A general introduction to the expanding Earth
Global Expansion Tectonics is the only viable alternative to the plate tectonic interpretation of Earth's geology.
During the mid 1960's, experimental deep ocean drilling along an East West transect of the North Atlantic basin found that basaltic oceanic crust adjacent to the North American continent and Europe was only about 140 million years old. As the ocean drilling vessel approached the central basins submerged volcanic mountain range, the "mid-ocean-ridge" system, geologists observed that the rocks retrieved from ocean floor drill cores were becoming progressively younger nearer to this vast elongated mountain 'ridge'. Marine sediment deposits were also becoming progressively thinner closer to the mid-ocean-ridge system. Volcanic rocks retrieved from the centre of this underwater mountain range were only a few million years old at most. As the drilling vessel continued past the volcanic mountain range, geologists noted that the drill core rocks were becoming progressively older again and the marine bio-sedimentary deposits were becoming thicker once more.
It was concluded from this clear pattern that the Earth's volcanic mid-ocean mountain chains represent areas of continuous extensional crustal rifting and formation of new basaltic oceanic crust. Subsequent drilling surveys of all the ocean basins have since confirmed this role of the oceanic ridges.
This conclusion also clearly implied that North America, Europe, and the Asian far east, had all once been part of a single land mass. North America and Western Europe began to separate around 180 million years ago which formed the Atlantic ocean and it's new volcanic basaltic oceanic crust. It was also clear that West Africa and Eastern South America had also been one land mass before the south Atlantic ocean basin formed.
Prior to the Atlantic experimental drilling there were several proposed explanations for Earth's overall crustal features:
- (1) Earth is shrinking as it cools causing lithosphere orogenic (mountain building) compressional deformation. -This model was popular for a time in the 19th century but the discovery of radioactive nuclides (causing thermal heating) effectively disqualified this as a viable explanation of Earth's geology(even though it is now also widely recognized that these radio nuclides are not evenly distributed throughout the whole Earth but are strongly concentrated in the uppermost crust, therefore, radio nuclides can not account for Earth's popularly estimated 6000 degrees Kelvin, deep interior heat). Nevertheless, the cooling shrinkage concept is the origin of the current unnecessary whole-crustal compression orogenic doctrine which plagues geological mountain building theorizing.
- (2) Earth has a constant radius with fixed and unmoving continents. -This theory was the generally accepted scientific "truth" for most of the 20th century, prior to the general acceptance of a "Plate Tectonic" continental-drift theory in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
- (2a) A Pulsating Earth, whereby Earth expands to form the mid-ocean rift zone crust and contracts to form the orogenic mountain belts. This, in essence is "surge tectonics", however this doesn't have mid-ocean rifting as such, it has surge channels analogous to 'lava tube' conduits. The early version is roughly equivalent to (2) above.
- (3) Earth has a constant radius, but the continents are mobile and "drift" around the globe, periodically colliding and amalgamating with each other to form 'super continents', then rifting apart again in a new sequence of plate drift driven by assumed mantle thermal convection. -This is the currently accepted geological theory originally known as "continental drift" but was renamed "Plate Tectonics" by U.S. geologists. This model asserts continuous formation of new oceanic crust at Earth's mid-ocean-ridges and eventual removal of oceanic crust in deep ocean trenches. Unfortunately, these 'trenches' only occur around the periphery of the Pacific ocean and in a few relatively minor accessory zones in the south-east Caribbean, south-west Atlantic and Indonesian Archipelago (etc.). A major weakness of this current theory is that there are far more sites of new oceanic crust generation than trench to equally dispose of oceanic crust. Also, the proposed mantle convection driving mechanisms are totally inadequate in terms of the energy required for the mechanisms to drive large-scale lateral plate motions, with eventual ocean plate "subduction" and continental growth through"terrain accretion" due to convergent collisions.
- (4) Earth is Expanding. -In this model, the continents originally formed a continuous unbroken mono-plate crust over the entire surface of a much reduced radius planet. As exponential expansion proceeded, the original single mono-plate crust rifted apart, eventually forming intercontinental deep ocean basins and a collection individual continental plates and the exponential expansion began to dominate Earth. Most of this continental plate break-up and deep ocean basin formation occurred over the past 200 million years.
A readily workable driving "mechanism of continental drift"(3) was lacking prior to plate tectonics' adoption because it was not widely understood that crystalline crustal rocks "flow" in the manner of a highly viscous, chemically differentiated fluid over periods of millions of years. Even today, with this new understanding of viscous lithospheric and upper mantle flow, the current plate tectonic model of continental drift still has no clearly identified or generally agreed mechanisms for horizontal plate drift movements.The energy requirement to drive subduction of oceanic crust is simply not available via the proposed synergistic combinations of mid-ocean-ridge "slab push", asthenosphere-lithosphere interface convectional "slab drag", and proposed gravitational and convectional subducting "slab pull" as a 100 km thick slab of ocean crust and asthenosphere (uppermost mantle) supposedly plunges back down into an essentially solid convecting mantle. The mechanical resistance to tractional transit of oceanic crust across an ocean basin is orders of magnitude greater than the energy available from all the proposed motivating mechanisms combined.
Any truly objective geologist or geophysicist who claims that global expansion does not have any identified mechanism must also acknowledge that the plate tectonics and subduction plate drift theory is also devoid of any remotely workable driving mechanism, and as such, can not be used as an objection argument or reasoning to resist the Earth expansion interpretation of geotectonics because evenly applying such logic requires that plate tectonics itself should be rejected and not given reasonable credence.
The whole elaborate edifice of plate tectonic theory rests upon the mechanical workability of the proposed synergistic geodynamic oceanic crustal subduction processes. Hence, because the modern plate tectonic model has no identified workable or adequate subduction mechanism, plate tectonics is no more scientifically founded than the Earth expansion explanation of geotectonism and yet theorists claim it is substantive and empirically valid. The question as to which model above is correct, options (3) or (4), has not been answered during the course of the 20th century. This remains the principle geotectonic question facing Earth and planetary scientists in the new century.
It is this fundamental key geological question for the mechanistic origin of Earth's geotectonism that geology must address but has so far, conveniently placed on the back burner while plate tectonics runs its course. Many lesser lights in the geoscience community misguidedly assume that these questions have somehow been answered but they are deluded--such is not the case, as the material within this site makes starkly apparent.
