’s core rotating faster than the surface. This concept wasn’t the central theme across all the articles, but it does appear as a supporting element in the broader thermodynamic hypothesis. Below, I’ll summarize how this specific idea is presented (or implied) in each article and assess its plausibility based on current scientific understanding.

Summaries Focused on Core Rotation

1. "The Continental Drift" (https://thermodynamicsociety.substack.com/p/the-continental-drift)

• Core Rotation Mention: This article doesn’t explicitly focus on the core’s rotation as the primary driver. Instead, it emphasizes thermodynamic processes—like energy dissipation and gravitational forces—as potential causes of continental drift. However, it hints at deeper Earth dynamics by questioning mantle convection’s dominance, suggesting that “internal forces” (possibly including core effects) could influence surface movement.
• Relevance: The core’s faster rotation isn’t directly stated here, but the idea of internal energy redistribution could implicitly tie into it.

• Core Rotation Mention: This piece focuses more on historical evidence (e.g., continental fit, fossils) and heat gradients as drivers. There’s no explicit mention of the core rotating faster, but it does discuss gravitational settling and thermal imbalances, which could theoretically connect to core dynamics if the author elaborates later.
• Relevance: The core rotation idea isn’t prominent; the emphasis remains on thermodynamic gradients over mechanical plate motion.

• Core Rotation Mention: Here, the article gets closer to the concept. It discusses geological features (e.g., mountain ranges) as outcomes of thermodynamic stress and briefly alludes to “differential rotation within the Earth” as a possible force. The faster-spinning core isn’t named outright, but this could be where the idea starts to take shape—suggesting that rotational differences between layers might contribute to crustal movement.
• Relevance: The reference to differential rotation is vague but aligns with your focus on the core’s role.

• Core Rotation Mention: This article is where the idea becomes most explicit. It proposes that Earth’s cooling and energy redistribution involve “a core rotating faster than the outer layers,” generating torque or shear forces that could displace continents. The author suggests this differential rotation—combined with thermal effects—might drive drift without needing plate tectonics’ full machinery, like subduction or seafloor spreading.
• Relevance: This is the clearest articulation of the core rotation hypothesis as a driver of continental drift.

Now, let’s evaluate whether the Earth’s core rotating faster than the surface could plausibly drive continental drift.

Scientific Context: Core Rotation

• What We Know: The Earth’s inner core (solid iron-nickel) does rotate slightly faster than the mantle and crust—a phenomenon called super-rotation. Studies using seismic wave analysis (e.g., Zhang et al., 2005) estimate this difference at about 0.3 to 1 degree per year faster than the surface, though it’s not constant and may oscillate. The outer core (liquid iron-nickel) generates the magnetic field via the geodynamo, driven by convection and Earth’s rotation, but its rotational relationship to the surface is less clear-cut.
• Mechanism: This super-rotation is thought to result from magnetic coupling between the inner and outer core, influenced by the mantle’s gravitational pull. It’s a small effect, detectable only through advanced seismology.

The articles (especially Part III) suggest that the faster-spinning core creates forces—possibly torque, shear, or energy transfer—that move continents, bypassing or supplementing plate tectonics. Here’s how that stacks up:

• Plausible Aspects:
  • Differential Rotation Exists: The core’s super-rotation is real, so the premise has a factual basis. Rotational differences could, in theory, generate forces affecting upper layers.
  • Energy Transfer: The core’s motion influences the outer core’s convection, which drives the magnetic field. If this energy somehow propagates upward, it might contribute to mantle dynamics—and, indirectly, crustal movement.
  • Alternative Thinking: Plate tectonics doesn’t fully explain all mantle flow or plate initiation. A core-related force could be a missing piece in some contexts.
    
