Debunking the myths of Plate Tectonics
          (... The logical fallacies...)

Definition:- Plate Tectonics is a theory that purports to explain the geological features of the Earth's crust in the context of a number of segments ('plates') that move continuously through geological time, driven by, ..or driving (Plate Tectonics is not very clear on the point: see "Formation processes") cycling convection in the mantle, and which is based on the assumption that the Earth cannot increase in size.

This folder debunks Plate Tectonics on the basis that even within its own frame of reference it is unsupportable, and that it does not take into account the geological elements that reflect the Earth's rotation.

"Science says the first word on everything, and the last word on nothing" Victor Hugo
("Plate Tectonics has an answer for everything, and an explanation for nothing" = Me )
" When thoughts, logic and facts have the potential to humiliate and frighten, they will always be ignored. "  (Mister supernatural)

1 -   Omission of spin
2 -   House of cards
3 -   Zippered plates
4 -   Himalayas - push or pull?
5 -   The phase-change shimmy
6 -   Africa - Europe collision
7 -   Hot balloon rising
8 -   Africa shrinks!
9 -   Cornflakes!
10 - The ringin'-the-bell  bottom line
11 - Mountain building by plate collision
12 - Milk cow - Plate Tectonics as  Junk science
13 - Subduction - Plate Tectonics' wooden half-a-leg
14 - Plates grow -  do not move
15 - Subduction - Convenient assumption
16 - Transform faults are growth fractures
17 - The bodgy consensus of Plate Tectonics
18 - As the continents move apart
19 - Atlantic transform offsets ('King')
20 - Scale - the fatal flaw of plate tectonics
21 - Incompatible stress regimes of the ocean floors
22 - This round rotating Earth
23 - Corpustules - the acne of geological thought
24 - The litany
25 - Sumo wrestlers
26 - Where two plates meet...
27 - Where Plate Tectonics fails (uyeda)
28 - Plate Boundaries and moving plates
29 - Convection cell
30 - Transform faults do not offset spreading ridges
31 - Plates do not move (The House that Jack Built)
32 - Transform faults negate Plate Tectonics
33 - Subduction, the crux of Plate Tectonics
34 - Look Ma, ..  No plates !
35 - 'ifs an' 'ans' and pots and pans...
36 - Rubber numbers rule OK.
37 - Consensus, the underbelly of science
38 - Flat subduction, a contradiction in terms
39 - The ocean floors as rubble
40 - Nobel prize or massive academic fraud
41 - Mountain building
42 - Subducting subduction
43 - Fold mountain
44 - Crumplecrust
45 - Subduction, the far side of ridge spreading
46 - India adrift
47 - One Plate? ... or several?
48 - Soup
49 - The trouble with Plate Tectonics is...
50 - Hill-buildies
51-  Garden faeries - the central pillar of PT
52 - Who remembers Lemuria?
53 - Subduction and the First Commandment
54 - The Wilson Cycle
55 - Subduction sucks
56 - Subducting slab (1, 2)
57 - Marigolds
58 - Subduction's conundrum
59 - Floaties
60 - No subducting slab - just faults
61 - Evidence ?for? Plate Tectonics?
62 - Convection
63 - Midnight

S.W. Carey (1911-2002)

Sam Carey taught subduction, the essence of which later became known as Plate Tectonics, decades before Johnnies- come-lately hailed it (and appropriated it) as the  'New Global Tectonics',  but he discarded it as unworkable in favour of an earth getting bigger.

Plate Tectonics is false for the nonsenses listed left.  The only thing keeping it afloat is the bloated blubber of consensus, rich fat from which for a time everyone can feed, but after a while it gets really on the nose.  It's time to shove it with the plates, ..down the gurgler. 

Pages supporting an earth getting bigger are listed on the expansion index

The Earth is getting bigger

Despite what's said about the objectivity of science the reality is quite otherwise.  This is never more clearly illustrated than when a new idea comes along.  For usually the difficult thing is not taking it on board (its logic is often compelling) but giving up the old beliefs that have become entrenched.   What's more, the balance usually revolves around something extremely self-evident and simple.  So self-evident and simple in fact that in retrospect once the change is made it is almost inconceivable how things could have been seen otherwise.   For example in their day concepts such as Flat Earth, Geocentric System and an Earth encapsuled in an inverted bowl-like firmament of stars were the products of the keenest minds, the cutting edge of contemporary thought.  Today these ideas are seen as childishly naive and ludicrous, not just by scientists cognitive of facts but also by an uninformed general public. There is a quality of proportion ('ratio'), ...rationality, which demands to be considered, and whose analysis is even within the grasp of a child, given the accepted mores and beliefs of the time.