The experimental Atlantic ocean drilling, mentioned at the top of this document, was very significant in answering several major geotectonic questions because it completely and permanently eliminated two of the above possible earlier theorized explanations (1) and (2).
The question as to which of the remaining two theories, (3) and (4), is correct, was hastily assumed to be option (3), continental-drift (aka. Plate tectonics). Prior to the 1960's most geologists held the view that all continents were fixed in place and could not "drift" around the globe but a small band of dissenting geologists considered that continental-drift was a much more probable explanation of Earth's lithospheric history and observed tectonic features. This small group of geologists were widely derided by their respected "scientifically correct" colleagues, and generally they were considered to be crack-pots and heretics for subscribing to such a patently absurd continental-drift interpretation (and were regularly labelled as such).
U.S. geologists in particular, enthusiastically scorned and denigrated the continental-drift theory for many decades and the term "continental-drift" acquired an odious reputation as an unspeakable scientific heresy. A name change in the mid 1960's from "continental drift" to "plate tectonics" was required before the American geological establishment types would swallow their pride (as well as their mortifying professional embarrassment) to adopt the continental drift theory as their very own contrivance (!).
In just a few short years, continental-drift, which had previously been utterly vilified prior to the mid 1960's, was now magnanimously forgiven of its outright scientific heresy status, and along with a required subduction proposal, it was suddenly adopted as the "generally accepted" late 20th century understanding of Earth's tectonism. This was accompanied with accolades and self-congratulation gushing forth from the geological hierarchy.
A new golden age of massive research funding injections had dawned.What did the drift 'converts' do with this massive funding? They produced seemingly automated monopolistic plate tectonic interpretations of every phenomena they ever observed--no matter how fundamentally untenable. This generous plate tectonics research funding invariably begets more nonsensical plate tectonic interpretation. Why should any researcher risk changing their interpretative geological framework if in so doing, they cut off their available funding avenues?
Hence, a monolithic plate tectonic interpretative paradigm rolls ever forward, flying in the face of empirical observation and reason. The politics of research funding have circumvented intricate scientific philosophies, meticulous empirical approaches as well as "fail-safe" mechanisms such as the supposedly self-correcting "peer review" process--all failed to allow Earth to deliver up its account of history.
The western adoption of continental drift represents the greatest single popular change in Earth science thinking to date, and it's adoption has produced many significant advances in the understanding of Earth and generated a vast wealth of raw data. It is now time to replace the current continental drift interpretative paradigm with a more satisfactory interpretative geotectonic and geodynamic framework.Because of the Atlantic ocean basin drilling results, the only other alternative to adopting continental drift (3) was to adopt the Earth expansion explanation of the Earth's lithosphere (4) but this proposal was even more seemingly absurd and heretical than the previously scandalous continental-drift proposal. Subsequently, U.S. geoscientists adopted the lesser heresy, and the theory of plate tectonics became the "generally accepted" interpretative framework by default.
Certainly to most reasonable geologists at the time, option (3) seemed the most likely option available and using 'Occam's Razor' principles, (3) was certainly the option to proceed with. But was it valid? The hierarchy and mainstream as a whole never bothered to ask the question or check with equal rigour and thoroughness. Internationally, a sprinkling of geologists did bother to check, and they were subsequently, overwhelmingly persuaded by the evidence for global expansion. They realized plate tectonics was unfortunately false and that a great error has been made. Too late! The hierarchies and geoscience mainstream were no longer listening, and mostly, they were not interested. They had their research dollars and were busy building careers, making maps, writing papers and giving lectures on the wrong theory of geotectonism--there was no way they were going to stop, nor be stoppable. They would now have to learn of their great mistake in their own ways and in their own timeframe--it would be up to a later generation of geologists to sort out the mess.
The continental-drift/plate-tectonic theory (3) has now been embraced by most of the geologists in the English-speaking world and particularly within the past decade, geologists within non-English language countries where Earth expansion had already gained wide geoscientific acceptance or support, were bullied into adopting the Plate tectonic story or risk loosing access to potential funding sources--the scientific co-equal of political correctness.
For the past 35 years few geologists in the English-speaking world even wanted to seriously consider the still very real possibility that Earth could be expanding after all. The Earth expansion theory had inherited continental drifts previous 'odious reputation' as being an unspeakable scientific heresy and very few geologists were willing to go out on a limb to research the model--the risks to geological careers in doing so were just too great--the politics of research funding effectively stifled further scientific investigation of the global expansion proposal.
In many non English-speaking countries in central and eastern Europe as well as the now defunct Soviet Union's sphere of influence, (where simmering cold war tensions with the West often threatened to erupt), the expansion model had already gained a high degree of scientific support but decades of investigation had failed to uncover the "hows and whys" of Earth expansion.
Back in the Western world's sphere of influence, plate tectonics had gained wide popular dominance in the Earth sciences from the late 1960's, but the model entirely failed when in the late 1970's, attempts were made to apply the theory of plate tectonics to the interpretation of newly observed "geological" and geophysical features on other planets and moons of the solar system. High resolution images of the surface features of most planets and moons portrayed tensional pull-apart rifting with global extensional chasms and multiple dilational contiguous rift systems.
The images below are of one of Jupiter's moons Ganymede, with a radius of 2640 km, the largest moon in the solar system. It is larger than the planets Pluto (radius 1150 km)or Mercury (radius 2439 km) and much larger than Earth's moon (radius 1738 km) but intermediate with Mars (radius 3397 km). Ganymede is of the order of radius of the terrestrial planets.
Ganymede is a rather good example of why Plate tectonics can be safely ruled out as an acceptable explanation of the geology of the Solar system. No objective scientist who examines this image could reasonably doubt that Ganymede has massively inflated from its deep interior, causing its old dark crust to pull part as the globe expands. A new lighter coloured crust is being emplaced between older, darker crustal shards.
Ganymede is clearly an asymmetrically expanding globe of planetary size
We have direct observations of expanding globes within the solar system but no extra-planetary plate tectonics or subduction zones observed anywhere. What we observe is "Global Expansion Tectonics" on a solar system scale. Likewise, the "geological" surfical features of almost every notable body in the solar system can only be rationally interpreted within a framework of crustal extension and rifting due to internal inflationary pressure. We need to release our minds from an Earth-centric mode of geological thinking and review Earth's actual solar system context in the light of the other observed bodies.