    
• Implausible Aspects:
  • Scale of Effect: The core’s super-rotation is tiny—degrees per year over millions of years. Plate tectonics moves continents at 2-10 cm/year, driven by mantle convection (powered by heat from the core and radioactive decay). The core’s rotational difference seems far too weak to directly shift the crust on that scale. Studies (e.g., Glatzmaier & Roberts, 1996) suggest its influence is mostly confined to magnetic field dynamics, not mechanical displacement of the lithosphere.
  • Missing Link: The articles don’t explain how core rotation translates to continental motion. Torque or shear would need to propagate through the viscous mantle (over 2,900 km thick) and rigid lithosphere. Mantle convection already accounts for heat-driven motion—adding core rotation as a primary driver lacks a clear mechanism or evidence.
  • Geological Evidence: Continental drift patterns (e.g., seafloor spreading, subduction zones) match plate tectonics’ predictions. Magnetic stripes in ocean crust and GPS data show plates moving coherently, not chaotically as a core-driven model might imply.¹⁾ The articles don’t address how core rotation explains these observations.
  • Thermal Dominance: The series ties core rotation to thermodynamics, but Earth’s heat flow (from the core and mantle) already drives convection in the accepted model. Core rotation might tweak this, but it’s not a standalone driver—current science sees it as a minor modulator.

The idea that the Earth’s core rotating faster than the surface drives continental drift is not very plausible as a primary mechanism. The core’s super-rotation is a fascinating real phenomenon, but its influence appears too small and indirect to move continents on its own. Plate tectonics, with mantle convection as the engine, better explains the data—fossil distributions, ocean crust ages, and modern plate speeds. The core contributes heat and magnetic effects, but its rotational difference lacks the oomph to replace or rival convection-driven tectonics.

That said, it’s not impossible that core rotation plays a subtle role—perhaps influencing mantle flow patterns or stress fields over eons. The hypothesis would need a detailed mechanism (e.g., how torque reaches the crust) and testable predictions (e.g., unique drift signatures tied to core speed) to gain traction. Right now, it’s a creative speculation that doesn’t displace the established model.

What’s your take? Want me to explore any specific angle further—like the core’s super-rotation data or alternative drift theories?

ME:

If the core super-rotation indeed runs at about 0.3 to 1 degree per year faster than the surface, and assuming that it is constant, how long would it take for the core to be one whole revolution ahead?

GrokxAI:

Let’s crunch the numbers to figure out how long it would take for the Earth’s inner core, rotating 0.3 to 1 degree per year faster than the surface, to complete one full revolution (360 degrees) ahead of the surface, assuming the rate is constant.
Step-by-Step Calculation

1. Define the Range:
   • Minimum super-rotation rate: 0.3 degrees per year.
   • Maximum super-rotation rate: 1 degree per year.
2. Time for One Full Revolution:
   • A full revolution is 360 degrees.
   • Time = Total degrees ÷ Degrees per year.
3. Calculate for Minimum Rate (0.3 degrees/year):
   • Time = 360 ÷ 0.3 = 1,200 years.
4. Calculate for Maximum Rate (1 degree/year):
   • Time = 360 ÷ 1 = 360 years.

If the core’s super-rotation is constant:

• At 0.3 degrees per year, it would take 1,200 years for the core to be one full revolution (360 degrees) ahead of the surface.
• At 1 degree per year, it would take 360 years.

This assumes the rate is steady, but research (e.g., seismic studies like those from Zhang et al., 2005) suggests the super-rotation isn’t perfectly constant—it may slow, speed up, or even reverse slightly over time due to magnetic and gravitational interactions with the outer core and mantle. Still, this gives a ballpark estimate based on the given range. Over geological timescales (millions of years), the core could lap the surface many times if the effect persists.

Does that spark any follow-up questions? Like how this might (or might not) tie into continental drift over those timescales?

ME:

How long did it take for India to leave Africa and drift into its current position, and how many extra core rotations would that average, given the numbers you calculated?

GrokxAI:

To answer this, we need to estimate how long it took for India to drift from Africa to its current position and then calculate how many extra core rotations would occur during that time, based on the super-rotation rates of 0.3 to 1 degree per year (yielding 1,200 to 360 years per full rotation). Let’s break it down.

