....The
Evidence for Earth Expansion
(...is encrypted in the Earth's spin...)
....The
Evidence for Earth Expansion
(...is encrypted in the Earth's spin...)
|
|
| Falling stars, ...wind
in the face, ...the changing colours of sunset, ...tornados
that strip the desiccated plains, ... the fruits of harvest and winter
snows, ...ocean currents, ..spindrift from mountain tops, ..the turn
of the seasons that sees the flight of migratory birds. So part are
we of day-to-day events, so preoccupied are we with our own place in the
world, it is not always easy to see the workings of things, far less the
connections that bind them. Nor to many is it sensible to try, such
are the pressures of everyday life. Yet when we are touched by the
connections, we are caught in that 'eureka' moment of truth which is both
daunting and obviously simple: it is difficult to believe the connections
were ever hidden from us.
It takes a peculiar turn of mind to take the observed obvious and to ask the 'why' of it, and even moreso to arrive at an answer which at once renders the commonplace significant and portentous. As Archimedes reportedly showed by considering his leg in the bath (principals of buoyancy), as Newton showed by observing the falling apple (principles of gravity), or as Einstein, sitting on the morning tram on his way to work observing the town clock showed (principles of relativity), the catalyst for change from one scientific paradigm to another happens in some pivotal observation-turned-theory in the mind of the individual, not in the assiduous pursuit of perplexing questions by teams of well-funded collaborative scientists. Moreover, the change is typically difficult, for when such an observation is made, at issue is a challenge not to the 'science' (which invites it), but to the consensus that supports it (which never does). The observation that the rotation of the Earth is heavily inscripted in the geological record is so arresting in its implications that it bears repeating in marching-ant, neon light, capital letters: - the expressions of which are writ large in the global structures that encircle the Earth, bind the continents to the ocean floors, and define the kinetics of crustal evolution. And, most importantly (for this is the crux), define it on a much smaller Earth. The ambital bulge, the distribution of mountain belts, the spreading ridges and transform faults combine in a single integrated picture to describe the rupture and dilation of the crust of a planet that was once much smaller, to form the Earth as we see it today. It is exactly here, in this quality of connectedness of integrated torsional and gravitational structures in a directed kinetic picture that the key to paradigm change from Plate Tectonics to Earth Expansion lies. It is described from the scale of oblateness of the Planet to the smaller scale structures that have modified it in a single integrated torsional - expansion event over geological time. Earth Expansion is important, not simply because of the astounding fact in itself, but for what it implies, namely that there is no known mechanism by which expansion could occur to the extent apparent, which in turn points to the necessity for addressing the foundations of our understanding of physics. The Earth on which we live is graphic proof that for all our understanding of the world about us, in some serious way that is staring us in the face, in Plate Tectonics we have it wrong. We need to re-examine the evidence. Earth Expansion not only
provides the geological framework for understanding the astrophysical connection
with other celestial bodies (which plate tectonics with its model of internally
driven convection simply lacks), and possibly the key to change in this
over time, but places the earth sciences on the brink of conceptual development
every bit as exciting and pivotal as earlier advances beyond flat-earthism
and geocentrism. In the face of the tantalising empirical evidence
for expansion it makes no sense to ignore this conclusion even though a
physical cause for it is not yet apparent. Hopefully, to a 'prepared
mind' somewhere, it will be. Indeed it is exactly because
a physical cause for expansion is not obvious that this extrapolation of
plate tectonics should be decisively explored. Plate
Tectonics' increasing use of the term 'overriding' for 'subduction'
effectively disengages the process dynamics for subduction from its own
hard line of convection and shows that the
spin-related conceptual substitution is already underway. The
next step, the explicit articulation of this conceptual shift in the direction
of torsional deformation of the crust, is the precursor to the full
recognition of Earth Expansion as the global paradigm for the Earth Sciences.
For Earth Expansion is the obverse, hand-in-glove, in-your-face, writ-large
correlative side of the coin of global torsion.
It is the destination that research in the Earth sciences is currently
reaching towards, but cannot easily arrive at because of the consensus
corner it has painted itself into. This book, designed for
the interested reader, illustrates the connection between the two and highlights
the inconsistencies and logical fallacies of Plate Tectonics.
|
When a wrong turning is taken it is necessary to return to the point of departure in order to correct it. For Plate Tectonics that wrong turning was the convenient assumption in the beginning (understandable in the context of the time), that subduction zones and spreading ridges are coupled as symmetrical correlates, subduction destroying in equal measure that which is created at the spreading ridges."If the creation of new oceanic lithosphere at oceanic ridges were the only process operating, the Earth clearly would have increased in volume and surface area at a remarkable rate in the comparatively recent geologic past" . "...large scale expansion is extremely unlikely...." "Thus, an important element of the seafloor spreading hypothesis from the outset has been the assumption that oceanic lithosphere is being returned to the mantle landward of the deep ocean trenches." F.J. Vine 1987. Encyclopedia of Structural Geology and Plate Tectonics (Seyfert), p.712 (confirming subduction was, and still is an assumption)."It is convenient, in the context of plate tectonics, to emphasise underthrusting (subduction) of one plate rather than overthrusting (overriding) of the other, although kinematically both are equivalent" John G. Dennis 1987. Encyclopedia of Structural Geology and Plate Tectonics (Seyfert), p.503 (emphasising convenience..)