No evidence whatsoever of subduction has been found on any other planet or moon of the solar system.
To the contrary, evidence of global extensional rifting is over-whelming on almost all globes where the surface geological features can be resolved. Only the plate tectonic theory insists Earth is somehow different from the rest of the solar system. Why do so many globes in our solar system display unmistakable evidence of major crustal extension but no evidence of crustal subduction anywhere on their surfaces? This can only mean one thing, they have expanded.
Who can reasonably scientifically deny this any longer?
In light of this, consider Earth's current pattern of geotectonics. Earth is overwhelmingly dominated by primary extension and crustal formation at mid-ocean-ridges as well as continental rifting and dilation (such as Africa's Rift Valley and the U.S. Basin and Range province 'core-complex' structures), rifting seas (such as the Red Sea and west central Caribbean), and a continental geological history dominated by extensional basin formation, as are the back-arc seas.
Plate tectonic theorists trip over each other attempting to account for the overwhelming evidence of "active margin" lithospheric extensions, such as back-arcs and vertically emplaced high pressure metamorphic orogenic cores and ophiolites with subsequent rapid post orogenic extensional rifting causing astonishing mountain-belt collapses over time scales as short as 15 to 20 million years (!)--all within active margin settings supposedly driven by compressional oceanic crust subduction processes.
An example of this sort of interpretative quandary, due to the clear association of major extension within active margins:
- The collapse and the destruction of mountain belts and the exhumation and exposure of high pressure metamorphic terranes.- In: Penrose Conference-(abstracts), March 1999,Mid-Cretaceous to Recent Plate Boundary Processes in the Southwest Pacific, Gordon Lister, Tim Rawling and Marnie Forster, Australian Crustal Research Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Monash University, Australia.
Crustal shortening is the junior effect. Eventually, such investigations as that above, will gravitate toward vertical control of orogenisis within a primary extension controlled geodynamic setting, with sequences of secondary, upper-crustal level, compressional gravity induced flow nested within. i.e. GLOBAL EXPANSION TECTONICS.
The Pacific ocean's "rim-of-fire"
Since 1946, Professor S. Warren Carey from the University of Hobart in Tasmania, Australia, had been lecturing on continental drift and mid-ocean-ridge crustal generation with subsequent subduction of oceanic crust at deep oceanic trench zones. In 1956 it became apparent to Carey, via spherical global tectonic reconstruction methods, that oceanic crustal subduction could not be occurring at trench zones--he recognized the Earth had to be expanding.(Chapter 7 - Earth Expansion, Carey, 1996)
The plate tectonic "drift" model requires destruction of oceanic crust within subduction zones. According to plate tectonics, subduction zones are narrow areas of very deep oceanic "trench" paralleling most Pacific continental shelf margins, and also in the south-west Indonesian archipelago.
- [ NOTE: The word "trench" is rather misleading, as these areas look nothing like a trench in cross-section. They normally resemble a broad shallow-dipping troughs. They characteristically have low aspect ratios. These features are often displayed as somewhat precipitous trenches in 2-D diagrams and 3-D computer projections but this is solely due to the extreme vertical exaggeration used within the data projections and diagrams. The main significance of these deep ocean trough zones is their abnormal depth and close proximity to areas of greatly enhanced seismicity, heat flow, tectonic deformation, active volcanism at adjacent continental and island arc mountain belts, which closely parallel the super-deep troughs. The word "trough" is a more accurate descriptive term when describing these deep topographic ocean margin features.]
In contrast, the expansion model does not require oceanic crustal destruction and mantle resumption via a subduction process at trench zones, because the circumference of the Earth is increasing proportionally with new crust formation at mid-ocean-ridges--the mid-ocean rift zones, are the result of the Earth's deep interior growth, producing pull apart lithospheric tension and new mantle emplacement below the ocean ridges. (i.e. MOR's are not due to large-scale convection of the mantle, but are due to new vertical mantle emplacement as discussed later).
Therefore, within an expansion context, what needs to be explained is the cause of the Pacific ocean's "Rim-of-Fire" because the troughs which run parallel to the Pacific ocean's margin are essentially not found within other ocean basins (with some relatively minor exceptions, these of course, must also be explained by any Rim of Fire explanation). Vast extensional crustal rifting and lithospheric production is found in all ocean basins. All four oceans are rapidly producing new crust at mid ocean rift systems. Although the Pacific basin has typical vast extensional rifting and crust production, as other ocean basins, it is also the proposed site of greater than 85%of the subduction zones of plate tectonic theory.
This Pacific "Rim of Fire" is addressed in much greater detail to follow.
Ancient Oceans - Real or Imaginary?
In the expansion model, new crust is created as increasing internal pressure pulls the Earth's crust apart at crustal plate boundaries (and sometimes within plates if the local tension field is high). One implication of this is that the oldest deep oceanic crust in the north-west Pacific ocean (around 200 million years old), represents the earliest true deep ocean crust ever formed.
The popularly cited "evidence" of earlier preserved ocean basin crusts in the rock record are, deep continental basin extensional depressions which became seas (similar to the Mediterranean), and the sedimentation within these deep rift basins, almost universally exhibit low oxygen environments of deposition, indicating these deep-water marine basins were small in area. So small, water circulation within them was very restricted, and the water column, horizontally stratified, with an oxygenated water layer at the top but largely anoxic at the lower benthic level. The lack of deep-water circulation and vertical water overturn (due to small size), prevented oxygen enrichment of deep basin water and therefore, no oxidation of deep-water sediments. Subsequently, the sediments cited as evidence of earlier deep oceans are all from anoxic or extremely oxygen depleted environments of deposition--they were deep extensional seas. There is no realistic possibility, or evidence theme which suggests they were ever parts of larger ocean basins. Oceans, are large enough to maintain deep circulation and constant vertical water overturn currents, which provides oxygen input to deep bottom water, (which otherwise would rapidly become anoxic as bio-detrital decay and sediment oxidation removed the oxygen).