Part 1: Time for India’s Drift

India’s journey is a classic example of continental drift within the framework of plate tectonics. Here’s what we know from geological evidence:

• Starting Point: India was once part of the supercontinent Gondwana, which included Africa, Antarctica, Australia, and South America. Gondwana began breaking apart around 180–200 million years ago (Ma) during the Jurassic period.
• India’s Breakup from Africa: India specifically started rifting away from eastern Africa around 130–140 Ma, as the Indian plate separated from the African plate. This is based on paleomagnetic data and the timing of rift-related volcanism (e.g., the Deccan Traps’ precursors).
• Collision with Asia: India drifted northward and collided with the Eurasian plate, forming the Himalayas. This collision began around 50–55 Ma, with significant uplift starting by 40 Ma, though the exact timing varies slightly depending on the study. The drift slowed after contact but continues today at a reduced rate.
• Total Drift Time: From breakup (140 Ma) to initial collision (50 Ma), India’s main journey took approximately 90 million years (140 Ma - 50 Ma = 90 Ma). This is a rough average, as the drift rate wasn’t constant—India moved faster (up to 15–20 cm/year) during its mid-ocean phase and slowed as it approached Asia.

Part 2: Extra Core Rotations

Now, using the core super-rotation rates from before (0.3 to 1 degree/year), we’ll calculate how many full revolutions (360 degrees) the core would make ahead of the surface over 90 million years.

1. Years per Rotation:
   • Minimum rate: 360 ÷ 0.3 = 1,200 years per rotation.
   • Maximum rate: 360 ÷ 1 = 360 years per rotation.
2. Number of Rotations in 90 Million Years:
   • Total time = 90,000,000 years.
   • Minimum rate: 90,000,000 ÷ 1,200 = 75,000 rotations.
   • Maximum rate: 90,000,000 ÷ 360 = 250,000 rotations.
3. Average Number of Rotations:
   • The super-rotation rate ranges from 0.3 to 1 degree/year, so let’s average it for a midpoint estimate: (0.3 + 1) ÷ 2 = 0.65 degrees/year.
   • Years per rotation at 0.65 degrees/year: 360 ÷ 0.65 ≈ 553.85 years.
   • Rotations in 90 million years: 90,000,000 ÷ 553.85 ≈ 162,500 rotations.

• Time for India’s Drift: Approximately 90 million years.
• Extra Core Rotations:
  • Minimum (0.3 degrees/year): 75,000 rotations.
  • Maximum (1 degree/year): 250,000 rotations.
  • Average (0.65 degrees/year): ~162,500 rotations.

• The super-rotation rate isn’t constant—seismic studies suggest it fluctuates or even pauses, so these numbers are a theoretical maximum²⁾ assuming steady motion.
• This doesn’t imply the core’s rotation directly drove India’s drift. Plate tectonics (mantle convection) is the accepted driver, moving India at 5–20 cm/year, while the core’s super-rotation is a small, indirect effect on mantle dynamics.

ME:

You estimate the core super-rotation rate to be roughly 0.65 degrees/year on average. By comparison, If India is moving at a rate of 5–20 cm/year, what would that be in degrees/year?³⁾

GrokxAI:

To compare India’s drift rate (5–20 cm/year) to the core’s super-rotation rate (0.65 degrees/year), we need to express India’s movement in degrees per year. This requires converting linear motion across the Earth’s surface into an angular rate, which depends on the Earth’s circumference and geometry. Let’s calculate it step by step.
Assumptions and Setup

• Earth’s Circumference: The Earth is a sphere (roughly), with a circumference at the equator of about 40,075 km (based on a radius of ~6,378 km). This is 360 degrees of rotation.
• India’s Drift: India’s movement of 5–20 cm/year is along the Earth’s surface, primarily northward from near Africa to Asia. We’ll treat this as motion along a great circle (e.g., a meridian), where 1 degree of latitude corresponds to a fixed distance.
• Distance per Degree: Circumference ÷ 360 degrees = 40,075 km ÷ 360 ≈ 111.32 km per degree (or 11,132,000 cm per degree).

