Wednesday, October 2, 2013

A Mechanism for an Expanding Earth

 [An 8-element supplement to the above paper including this figure may be viewed here]
[See also ]

For some considering this matter of an expanding Earth, a mechanism for expansion would appear to be central to their acceptance before any physical expression such as the creation of the ocean floors ( = two thirds of the Earth's surface) would be credible.  Seeing,  it would appear, is not necessarily believing.  However, if such a mechanism were to be discovered  (such as the much-celebrated Higgs boson, discovered on the stroke of a funding midnight  and considered to be a credible expression of an expanding universe)  would they abandon their conviction of the 'reality' of subduction?  I doubt it.

In the meantime therefore, they may care to read  Mr E. Ellis' assessment of how an expanding universe is expressed on Earth.

Mr Ellis posits that :-
"The decay of five elements (O, Fe, Si, Mg and S) as exemplified by their ionization properties is responsible for the Earth accumulating sufficient mass to double its radius at least twice in the past billion years [and was] responsible for the oxygen in water doubling seven times in mass and volume for a one hundred and twenty-four fold increase to incrementally fill the growing ocean beds created during the crustal expansions of (the) past 180 to 200 million years."

.. and supports his narrative with six tables and seven figures that clearly reflect the considerable time and thoughtful effort he has invested in this enterprise :-

Table 1 =  Mass doubling rates for the above-mentioned elements
Table 2, 3 =  Earth mass and radius growth over past 540my
Table 4 =  Ionisation potentials of the five elements
Table 5 =  Variable Earth-mass growth rates from ionisations of the five selected elements
Table 6 =  Mass from table 5 with lagging radii

Fig.1 =   Geological time scale of five ions
Fig.2 =  Percentage mass v. time (Graph of table 5)
Fg.3 =    Mass, Radius, Density and gravity curves of Table 6.
Fig.4 =   Uncertainty on mass calculation
Fig.5 =    Uncertainty on radius calculation
Fig.6 =  Uncertainty on density calculation
Fig.7 =  Uncertainty on gravity calculation

I don't have a background in physics sufficient to evaluate Mr Ellis'  work, but I do recognise that in addressing this subject from a perspective of the atom rather than from the traditionally geological one (as I do), he takes an angle that not only returns us to considerations about the age of the Earth, how it formed and how it is warmed, but also invites us to consider how the intrinsic properties of elemental atoms may increase over time to form the material stuff of the planet.

Mr Ellis tells me that according to our present understanding of the universe the standard model of particle physics involves 2 entities, matter (4.9% atoms and 26.8% dark matter) and energy (68.3% dark energy) which are interchangeable.  However the mathematics of the standard model indicates something is lacking, .. hence the need for more sub-atomic particles and more complex math.  Mr Ellis believes that the ponic paper fills that void with a third entity - entropy, which is not interchangeable with the other two - mass can convert to entropy all right (burn a piece of paper), and energy can convert to entropy (how the Earth came to be heated in the first place), but not the reverse :: entropy is a one-way street.

The paper should be viewed as offering a method for finding the mass and radius of an expanding earth that matches the observed geology. It is significant that all the points in Table 5 and Figure 4 are at, or very close to, a geological boundary where highly significant changes in the fossil record are noted.

Comments are welcome either here, or on the 'contact author' link provided in Mr Ellis'  paper.

Good reading.

Thursday, August 22, 2013


(Blog for website at )

Readers interested in the argument for Earth expansion v. Plate Tectonics might like to revisit *this post* while I reorganise things here.  I think the whole business is encapsulated in those two points 1.  Subduction and 2. Along-ridge spreading.  Though of course it gets quite complicated in the detail (which it would of course, since everything geological is incorporated).

The essential point is that whichever is correct (expansion or subduction) (and they are mutually exclusive) the evidence has to be *writ large* to the point that it is hardly worth talking about - like day and night, Earth rotation and the Earth being round. [But just think of the wisdom that went into that lot! - which now is hardly even kindergarten stuff]

And that's it :-  *EITHER*  Subduction, 'evidenced' by the ambiguity of first motions of earthquakes and the destruction of an area of the Earth's crust = 2/3rds of its present area (that has 'disappeared' and for which there is therefore no evidence), ... *OR*  ...  Along-Ridge Spreading and Extension, which is a whole lot of ARSE staring Plate Tectonics in the face.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Scientists behaving badly (again)

 (.. "again"..) ??

