5-Opening Salvo
As founder and administrator of the CEEEXCHANGE it is my privilege to offer the opening arguments in reviving a debate that was thought to have been settled about 30 years ago when "subduction" started the "plate tectonics revolution." It is also incumbent on me to disclose my name (Lawrence S. Myers) as well as the philosophical and evidentiary basis for my conclusions so the viewer can better judge the validity of opinions and conclusions that are mine, and mine alone, and for which I accept full responsibility.
No one is obliged to accept or believe any of the information contained in this website; if you agree with the conclusions, I salute your perceptive thinking. If you don't agree, then my arguments will have failed, but you will be the loser. The evidence must stand on its own merits, but interpretation of the evidence is the key to understanding.
The results of 35 years of research are presented here as a new conceptual view of the Earth and Solar System that evolved from an intuitive conclusion in 1965 that the Earth must increase in mass and size from constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, providing the mechanism that gradually increased Earth's external surface depth and diameter over unknown aeons of time.
The first few pages of this website presented evidence that proves the Earth is expanding, and disproves the current ideology of subduction and Laplace's nebular hypothesis. These two concepts are false and must be nullified, but that is not sufficient; a plausible replacement hypothesis must be offered to replace the ones destroyed. My new hypothesis of "accreation" fills the void on both counts.
This new model of Earth's creation is based on accretion of extraterrestrial matter, so the term "accreation" was coined to convey the idea of "creation by accretion," which is exactly what the evidence suggests. My first attempt to convey this concept was a 1972 paper of 30 pages entitled “Accreation of the Earth” submitted to the American Geophysical Union (AGU). (The paper was returned with the AGU referee's comment: "Mr. Myers does not understand Plate Tectonics." This annoyed me. I did understand plate tectonics--it was, and still is, wrong.)
Then it became necessary to find supporting evidence that the Earth is expanding, and to learn why subduction violates the laws of physics and common sense. From very sparse evidence, and no guidelines to follow, it was necessary to reconstruct or deduce new and (to me) hitherto unknown physical processes that created the Earth and Solar System.
This posed a series of major intellectual challenges, but interesting ones. It took years before all the complex pieces gradually formed a coherent synthesis for creation of both the Earth and Solar System. The process was in many ways similar to breaking into and reconstructing a code system. The most frustrating challenge turned out to be the difficulty in getting any scientist, scientific organization, or science publication to take these views seriously. The concept of subduction was too deeply ingrained to be overcome easily.
Not everyone will agree with every detail of the evidence or these new concepts, but 38 years of experience as a cryptologist breaking codes convinces me that the process is essentially correct and that all parts fit together. Being human and very susceptible to mistakes, any corrections or contradictory evidence that can be substantiated will be welcomed. (The stakes are too high to argue about details when no one person can possibly know all the tricks Nature has in her bag.)
Ideas derived from suggestions or the works of others are given credit, but my research revealed that similar ideas or discoveries are often made independently by others—based on entirely different facts or their interpretation. Professor Carey and I both reached a conclusion that the Earth must be expanding, but we started from opposite ends of the geophysical spectrum. His conclusion was based on years of education, training and field observation; whereas I started with no qualifications but an intuitive answer to the problem in 1965, five months after reading a newspaper article about it. (We did not meet until 1979, and again in 1981. We have not seen each other since, but communicate sporadically by mail.)
A special salute must be given to Professor S. Warren Carey, an internationally- known geologist and founder in 1946 of the Geology Department of the University of Tasmania. Professor Carey's name will be recorded in science history as one of the true giants of his profession in the 20th century, and deservedly so. He is a true gentleman of the old school and the most erudite person I ever met, but my greatest admiration is for his tenacity in standing fast against overwhelming odds to fight for an idea he knows is right.
Special thanks go to Mr. Sam Elton (for his remarkable insights on gravity and the Solar System); to Dr. Oakley Shields (for his steadfast efforts to prove expansion by various means and documenting the spread of palaeobiota); and to Mr. Ralph A. H. Groves (for encouragement and moral support in launching this website and the CEEEXCHANGE). If I unwittingly 'stole' any of their ideas, it is hoped they forgive me for recognizing them to have significant value. My personal thanks go to Nicholas Carter for the art work and help on technical details that make a website work--things beyond his grandfather's skill level.
Speculations are included but are clearly labeled as such. Speculation is usually frowned on in scientific circles, but speculative ideas can serve a very useful purpose and are included here as new ideas (good or bad) that some investigator may recognize to be a clue or solution to a scientific dilemma, or, the inspiration for another person’s field research and dissertation.
Because the concept of subduction has become so universally accepted throughout the scientific community, there appears to be an unspoken rule of journal editors to reject any papers that argue against subduction. This has shut off opportunities for expansionists to publish serious papers about expansion for the past 30 years. This summary rejection of papers is tantamount to censorship and not conducive to scientific progress. This is a formula for hiding the truth from the governmental authorities who need it most. Reflect for a moment on what happened to Truth in the cases of Copernicus, Father Bruno, Galileo and Wegener—in each case, scientific progress was delayed for many years.
But now the internet presents an opportunity to freely air the truth without suppression of opposing views. It is time to reexamine expansion and resolve this debate once and forever. We invite you to join us to reexamine the issue of expansion in light of this new evidence and petition the National Geodetic Survey (www.ngs.noaa.gov), or your country's equivalent organization, to perform the geodetic measurements necessary to finally resolve this crucial question of expansion.
This is a serious forum dedicated to the pursuit of truth. If anyone has serious opinions, or pertinent evidence, email them to meteordust@expanding-earth.org OR to Lawrence S. Myers at meteordust@earthlink.net.
Anyone who cares to engage in further debate about "subduction vs expansion," or to dispute any point presented herein, is free to submit an opposing view, but it must be succinct and supported by good evidence. We are convinced that the facts presented in this website overwhelmingly prove the Earth is expanding. In our opinion, subduction is an illogical and unproved conceptual idea that was prematurely adopted by the scientific community without adequate testing and verification.
As a guideline, "expanding earth" and "global expansion tectonics" are suggested as preferred terms. Those who are steadfast believers in expansion of the Earth, familiarly known as "earth expansion," have adopted the new term "expansion tectonics" in recent years as a less-threatening term that will allow plate tectonicists to adjust their terminology (by substituting ‘expansion’ for ‘plate’) when they finally realize that subduction is no longer viable. "Earth expansion" and "tectonic plates" are still useful terms and acceptable in any context, but “Plate tectonics” should be used only when the context implies subduction as a mechanism.
Global Earth Expansion (the antithesis of plate tectonics and subduction) is also a good appellation because tectonic plates are now well known by all geophysicists and those in related disciplines, and the idea of expansion does not diminish the term 'tectonic plate' or its usefulness in identifying discrete blocks (plates) of Earth's crust. The crucial difference is what happens to the tectonic plates and the physical forces that shape and move them.
Your future is at stake! Good Luck and Best Wishes!
