2-Subduction's Fatal Flaw
SUBDUCTION’S FATAL FLAW
Subduction’s fatal flaw is easily demonstrated. Cup both hands, thumbs together, to represent Wegener's single Pangaean landmass covering one hemisphere of an imaginary fixed-diameter Earth, with Panthalassa (the eo-Pacific Ocean) occupying the rest of the planet.
Then, to portray creation of the Atlantic Ocean, slowly move the hands apart and slide them around this imaginary globe (the left hand representing North and South America; the right hand representing Eurasia/Africa and Australia, with the Atlantic Ocean opening up between them). Now, observe what happens to the Pacific basin on the opposite side of the globe as the Atlantic basin keeps widening in conformity with plate tectonics dogma.
Note that, as the continents are pushed around the planet under pressure of an ever-widening Atlantic Ocean, a fixed, unchanging diameter would result in subduction eventually swallowing the entire Pacific Ocean basin—IN SPITE OF continuous propagation of new ocean seafloor at the rate of ~80-160 mm/yr (~3-1/4 to ~6-1/2 in/yr) along the hyperactive East Pacific Rise (EPR) west of South America (the most active volcanic area on the planet) right in the middle of the supposed subduction area. (This is also a volatile heat source directly beneath the area where El Niños are spawned by heated Pacific waters.) If carried to its ultimate conclusion, subduction would cause North and South America to be moved half way around the planet from the western edge of Pangaea to the eastern edge of Pangaea, ending up against Asia and Australia after having eliminated the entire Pacific Ocean! This would occur in spite of the massive growth of new seafloor in the Pacific along the East Pacific Rise, which is today expanding the width of the Pacific Ocean basin.
The good news is that this simple demonstration provides a method to determine which of the two processes, subduction or expansion, is correct simply by measuring any change in width of the Pacific Ocean basin. In order to prove subduction, the Pacific basin must rapidly decrease in size in order to accommodate the continuous growth occurring in the other oceans of the world. However, any increase in size would confirm that the Earth is increasing in diameter, surface area, and circumference.
SUBDUCTION SOPHISTRY
When the Atlantic Midocean Ridge was found to be creating (propagating) new ocean seafloor and increasing the distance between Europe/Africa and the Americas, scientists realized this could mean the Earth might be increasing in diameter because the Atlantic basin was obviously increasing in width.
But the possibility of an expanding Earth raised a philosophical dilemma because cosmologists, geophysicists and marine geologists had always been taught the Earth has always been the same size since it was first created ~4.5-4.6 Ga (billion years ago). Surely, the Earth could not be expanding as Professor S. Warren Carey (1956, 1976) had argued!
So, when subduction was conceived (invented) in 1967 it was immediately perceived to be the solution to their dilemma, and the "Plate Tectonics Revolution" began, with subduction as its mechanism, powered by convection cells with hot magma rising to the surface in the midocean ridges (MOR) and older seafloor along continental margins being subducted (descending) back into the mantle to be re-melted and recycled back to the surface as new magma.
Now, thirty-five years later, subduction is accepted dogma throughout the world--to the detriment, unfortunately, for scientific progress because now subduction has been shown to be totally false!
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF SUBDUCTION?
The author is indebted to Professor Gerhard Bruhn, Darmstadt University of Technology in Germany, for his adverse criticisms. The evidence he offered made it clear WHY he, and other scientists around the world, mistakenly believe in subduction. Examination of his evidence revealed technical flaws and misleading results because the measurements are based on arithmetical calculations using false basic assumptions.
Scientists generally rely on VLBI measurements by NASA to show that Asia, Australia, and North America are ostensibly moving towards each other to reduce the width of the Pacific Ocean basin—which MUST DECREASE if Earth’s diameter is fixed and subduction is actually occurring. (http://lupus.gsfc.nasa.gov/plots/maps/jpg/)
But these VLBI measurements—velocity and directional measurements that APPEAR to be reliable—are misleading. They do not accurately reflect the realities of relative plate motions resulting from new seafloor growth at the midocean ridges around the planet.
