Friday, May 22, 2015

The Four R's of Earth Expansion

(Blog for website at )

Searching Google images for 'fold mountain' places this one (i.e., from the above site) as the first cab off the rank.  Third, if contained in quotes.  Anybody copy?Is the dopey dialogue between Buggerlugs and Dumnuts an indication of new standards in scientific discourse ("going forward")?

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Mass, Entropy and Our Growing Earth

 See links here and  here.

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  is regarded as 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 :- ]