ABSTRACT The existence of an ~26–36 m.y. rhythm in interrelated global tectonism, sea-level oscillations, climate, and resulting sedimentation patterns during Phanerozoic time (the last 541 m.y.) has long been suspected. A similar underlying ~26.4–27.5 m.y. cycle was reported independently in episodes of extinctions of marine and non-marine species. Subsequent spectral analyses of individual geologic events of the last 260 m.y., including changes in seafloor spreading and subduction, times of hotspot initiation and intraplate volcanism, eruptions of Large Igneous Provinces (LIPs), tectonic events, sea-level fluctuations, oceanic anoxia, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and global climate have revealed evidence for the 26–36 m.y. cycle and the temporal association of events with an apparent overall periodicity of ~27.5 m.y. modulated by an ~8–9 m.y. cycle. The proposed episodes of geologic activity and environmental and biotic change may result from cyclical internal Earth processes that affect changes in mantle convection, plate motions, intraplate stresses, and/or periodic pulses of mantle-plume activity. Recently, the ~30 m.y. cycle has been linked to Earth’s long-term orbital changes within the Solar System, and it may also affect tectonism and climate. I also note considerable evidence for a similar ~30 m.y. cycle in the ages of terrestrial impact craters, which suggests possible astronomical connections. The shared geologic cycle time, formally ranging from ~26 to 36 m.y. (depending partly on varying data sets, geologic timescales, and statistical techniques utilized) is close to the estimated interval (~32 ± 3 m.y.) between our cyclical crossings of the crowded mid-plane region of the Milky Way Galaxy. Here I outline a proposed astrophysical pacing for the apparent pulses of both impact cratering and rhythmic geological episodes. Continental drift, rifting, and compression, earthquakes, volcanism, transgression and regression, and polar wander have undoubtedly a grandiose causal interconnection… Which, however, is cause and which is effect, only the future will reveal. —Alfred Wegener, The Origin of Continents and Oceans, 1929 An outstanding consequence of the Hypothesis (Continental Drift) is the orderly and interrelated nature of all associated phenomena. —Alex. Du Toit, Our Wandering Continents, 1947 While historical geologists since Lyell have given lip service to the principle of uniformitarianism, in which the Earth is viewed as having developed in a gradual and steady manner, a majority of stratigraphers and tectonicists, going back to Cuvier and d’Orbigny, including Chamberlin, Grabau, and Umbgrove, have been impressed with the segmentation of geologic history into episodes. Some of these changes appear to be rhythmic, and one of the rhythms represented lies at the 30–36-m.y. level. —Alfred G. Fischer, Climate in Earth History: Studies in Geophysics, 1982

ABSTRACT The age of the Moon (1.55–1.78 b.y. old) as calculated from its regression as a function of geological time is much younger than the currently accepted age (ca. 4.52 Ga) determined by radiometric dating of lunar samples collected by Apollo astronauts. This discrepancy has posed a serious challenge for planetary scientists to account satisfactorily for the formation and subsequent breakup of Pangea. Conventional orbital models of the Earth-Moon system cannot explain why Pangea formed on only one hemisphere of Earth, whereas this study’s proposed two-stage rotation model can provide a plausible explanation. Calculations and a plot of the Earth-Moon separation distance against geologic age suggest that, during their first ~3.0 b.y., Earth and the Moon were mutually tidally locked, rotating as an integrated unit about a barycenter (designated as stage I rotation). Beginning 1.55 Ga, however, Earth disengaged from its tidal lock with the Moon and entered its current orbital mode (designated as stage II rotation). The dynamics associated with the two rotational modes of the Earth-Moon system throughout Earth’s history are hypothesized to constitute the driving forces for the migration and coalescence of landmasses during stage I rotation to create Pangea, and its ultimate breakup and drifting during stage II rotation.