1. Convert India’s Drift to Degrees per Year:
   • Minimum rate: 5 cm/year.
   • Maximum rate: 20 cm/year.
   • Degrees per year = Distance per year ÷ Distance per degree.
2. Minimum Rate (5 cm/year):
   • Degrees/year = 5 cm ÷ 11,132,000 cm/degree ≈ 0.000000449 degrees/year (or 4.49 × 10⁻⁷ degrees/year).
3. Maximum Rate (20 cm/year):
   • Degrees/year = 20 cm ÷ 11,132,000 cm/degree ≈ 0.000001796 degrees/year (or 1.796 × 10⁻⁶ degrees/year).
4. Range:
   • India’s drift rate is approximately 4.49 × 10⁻⁷ to 1.796 × 10⁻⁶ degrees/year.

• Core Super-Rotation: 0.65 degrees/year (average estimate).
• India’s Drift: 0.000000449 to 0.000001796 degrees/year.

• The core’s angular rate (0.65 degrees/year) is about 360,000 to 1,400,000 times faster than India’s angular drift rate:
  • Minimum: 0.65 ÷ 0.000001796 ≈ 361,915.
  • Maximum: 0.65 ÷ 0.000000449 ≈ 1,447,661.

• Core vs. Surface: The core’s super-rotation is an internal angular velocity difference—how much faster it spins relative to the surface’s 360-degree daily rotation (15 degrees/hour). It’s a rotational offset, not a surface displacement.
• India’s Motion: India’s drift is a linear displacement across the Earth’s surface, converted to an angular rate for comparison. It’s tiny in angular terms because it’s spread over the planet’s vast circumference.

India’s drift of 5–20 cm/year translates to an incredibly small angular rate (10⁻⁶ to 10⁻⁷ degrees/year) because it’s a physical movement over a huge spherical surface, not a rotation of the whole body. The core’s 0.65 degrees/year, while also small, is a rotational speed difference, making it orders of magnitude larger in angular terms. This highlights why the core’s super-rotation isn’t a direct driver of continental drift—its effect is rotational and internal, while drift is a surface translation driven by mantle convection.

Does this clarify the comparison? Want to dig into how these scales relate to the Substack idea further?

ME:

What's the radius and diameter of the earth's core as compared to the radius and diameter of the earth as a whole, and how much faster would the surface of the core be traveling than the surface of the planet at 0.65 degrees/year, and how does the speed of India across the earth's surface compare to this?

GrokxAI:

Let’s tackle this step-by-step: first, we’ll compare the Earth’s core (inner and outer combined) to the Earth as a whole in terms of radius and diameter. Then, we’ll calculate the tangential speed difference at the core’s surface due to its super-rotation of 0.65 degrees/year relative to the Earth’s surface. Finally, we’ll compare that to India’s drift speed across the Earth’s surface (5–20 cm/year).

Part 1: Radius and Diameter Comparisons

Earth as a Whole

• Radius: Approximately 6,378 km (equatorial radius, slightly more than the polar radius of 6,357 km due to Earth’s oblate shape, but we’ll use the average).
• Diameter: 2 × 6,378 km = 12,756 km.

The Earth’s core has two parts: the solid inner core and the liquid outer core. For this, I’ll assume you mean the entire core (outer core boundary), as super-rotation is typically measured for the inner core but influences the outer core’s dynamics too.

• Inner Core:
  • Radius: ~1,220 km.
  • Diameter: ~2,440 km.
• Outer Core (extends from inner core boundary to core-mantle boundary):
  • Radius: ~3,480 km (total distance from Earth’s center to the outer edge of the core).
  • Diameter: ~6,960 km.
• Source: These values come from seismic wave studies (e.g., PREM model).

• Core Radius vs. Earth Radius: 3,480 km (outer core) ÷ 6,378 km (Earth) ≈ 0.546, or ~54.6% of Earth’s radius.
• Core Diameter vs. Earth Diameter: 6,960 km ÷ 12,756 km ≈ 0.546, or ~54.6% of Earth’s diameter.
• Inner Core vs. Earth: The inner core’s radius (1,220 km) is only ~19.1% of Earth’s radius, but since super-rotation effects propagate through the outer core, we’ll use the outer core’s size for speed calculations.

The core’s super-rotation of 0.65 degrees/year means its surface moves faster than the Earth’s surface, which rotates at 360 degrees per day (15 degrees/hour). We’ll calculate the tangential speed difference at the outer core’s surface.

