“Band tectonics”

The polar and equatorial circumferences of the Earth differ by little more
than one hundred miles, with the each circumference being slightly less than
25,000 miles. We shall adopt this figure for simplicity, although it will not
make any difference to the conclusions drawn. Consider then the earth to be
a perfectly smooth sphere (no mountains or valleys!) of radius r such that the
circumference C =2πr = 25,000 mi. Now imagine a metal band to be
wrapped tightly around the globe, so it is also equal to C. Then cut the band
and insert an extra strip ΔC feet in length into the band, and arrange the now
rather loose band into a circle concentric with that of the Earth, i.e. with the
same "gap" everywhere. If this gap is d feet high, how large is d? Converting
ΔC and d to miles, it follows that

(C+[(ΔC)/(5280)]) = 2π(r+[d/(5280)])

Subtracting the equation C = 2πr from this yields the result for the width of
the gap as

d = [(ΔC)/(2π)]

Putting in ΔC as 1,10,20 and 100 feet respectively gives the corresponding

set of gaps in feet as approximately 0.16 (about 1.9 inches), 1.6, 3.2 and 16;
really very surprising! Putting it another way, adding an extra foot to a band
25,000 miles in length results in a gap that a rat could squeeze under! Notice
that the final result is independent of the radius of the Earth, or any other
spherical object we choose to circumscribe, so these values hold for any
such object - Jupiter (also not a sphere, but for our purposes r = 88,000 mi),
or the Sun (r = 864,000 mi)! Of course, for increasingly small objects (such
as soccer balls, billiard balls or even a mathematical point!) the gap is the
same, but the result does not seem so impressive. Another point deserves
consideration: really just how “smooth” is the Earth, in comparison with a
billiard ball, for example? A crude estimate can be made, still assuming that
the Earth is a sphere of radius r (≈ 3960 mi), by computing the “smoothness
factor”

S = [(hm - dt)/r] ≡ (Δr)/r

where h_{m} and d_{t} are the height of the highest mountain and depth of
the deepest trench respectively, both relative to sea level. The height of Mt.
Everest is about 29,000 feet, or 5.5 miles, while the Mariana trench is about
6 miles deep (or -6 miles high). This means that

s=((5.5-(-6))/(3960))≈3×10⁻³

or three parts in one thousand, probably at least as smooth as a billiard ball!

At this juncture we may well ask: so what? This is a well-known example of

a simple counter-intuitive result which is easily derived, but does it have any
realistic implications? Ernest Zebrowski, Jr., in his book on the history of
the circle certainly thinks so. He examines what this example implies about
the "real tectonic processes that have wrinkled the crust of our planet." He
considers the now-solidified crust of the Earth as being composed of many
such tight circumferential bands. In the present era this crust is a very thin
layer between 4 and 40 miles thick overlaying an interior of molten rock. If
one of these "bands" expands by 20 feet as a result of even a tiny increase in
temperature (Zebrowski suggests 0.015°F), then as we have seen above, this
could result in a "wrinkle" in the crust over 3 feet high! In general the
situation would be one of uneven heating and cooling of the crust resulting
in irregular regions where expansion and contraction occur. We end this
particular example by relating the author's conclusions in his own words:
"The crust is thrust upward in some places, while in other places it is drawn
apart. The result is a spectrum of geophysical phenomena: earthquakes,
volcanoes, and the growth of mountain ranges (Mt. Everest, for instance,
grew about 26 feet between 1850 and 1950, and in the Alaskan earthquake
of 1964, the surface in some locations was thrust upward by as much as 30
feet). The temperature fluctuations that drive this mechanism are very small
and can't easily be measured, for we are talking about temperature changes
within the crustal bands, at depths of several miles. The conclusion is
nevertheless inescapable that significant geophysical surface phenomena
result from tiny irregular changes in the planet's circumference. The
algebraic calculation does not predict where such events will occur, but it
does give us a mathematical analogy to explain them."