If these rock units really were global scale oceans as plate tectonics defenders insist, why do these pre-Jurassic deep-marine rocks show ubiquitous evidence of anoxic deep-water conditions? Furthermore, No deep marine oxygen respiring faunas exist in the fossil record prior to the age of the oldest observed oceanic crust in the north-west Pacific.
- Question: Why should this be the case, if the early Phanerozoic biotic radiation and diversification occurred in shallow marine environments, as the fossil record clearly shows? Why would life move onto dry land, hundreds of millions of years in advance of it moving into the deep ocean basins?
- Answer: Large open oceanic basin tracts did not exist in the pre-Jurassic. Deep marine faunas veritably exploded into the fossil record at that time, but were non-existent prior. The paleontological pattern observed is one of many pre-existing shallow-marine oxygen-respiring forms, suddenly colonizing a deep marine environment within a relatively brief period of time.
- Question: Does it seem reasonable to suggest that oxygen-respiring life's aggressive tendency to occupy every available environmental niche, might delay deep ocean basin colonizing until the Jurassic?
- Answer: Of course, it would not. The evolutionary process would not by any stretch of the imagination delay 350 million years to radiate life into a pre-existing deep marine oceanic niche. Evolutionary processes had already produced global forests, reptiles, insects and early mammalian forms within the air-breathing niche, well before this--there had already been numerous global extinctions and die-back events for hundreds of millions of years prior to the Jurassic!
- Question: So why no oxygen-respiring deep-marine life forms back then?
- Answer: Deep ocean basin niches for oxygen respiring faunas simply did not exist prior to the pre-Jurassic because there were no large ocean basins, or the sedimentary record would show unmistakable evidence of oxygenated deep-marine sedimentation, and of life's colonizing of that niche, if it were in fact available at the time. Such fossil, and lithological evidence is conspicuous by its complete absence. And yet, with no supporting evidence for early deep oceans covering two thirds of Earth's surface area, plate tectonics people insist they really existed!
Because of this, it is only reasonable to conclude, that all of the true deep ocean basin crust that ever formed, is still in existence, and contained within the worlds present ocean basins, and within their orogenically uplifted and deformed margin rocks(more on this aspect later).The rock record prior to this is dominated by shallow marine environments of deposition and small, deep-sea, oxygen depleted basins and rift seas--some of these, eventually became the nucleus of the present oceans as Jurassic expansion progressed, and the original continental mono-plate crust finally separated into the separate continental plates we now see, surrounded by a totally new true oceanic basaltic crust formed from a rapidly growing mantle volume.
The Pacific "trenches" are not areas of oceanic crustal consumption but are morphological artefacts of Pacific ocean basin curvature adjustment, as well as oblique upper mantle decoupling responses to the inevitable mantle curvature change which is concentrated at continental and active island-arc margins (controlled by crustal 'roots') within the Pacific basin. This process produces diapiric mantle uplift with crustal heating and subsequent isostatic uplift adjustment (orogenesis), as well as melt generation as part of an on-going gross lithospheric-mantle extension process above the oblique mantle decoupling faulted interface i.e. the active margins and benioff zones.These concepts will be discussed in greater detail below.
Alternative mechanisms of crustal deformation
Pacific margin thermal isostatic uplift causes gravitationally controlled nappe folding and thrust deformation in orogenic margin sediments (discussed here). These "compressed" crustal features are always observed as the bi-product of orogenic uplift (diapiric orogenesis is basically mountain formation via thermal heating and vertical uplift). This continental margin uplift, over time, causes deformation and thrusting oceanward, with associated folding and faulting in continental margin sediments and basement rocks.
Material thrust up and outward by continental margin uplift and gravity driven horizontal spreading, encroaches outward onto the oceanic crust with tectonically deformed and overturned 'shortened' sediments. This combined with the above mentioned surface curvature changes through time, makes the oceanic crustal margins down-warp as a natural consequence of asymmetric Earth expansion and deep sedimentary ocean crust loading. Hence, the pattern of depressed crust observed in seismic transects of active margin sediments. Peripheral extension of these plates and mantle emplacement processes also give rise to translational inter-plate motions as observed on the western U.S. coast and well inland toward Nevada.
Compressional deformation features are interpreted by plate tectonic supporters as indications of full-crustal-thickness deformations due to horizontal compressional stress within the crust. While these deformation and thrusting features are inherently "shortened" and "compressed" in nature, they represent only the local upper-crustal compressional tectonic bi-products of orogenic uplift due to pervasive gross crustal and mantle extension with 'new' mantle emplacement. This upper continental crust compression is due to gravity driven thrusting and folding within the upper-most 10 - 15 kilometers of the continental crust, which produces the near surface appearance, that the crust has suffered great compressional shortening during orogenesis (mountain building) but this is not the case. It will become clear to the reader that whole-crust gross compressional shortening probably does not actually occur on Earth to any significant extent. Only the upper crust is compressed by gravity flow during and post orogenesis, but the detached lower part of the crust continues to extend below, due to gross global radius increase, even during orogenesis. This fundamental geological concept will be explained later in much greater detail.
Which side of the "subduction" fault plane moves?
Most academics and geo-science educators have completely ignored Earth expansion interpretations of the deep ocean troughs paralleling the Pacific ocean's margin. This has occurred, mainly due to the deep planar earthquake fault zones that dips landward beneath these oceanic troughs under most Pacific rim continents and many island-arc chains.
In plate tectonic models, these dipping fault plains are interpreted as evidence of slabs of oceanic crust being resumed into the mantle via a process of oceanic crustal consumption. This near universal geological interpretation is completely unnecessary, and is the prime morphological interpretative error in active margin interpretation. As will be shown, the so called "clear evidence" of subduction can be completely re-interpreted to become equally convincing evidence of Earth expansion.
What must be kept in mind when considering these trench fault planes (Benioff Zones), is that measurements of seismic events (earthquakes) on these inclined fault planes only really indicate the relative movement direction between each side of the fault surface--a relative sense of shear between each side of the fault. i.e. the sense-of-shear is obliquely dipping and motion is up/down relative to each side of the fault in these Pacific trench zone faults. Here again, there are two possible explanations for the observed relative shear movement directions.
This observed relative sense-of-shear indicates that:
- Either; Oceanic crust is subducting under Pacific rim continents and island arcs.