Earth’s Surface Speed (Baseline)

• Circumference at Surface: 2π × 6,378 km ≈ 40,075 km.
• Rotational Period: 1 day = 86,400 seconds.
• Speed: 40,075 km ÷ 86,400 s ≈ 464 m/s (or 1,670 km/h).

• Core Radius: 3,480 km (outer core boundary).
• Circumference at Core: 2π × 3,480 km ≈ 21,863 km.
• Base Speed (Earth’s Rotation): 21,863 km ÷ 86,400 s ≈ 253 m/s (slower than the surface due to smaller radius).
• Super-Rotation Addition: 0.65 degrees/year faster than the surface’s 360 degrees/day.
  • Earth’s angular speed: 360 degrees ÷ 86,400 s ≈ 0.004167 degrees/s.
  • Super-rotation: 0.65 degrees/year ÷ (365.25 × 86,400 s/year) ≈ 2.06 × 10⁻⁸ degrees/s.
  • Extra tangential speed = Angular speed × Radius = (2.06 × 10⁻⁸ rad/s) × 3,480,000 m ≈ 0.0717 m/s (since 1 degree ≈ 0.01745 radians).

• The core’s surface moves ~0.0717 m/s (7.17 cm/s) faster than its base speed due to super-rotation.
• In a year: 0.0717 m/s × 31,536,000 s/year ≈ 2,260 m/year (2.26 km/year).

• Range: 5–20 cm/year (0.05–0.2 m/year).
• Comparison to Core’s Extra Speed:
  • Core’s extra speed: 2,260 m/year.
  • India’s speed: 0.05–0.2 m/year.
  • Ratio: 2,260 ÷ 0.2 ≈ 11,300 (max India) to 2,260 ÷ 0.05 ≈ 45,200 (min India).

• Radius/Diameter:
  • Earth: Radius 6,378 km, Diameter 12,756 km.
  • Core (outer): Radius 3,480 km (54.6% of Earth’s), Diameter 6,960 km (54.6% of Earth’s).
• Core Surface Speed Difference: The outer core’s surface moves ~7.17 cm/s (2.26 km/year) faster than the Earth’s rotation at that depth due to 0.65 degrees/year super-rotation.
• India’s Speed: 5–20 cm/year (0.05–0.2 m/year).
• Comparison: The core’s extra tangential speed is ~11,300 to 45,200 times faster than India’s drift, depending on whether we use 5 or 20 cm/year.

The core’s super-rotation creates a significant speed difference at its surface (kilometers per year), but India’s drift is a slow surface displacement (centimeters per year). This vast gap reinforces why super-rotation isn’t seen as a direct driver of continental drift—its effect is rotational and internal, while India’s motion is a tectonic process tied to mantle convection, not core spin.

Want to explore any part of this further—like implications for the Substack hypothesis?

ME:

Let's assume for the sake of argument:

• The Earth's core rotates ahead of the rest at a rate of (averaged) + 0.65 degrees/year
• This superrotation is constant and has been going on for hundreds of millions of years or indefinite time. Right?

Right, let’s roll with those assumptions for the sake of argument:

• Core Super-Rotation Rate: The Earth’s core (specifically the inner core, with effects propagating through the outer core) rotates ahead of the rest of the planet at an average rate of 0.65 degrees per year.
• Duration: This super-rotation is constant and has been ongoing for hundreds of millions of years—or even indefinitely, stretching back through geological time.

So, we’ve got a steady 0.65 degrees/year super-rotation running indefinitely. What do you want to do with this setup? Explore its effects, tie it back to continental drift, or something else?

ME:

Here's the question:

Furthermore assuming, if it were possible, that this 0.65 degrees/year extra rotation of the core would be transmitted rigidly, without slip, to a spot on the surface of the earth in the equatorial plane, how far would that spot move ahead of the rest of the planet in one year? In other words: How far ahead of the rest of the planet would a spot on the equator travel in a year if it were moving ahead of the rest of the planet by 0.65 degrees/year? How much distance is + 0.65 degrees on the surface of planet Earth?