(Blog for website at )

 (Doing dishes and listening to the radio again - regarding the workings of 'science'.)  Putting the hot money on consensus can be fraught with banana skins :-

" .. Yet, as we have been reading lately the number of retractions in scientific journals suggests a rising trend towards deception of one kind or another.  Two years ago the British journal Nature attributed half of the retractions to plain mistakes, and half to scientific misconduct such as plagiarism, faked data and altered images." 
From  ::   Discovery ofStreptomycin     ( 6MB)
" ..  The result was one of the most vicious battles for credit of a major discovery in the history of science ... "

(" .. faked and altered images "  ??    For aspects of which we could well attend to the view of Don Anderson in regard to seismic tomography propping up Plate Tectonics. )

Shifting sands in Plate Tectonics too?
Dearie me, ..  Tch - Tch !  Who would think?

[Addendum, 20140224 :: And of course climate change.  Who are the bandits, .. the changers or the doubters?   And what is the subtext there with regard to the role of consensus in science?
Or, if we are to regard the broader picture of group behaviour, should the question rather be, "What is the role of science in consensus?"   If a consensus in global warming has been reached by the same devices that a consensus has been reached, say,  for Plate Tectonics, then I would say, .. well I guess you could guess what I would say.  But I have noticed over the last five to eight years maybe that the seasons seem to be gradually delayed by about a month, and in the last few, more like a month and a half, .. meaning that 'earinwesternoz we don't get December-'Christmas' weather till well into February for the last number of years.  Does that mean warming? I don't know, but it's certainly late going by the trees which seem to be confused as well, flowering at the wrong times, or twice a year to make up for the flowers that are out of kilter - and still getting it wrong. I don't know, .. but consensus is a pain when it comes to science.  So I guess that's what I would say (about consensus). ]

["We are a community of scientists.." ]
(Read :- Hey, ..  Shoot that messenger !  We're all in this together.)

Monday, August 12, 2013

Bursting a Sudsy Bubble

( Earth Expansion  v. Plate Tectonics)

(The Earth Expansion Common Sense -5, ..  Plate Tectonic Phantasmagoricals - 0 )
( Blog for website at )

Regular readers know that this site is only marginally about geology (because Earth expansion is a lay-down misere and Plate Tectonics is just plain geological rubbish), and that as well as  politics, religion and the selling of soap, it is really about the exploitation of the herd instinct.  No two ways about it.  But they might not properly realise the extent to which artifice needs to be seen through to make a considered judgement of the suds that come out of the wash before going down the gurgler.  So here's one for everybody to contemplate (Fig.1) while I take some time off. I have to leave these postings for a bit.

Fig.1.  Good expansion oil v. Plate Tectonic soap.  Institutional Plate Tectonic garbage spawned under the aegis of distorted map projections (plain packaging to encourage gurge).  (a)  The arrow of the Big Rip (the disruption of the Western Pacific related to the rupture of the Indonesian Bubble)  (b)  The same big arrow on a plate map from Carl Seyfert's oft-here cited (1987) Encyclopedia of Structural Geology and Plate Tectonics, P812.  According to (a) the arrow should actually parallel the transform faults of the North Pacific (but doesn't in Plate Tectonics' phantasma). The blue arrow, which is the USGS's to show plate movement, likewise contradicts 'plate movement' as indicated by transforms of the Pacific.