In the northern hemisphere, the velocity arrows suggest Europe and North America are moving properly in opposite directions AWAY from each other—as they SHOULD BE with growth of the Atlantic seafloor increasing the distance between them. In the Pacific basin, the arrows suggest Asia is moving SE, Australia is moving NNE, and North America is moving SW toward Asia and Australia. This would suggest these three Pacific Rim continents are moving closer together and reducing the width of the Pacific Ocean basin in accordance with subduction philosophy.
BUT, South America is shown to be moving NNE—in the same direction as Australia, Europe and Africa! This is the WRONG direction. South America MUST MOVE AWAY from Africa in response to new seafloor growth along the Atlantic midocean ridge, further separating those two continents.
The VLBI measurements also raise other questions. In order to maintain Earth’s current diameter, subduction MUST remove older Pacific Ocean seafloor at a rate equal to ALL new seafloor area added anywhere on the planet—not just the small ~25-40 mm/yr (~1 to 1-1/2 in/yr) of new seafloor added annually along the Atlantic Ocean midocean ridge. The total new seafloor growth, both E-W and N-S, along the ~65,000 kilometers of midocean ridges undoubtedly exceeds ~300 mm/yr (~12 in/yr), and ALL of it must be vectored into the Pacific Ocean basin, the only area on the planet where subduction is believed to occur.
There are other reasons to doubt the validity of subduction. One is the illogical question of why the East Pacific Rise (EPR) should generate ~80 to ~160 mm/yr (~3-1/4 to ~6-1/2 in/yr) of new ocean seafloor—right in the middle of the supposed subduction area, and simultaneously subduct a greater amount elsewhere around its perimeter, leaves one puzzled. This EPR growth is four times greater than seafloor growth anywhere else on the planet and this large amount of new oceanic seafloor does not appear to be accounted for in the VLBI measurements. Where are measurements showing the Pacific Ocean basin DECREASING IN WIDTH?
Also unaccounted for are the vast amounts of new N-S seafloor being added circum-Antarctica that are causing Antarctica to INCREASE IN TOTAL SURFACE AREA AND EXPAND RADIALLY OUTWARD FROM THE PLANET’S CENTER.
This raises the pivotal questions of HOW and WHERE subduction could be occurring because there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of seamounts or soft sedimentary debris filling the deep ocean trenches or piled up on North or South American shores, semi-liquid debris that would easily have been scraped off the top of any subducting ocean floor.
The Pacific Rim of Fire, the supposed subduction area, suffers frequent earthquakes, but Benioff zones and seismic tomography that scientists point to when trying to justify subduction, only APPEAR to support subduction because they merely provide epicenter depths of earthquakes without providing the direction or extent of movement.
The only way subductionists can PROVE SUBDUCTION is to demonstrate that the Pacific Ocean basin is actually being REDUCED IN SIZE, and that offshore islands or seamounts are rapidly moving closer to shore or are descending into the deep ocean trenches. The simplest solution would be direct trans-Pacific measurements of the changing distances between fixed points on each of the five Pacific continents and Alaska. (Use of satellite measurements (VLBI, LAGEO, GPS) should be avoided because the global grid system of latitude and longitude has itself changed by increased distances between parallels and meridions.)
However, there is no need to go to all this trouble. Since it has been shown earlier that the planet is obviously expanding there is no comparable problem, either physical or mathematical (except for the expanded global grid system). Midocean ridges are the enabling mechanism of global expansion, acting like cranial sutures that permit the human skull to grow to maturity. The midocean ridges simply add new basaltic seafloor from core magma that increases Earth’s total surface area, diameter and circumference, and, like Antarctica, EXPANDS ALL SURFACE AREAS RADIALLY OUTWARD FROM THE CENTER OF THE PLANET!
WHAT IS THE RATIONALE SUPPORTING SUBDUCTION?
Scientists surprised by clear evidence of expansion on the previous pages and who have taught (and been taught) plate tectonics and subduction on a fixed-diameter Earth for the past thirty-five years should find it helpful and instructive to review the fundamental assumptions and misinterpretations that misled them into believing the subduction concept in the first place—and continue to mislead themselves by flawed technical measurements.
