Since about 1596, scientists have long recognised that the opposing margins of continents fit together, e.g., [7] in a manner suggesting that in the past, they formed one landmass, a hypothetical supercontinent popularly known as Rodinia² which is thought to have formed about 1 billion years ago and to have embodied most if not all of the Earth’s continents. This hypothetical supercontinent is believed to have broken up into eight continents some 600 million years ago, e.g., [8] . These eight continents later re-assembled into another supercontinent called Pangaea. Later, Pangaea broke up into Laurasia (which became North America and Eurasia of today) and Gondwana (which became the remaining continents).

Though the idea of plate tectonics had been known since about 1596, in its modern form, it was given a new birth certificate—alas, an almost stillborn birth certificate, by the perspicacity and tenacity of the now celebrated German astronomer, turned meteorologist Alfred Lothar Wegener (1880-1930). Though widely rejected by his contemporaries, Wegener [9] [10] ’s idea has become the head-stone and chief-corner-stone of modern geology and geophysics. Wegener’s mobilist idea of drifting continents contrasted sharply with the contemporary view of fixed and rigid continents, and a shrinking Earth due to thermodynamic cooling.

While generally not accepted, Wegener’s ideas did attract a handful of respected and credible supporters such as the renowned Afrikaner geologist, Alexander Logie du Toit (1878-1948) from South Africa (whose work is summed up in the book [11] ) and English geophysicist, Arthur Holmes (1890-1965) from England. At its inception, Wegener pieced together evidence from diverse fields to prop his theory. Prior to this, as early as 1910, Wegener—like others before him; realized that the continents had probably been together in the distant past, they must have drifted apart to form the arrangement that we see today. In his lifetime, Wegener wrote and published three books on the idea [12] -[14] , were in each book, he sought to expound on the idea, each time making the endeavour to improve the theory in each version of the three editions. What Wegener did in his books is to present evidence of continental drift. He did not solve the problem of the source of the energy driving this drift. For this he earned sharp critism, which most certainly lead to this theory being rejected.

Despite Wegener’s ideas being generally criticized on both geophysical and geological grounds, he presented a large and significant body of very strong ponderable evidence in support of continental drift, but the mechanism driving these plates remained elusive. To this day, the energy source driving continental drift is not known and its search is one of the “holy grails” of modern plate tectonics theory. What is the energy source driving the motion of plates? For example, planets generally consist of concentric shells of matter, except for the Earth which has its unique, two-component surface, comprising of about 41% continental rock and with the reminder being quite different ocean floor basalt. To the present day, there has been no satisfactory explanation for the partial, crustal continental rock layer, except by assuming that in the distant past, the Earth was smaller and subsequently expanded [15] [16] .

As already afore-stated, the principal impediment and shortcoming to this otherwise interesting idea of an expanding Earth is and has always been the lack of knowledge of a mechanism that could provide the necessary energy [17] [18] to drive this expansion without departing from the known Laws of Nature [19] . To this conundrum and quagmire, Adrian E. Scheidegger [20] stated in concisely the view:

“Thus, if expansion on the postulated scale occurred at all, a completely unknown energy source must be found.”

This view, is as valid today as it was in 1982 when Scheidegger made this pronouncement. To that end, amongst others, this reading seeks to furnish the energy source driving the expansion. As we shall argue herein, this energy must be coming from the locked-up gravitational binding energy that is being unlocked in the energy transfers occurring between the orbital angular momentum and the spin angular momentum of the Earth.

In-closing the present section; from Scheidegger [20] ’s comment above, it appears he (and many others) envisage a once-off expansion. As we will see herein that—like star formation is an ongoing process and not a once-off event where stars are created at a special and particular moment in the history and evolution of the Universe; the expansion of the Earth is an ongoing process that must have began at the beginning once the Earth and the Moon where formed and began their secular recession from the Sun.

While it is well known that an EEH can in principle explain a number of currently inexplicable geophysical phenomenon such as plate tectonics (e.g., [21] and references therein), current scientific consensus rejects forthwith, any expansion or contraction of the Earth. However, without making an appeal to spin-orbit interaction as is done herein, but simple applying the accepted law of conservation of spin angular momentum to the well known secular increase in the length of the day as deduced by Stephenson [22] ; Stephenson and Morrison [23] , one can show as has been done in Ref. [24] , that the Earth must be expanding at least at a rate of about +0.60 mm/yr. Be that it may, in very recent times, the EEH is rejected on the solemn grounds of observations because on a level accuracy of about +0.20 mm/yr, current observations using modern high-precision geodetic techniques [25] indicate that the Earth’s radius has remained constant throughout its ponderable history. Before dismissing the EEH, a most logical and natural question to ask is, what is the expansion rate of the Earth that is required to explain plate tectonics?