- Or; Pacific continental margin mountain belts are rising vertically because they are being punched upward by material rising from deep below--from the deepest mantle.
It is simply not intellectually honest to conclude from global seismic data that oceanic crust is moving downward into the mantle. Only strong theoretical interpretative bias would lead to that pre-emptive conclusion.
There are two equally distinct possibilities here as to which side is actually moving in absolute terms, and it is intellectually disingenuous and irresponsible to conclude from theoretical bias, that the side which is moving, is the oceanic crust side moving downward into the mantle, or to invoke the global seismic data set as "clear evidence" of subduction--it is not.
There is no clear seismic evidence that subduction is occurring in these trough zones as there still remains two equally possible explanations for the relative-shear movement observed. To the contrary, the pattern of thrusting and deformation found in these "compressed" orogenic Pacific continental margins, is precisely the style of deformation that must always occur if these deep fault planes are actually the outer boundaries of a rising mantle material along oblique mantle detachment zones.
The geophysical evidence of quantified crustal gravity and thermal heat-flow data across the Pacific rim-of-fire, shows extreme plausibility that it is actually the continental side of the fault which is moving upward in absolute movement terms! It is astonishing that anyone should construe another interpretation of these geophysical data.
In areas of very rapid mantle rise, the earthquake fault plane is observed to extend discontinuously into the spinel-to-olivine transition zone at great depth in the mantle. Notice that the paramorphic mineral transition given here (spinel-to-olivine), is to a lower density mineral phase, because the material is rising upward through this mantle mineral transition-zone into a lower pressure mantle environment (not sinking into a higher pressure environment as subduction theorists suggest). The volumetric increase associated with the lower-density/higher-volume paramorphic mineral transition is the probable cause of discontinuous deep earthquakes in an area where very rapid rise induces movements that can not be relieved via flow deformation. Earthquakes release the excess volumetric paramorphic stress within this transition zone when the mantle rise is too rapid to be released by flow deformation, or rigidity is too high to accommodate the change.
Subjective and also quantitative studies of damage and first hand accounts during the initial movements of large earthquakes on the Pacific rim, show a common qualitative theme. The initial movement of the Earth in areas affected by these violent regional Earthquakes, is initially sharply upward, with subsequent secondary violent horizontal shaking. This pattern is found on all continents and islands where large earthquakes regularly occur around the Pacific rim. This initial upward thrust, may, in many instances, be due to the arrival geometry of the initial seismic waves, but quantified gross regional uplift of these orogenic zones is nonetheless the usual result of tectonic earthquakes around the Pacific margin. Plate tectonics does not deny this observation, but the orogenic uplift is claimed to be the result of crustal compression due to convergent subduction.
The seismic evidence supporting a subduction mechanism is far from conclusive, in fact, it is very doubtful. The subduction model implies crustal compression, but the expansion model implies gross crustal extension, so these questions must be asked:
- Question 1. Has the Pacific margin's whole crustal thickness been compressed or has it been extended before, during and after active orogenic uplift?
- Question 2. If the whole crustal thickness is not compressed during orogenesis, but extends, what actually generates the "compressional" folds, nappes and thrusts observed in all areas where violent catastrophic orogenic uplift periodically occurs?
These questions will be addressed in detail in following sections, and particularly in the books, papers and links available from this web-site.
Expansion Explanations of Orogenesis - A Synthesis
Orogeny--definition and context : Orogeny is an extended tectonic process in which large tracts of crustal rocks emplaced earlier, erode then the sediments are subsequently deformed and heated on all scales (even down to the size of individual crystals) and faulted with predominantly normal/reverse faulting (near to vertical) within the central orogeny zone and low-angle (near to horizontal)sheet-like thrust faults and folding within the peripheral orogeny zone. As well, the crust is subjected to metamorphism and hydrothermal activity, as well as melt intrusion and extrusion. An orogenic event or cycle begins with erosion and long-term crustal extension causing basement rocks to 'sink' downward over millions of years producing deep sedimentary basins (which often filled with water i.e. a sea). The culminating terminal orogeny stage is sudden vertical whole-crustal uplift, (often observed > 20 to 30 km and tends to be discontinuous, punctuated or pulsed), producing high elevation sub-linear mountain belts (mobile belts) and widespread seismic and volcanic activity. These resulting mountain terranes (which contain the original eroded sedimentation, though now metamorphically, altered and deformed), then very rapidly collapse again due to further crustal extensional spreading, gravity induced thrust sheet 'flows', on-going isostatic adjustments and vigorous weathering.
Orogenic mountain belts often undergo this 'orogeny' cycle more than once, with many millions of years between cycles. It is a recurring, repetitive tectonic cycle in the rock record and results in the continents growing and enlarging in area over time. The tectonic orogeny cycle does not always proceed to full completion and may stop at any point before mountains form. Sometimes the cycle stops just as mountains are beginning to form and this results in lower mountain elevations and resulting rapid peneplanation (a new erosion cycle).
The halting of cycles results in many deep extensional sedimentary basins being formed which may be considered as uncompleted or 'failed' orogens. The Australian continent for example, is largely a welded patchwork of these deep extensional sedimentary basins which 'grew' the Australian continent's area. Many of these basins contain orogenic cycles which did continue to full completion and collapse. Some contain multiple complete orogenic cycles. Within the Global Expansion Tectonics framework, it is recognized that orogeny results from successive mantle emplacements which result in surface extension, uplift and deformation response. Therefore, such mantle emplacement and deformation is a fundamental aspect of all orogeny (crustal growth) and must be explained also.
Professor S. Warren Carey offered an explanation of orogeny by proposing that mantle intrusive diapirs and krikogenesis could potentially explain active margin tectonism and uplift. Such an explanation as a whole, is inadequate but certainly holds validity at sub-crustal depths above 125 km depth. Below this depth it fails to match geophysical observations due to the seismic asymmetry of oblique oceanic trench Benioff zones. A more fulsome explanation is required and this has now, largely been provided through the research efforts and conceptual formulations of both Stavros Tassos and James Maxlow.