First, the scientific community relies on a false fundamental ASSUMPTION that Earth’s diameter is fixed and unchanging, based on the Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis [1796] that Earth was created by rapid gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas and dust surrounding the Sun 4.5-4.6 billion years ago (Ga) that formed the Earth in its present size, shape and chemical composition, complete with oceans and today’s water volumes.
Second, based on this fundamental philosophy of a constant diameter, scientists ASSUMED that some unknown mechanism must somehow be removing an amount of older seafloor equal to the newly-discovered creation of new oceanic seafloor along the Atlantic’s midocean ridge, otherwise, they would have been forced to conclude the Earth must be expanding. Expansion WAS briefly considered, but discarded because of their belief that Earth’s diameter is fixed and unchanging. On page 284 of Menard's "The Ocean of Truth" (Princeton University Press, 1986) is the statement
"Neither of us believed for a moment in an expanding earth, so we were left with a puzzle."
Third, Oliver and Isacks [1967] published their diagram illustrating the subduction process that suggested the missing older seafloor is being pushed (‘subducted’) beneath the continents surrounding the Pacific Ocean and recycled back into the mantle, causing the extensive seismic activity experienced around the Ring of Fire. The subduction process APPEARED to resolve the enigma faced by scientists, and subduction was quickly adopted as the mechanism of plate tectonics philosophy. The Plate Tectonics Revolution was born.
Fourth, in order to maintain Earth’s average diameter of 12,734.889 km (7,913.46 miles), scientists ASSUMED this removal of older seafloor must occur in the huge Pacific Ocean basin, where known seismic and volcanic activity around the Ring of Fire made it an obvious and logical candidate for the subduction equalizing process.
Fifth, scientists failed to consider that seafloor spreading along the Atlantic midocean ridge is only ~25-40 mm/yr (~1 to 1-1/2 in/yr), and relatively constant along its length, which would require that subduction in the Pacific basin also be equally constant and evenly distributed around the Ring of Fire. But this is not the case because earthquakes occur only intermittently and unevenly around the Pacific basin.
Sixth, even more important, scientists failed to take into account the fact the East Pacific Rise (EPR), right in the middle of the southern Pacific subduction zone, is creating new seafloor at the rate of ~80-160 mm/yr, four times the rate of the Atlantic midocean ridge's ~25-40 mm/yr. This would require subduction in the South Pacific to total a minimum of ~125-200 mm/yr (~5-8 in/yr) in order to maintain a constant-diameter Earth. This would cause far greater, and more continuous, seismic activity than what is now observed.
Seventh, scientists failed to take into account the E-W seafloor growth of ~30-44 mm/yr (~1-1/4 to 1-3/4 in/yr) occurring along Carlsberg Ridge in the Indian Ocean, plus extensive N-S seafloor growth surrounding Antarctica that must be vectored northward into the Pacific Ocean basin. Antarctica, therefore, is not only moving away from Earth’s center of gravity, but the new seafloor growth is increasing the size and total surface area of that southernmost continent. Antarctica’s growth is, in itself, clear evidence the EARTH IS EXPANDING!
Eighth, to support their ASSUMPTIONS, scientists carried out a number of measurements in the Pacific area, using guidelines based on what they expected to find, but close examination of the results, particularly those of Smith, et al, [1993], could just as easily be used to prove the Pacific Ocean basin is widening and the Earth expanding.
Ninth, scientists overlooked the fact the ocean seafloor has a meter or more of soft sediments on top—sediments, plus islands and seamounts, that would be scraped off and piled up at any subduction zone. There are NO piles of such debris in any deep ocean trench or on any continental shelf. If subduction is occurring, WHERE are the missing sediments, seamounts and islands?
Tenth, scientists misjudged or overlooked some fundamental principles of geophysics in accepting subduction. The tectonic force of expanding core magma is sufficient to fracture the crust and separate two plates enough to permit extrusion of magma and temporarily relieve the internal pressure, but the lateral pressure of extruding magma on either side of midocean ridges is insufficient to drive seafloors ~5-10 km thick beneath continents ~25-40 km thick. Any lateral pressure of extruding magma at midocean ridges would be minimal; any lateral resistance would only result in an upward flow of magma and form a larger ridge or seamount.
Finally, the immense upward pressure of tectonic force from internal core expansion would not allow seafloor to slide beneath continents because it is this insuperable tectonic force that supports ALL continental and oceanic surface areas.