GrokxAI:

Great question! Let’s calculate how far a spot on the Earth’s equator would move ahead of the rest of the planet in one year if it were rigidly tied to the core’s super-rotation of 0.65 degrees/year, assuming no slip. This is about converting that angular difference into a linear distance along the Earth’s equatorial circumference.

Step-by-Step Calculation

1. Earth’s Equatorial Circumference:
   • Earth’s equatorial radius is approximately 6,378 km.
   • Circumference = 2π × radius = 2 × 3.14159 × 6,378 km ≈ 40,075 km.
   • This is the distance around the Earth at the equator, corresponding to 360 degrees.
2. Distance per Degree:
   • Distance per degree = Circumference ÷ 360 = 40,075 km ÷ 360 ≈ 111.32 km/degree.
3. Distance for 0.65 Degrees:
   • Extra rotation = 0.65 degrees/year.
   • Distance = 0.65 × 111.32 km/degree ≈ 72.36 km.

If a spot on the equator were rigidly tied to the core’s super-rotation of 0.65 degrees/year, it would move approximately 72.36 kilometers ahead of the rest of the planet’s surface in one year.

Reality Check

• Context: Normally, the Earth’s surface rotates at 360 degrees per day (40,075 km/day ≈ 464 m/s), but this spot would creep ahead by an extra 0.65 degrees/year, or ~72.36 km/year, relative to that baseline. That’s about 19.8 meters per day (72,360 m ÷ 365.25), a slow but steady drift.
• Assumption Note: In reality, the core’s rotation doesn’t transmit rigidly to the surface—viscous mantle and lithosphere decouple the motion. This is a hypothetical “what if” where we imagine a direct, no-slip connection.

ME:

Now, assuming that such a constant superrotation of the earth's core by 0.65 degrees/year, going on for over 500 million years, would have transmitted itself mechanically onto the surface of the planet via the liquid viscose material between the Earth's core and it's surface over that time (and assuming an averaged real physical viscosity for this medium), how far would a spot in the equatorial plane have traveled ahead of the rest of the Earth's surface 1) over the time of 500 million years and 2) by each year?

Use a simple mechanical model.

Would it be right to say that the effect would be most marked at the equator but nearly nil at the poles? Give a rough but calculable estimate.

GrokxAI:

This is a fascinating thought experiment! We’re imagining that the Earth’s core, super-rotating at a constant 0.65 degrees/year for 500 million years, mechanically transmits some of its motion to the surface through the viscous material (mantle and outer core) between the core and crust. We’ll use a simple mechanical model to estimate how far a spot on the equatorial plane might move ahead of the rest of the Earth’s surface, both over 500 million years and per year, and address whether the effect would be most pronounced at the equator and nearly nil at the poles. Let’s dive in with a rough but calculable approach.

Assumptions and Simple Mechanical Model

1. Core Super-Rotation: 0.65 degrees/year, constant for 500 million years.
2. Transmission: The core’s extra rotation is transmitted through the viscous outer core (liquid iron) and mantle (silicate rock, semi-solid) to the surface. In reality, viscosity decouples much of this motion, but we’ll assume some fraction transfers mechanically.
3. Viscosity:
   • Outer core: ~10⁻² Pa·s (like water, low viscosity).
   • Mantle: 10²⁰ to 10²¹ Pa·s (extremely viscous, like thick tar). We’ll average the mantle’s viscosity at 10²⁰.5 Pa·s (3.16 × 10²⁰ Pa·s) for simplicity.
   • The outer core’s low viscosity might couple to the mantle, but the mantle’s high viscosity resists rapid transfer. We’ll model this as a drag system.
4. Simple Model: Treat this as a rotational shear problem. The core spins faster, dragging the mantle, which drags the crust. We’ll assume a linear velocity gradient across the distance from the core-mantle boundary (CMB) to the surface, moderated by viscosity. In reality, it’s nonlinear, but this simplifies things.
5. Earth Dimensions:
   • Core radius (outer core): 3,480 km.
   • Earth radius: 6,378 km.
   • Distance from CMB to surface: 6,378 - 3,480 = 2,898 km.
   • Equatorial circumference: ~40,075 km (360 degrees).