And so it is with Plate Tectonics in which it is posited that the surface deformation of the planet is driven by what is tantamount to its internal indigestion - convection cells. 

The unwarranted presumptions on which Plate Tectonics is based and the many conundrums and contradictions which derive from these render the whole concept of Plate Tectonics ever less tenable, particularly when nowhere in the consensus position is there taken into account the most marked structural configuration of the planet - its spin symmetry: the Earth's spin has no place in the grand design of Plate Tectonics. 

From any rational viewpoint the Earth's spin is obviously implicated - In terms of geological time the Earth is spinning like a top, and has an oblate first-order shape that reflects it.  Of course spin is implicated.  It is staring us in the face in the first-order oblateness of the planet!  Rationally we would expect nothing less.  Why then are the smaller scale geological expressions of it, which are similarly obvious once seen, not similarly regarded?  Unfortunately the answer to that one has nothing to do with the veracity of the geological facts or logic, but has everything to do with science as a profession, the priority for hypothetical models over observable fact, and the advancement of science by consensus - a constraint that guarantees a delay of at least one, and often more, generation(s), in this case more than half a century.

The structures that describe spin are the same structures that describe the increase in the size of the Earth.  The two are hand-in-glove expressions of the same dynamical behaviour; if we accept the inscription of spin on global geological structure, then the dynamics of size increase follow axiomatically regardless of any final causal reason for the relationship; they are empirically, genetically, and logically, tied.

For a time the two models (Plate Tectonics and Earth Expansion) must exist side-by-side.  This is not so that there can be a period of proper scientific evaluation and discussion. 

. Indeed it would be reassuring on the openmindedness of science if it were.  But it isn't.  The time is literally to allow the old ideas of Plate Tectonics to wither through the imperatives of retiral and death of its adherents whose interest its political supremacy has, for a time, served.   In the meantime the responsibility on those proponents of the new idea is to 'get it out there' by whatever means possible.  The internet is the emerging medium for this.   The view that side-stepping peer review renders posting on the net worthless is for the reader to decide, when consensus self-interest has nothing to gain and everything to lose from acknowledging any validity of its nemesis.

The nonsenses 1-10 listed above are conspicuous and reflect the order of their writing.  Others have been added in the course of writing, but there is as yet no priority of importance, one Plate Tectonic tenet is as nonsensical as the other. 

The first nonsense details the omission in regard to the Earth's rotation reflected in the growth of transform faults and spreading ridges, which would not only have prevented Plate Tectonics from ever having been taken up in the first place, but would have pointed it unerringly in the direction of Earth Expansion.  The loss to Earth Science of more than half a century in a blind alley in which it is impossible to turn around is inestimable. < Weep Here. > The second nonsense draws attention to the unwarranted choice by plate tectonics of one plate being moved under the other (subduction) from its rational alternative - one plate being moved over the other (overriding), when the interfacial dynamics of both are equivalent, and when the implications for the Earth's spin over convection are obvious and absolute.  This particular nonsense underscores the Plate Tectonic belief in the doppelgangers of subduction and convection, which with the first nonsense (omission) lays the foundation for plate tectonics as junk science.  The third to ninth nonsenses highlight the gap between the ad hoc theory of plate tectonics and the empirical fact of its expression.

Many more nonsenses can be added.  The tenth nonsense briefly describes the road map, the 'flow-chart',  the faulty logic of plate tectonics which derives from the first two nonsenses.  Even though clearly faulty, this 'logic' is used to reinforce the fundamental belief underpinning the entire edifice of Plate Tectonics and is the apage satanas used to brandish in the face of any dissent.   Even whilst patently shooting itself in the foot, this 'logic' is the principal tool which has been used to develop a politics of consensus which has prevented any real advance since plate tectonics was first formulated.  That a consensus for plate tectonics exists at all in the face of such obvious nonsenses is a severe indictment of Earth scientists.  That this consensus is monolithic is an indictment of the way that science is funded.  Politics and self-interest have obviously and unashamedly overtaken the science.

It all needs a good shake-up!


"...There is an inherent limitation of application of plate tectonics that is neglected by its adherents.  Processes within the earth may generate various modes of tectonic behavior -- one of which is the plate response. An unfortunate tendency has been selectivity in choice of data used, attributing all features to drift patterns, to base broad interpretations on limited data, and  worst of all, to be woefully ignorant of basic geological knowledge in many of the model areas." 


Why is it possible to find, so easily, so much wrong with Plate Tectonics?
What's going on?

Links to other expanding Earth sites