The combined conceptual developments of these researchers (and of earlier workers) have finally bought a global expansion explanation of the sub-oceanic trench Benioff zone deep seismicity and crustal orogeny, into agreement with observed geophysical realities. An empirically constrained interpretative framework is now available which vastly better explains the geotectonics and geodynamics of Earth. Further developments will now proceed with greater rapidity. To address this emergent explanation of orogenesis, I will firstly describe earlier concepts which remain relevant to the overall conceptual synthesis.
It should be noted, that all of the concepts discussed within this section, synergistically inter-mesh and are intimately related and complementary aspects. In this explanation, each proposal has its geodynamic role but none in isolation, can explain orogenesis and seismicity without significant problems, but combined, they satisfy all the major considerations and observations of the lithospheric rock record and geophysics.
The Earlier Diapiric Orogenesis Proposal of Carey
Diapirs occur in many geological provinces around the world on different scales. A typical small crustal sedimentary diapir develops as an inverted tear-drop shaped plume of rock that rises upward due to lower density and viscosity relative to the confining pressure of the surrounding overburden (see image below). The lower density and viscosity of the source diapiric material leads to local stratigraphic instability and causes lower density and viscosity diapiric material to force its way upward through overburden via flow deformation (mineral re-crystalisation). The diapir moves up through the overburden rocks until it reaches density-viscosity-confining pressure equilibrium with rocks at a higher level within the crust.
Sometimes diapirs continue to be rammed upward by the volume of ascending material below them. This causes them to dome and rupture surface rocks, then extrude as a viscous (slow moving) "glacier" of rock. These diapiric extrusive glaciers of rock are observed in many locations around the world (Salt diapirs in Texas, Iran are well known examples).
Development of a typical 'rock salt' diapir - Carey proposed that similar thermal, density, viscosity and gravitational processes cause areas of mantle to rise upward inducing orogeny at the Pacific's continental margins and other areas such as mid-ocean-ridges (after Carey, 1988).The extruded rock continues to slowly flow at the surface until this extruded mass reaches its viscosity equilibrium with gravity.
i.e. it deforms at the surface due to its own weight and spreads out laterally until the weight above it is relieved by sideways lateral deformation flow--in much the same way as a normal ice glacier deforms and flows under the influence of its' own weight. Deformation is controlled by gravity. (Diapirs occur in areas of local and regional crustal extension and dilation. (see Tanner)
In Carey's proposal of Pacific margin diapirism, much of the hot lower density material of the diapir deforms plastically because it is hotter than the surrounding material confining it, and is also being displaced upwards by further hot ascending material below it, i.e., the diapir's rise is not just due to inherent lower density-viscosity. The diapirs are being 'rammed' upwards by a column of material rising from below them, from deeper parts of the mantle. The isotherms (heat contours) in orogenic zones are always many kilometres higher in the crust than in normal stable crust, due to the upward diapiric movement of hotter material from below--everything moves upward in active orogeny zones. The material near the Earth's surface rises higher than isostatic density equilibrium would normally allow because it is being 'punched' upward. It then spreads laterally through gravity driven deformation and folding (as well as thrusting), due to the continued upward movement of further ascending material below.
According to Carey's proposal, once these belts of diapiric orogenesis become established through the crust they thin, heat, fault and deform the surrounding crust. Normal faulting ensures that the orogen will remain an area of on-going crustal weakness for hundreds of millions of years and will more easily allow an older orogen to become "re-activated" via subsequent crustal extension and uplift. According to Carey, this is the process which controls "re-activation" of ancient orogens--not the "Wilson Cycle" of periodic continental collisions as per the Plate tectonic supercontinent accretion theory.
The More Recent Mantle Tensional Failure Proposal of Carey
Besides Carey's above initial mantle diapir intrusion explanation for Benioff zones, in more recent years Carey put forward a second explanation of deep seismicity as oblique upper mantle tension failure(see figure below) producing a dipping zone of deep earthquake generation along with crustal dilation landward of the trench. He did suggest this for the western Pacific's north-south trending structures, (Marianas area) but he did not apply this concept more generally around the Pacific rim, possibly because it conflicted with his earlier Sinian 'circum-global torsion' concept (which he was heavily invested with and in no hurry to abandon).
"...For nearly half a century, decades before the first echograms and continuous seismic profiling, I taught my students, probably alone in the world, that the trenches are tensional structures, and I have no doubt that this remains valid. No sediment pile-up has ever been found in any trench. Slumping, sometimes on a grand scale, but no compression. Most island arcs and trenches are concave to the west (or sometimes to the north), because of rotation and expansion. On that side is new oceanic crust with high heat flux and repeated horsts and grabens, in contrast with the eastern side characterized by seismic quiet and little disturbed sediment. Trenches are dilation rifts like the arcuate Bergschrund at the head of a glacier (Figure l06[displayed below]), or the graben arc at the head of a landslide. Like both these analogues they are often multiple with a tandem group of arcs and syntaxes, and to continue the analogy, there may be further similar arcuate rifts within the dilated zone. To complete the analogy, the trench is the boundary between the passive zone to their east and the dilating zone to their west which has drawn away from them. In the mathematical analysis, the stress terms are squared with the result that negative stress (dilation) and positive stress (compression) yield similar patterns. Geologists have ignored the negative root because of a priori faith that orogens and trenches are compressional structures." -Carey, 1996
This more recent oblique tensional mantle failure proposal of Carey's co-exists with, and greatly improves the workability of an amended diapiric proposal by accounting for geophysical observations more fully than the earlier simple mantle diapir proposal. From this it can be seen that Carey's orogenesis concepts evolved with time toward the aim of more closely and realistically approximating geophysical observations. In my assessment, Carey did not go far enough in more widely applying the tensional mantle failure concept to the Pacific rim.
I personally consider such extensional mantle detachments are surely a primary factor in explaining deep mantle seismicity and moreover, I see a less emphasised role for Carey's global torsion concepts (at least for the recent geological past).
The Orogenic Relief of Lithospheric Curvature of James Maxlow
James Maxlow of Curtin University (Perth, Western Australia), highlights a poorly understood aspect of ocean floor spreading within an expanding Earth context which few geologists fully appreciate. The north-west Pacific's oceanic crust is largely of Jurassic age and hence, in an expansion interpretation, was extruded from the mantle at a Jurassic palaeo-radius, and a correspondingly higher surface curvature (quantitative modelling, of pre-Jurassic Earth indicates palaeo-radius ~50 % present).