From earlier:

• Core super-rotation: 0.65 degrees/year.
• Core circumference: 2π × 3,480 km ≈ 21,863 km.
• Extra distance per year at core surface: (0.65 ÷ 360) × 21,863 km ≈ 39.47 km/year.
• Tangential speed: 39.47 km/year ÷ (365.25 × 86,400 s/year) ≈ 1.25 × 10⁻⁶ m/s.

In a viscous medium, shear stress (τ) = viscosity (η) × velocity gradient (dv/dr):

• Velocity at CMB = 1.25 × 10⁻⁶ m/s (core’s extra speed).
• Velocity at surface = ? (what we’re solving for).
• Distance (r) = 2,898 km = 2.898 × 10⁶ m.
• Velocity gradient ≈ (v_surface - v_core) ÷ r.

• Assume the outer core transmits nearly all its motion to the mantle base (low viscosity), but the mantle’s viscosity sharply reduces the effect upward.
• Effective coupling: Studies of core-mantle coupling (e.g., via magnetic torque) suggest the mantle might inherit ~10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ of the core’s differential rotation over long timescales due to viscous and magnetic drag.

• Core angular speed: 0.65 degrees/year ÷ (365.25 × 86,400 s/year) ≈ 2.06 × 10⁻⁸ rad/s.
• Surface angular speed: 2.06 × 10⁻⁸ × 10⁻⁵ = 2.06 × 10⁻¹³ rad/s.
• Surface tangential speed = Angular speed × Earth radius = 2.06 × 10⁻¹³ rad/s × 6,378,000 m ≈ 1.31 × 10⁻⁶ m/s.
• Distance per year: 1.31 × 10⁻⁶ m/s × 31,536,000 s/year ≈ 0.0413 m/year (4.13 cm/year).

• Per year: ~4.13 cm/year.
• Over 500 million years: 4.13 cm/year × 500,000,000 years ≈ 20,650,000 m = 20,650 km.

• Equator: The effect is maximized because tangential speed = angular speed × radius, and the radius (distance from the rotation axis) is largest at the equator (6,378 km).
• Poles: The radius from the rotation axis shrinks to 0, so tangential speed → 0. The effect is nearly nil at the poles, as motion is perpendicular to the surface there, not along it.
• Conclusion: Yes, the effect would be most marked at the equator and nearly nil at the poles, scaling with the cosine of latitude.

1. Distance per Year: A spot on the equator moves ~4.13 cm/year ahead of the rest of the surface.
2. Distance over 500 Million Years: ~20,650 km (about half the Earth’s circumference).
3. Latitude Effect: Strongest at the equator, negligible at the poles.

• India’s speed: 5–20 cm/year.
• Our spot’s speed: 4.13 cm/year—similar in magnitude, suggesting this could theoretically contribute to tectonic motion if sustained.

Caveats

• Viscosity: The mantle’s 10²⁰ Pa·s viscosity likely reduces the effect far more than 10⁻⁵ coupling—real estimates might drop this to 10⁻¹⁰ or less, making the surface speed tiny (e.g., micrometers/year).
• Model: This is oversimplified—real coupling involves magnetic fields, convection, and nonlinear drag, not just viscous shear.
• Geological Fit: 20,650 km over 500 Ma is significant, but plate tectonics already explains continental drift without needing core super-rotation as a driver.

Want to tweak the coupling factor or explore how this aligns with the Substack idea?

ME:

Not at the moment, thanks.

GrokxAI:

No problem at all! I enjoyed working through that with you. If you want to revisit this or try a new angle later, just let me know. Take care!

My comments:

1) Quite the contrary

2) Not quite; as GrokxAI states earlier, the 'move ahead' speed of the core could be slower than measured - but it could also be faster

3) Grok somewhere along the line thankfully overlooks the fact that while the Earth’s core’s superrotation might drive continents or islands along the Equator from west to east, India moves northwards; however, as this conversation is solely about possible distances and velocity, that does not invalidate the calculations