ABSTRACT Suborbital analysis (SA) is presented here as the study of ballistics around a spherical planet. SA is the subset of orbital mechanics where the elliptic trajectory intersects Earth’s surface at launch point A and fall point B , known as the A -to- B suborbital problem, both launch and fall points being vector variables. Spreadsheet tools are offered for solution to this problem, based on the preferred simplified two-body model. Although simplistic in top-level description, this problem places essential reliance on reference frame transformations. Launch conditions in the local frame of point A and rotating with Earth require conversion to the nonrotating frame for correct trajectory definition, with the reverse process required for complete solution. This application of dynamics requires diligent accounting to avoid invalid results. Historic examples are provided that lack the requisite treatment, with the appropriate set of solution equations also included. Complementary spreadsheet tools SASolver and Helix solve the A -to- B problem for loft duration from minimum through 26 h. All provided spreadsheet workbook files contain the novel three-dimensional latitude and longitude plotter GlobePlot. A global ejecta pattern data set calculated using SASolver is presented. As visualized through GlobePlot, SASolver and Helix provide solutions to different forms of the A -to- B problem, in an effort to avoid errors similar to the historic misstep examples offered as a supplement. Operating guidelines and limitations of the tools are presented along with diagrams from each step. The goal is to enable mechanically valid interdisciplinary terrestrial ejecta research through novel perspective and quality graphical tools, so others may succeed where 1960s National Aeronautics and Space Administration researchers did not.

ABSTRACT Lateral accelerations require lateral forces. We propose that force imbalances in the unique Earth-Moon-Sun system cause large-scale, cooperative tectonic motions. The solar gravitational pull on the Moon, being 2.2× terrestrial pull, causes lunar drift, orbital elongation, and an ~1000 km radial monthly excursion of the Earth-Moon barycenter inside Earth’s mantle. Earth’s spin superimposes an approximately longitudinal 24 h circuit of the barycenter. Because the oscillating barycenter lies 3500–5500 km from the geocenter, Earth’s tangential orbital acceleration and solar pull are imbalanced. Near-surface motions are enabled by a weak low-velocity zone underlying the cold, brittle lithosphere: The thermal states of both layers result from leakage of Earth’s internal radiogenic heat to space. Concomitantly, stress induced by spin cracks the lithosphere in a classic X-pattern, creating mid-ocean ridges and plate segments. The inertial response of our high-spin planet with its low-velocity zone is ~10 cm yr –1 westward drift of the entire lithosphere, which largely dictates plate motions. The thermal profile causes sinking plates to thin and disappear by depths of ~200–660 km, depending on angle and speed. Cyclical stresses are effective agents of failure, thereby adding asymmetry to plate motions. A comparison of rocky planets shows that the presence and longevity of volcanism and tectonism depend on the particular combination of moon size, moon orbital orientation, proximity to the Sun, and rates of body spin and cooling. Earth is the only rocky planet with all the factors needed for plate tectonics.

The discovery of many substantial objects in the outer solar system demands a reassessment of extraterrestrial factors putatively implicated in mass extinction events. These bodies, despite their formal classification as minor (or dwarf) planets, actually are physically similar to comets observed passing through the inner solar system. By dint of their sizes (typically 50–100 km and upward), these objects should be considered to be giant comets. Here, I complement an accompanying paper by Napier, who describes how giant comets should be expected to cause major perturbations of the interplanetary environment as they disintegrate, leading to fireball storms, atmospheric dustings, and bursts of impacts by Tunguska- and Chelyabinsk-class bodies into the atmosphere, along with less-frequent arrivals of large (>10 km) objects. I calculate the terrestrial impact probability for all known asteroids and discuss why the old concept of single, random asteroid impacts causing mass extinctions is deficient, in view of what we now know of the inventory of small bodies in the solar system. Also investigated is how often giant comets might be thrown directly into Earth-crossing orbits, with implications for models of terrestrial catastrophism. A theme of this paper is an emphasis on the wide disparity of ideas amongst planetary and space scientists regarding how such objects might affect the terrestrial environment, from a purely astronomical perspective. That is, geoscientists and paleontologists should be aware that there is no uniformity of thought in this regard amongst the astronomical community.