However, ..it is entirely unacceptable that the central pillar of the Earth sciences should remain a "convenient assumption". Plate Tectonics, touted as the "Jewel in the crown of the Earth sciences", fails on virtually every one of its key points. Its defence rests solely on "It's the best model we have".This must change. There is something ironic in a worldful of Earth scientists ostensibily concerned with 'the evidence' protesting a lack of mechanism for expansion, and at the same time refusing to discuss the hard geological facts that might go towards finding one, ...and worse, defensively upholding obvious conundrums and fallacies whilst at the same time rejecting the empirical evidence for expansion because of an absence of a comprehensible 'mechanism'. It is hubristic in the extreme to assume that no mechanism exists simply because it is not explicable in terms of current knowledge. We lack the 'Secret of Life', but that does not mean we should eschew medical research. We lack an understanding how matter is created, but that does not stop our exploration of the physics of the universe. Similarly we lack a mechanism for Earth Expansion, but that surely does not mean we should avoid exploring the geological expression of it. And besides, in the final analysis Plate Tectonics itself has no credible mechanism. In an evolved differentiated Earth 'convection' and 'buoyancy' acting to tear an already-formed crust apart and extrude the mantle contradicts thermodynamic laws - "..That which gravity has assembled, let no thermal upstart set asunder.." So, ...what...? Is the pot calling the kettle black?
And herein lies a fundamental problem for science, highlighted in the paradigm change which is the subject here:- that the science and the consensus which supports it, are two entirely different sorts of things. The science is intrinsic, something unto itself, a 'truth' of the way that the world actually is, whilst consensus in science is the touchy-feely empathic connection of the people who do it expressed through the science. Their sense of brotherhood, of hierarchical values, of institutional sanctity, and most of all of the financial and career structures that underpin their security is paramount. Whilst the science changes over time and welcomes change, the sympathic links that bind consensus do not, and never do. A challenge to the science is first and foremost a challenge to consensus, and consensus brooks no dissent. At the present time there are over three hundred thousand sites on the web on <"Plate Tectonics">. A random selection will show virutally identical expositions. The consensus is monolithic. How can this be? How can there be no will to dissect the conundrums of Plate Tectonics and expose the logical fallacies in which it abounds? "We are a community of scientists..." (?)
| "If it is consensus, it isn't science". |
This schism between the 'science' and the consensus that supports it is the subtext to this book and the reason for the points contained in it being put directly in the public domain instead of before peer review, for the evidence supporting Earth Expansion and for dismantling Plate Tectonics is childishly simple, of the nature of "The Emperor's New Clothes". It is the sort (literally) that even a child can see, and hardly the sort of esoteric dissertation that might be welcomed by a board of formal peer review. It presents nothing new, merely reflects back to the Popes of Plate Tectonics the inadequacies of their position and their vacuous claim that it is "the best model we have". Claims by detractors that a book such as this lacking peer review by such a 'kangaroo court' is worthless, are for the reader to decide. The web if nothing else is a fine democratising medium, where people are encouraged to think for themselves. Do we need a reason for Earth Expansion before constructing a kinetic model? Well, again, ...do we need a reason for the secret of life, or the existence of mass, before researching biology or physics? Of course not. Yet this is the mantra that Plate Tectonicists vociferously hide behind in their 'defence' of Plate Tectonics - that there is no known mechanism whereby Earth Expansion may occur.This book is an experiment in publication whereby the reader is encouraged to participate through the medium of newsgroups; the basic framework of Plate Tectonics is not difficult to understand despite best efforts of its practitioners to dress it in esoteric complication. The core of the book effectively grew as a series of notes arising out of two-and-a-half years of exposition in the bearpit of Usenet to illustrate basic concepts of Earth Expansion, but began two years before that. It is still growing. At virtually no point has there been any response contradicting the geological aspects, only loud silence, ad hominens, or papal advice to "Read the Holy Texts". Although the exchanges were conducted informally, in the back alleys and under the freeways of communication so to speak, rather than in the sophisticated salons of scientific discourse, the responses are a fair reflection of opinions 'out there'. Peer review versus the archives of Usenet? Are we joking? Absolutely not. Usenet accesses the deepest recesses of even the most prestigious intellect and encourages anonymous response. If an opinion is sought, that's where it will be found.
But be warned. Responses to any questions on Earth Expansion versus Plate Tectonics will be rapid and probably brutal, for the inadequacies of Plate Tectonics are being graphically highlighted. Such unyielding and visceral response in paradigm change is something mostly only read about in history books and it is interesting to see it acted out, and through the correspondence to examine the psychology of group behaviour expressed through the individuals who conduct it.
But that is another story. Earth Expansion not only provides the geological framework for understanding the astrophysical connection with other celestial bodies (which plate tectonics with its model of internally driven convection simply lacks), and possibly the key to change in this over time, but places the earth sciences on the brink of conceptual development every bit as exciting and pivotal as earlier advances beyond flat-earthism and geocentrism. In the face of the tantalising empirical evidence for expansion it makes no sense to ignore this conclusion even though a physical cause for it is not yet obvious.