During subsequent Earth expansion, this older higher convexity oceanic crust undergoes gravitational crustal curvature isostatic re-equilibration due to the constantly reducing (flattening) surface curvature caused by on-going radius increase--as of course does continental crust. Earth was previously enveloped by a pan-global sialic mono-crust. As this crust began to extend with increasing Earth radius, basins formed and intra-plate and rift zone orogeny subsequently resulted.
Such progressive curvature flattening has been cited as the genetic origin of epeirogenic jointing within crustal rocks--a hierarchy of polygonal adjustment from primary polygons (major lithospheric plates) down through to lower order polygonal plates (regional micro-plates) and ending with epeirogenic jointing in rocks on the scale of millimeters--a continuous hierarchy of surface curvature adjustment.The outer margins of the Pacific Jurassic oceanic crustal plate is where a rim of oceanic crust has been progressively pressed down into the mantle--producing interacting and often compressed crustal "troughs" during curvature change induced collapses of the more elevated central high curvature plate region. This process is on-going.
The older ocean basin crust and continental crusts, once had much more convex surface curvature which has progressively flattened with time--with coinciding internal and peripheral transpressive extension (This of course also implies curvature change within the mantle).Understandably, the Pacific ocean's margin will therefore have a complex history of plate curvature adjustment, particularly since it has the largest area and contains the oldest oceanic crust, and therefore, the highest original convexity. This flattening of crustal and mantle curvature induces intra-plate motions and inter-plate interactions, sometimes extensional, sometimes translational, sometimes transpressional.
These curvature adjustments create complex overprinted systems of sub-linear normal through-crustal reverse faulting as well as the formation of propagating intrusive and extrusive volcanic seamount chains along fractures in oceanic crust. The process also produces oceanic transform faults with extensional components 90 degrees to the transform fault's trend, as is obvious within the East Pacific Rise's east-west trending transforms and their characteristic north-south dilational off-set opening.
Maxlow's spherical paleo-radius modeling shows that these lithospheric curvature adjustments are orogenic in their nature and directly implicated in current processes within oceanic crust and particularly within the original global sialic mono-plate crust and resulting continental plate fragments we see today.
The ocean basins were actively and extensively mapped during the 1980's in order to quantify various oceanic plate motion characteristics and histories. Magnetics, gravity and chronology data have all failed to validate the subduction hypothesis, to the contrary, the data strongly militates against the proposed subduction mechanism. This quantitative mapping effort has now largely been discontinued. Recent plate tectonic reconstructions now very conveniently ignore the new quantitative ocean mapping data (geological data as opposed to just geophysical data that all standard plate reconstructions utilize) due to the severe geotectonic and geodynamic problems it raised within the reconstructions (Maxlow, Feb 1999, personal communication).
It's important to realize that such crustal curvature adjustment is part of a larger picture because the mantle itself is undergoing similar curvature change, extension and emplacement. I consider this to be the primary cause of the previously mentioned, extensional mantle detachments (i.e Benioff zones).
To briefly summarize; we have composite action of interacting orogenic processes, each with separate, but somehow interconnected causes and each process overlaps others in an overall global interplay. Within the whole globe context, these are really sub aspects of one internal planetary expansion process which gives rise to orogeny at Earth's surface. The common factor in each of these processes discussed is growth of the mantle. So how does this orogenic mantle emplacement process work?
The Excess Mass Stress Orogeny Proposal of Stavros Tassos
Seismologist and geophysicist Dr. Stavros Tassos (Institute of Geodynamics, National Observatory of Athens) has developed a compelling quantitative case, comprehensively laying out the physical mechanical impossibility of mantle convection, and the physical mechanical impossibility of subduction. This work of Tassos has now stripped away any remnant plausibility of the plate tectonic crustal drift and subduction theory. Tassos goes on to demonstrate how mantle emplacement operates, and in the process, provides an embracing and compelling explanation of earthquake triggering, as well as explaining the source of lithospheric heat flux, via the emplacement of excess bulk mass from a core-mantle interface source region. In a recent paper Tassos points out:
"...To add further to the convection explanation's dilemma:
- a)penetration of crust into the mantle is only possible if the rigidity, the strength and viscosity of the mantle, is several orders of magnitude less than that estimated for the mantle. Materials with viscosities of the order of 1020 poises and higher, can only be treated as a solid. The viscosity of the asthenosphere, even by plate tectonics advocates, is no more than one order of magnitude lower than that of the overlying material. It is like saying that a vertical nail will eventually penetrate into a piece of wood simply because is 2-3% heavier, let alone that such density inversion is wholly imaginary since all available evidence indicates density increases with depth in our Earth.
- b) Another major failure of the ridge push-trench pull mechanism, presently adapted by the majority of plate tectonics advocates, is the stress field it requires. Compression in ridges, tension within the subducting slab. Exactly the opposite of what is observed.
- c) But even if we assume that subduction is possible there is an insuperable geometric problem. The combined length of all the trenches is ~30,000 km, about ¼ of the length of all spreading ridges, at 2´ ~60,000 km.Plate tectonics' proposed balance of construction and destruction of oceanic crust is impossible. In order for a crustal construction-destruction balance to be maintained, all of the ocean basins require coequal trench systems at their margins. d) Also, is it not absurd for earthquakes to occur only in the vicinity of hot and more ductile spreading centers, but absent from the cold and more rigid part of the oceanic plate, laying between the ridge and the trench? Could a friction-free sliding of the lithosphere on the underlying mantle occur? ..."
Stavros Tassos
(Excess Mass Stress Tectonics - Nov 1999)
Recent papers by Stavros Tassos
- Excess Mass Stress Tectonics (EMST) : A Outline of the Hypothesis NEW
- Excess Mass Stress - The Driving Force of Geodynamic Phenomena
- The Manifestations of Excess Mass and Excess Mass Stress in the Aegean Region
- The Cognitive Tools of Earth Expansion
In Summary
The Pacific ocean's orogenic 'rim-of-fire' is a system of mantle emplacement, causing sustained orogenic isostatic departure via sub crustal heating. These ocean basin margin orogens, are delineated by oblique tensional detachment fault complexes through the upper mantle. This is caused by mantle extension from injection of new mantle material which results in mantle and lithosphere curvature flattening as Earth expands. This process produces the so called subduction fault planes and the sense-of-shear discussed earlier. All crustal orogeny is ultimately, intimately caused by and related to tensional mantle volume increase.
