.....If 'ifs' an' 'an's' were pots and pans...
.........  .(...'If-could'  versus *IS*...)

Plate Tectonics today is essentially a theory, or model, based on geophysics: ... but there is a disconnect between the 'geo' and the 'physics' because speculation about the material properties of the Earth's interior inferred from analysis of seismic waves is today given priority over the observable surface geological facts.  Subduction is the crux of Plate Tectonics, and it is exactly this and the rubber-number manipulations that support it, and nothing else, which has led Earth Science up the garden path (see footnote).

Earth expansion on the other hand presents itself as the factual surficial architecture of the planet inclusive of geological time, and as such is tantamount to fact (so far as the axioms on which stratigraphic correlation are built hold true).

The two are simply not 'on the same page', for which reason there can be no dialogue.  Not even within Plate Tectonics itself can there be any dialogue since the essence of the theory (which is the compensatory 'shrinking' of the earth to observed ocean floor creation/ expansion) does not derive  from the geology.  For this reason the circle of enquiry cannot close.
 

Basing Plate Tectonics on insubstantial assumptions and theories derived from supposed material properties of the Earth's interior, selectively choosing geological facts to fit those assumptions (and ignoring others),  is the wrong road that Plate Tectonics has gone down, and the reason why there are so many contradictions confronting the model: the geological facts simply don't fit because the essence of the theory as it has come to be represented was not based on them in the first place, but on gratuitious supposition and wrong-headed speculative inferences. This is where there is the disconnect between the 'geo' and the 'physics'.

Theories derived from the supposed, speculated, hypothesised material properties of the Earth's interior cannot (and must not) take precedence over the observed facts of the surface geological architecture of the planet.  It's as simple as that.

...And in turn therefore why nothing 'geo' fits the 'physics'.

It is where Plate Tectonics fails and reveals itself for the nonsense it is, despite the hype wheeled out to support it, and the credits and prizes it awards itself.  The (theoretical) 'factual basis' does not mesh with the (actual) observable geological facts.
 

Footnote:-  The reasons are political.  Professional self-interest combined with self-organisation of the review system has led to a monolithic consensus, and a false perception therefore that Plate Tectonics has substantially answered the geological questions relating to surface geology.  One result is that students are leaving the faculty in droves and consequently universities are having to close their departments.  Another consequence is that funding for research has essentially shifted from the surface 'geo') geology to exploring the deep physical interior of the planet (physics - inset link above), focussing those funds in a limited number of institutions, and an elitist constriction in the consensus view.  Geology has become synonymous with Plate Tectonics, and Plate Tectonics has become virtually synonymous with the inferred thermal / material properties of the mantle.  By comparison geological facts that may impinge on this rubbery speculation are virtually ignored, or cynically asserted as opportunities  for further research.  (So, ..?facts need research?)  The doublespeak that supports this state of affairs is highlighted by the comments of veterans retiring from the profession, and a strange irony in the fact that whilst during their professional life they have been walking-the-walk and talking-the-(necessary)-talk with everyone else,  when it comes to retiral and a gold watch they feel entitled, feel it incumbent on them even, to denigrate the system that supported them,
 
 

"...and all the seas were ink..."

| frontpage | nonsense | expansion |