Now, ..  all respect here is due to Carl Seyfert (writing that particular encyclopedia entry) because his illustration is just to show examples of triple junctions, and the figure anyway is taken from McElhinney, 1973  (Palaeomagnetism and Plate Tectonics, Cambridge University Press, 358pp) which was a pretty influential text in its day - ..  maybe still is, .. though after forty years is pretty dated were it not for the fact that projections used for plate maps today still mostly show the same projection as his, from which I would suggest (and from the way people go aong with its derivatives I think I am not mistaken) that most people gandering plate maps and ruminating the cud about them would not suss the point of that discordance - which is that those transforms of the North Pacific are still NOT perceived as they should be, which is that they are related to the biggest transform rupture of the planet that broke open the crust from the Pacific to the Atlantic in one continuing Mesozoic to Tertiary event that is still continuing today (bigrip link above), ..and going strong in the original location,  a failure that gave birth to everything about Jason Morgan and Dan McKenzie and Euler Poles and plate movements and hot spots and so on - and stitched up Harry Hammond Hess and Tuzo Wilson and a small retinue of some others amounting to not very many people at all at the root of all of this Plate Tectonics stuff, .. whom almost everybody else followed like the pied piper of Hamelin just because he plays a mean flute an's got a daisy stuck in his big toe an' wuz promising publication for the now and hereverafter an making life if not geological research easy, into the enticing yellow submarine of Plate Tectonics because yellow was a very fashionable colour back then that went with big hair and nudity an *CLOTHES* from the Emperor's wardrobe.

Which they are.

That's all I wanted to say.

Ciao for niaow


[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :- ]

Friday, August 9, 2013

Atlantic stretching and the Caribbean

Revisiting the view from Alice's Tardis.
( Blog for website at )

(And raising the question what, precisely *do* transform faults represent?)

 It's a while since I got tired of using spelling to sledge the indefensible of Plate Tectonics , but somehow we seem to have cycled back to the point.  So, .. having taken in a number of things along the way, maybe we need to look at it again.  It is also the point where we virtually started this whole enterprise, .. by considering the necessity for unhinging the Caribbean Pivot. Though I see on that link I put the red spot a bit in the wrong place - I think I was trying to avoid concealing the very interesting triplicate structure of the question in question.  It is also the point that weighed heavily on the minds of those gentlemens trying to make sense of the nice trans-Atlantic retrofit (Fig.1) since it would seem really, that something needed to be done with Mexico and the Caribbean. 

 Fig.1. The finagled fit by Teddy Bullard using a gee-whizz computer ...  to prove the Atlantic edge-fits that Wegener wrote to his wife about using a pencil .. with the inconvenient bit that Plate Tectonics ignores removed because it didn't fit with the paradigm (Courtesy of on-line Encyclopedia Britannica.)  See also.

 ... And still does.

For decades the TexasGulf/Caribbean area has provided Plate Tectonics with a veritable mountain of jigsaw-pieces to run fingers through.   In getting to the truth about this place, a little three-line  meditative hum by Tuzo (again) Wilson  [Wilson, J. T., 1966, Are the structures of the Caribbean and Scotia arcs analogous to ice rafting?: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 1, p. 335-338.]  has crescendoed to symphonic ffffff -proportions.  

(Or here for an alternative view -  The Pacific Ocean Paradigm (POP)  )

The Caribbean is an excellent example of the sort of high-flying dirigible that only Plate Tectonics can launch that when given additional observed context, putters to a party balloon - the 'additional context' in question being the lift-off the mantle that boudinage effects in the gaps of pull-apart.  However for those who *UNDERSTAND* all about subduction and the so-on of  plates, the wonky-morphing geological picture is a goldmine of ecstatic jigsaw pieces, and therefore not likely to be abandoned very soon.  Here's a clip from the POP model mentioned just above for the bulldust factor :-
"   ..   The POP model holds that the Plate formed in the Pacific during the Jurassic, thickened into an oceanic plateau in the Cretaceous above a mantle plume/hotspot or above a "slab gap" in subducting "proto-Caribbean" crust and moved between the Americas. It collided with west-facing volcanic arc, blocking subduction and reversing polarity. The arc collided with Yucatán and Colombia, subducting continent to 70 – 80 km and HP/LT metamorphism. Volcanic activity ceased during Eocene to Oligocene oblique and diachronous arc collision with the Florida-Bahamas platform and northern South America. HP/LT rocks resurfaced in Cuba and along northern Venezuela. Slab roll-back in two different directions opened the Yucatán Basin south of Cuba. These elements joined North America as the plate boundary transferred to the Cayman Trough, where spreading accompanied 1100 km of eastward plate movement. Cenozoic Grenada Basin inter- or back-arc spreading separated the Aves Ridge from the Lesser Antilles, the active remains of the arc. Chorotega and Chocó are seen to be intra-oceanic volcanic arcs with accreted oceanic rocks on the trailing edge of the Caribbean (link as before - The Pacific Ocean Paradigm (POP) Plate."