If the expansion of the Earth required to explain plate tectonics is significantly smaller than the observed +0.20 mm/yr or is of the same order of magnitude as the sensitivity of the measurement, then, the current position that the Earth is not expanding requires much more sensitive measurement before sending this idea to the “Science Museum of Great but Failed Ideas”. Or, if the expansion rate of the Earth is significantly less than Fukumori [6] ’s measurement of +0.20 mm/yr, then—at best, Fukumori [25] ’s measurements place an upper limit to the Earth expansion and not the conclusion that they reached, that the Earth is not expanding.

As will be demonstrate herein, it appears that Fukumori [25] ’s threshold of sensitivity is within the same range or order of magnitude as the signal. An application of the sacrosanct and embellished laws of conservation of momentum and energy to the Solar receding Earth-Moon system leads us to conclude that the Earth must be expanding on a scale of about +1.50 mm/yr. In comparison, +1.50 mm/yr is not only about the same order of magnitude³ as Fukumori [25] ’s threshold of sensitivity, the signal to sensitivity ratio is about 1:7.5—simple, the threshold of sensitivity very low. There is thus need to improve the signal-to-sensitivity ratio to at least greater than about 1:10, thus making Fukumori [25] ’s measurements inadequate to rule out an Expanding Earth Hypothesis since they are not sensitive enough to discern the implied expansion of the Earth. Placing our confidence in the law of conservation of momentum and energy, this is the position that we take.

Therefore, the Earth may very well be expanding and the source of the energy of this expansion being the lost orbital angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system which is a result of the secular recession of this system from the Sun. If the Earth is expanding, then, evidence of this expansion should come not only in the form of relative motion of the landmasses, but also in the form of a Hubble-type motion of the landmasses. Therefore, this study is a preparatory study of a possible future study that will seek to quantity whether or not the continents are undergoing a Hubble-type flow from one another. If this can be ascertained, it would be the most revealing evidence yet that indeed, the Earth is undergoing an expansion.

Last and most important of all is that, current plate tectonics theory is incomplete in that it provides no appreciable and adequate energy source for geodynamics and it critically depends on the assumption of mantle convection. There is need to identify the energy source. It is the goal of this study to suggest or identify a plausible energy source driving the continents apart.

That the continents are moving relative to each other is no longer a point of debate. What is debatable is the energy source driving this phenomenon. Herein, we hold that continental drift is a result of the Earth undergoing radial expansion. This expansion is driven or powered by energy transfer occurring between the rotational kinetic of the Earth’s spin and the rotational orbital angular momentum kinetic energy. It is well established fact that the Moon is receding from the Earth at a rate of about [26] [27] , this must lead to a loss of orbital angular momentum for both the Earth and the Moon as individual bodies. In addition to this, the Russian astronomers Krasinsky and Brumberg [7] and the American astronomer Standish [12] reported that the mean Sun-Earth-Moon distance known as the Astronomical Unit (denoted) is undergoing a secular positive change of and respectively. To up-hold the law of conservation of angular momentum (i.e., the sum total of the orbital and rotational angular momentum), this lost orbital angular momentum can not be lost into the oblivious; it must be transferred to the spin of the respective bodies, thus leading to changes in the sizes and the spin periods of these celestial bodies since the spin depends on the size and the spin period.

This study explores the viable possibility of a secular expansion of the Earth. This secular expansion is hypothesised to be a direct consequence of the observed secular recession of the Earth from the Sun. The supreme and paramount aim of the study is to suggest or posit that the observed continental drift may very well be a result of an expanding Earth.

The objectives of this study (as enshrined in the three part series of readings) are as follows:

1. Judiciously apply the law of conservation of angular momentum to the Earth-Moon system - posteriori justified; the sole aim of which is to unearth a plausible astrophysical link to global geo-plate tectonics.

2. Calculate the implied radial expansion and or contraction of the of the Earth and the Moon.

3. Show that the rotational kinetic of the Earth-Moon system is a viable, potent and plausible source energy capable of driving global plate tectonics.

