if-could versus IS

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

..Plate Tectonics versus Earth Expansion..
The essential difference is theory versus observation...

Plate Tectonics is essentially a theory 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 earthquakes is given priority over the observable surface geological facts. It is this which has led Plate Tectonics up the garden path. 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. And because of this the circle of enquiry cannot close.

How Mantle Slabs Drive Plate Motions

"Slab Suction. In the slab suction mechanism, we assume that slabs are detached from their surface plates and sink within the mantle.
"Slab Pull. If, instead, we assume that the slab is mechanically attached to the subducting plate, then the weight of the slab will pull on subducting plate, drawing it toward the subduction zones." C.P. Conrad and C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, "How mantle slabs drive plate tectonics," Science, 298, 207-209, 2002. http://www.jhu.edu/~cconrad1/resproj/forces/forces.html

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.

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

| frontpage | nonsense | expansion |