The primary reference given by the POP is Wilson (citation above) who, as usual, frames his interpretation as a question so that others who see relevance in it and currency in kudos will adapt it to their own ends and give him a guernsey, at the same time allowing him the latitude to say, "Who?  Me?  I never said such a thing at all.  All I said (in three lines) was *IF* and *MAYBE*.  It's a pokey pig, .. for sheep to check out."

(Classic Tactic for testing the waters of  academic POP (*ularity )

 So let's look at it again (Fig.2)

[ Image removed ]

Fig.2  Crust-mantle equivalents of along-ridge spreading in the Atlantic.   (a) The unvarnished truth. (b) Edited, to show crust and mantle equivalents of along-ridge spreading. Large arrows = east-west retrofit of the continents in the North and South Atlantic; red = crustal stretching in the TexasGulf-Caribbean region, coloured ridge sector = mantle crust lengthening that remains when large-arrow fits are made.  Blue highlight = Ceara-Sierra Leone Rise; Galapagos on the left.

Retrofitting the continents according to the big arrows leaves us with the obvious conclusion that some*how* the red zone in the figure equates with the grey-blue highlighted sector of the spreading ridge.  If it is accepted that the Americas retrofitted to Europe and Africa then it follows that both coloured sectors represent zones of lengthening, one in the crust in the TexasGulf-Caribbean region and probably involving the upper mantle, and the other in the Atlantic mantle proper.  It also follows that when Brazil was joined to Africa, its northeastern margin closely coincided with the southern edge of the mantle highlight, and consequently with the whole zone of along-ridge lengthening, including its northern margin, i.e. with the discordant transforms extending west of Guinea ('Guinea Terrace' on Google earth).   With Atlantic spreading closed, the Ceara Ridge and the Sierra Leone Rise are seen as once juxtaposed , .. residual 'ghosts' of coastal separation (Fig.3).

[ Image removed ]

Fig.3  Once-equivalence of the Ceara Ridge and the Sierra Leone Rise.  Red = Ceara Ridge, yellow = Sierra Leone Rise.  Thinner yellow lines = boundaries of packets of transforms taking up the alongRidge slack of the bigArrow continental fits in Fig.2. [Load Google earth and zoom to see detail of anastomosing transforms describing 'out-from-under' along-ridge lengthening (/ 'spreading'). Fig.4.]

[ Image removed ]

Fig.4.  'Out-from-under' along-ridge lengthening of ocean floor.  Likely listric form of the faults related to potential mantle thinning and extension in the zone of lengthening ('Potential',  because thickness equilibrium is maintained by underplating of crystallising mantle.)  Small arrows represent the consistent eastwards displacement of the spreading ridge taking up mantle growth.

The point here, even in this simple example of Atlantic retrofits that began it all, nothing is *moving* in the sideways sense of Plate Tectonics. 'Movement' (if the word must be used) - is *UP*. The continents by themselves are not plates but include their mantle substrates and newly added peripheral mantle crust as far as the ridge.  It is not reasonable to argue, as Plate Tectonics does, that the symmetry of oceanic crust each side of the ridge (topography, magnetics age)  is a function of one-sided subduction in the Pacific.  Nor is it reasonable to maintain it is due to asymmetrical convection emplacing a daily fractional millimetre-scale dyke, dog-legging round all the transforms of the world.   A more rational explanation, backed by earthquake distribution, is that oceanic symmetry is a direct consequence of continual *ACTIVE* partitioning of accreted, flat-lying, areal mantle underplating by the brittle fault defining the spreading ridge (Fig.5 rather than to any symmetrical bifurcation of a dyke emplaced by a supposedly upwelling, ductile convecting mantle. 