4. By way of a literature study, set the stage for further work on the possibility of an astrophysical link to global geo-plate tectonics.

5. Present a new plausible theory on the way the Earth-Moon system might have formed. A backward extrapolation of the evolution of the Earth-Moon system for an expanding Earth, contracting Moon and a receding Earth-Moon leads to a very interesting paradigm that might explain many puzzles about the nature of the Earth-Moon system.

Since the idea of plate tectonics was given birth to, the source driving this activity has eluded those that have made the endeavour to decipher the source. Finding this source is not only of great importance to geology and geophysics, but to science in general because it would lead to a better understanding of the forces operating in our terrestrial habitat. Thus, the paramount nature and justification of the present endeavour cannot be under or overstated.

Our present approach to the problem of finding a plausible energy source that is driving the drifting of continental plates is purely a theoretical one; where-after, it is anticipated that data will be gathered (from existing geophysical stations and from Global Positioning System satellites) in the near future to consolidate the ideas propagated herein. We demonstrate that from the embellished, sacrosanct and cherished law of conservation of angular momentum and energy, that, the Earth is expected to expand radially if the Earth-Moon system is receding from the Sun as determined from the observations of Pitjeva; Standish; Krasinsky and Brumberg [5] [6] [28] .

Only until recently, it has become clear that our understanding of the gravitational phenomenon is in serious dearth. The emerging picture was now that where our knowledge of the gravitational phenomenon appeared to be taking a good shape. Alas, the opposite is actually the case. This position has been brought about because of the improvement in our advancement in technology. There has been a recent upsurge of gravitational “anomalies” and this is a direct result of the higher resolution measurements brought by the aforesaid technological advancements. Gravitational anomalies have puzzled the scientific community for quite sometime now.

First, was the discovery of the so-called darkmatter by the Swiss astronomer Fritz [29] , followed by the Pioneer anomaly in the late 1980’s by the United States of America’s National Aeronautic Space Administration (NASA) scientists Anderson et al. [30] [31] , then come the Earth-flyby anomalies in the early 1990’s again by NASA scientists [32] and more recently, the secular increase in the mean Earth-Sun and mean Earth-Moon distance by independent groups of American and Russian [5] [6] [26] [28] . What really is going on with gravitation? What is the matter? Do we really understand gravitation? Why suddenly an upsurge of these gravitational anomalies? For a conscience review of Solar gravitational anomalies (see e.g. [33] ).

The widely accepted and dominate gravitational model in contemporary physics is Einstein [34] ’s General Theory of Relativity (GTR). Against the desideratum, Einstein’s GTR is unable to deliver non-ad hoc and nonimpromptu solutions to these problems. That the need for new fresh ideas on this front is imminent, is something that few researchers on these frontiers doubt not, but feel strongly that, this is the way forward. Our motivation is thus the desire to understand the gravitational phenomenon by seeking improved models of gravitation that are able to explain most if not all of these gravitational anomalies from a unified standpoint, that is, explain these using one model and not models designed only to address a particular anomaly.

The present reading is organised as follows. In the subsequent section, we lay down the proposed theory that we put forward as a plausible explanation of global plate motion. It is not a new theory in the traditional sense of bringing new exotic concepts, but merely a direct application of the law of conservation of angular momentum on the Earth-Moon system. In (3), we make preparatory calculations that are necessary to quantity the ‘new’ ideas. In (4), we derive a quantifiable formula giving the expansion rate of the Earth. In (5), we apply the ‘new’ ideas to physically measured data. In our application, we check if the ‘newly’ founded ideas yield reasonable physical quantities that are in reasonable correspondence with experience. Lastly, in (6), we give a general discussion, the conclusions drawn thereof and the recommendations that we feel can be taken up by future studies.