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF EXPANSION
Relative ages of the world’s ocean sediments are beautifully displayed in color in ‘Age of the Ocean Floor’ produced by the National Geophysical Data Center. The images focus on all ocean floors (except the Arctic) and provide fascinating evidence in studying their development over the past ~200 million years. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif
Note the symmetry and width of the Atlantic’s MOR compared to the stark asymmetry in the Pacific, where recent growth (dark red) is apparent along the extended San Andreas Fault north of San Francisco and off the western coast of Canada up to Alaska. This fault is moving the Pacific plate NNW relative to North America (and the North American plate reciprocally SSE) as a result of global expansion. Its long-term effect can be seen in the ~425-km (~265-miles) gap that now exists between the southern tip of Baja California and Guadalajara, Mexico, to the south. This gap is widening due to growth of the San Andreas Fault that extends southward through the Gulf of California and becomes the East Pacific Rise (EPR) off South America.
This disparity in the eastern Pacific is one of the reasons subductionists claim this represents the area where the oldest Pacific seafloor has already been subducted, but provide no explanation for the obvious asymmetries in a process that should be smooth and equally distributed throughout any so-called subduction areas of the Pacific Ocean basin.
Note locations of the oldest areas (dark blue=180 Ma) which are limited to the northern hemisphere, except for one small area off the eastern coast of Africa. These are the most likely points at which the original planetary landmass began to fragment, and suggests these oldest locations were at the same geographic latitude when crustal fragmentation began ~200 Ma.
Also note the staggered slip/strike patterns of the medium-aged (~40-55 Ma) yellow segments between the fracture zones off thewestern coast of North America indicating these sediments were laid down during the same time period but have since been displaced eastward or westward by subsequent expansion events in each of the fracture zones—which are proof of N-S expansion of the crust.
Other interesting phenomena are the widths of the bright red (youngest) growth areas along the EPR and the Carlsberg Ridge south of India. These wider areas are a reflection of the higher growth rates along these portions of the MOR.
Note also that most of the active MOR (75-80%) are located in the southern hemisphere—where most new seafloor growth occurs today and the reason Earth’s figure is ovoid, or pear-shaped. This should gradually change over time as gravity reasserts its influence in maintaining a spherical shape and seismic events will begin to increase in the northern hemisphere to balance the planet’s excessive growth in the southern hemisphere.
EXPANSION OR SUBDUCTION?
To definitively and forever remove this question from further contention, it is recommended that NASA and the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) do the following:
(1) Measure the width and length of the Pacific Ocean basin over a reasonable period of time in order to detect any changes in width or length, and whether the distances are decreasing or increasing.
(2) Simultaneously, re-measure Earth's diameter using conventional geodesy to establish a new North American Datum for the Third Millennium. This would unambiguously confirm whether the planet has remained constant or has increased in size since 1983 when the diameter was last determined. Re-measurement for a new datum would also serve as a check against any measurements provided by the simpler and faster measurement of changes in Pacific basin width.
The North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) [Schwarz, Ed., NOAA, 1989] was determined by the NGS to be 12,756.274 km (7926.75 miles) on the major axis (equatorial), and 12,713.504 km (7900.17 miles) on the minor axis (polar), with an average diameter of 12,734.889 km (7913.46 miles). Can the NGS affirm that these measurements are still valid today?
Ironically, NGS geodetic sites routinely experience sudden and unexpected jumps in elevation that are usually attributed to earthquakes, or to "elastic rebound" or "glacial uplift" of the continent resulting from melting glaciers. The author's belief is that such sudden increases in elevation result from global expansion and are being misinterpreted because the NGS assumes the planet's diameter remains constant and therefore does not consider any alternative explanation. This presumption could be an unsuspected major flaw in NGS operations.
An NGS review of these elevation data with a different basic assumption could be an important factor in settling the issue of Earth’s diameter. The NGS may already possess enough data in its database to confirm expansion of the Earth. The fact that ellipsoid elevations and horizontal coordinates constantly change, especially if the changes are unidirectional and cumulative, should alert some inquisitive mind that some unexpected factor, such as expansion, may be affecting their geodetic measurements.