[ Image removed ]

Figure 5.  Simple boudinage template for reading the ocean floors. 1. Continental crust;  2. Transitional lower crust to upper mantle;  3. Lower mantle breakthrough constituting the spreading ridge.  Pencil lines into figure  = abyssal hills; cross-lines = transform faults.  The fault axial to the spreading ridge continually works its way down against the rising zone of mantle underplating as outwards movement from the centre exerts tensional force.  Marginal arrows represent displacement to take up the peripheral space created as surface area increases as the Earth gets bigger.    (Read this one in conjunction with Fig 2 > 'tools' here.

This point of the ridge-fault being 'active' is counter to Plate Tectonics insistence (to maintain a constant-sized Earth) that the spreading ridges and transform faults have no active participation in the creation of the ocean floors at all, but were imprinted prior to separation and have since been merely passive elements to be exploited by mantle convection, either by an upwelling convecting cell (directly in-situ), or by a downgoing subducting slab (half a world away). (Or both.)

The manifest nonsense of a ridge of mantle crust held 'free-floating' in situ as it were, staying symmetrically put while one-sided convecting mantle (that can "move plates") cycles below (cycling the plate but not the ridge) is almost as silly  as the concept of a fractional millimetre-scale dyke, dog-legging around the offsets of global spreading ridges due to subduction half-a-world away.  For this *is* the damoclean sword of nonsense that hangs over Plate Tectonic theory just as the spreading ridge is the knife that cuts ever keenly into the mantle by the force of gravity as the crust moves outwards from the Earth's centre.  How can a worldful of 'scientists' *NOT* rationalise the difference that is implicit in the global mantle rise we see at the ridges, in the along-ridge spreading illustrated here, and that is even implicit in Plate Tectonics' own paradigm of crustal stretching?


So, .. "What *do* transform faults represent?" (other than the uninformative, fatuous  and false  "way that plates move past each other").  We've only hinted at an answer, which is that there is a difference depending which ones we're talking about.  Some transforms (as illustrated above) are closely spaced and associated with substantial offsets on the ridges and along-ridge extension (as in the blue-grey highlight of the spreading ridge), where others (for example those in the main body of the North and South Atlantic) are much more widely spaced and show minimal offsets with virtually no along-ridge extension, and enclose sets of others that are similar, but have a much more 'rugose' - less well delineated appearance  [ load Google earth for a proper look.]

We can't properly answer this one until we note the range of expression that transforms have.  A limited view (from the Tardis) suggests that crustal thickness has much to do with it.  The Atlantic (being the pushover it is) illustrates the point that there *is* no uniform transform expression, but that it is very much depends on situation and context, e.g. ridge-lengthening being focussed in the near-equatorial region where there is greatest dislocation of the southern hemisphere (eastwards). 

Conclusion anyway.  Contrary to consensus transform faults' are very much actively involved in the enlargement of the planet's surface, developing as its surface moves outwards from the core.  It is this third dimension that dictates their characteristics, .. particularly their extraordinary linearity and parallelism (Fig.6)

Fig.6.  The Vema Fracture Zone, Atlantic Ocean.  One of the faults in Fig.4.  Abyssal hills (crossways) and the transform faults (longways) represent the growth of orthogonal fracture sets related to the changing curvature of the Earth's surface.  Both are the same order of magnitude as each other, and as the curvature of the Earth's surface (horizon).

They are not, as Plate Tectonics would have it, simply impressed on a two-dimensional 'plate'.  They indeed do have their expression on the two dimensions of the Earth's surface, but their evolution involves the constant  force related to the vertical diension as well, .. the one making the planet round.

P.S.  Summary.  Unhinging of the Caribbean Pivot is related to mantle rise as north-south crustal stretching meets east-west mantle uplift as the Galapagos rise breaks through this zone of extension.  Antilles collapse (eastwards) is on a ('Galapagos') transform (Aves Ridge) which inherits both Pacific and Atlantic spreading-ridge dynamics. 

Orthogonal crustal breakthroughs and orthogonal fracture sets ::::  It's how Earth expansion does it.

Subduction?  Bury it.

Mountain building?  Bury that too.

Plate Tectonics?  Let's go the whole hog!

[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :- ]