Now, from (A.25), the expansion terms can be split into two, that is, Solar and Lunar contribution terms, that is:

By inserting the relevant values, one finds that for the Solar contribution, we will have:

and for the Lunar contribution, we will have:

Clearly, the Lunar contribution is far weaker than the Solar contribution, it is so weak so much that, we can, for our purposes here, neglect it altogether. From this, we can safely conclude that, whatever force is driving the recession of the Earth-Moon system from the Sun, it is this same phenomenon that should lead to the Earth to expand. Therefore, the recession of the Earth-Moon system from the Sun leads to the expansion of the Earth which in-turn leads to plate tectonics. From (13), the corresponding rate of expansion of the Earth is:

At its conception, this reading never meant to touch seriously on matters to do with the Moon. Actually, after we had calculated and demonstrated that the Earth might be expanding, we felt that was enough, the reading must be sent off for publication. On second thoughts, we felt that the reviewers might ask, “Since this is within the realm of your calculation, what does your calculation give for the Moon?”. It is only then, that we felt, we must address this matter before we are compelled to do so. We had envisaged a simple reading where we report that the Earth-Moon drift from the Sun, most certainly is the driver to geo-plate tectonics. The same calculation as that for the expansion rate of the Earth, was conducted for the Moon when upon we arrived as (A.26).

Substituting the relevant figures into this formula, one notices that as in the case of the Earth, the Lunar recession’s contribution is minute compared to that Solar recession term, that is:

and:

The Lunar recessional term leads to an expansion of +0.20 mm/yr while the Solar recessional term leads to a contraction of. Obviously, the expansion is dwarfed by the contraction so that overall, the Moon must be in a state of contracting. Precisely, one find that:

At the time we performed this calculation, our ideas of the geology of the Moon where the pre-2010 ideas; we thought the Moon must be a geological dead piece of rock. Our first reaction to the idea that the Moon might be contracting was that of scepticism. The Moon can not be contracting, especially at such a significant rate of.

As any researcher would do nowadays, we “hit” google. Much to our surprise, elation and delight, we found out that only recently have Watters et al. [38] found the first evidence that the Moon is undergoing global contraction. Watters et al. [38] reported that this evidence has been brought forth by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC), launched in 2009 aboard the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter—which is the first spacecraft to be launched by NASA as part of it’s “Return to the Moon” initiative.

The LROC photographed Lunar scars known as lobate scarps. Lobate scarps occur when the surface of the geological body experiences a compressional force, causing one part of the upper surface to fold and fracture above the other part. In the absence of significant tectonics on the Moon, Watters et al. [38] believe this is due to cooling of the Lunar core. If our ideas are correct or prove to be correct in the future, then, this contraction is not due to cooling as Watters et al. [38] believe, but gravitational contraction caused by the transfer of orbital angular momentum into spin angular momentum and this been a result of the observed secular recession of the Earth-Moon system. As the core of the Moon cooled it also shrunk, applying surface stress to the brittle Lunar crust and causing it to rupture and split.

Lobate scarps have been observed on the surface of the Moon before i.e., from images taken by the panoramic cameras aboard the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 missions Watters et al.; Binder and Gunga [38] [39] . These earlier missions were confined to the equatorial region of the Moon’s surface thus giving not a picture of this being a global phenomenon [39] . Using the LROC, Watters et al. [38] managed to acquire comprehensive images of the Lunar surface at higher latitudes. The lobate scarps seem to have formed relatively recent—about a billion years or so Watters et al. [38] and the most recent analysis by Banks et al. [40] of these lobate scarps further points to Lunar global contraction.

Other than lobate scarps, the Lunar surface has recently been shown to contain a significant number of grabens [41] . Grabens are tectonic features that form under extension stresses or tension of the landmass. Structurally, they are comprised of two normally intersecting faults, with a down-dropped block between them. Most grabens are found within the Lunar maria near the edges of large impact basins. Despite the presence of these grabens, Watters et al. [41] believe the Moon should still be undergoing global contraction. Of this (i.e., Lunar contraction), the lead author from the United State of America’s Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, Thomas Watters had this to say:

“We think the Moon is in a general state of global contraction due to cooling of a still hot interior. The graben tell us that forces acting to shrink the Moon were overcome in places by forces acting to pull it apart. This means the contractional forces shrinking the Moon cannot be large, or the small graben might never form.⁴

In conclusion on the matter of Lunar contraction, i.e., the Lunar contraction rate as calculated herein, we have this to say. While we are very skeptical of a Lunar contraction rate as high as ~410 mm/yr, if we have to learn from history, we have to place aside our skepticism and accept the result pending verification or refutation from observations. This calculation is inferred from the law of conservation of angular momentum and energy, we have no choice but to place, not our faith in the calculation, but our confidence in the calculation, confidence that, it is highly likely that this result will in the near future be verified. Our skepticism or any that can be brought forth is nothing but skepticism whose strong foundations is based on prejudice of a scientific nature.