Few people know that the Good Friday earthquake in Alaska on March 27, 1964, raised the elevation of Montague Island, Alaska, by ~30 feet, and elevated by several feet other locations on the North American continent as far away as Washington, DC, and Mexico [Joseph Wraight, 1966, Chief Geographer of the U.S.]. Such large-scale elevations are exactly what one would expect as a result of expansion of the planet and change in Earth’s radius and surface curvature.
Earthquakes are not a primary force—they are merely secondary effects of planetary expansion; i.e., readjustments in radius and flattening curvature of Earth's crust in response to competing demands of the forces of gravity and internal core expansion. Until scientists understand this principle underlying all earth movements, all efforts to predict or determine the causes of earthquakes are doomed to failure.
(These suggestions were previously submitted to the President of the United States, National Science Foundation, NASA, NGS, and other governmental agencies, but all initiatives were ignored.)
THE BASIS OF SUBDUCTION BELIEF
INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS OF EARTH’S CREATION CAN BE TRACED TO THE BIBLE AND THE KANT-LAPLACE NEBULAR HYPOTHESIS
1. WHY HAVEN’T SCIENTISTS REALIZED THAT INFLUX OF METEORITES ADDS TO EARTH’S MASS, DIAMETER AND GRAVITATIONAL POWER?
A plausible answer to this question of simple addition is baffling to the point of absurdity. The constant daily accretion of hundreds of tons of extraterrestrial meteors and dust has been known by scientists for decades. This daily accretion of mass is self-evident and cannot be questioned—the only unknowns are accurate estimates of the daily flux volume, its chemical diversities, and its cumulative effect on Earth’s size and gravity. Published estimates of the daily flux vary from ~40 to ~55,000 tons per day, [NASA, 1967] but Earth’s gravitational constant is still assumed to be accurate and remains unchanged. Why? I don’t know!
2. WHY DID SCIENTISTS DELUDE THEMSELVES ABOUT SUBDUCTION?
The answer to this question stems partially from ignorance of the first question, but is more directly attributable to the Kant-Laplace (1796) “nebular hypothesis” of Earth’s creation, which at that moment in history had to agree with a fully-formed Earth as suggested by the biblical account of Creation in Genesis.
The nebular hypothesis still remains the most basic and fundamental assumption underlying every scientific discipline dealing with Time, life on Earth, the physical Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe, but, as noted earlier, the nebular hypothesis is not only false, but confirms past surface growth of the planet.
Today’s widespread belief in subduction, the keystone of plate tectonics dogma, can now be recognized as a classic misinterpretation of valid factual evidence by scientists indoctrinated by generations of their professors and the peer review system into believing, literally, that Earth was suddenly created 4.6 billion years ago in its present size, shape and composition, complete with oceans, by the gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas and dust surrounding the Sun.
That assumption can be refuted in its entirety by known empirical evidence properly interpreted to show an Earth constantly increasing in mass and diameter by constant accretion of extraterrestrial matter AND concurrent expansion of the molten core after reaching spherical shape. Internal core expansion has now become the dominant mechanism in expansion of the planet, greatly exceeding the slow rate of external accretion of matter from outer space.
The nebular hypothesis is completely false and one day will be recognized as one of the greatest errors in the history of science, possibly surpassing the centuries- old dogma of geocentrism overturned in the 16th and 17th centuries by Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. However, the prevailing dominance of religion in that era makes that error less egregious than the adoption of subduction in the 20th Century.
Professor S. Warren Carey,* originator of the Earth Expansion hypothesis in 1956, tried unsuccessfully for many years to convince his colleagues that subduction is a “myth.” His arguments against subduction did not prevail, but at age 90 he was still trying. My own efforts to convince U. S. authorities began in 1982, but were met with the same negative response. Finally, in frustration, this website was initiated in 1999 to circumvent the de facto censorship exercised by journal editors.
(Further details written earlier can be found on pages 3-14.)
(* Professor Carey died March 20, 2002, at the age of 90 in Hobart, Tasmania.)
Note
This is part 3 of a series of articles written by Lawrence S. Myers in the late 1990s on the Expanding Earth theory. Click "next" to read the subsequent article.
