Archived Articles

Gravity of Inner-Earth Upheavals

Gravity is the force of attraction between bodies because of their masses. Scientists have carefully mapped Earth's gravity field using satellite-borne gravimeters. High and low values of gravitational attraction appear on the map of Earth's gravitational field. Such pattern variations are called "gravity anomalies," and their origin is puzzling to explain. Surface geologic structures like mountain ranges and ocean trenches, and subsurface features like sinking crustal slabs, have for the last 15 years been inferred to explain the gravity anomalies. Such features represent the greatest mass variations in the mantle and crust and seemingly, therefore, the greatest differences in Earth's gravitational pull from one region to another. But now, a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution professor has presented an alternative explanation for Earth's gravity anomalies. His research results provide new significance to Cayce's reading about upheavals in the interior of the Earth in 1936, and to our speculations as to why pole shift might be produced as a result.

Dr. Carl Bowin postulates that very large mass anomalies lie deep in the Earth, presumably "explained, as a first approximation, by topography at the core-mantle boundary (CMB)." His research results appeared in an article entitled, "Mass Anomaly Structure of the Earth," in the August 2000 issue of Reviews of Geophysics (Amer. Geophysical Union, v. 38, no.3, pp. 355-387). Bowin estimates that the greatest of Earth's deep mass anomalies are due 1) to slabs of cold dense crust that have sunk deeply into the mantle and 2) to relief at the CMB. These two types of deep masses are perhaps 100 times greater in magnitude than those of Earth's principal surface features, like island arcs, mid-ocean ridges, and the Azores-high area. Such surface features had been assumed by some geophysicists to be the major mass determinants of Earth's spin-axis stability. But now, Bowin's work has cast doubt on this assumption. We must now turn our attention to those masses of greatest magnitude, in the deep mantle and along the CBM.

It is the very deepest mass anomalies, conceptualized as being areas of relief 1/2-2.5 miles high at the core-mantle boundary, that dominate Earth's mass-anomaly picture. How did they get there? Bowin points out that of the three planets that have metallic cores, Earth, Venus, and Mars, only Earth has its greatest mass anomalies deep within the planet. For Mars and Venus, surface topographic features correlate with the greatest anomalies. Bowin expects their core-mantle boundaries to be relatively smooth. Indeed, Venus lacks a requisite core convection -- as is present in Earth's outer core.

Bowin suggests that the mass anomalies at Earth's core-mantle boundary are due to the momentum of motions in the fluid-iron outer core. These currents push dense material above the CMB in various regions, like bumps on a ball. The pushed-up masses of dense iron result in gravity anomalies that are capable of driving the movements of Earth's tectonic plates by gravitational attraction, according to Bowin. D. Brunet and P. Machetel write of "mantle avalanches" that have induced the large-scale tectonic features of the Earth (1998, Jour. Geophysical Research, v. 103, no. B3 p. 4929). These avalanches "suddenly inject huge quantities of cold material [from, for example, descending crustal plates] into the lower mantle and have effects at Earth's surface and at the CMB." Bowin's gravity anomalies at the CMB could be assumed to be assisting this process.

Now let's review two relevant Cayce readings before advancing a speculative pole-shift mechanism founded upon Bowin's idea of a deep-mass origin for Earth's large gravity anomalies.

Q. What will be the type and extent of the upheaval in '36?

A. The wars, the upheavals in the interior of the Earth, and the shifting of same by the differentiation in the axis as respecting the positions from the Polaris center.

5748-6 July 1, 1932

Q. Will the Earth upheavals during 1936 affect San Francisco as it did in 1906?

A. This'll [the 1906 quake will] be a baby beside what it'll be in '36!

270-30 Feb. 13, 1933

From these two readings we may conclude that Cayce's psychic source foresaw some tremendous upheavals in the interior of the planet during 1936, as well as the shifting of Earth's independently-spinning, solid-iron inner core. If so, and if we can be permitted to pile on another speculation, the upheavals of 1936 could have altered the existing mass anomalies at the core-mantle boundary. Such mass changes would be of great importance to engendering pole shift, assuming that Bowin is correct as to the importance of these deepest and largest-in-magnitude of Earth's various mass concentrations.

And again, we might well expect that because pole shift can most probably only be caused by a significant redistribution of mass within the Earth, a shift might be a possible consequence of the 1936 "upheavals" in the interior of the Earth. Also, if the solid inner core's axis underwent a shift in 1936, then its new motion might also contribute to the effects of mass redistribution on pole shift in some way. That the Cayce readings seem to predict a roughly 65-year lag between the 1936 upheavals and a shifting of the poles (reading 826-8) in 2000-2001, does not seem improbable. There are many natural processes that display time lags of various lengths between a stimulus and a response in Earth's dynamic geophysical systems.

Plate 7 in Bowin's paper is a map of plate-tectonic driving forces. The strongest driving forces are found in and around the Philippine Sea area and northward toward Japan, in the Fiji Island region, in the Peru/Chile/Bolivia/Argentina boundary region, in the northern portions of the Tonga Trench region, and in the southern Pakistan/Iran boundary region. Here, in these general regions, we might expect the most significant of pole-shift induced Earth changes. A sudden acceleration in the movements of subducting slabs of oceanic crust in these or adjacent areas could cause catastrophic changes, such as "the greater portion of Japan" going into the sea (3976-15). On the other hand, most geologists would say that it would take much longer that a mere 65 years for the effects of altered relief at the core-mantle boundary to be effective in modifying Earth's ongoing mantle dynamics.

Finally, consider this additional reading given for Mr. 270, who in 1934 still seemed quite concerned about the reading he had gotten in 1933 (see 270-30 above).

Q. Are details of the Earth's eruptions in 1936 so fixed that you can give me an outline of the Pacific Coast area to be affected, along with precautionary measures to be exercised during and after this catastrophe?

A. All of these are, as is ever on or in such an activity, dependent upon individuals or groups who are in or keep an attitude respecting the needs, the desires, the necessary requirements in such a field of activity. That some are due and will occur is written, as it were, but -- as we find -- as to specific date or time in the present, this may not be given.

270-32 June 12, 1934