Is it not scientific prejudice that denied Albert Einstein (1879-1955) the monumental and once in a lifetime opportunity to predict that the Universe might be expanding? Is it not scientific prejudice that stalled Wegener’s hypothesis of continental drift? Is it not scientific prejudice that might have lead to the rejection of the celebrated French Prince, Louis Victor Peirre Raymond de Brogile (1872-1946)’s wave-particle duality leading to a great stagnation in the developed of quantum mechanics? While not endless, the list is long. Sometimes, we must accept the bare facts before us, and if Nature is to embarrass us, we must be humble enough to accept this as an honour rather than a dishonour. We would rather be “embarrassed” by Nature than by anything else. Nature is the greatest teacher of all, we must learn from the best.

The energy to drive plate tectonics must come from the energy locked-up in the spin of the Earth. This energy is unlocked when the Earth-Moon system recedes from the Sun. The total energy locked up in the spin is. When the Earth expands, energy is drawn at a rate, that is:

This is at a rate of about, that is, the power driving plate tectonics is about two and half times the power of the Sun.

In the case of the Moon which is must be contracting at a rate of, it must be giving off energy at a rate.

All this energy that drives the expansion of the Earth and the contraction of the Moon is drawn from the lost orbital kinetic energy of the Earth-Moon system. This orbital kinetic energy of the Earth-Moon system is given of at a rate, this is of the order of the luminosity of a typical galaxy! Clearly, there is more than enough energy to drive the Earth’s plates apart. This recession of the Earth-Moon system certainly unlocks a significant amount of energy from the orbital kinetic energy. Besides there being enough energy from the lost orbital kinetic energy of the Earth-Moon system via the Earth-Moon Solar drift, this energy (from the Earth-Moon Solar drift) far outweighs the internal energies of the two systems so much that one can safely ignore these energies without making a critical omission e.g. these energies are (1) the energy locked up in the Earth-Moon tides and, (2) the mass loss via energy from radiative matter in the Earth and as-well the Moon.

For example, the Earth’s internal heat comes from a combination of factors, the dominant of which are the residual heat from planetary accretion which contributes about of the Earth’s heat, and the rest produced through radioactive decay which contributes about (see e.g., [42] pp. 136-137). For the radioactive heat production, the major heat-producing isotopes Potassium-40, Uranium-238, Uranium-, and Thorium-. On average, heat loss from the Earth is and for the entire Earth, the global heat loss is (see e.g. [43] ). Measured in units of Solar luminosity, the energy loss is. In compassion to the energy unleashed from the Earth-Moon recession, and from that which goes into the expansion of the Earth as a result of spin-orbit interaction the energy from the heat loss is insignificantly small.

It has been urged in [24] that mass loss of the Earth must lead to the expansion of the Earth if the spin angular momentum is to be conserved separately. Heat loss must according to Einstein’s mass energy equivalence lead to a mass loss of the Earth. If one applies the formula in Equation (1) of [24] to the mass loss rate from the Earth’s heat loss, they will conclude that the expected radial expansion of the Earth must be mm/yr. On any scale, this is insignificantly small. Clearly, the internal energy changes occurring inside the Earth are of no consequence and can safely be ignored when one is considering energies associated with the possible expansion of the Earth. The same goes for the energy associated with Lunar-Earth tides, it is insignificantly small so much that when one is considering energies associated with the possible expansion of the Earth, they can safely ignore this without committing a significant error in their analysis.

Judiciously and with great equanimity, allow us to say this at the outset of the present section, namely that, while the ideas propagated herein spring-forth from non-exotic nor exogenous ideas but directly from the provinces of the well accepted Physical Laws, if proven correct—as we strongly believe they will; it goes without saying that their implications are nothing short of asymptotically pivotal insofar as our understanding of geo-plate tectonics is concerned. Judging from the rich history of the introduction of new ideas, we should say that, we do not expect a smooth passage and acceptance of the present ideas but more a fierce defence against them.

Be that it may, one thing is however certain—that is, the interpretation and subsequent implication of the recession of the of the Earth-Moon system here conducted, is nothing but a logical and straight forward interpretation despite the nature of the conclusion drawn thereof. To ourself, we merely have made the simplest and logical imaginable endeavour to interpret facts from within the accepted provinces of contemporary physics by applying the sacrosanct and embellished law of conservation of angular momentum. As to whether or not the ideas should be accepted or rejected, this we shall safely leave in the hands of our contemporaries and posterity to decide.

When one traces the history of the Earth as depicted by the present ideas, they can not help but entertain the idea that it is highly likely that all the lands of the Earth most certainly emerged from beneath the waters that once covered all of the Earth—the Earth should have constituted a perfect geoid⁵. If one imagines the Earth’s crust as comprising a firmament⁶, and knowing very well that beneath and within the Earth’s crust lies some complex waters systems, then, the emergent picture is that where in the beginning, the waters once where above and below the firmament, the firmament once separated the waters from the waters. With the progression of time, a portion of the firmament must have emerged above the waters (which lie above the firmament) to form the lands we inhabit today and so much cherish as a sacrosanct priceless ancestral possession and heritage.

The idea of an expanding Earth, contraction Moon, receding Moon and receding Earth-Moon system has serious implications on the formation of the Earth-Moon system if one where to wind back the hand of time for such a setting. Initially, we had included a section on this but on second thoughts we felt this would lead to a difficult reading. So, we decided to separate this into a stand-alone reading where this issue of the formation of the Earth-Moon system is tackled. This reading on the formation of the Earth-Moon system shall follow the present reading. Thereafter, we shall present the final part of our three part series of papers, where the issue of whether or not data from geophysical stations around the world supports or refutes a Hubble type flow of the World’s continental plates.

Assuming the correctness of the present ideas, then, we hereby make the following conclusions:

1. Spin-orbit interaction should lead to the expansion (or contraction) of not only the Earth, but other celestial bodies in the Solar system and elsewhere in the Universe. Plate tectonics is thus not expected to be peculiar to our planet but must be abundant in the cosmos for as long as planetary recession from their parent bodies is present.

2. The global contraction of the Moon which has been confirmed by NASA, may very well be driven by gravitational decompression which comes about as a result of changes in angular momentum occurring due to the loss of orbital angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system as they drift from the Sun—this lost orbital angular momentum be transferred to the spin of the respective bodies leading to changes in their physical volume. This same phenomenon must be causing the Earth to expand, leading to global plate tectonics.

3. The lost orbital kinetic energy due to the recession of the Earth-Moon system from the Sun which according to hypothesis made herein, is converted to the kinetic energy of the spin of the Earth-Moon system, most certainly is the driver of plate tectonics, the contraction of the Moon and as-well the observed recession of Moon from the Earth.

If the ideas propagated herein are correct (as we believe) or are to prove to tend to that end, then, we hereby make the following recommendations:

1. To improve on the values obtained for the expansion and contraction of the Earth and Moon respectively, it is necessary to drop the assumption that. We have to assume that, and. For this, one will require a gravitational theory that can handle angular variation in the gravitational potential. Though still under construction, one such theory has been presented in [35] . We are working on this. We hope to provide our improved calculation in the near future. However, we do not expect the values to be significantly far off from what we have found out in the present endeavour.

2. Measurements hoping to detect any secular expansion of the Earth must have a threshold of sensitivity of about in order to verify or falsify the present calculation. If the present calculation is proven to be incorrect by these measurements, then, our laws of conservation of angular momentum and energy may be at fault—this is highly unlikely and we wish not to think in this direction. In worst case scenario, one will have to invoke the dark matter hypothesis in-order to save these laws from the embarrassment.

3. There is need to collect data from the different stations around the World on continental drifts and check whether or not the measured movement of plates does conform to a Hubble-type flow If these data reveal a Hubble-type flow, it would be a strong indicator that the Earth may very well be expanding.

4. It is very much likely that the recession of the Earth-Moon system is not peculiar to this celestial system alone, but is a phenomenon occurring to all the Solar planets. If this were the case, it would be interesting to calculate and most certainly speculate on the possible plate tectonic activities on these planets.

5. The present calculation hinges on the measured rate of recession of the Earth-Moon system. Thus, if accurate values are to be obtained from the calculation conducted here, there is need obtain a much more accurate value of the recession rate of the Earth-Moon system from the Sun. Krasinsky and Brumberg [5] have stated the need for more accurate measurements of the recession rate of the Earth-Moon system. This certainly needs to be done, with perhaps the present work adding one more reason for doing so.