Intra-cratonic orogenesis
A continental craton is commonly defined as a stable area of relative tectonic quiet that has suffered very little deformation for greater than a billion years. Several continental cratons contain isolated anomalous areas of successive overprinted orogenesis. Many of these orogens are surrounded for many hundreds of kilometers by virtually undeformed or little deformed, pre-orogenic, contemporaneous and eventually post orogenic sediments.
How could such bizarre lithological geometry's develop if compressional subduction and continental collisional accretions are the cause of orogenesis as plate tectonic adherents believe? This is simply impossible! This type of violent intra-cratonic orogenesis represents one of the greatest and most damning failures for plate tectonics in that it can never offer an adequate explanation of these isolated plate deformation phenomena. It is not possible for plate tectonics to explain deep basin formation followed by rapid uplift wholly contained within cratons, nor the problematic remnant thermal and gravity anomalies observed within these orogens.
There is also the tricky problem of extensional monoclines covering vast areas of craton, as observed in some areas of Australia (Georgina Basin etc.) not to mention the moderate Earthquakes (~6.5 scale events) within the Australian craton, which occur every few decades in areas that should be 'dead' in terms of seismicity (according to the plate tectonic theory that is--no post glacial rebound adjustment here). These features result when the Australian craton settles into it's new lower convexity surface curvature as geotectonic expansion proceeds. The plate tectonic model doesn't predict this sort of cratonic seismicity--but Global Expansion Tectonics sure does.
There are also observed continental-scale lineaments which have eluded a plate tectonics explanation but these are wholly expected and predicted within the Global Expansion Tectonics paradigm due to induced lithospheric curvature convexity flattening as Earth's radius increases. Some of these continental-scale lineaments simultaneously cross-cut some of Australia's most ancient and also most recent terranes--all within the same lineation! These anomalous lineaments are found on all continents, as are extensional regional mafic dyke swarms with both linear and arcuate preferred distributions (review extensional regional dyke swarm data on the Canadian shield, central Africa and Eastern Australia for instance).
The Amadeus Basin in the interior of the Australian craton is a perfect example of anomalous violent intra-cratonic orogenesis which makes a complete mockery of plate tectonic theory which would require compressive stresses to be translated through thousands of kilometers of supposedly semi-rigid crustal plate to cause a very distant Intra-cratonic orogenic plate! Total silliness--the proposition does not work. The Amadeus basin and others like it, show that compressional cratonic tectonics has no prospect whatever of explaining the numerous global intra-cratonic orogeny events. Despite several decades of study, no viable plate tectonic interpretation is available for the overprinted orogenic events found within the Australian craton.
Every time a plate tectonic solution is suggested for the Amadeus Basin the proposed solution generates equally unacceptable tectonic problems within other adjacent areas--all of the proposed 'solutions' fail dismally.
Fortunately, (for modern geology) the vertical orogenesis model generated by reducing convex surface curvature and mantle emplacement, fits the field and geophysical evidence of such intra-cratonic orogenesis like a hand in a glove! Only the global expansion vertical orogeny model can explain the geological features of the Amadeus basin, and many cratonic orogenic structures like it.
Recollect for a moment:
- There are two possible explanations for the North Atlantic experimental drilling data and two possible explanations for the 'sense-of-shear' observed within Benioff ocean trough fault zones.
- Both plate tectonics and Earth expansion offer explanations of those phenomena,but only Global Expansion Tectonics can explain the lithospheric features of numerous intra-cratonic orogenic phenomena.
Only global expansion tectonics provides a complete explanation of the observed geology.
The vertical orogenesis model indicates that there are no essential differences between mid ocean ridge orogenesis, active Pacific rim orogenesis and intra-cratonic orogenesis. All are expressions of extensional diapiric uplift within different physical and chemical environments. All orogenisis ultimately originates due to primary upward movements within the mantle as the Earth grows from internal inflation. A global tension field is sustained which slowly pulls the surface of the planet apart at the edges of the major plates and sometimes within these plates, if the local tension field is high enough. This pervasive global tension field causes the accumulation of astonishingly thick sediment piles within slowly subsiding sedimentary basins. If the local crustal tension field increases further (due to regional horizontal mantle tension and flows) the crust is thinned and heated causing upper mantle mineral phase changes and upper asthenosphere hydration. The resulting lower density sub-lithospheric mass triggers rapid vertical uplift via through-crustal-diapirism and plutonic intrusion with associated normal (and reverse oblique) vertical axis faulting, volcanic activity and metamorphic alteration.
If local crustal tension is sustained for long enough, upwelling mantle diapiric material will form an ultramafic crust and a new rift sea or proto-ocean basin may develop. At which point the main diapiric orogenic zone becomes a submerged mid-oceanic rift system. Remnant diapiric extension processes may continue at the new continental margin, or may become inactive and weather out to a peneplain. If subsequent continental margin extension is rapid enough, marginal seas such as the sea of Japan may develop. These ocean margin fringing seas are all themselves the tops of mantle emplacements because the material that generated them arose recently from the mantle due to global tension--hence their higher heat flow values.
The Earth's lithosphere is dominated by vertical processes. Oceanic crust is emplaced by vertical emplacement as is/was continental crust--so what are ophiolites then?In plate tectonics, ophiolites are interpreted as over-thrusted oceanic crust that has been "obducted" over continental margin crust. Many geologist seriously doubt the plausibility of obduction sheet geometry due to abundant contrary field relationships.
In the Earth expansion model ophiolites are considered to be artefacts of extremely rapid tensional dome rifting that has exposed part of an intermontane sea's submerged rift zone due to very rapid uplift and spreading. This ophiolitic diapiric mantle material is then swept aside by the rapidly extending spreading centre and incorporated into the peripheral orogenic zone. Oceanic crust itself is a type of "ophiolitic" mantle derived material. Ophiolite exposures may also occur in areas of severe transverse faulting and crustal dilation as a "melange" component or as a mylonitised injection.
Professor S. W. Carey, performed his doctorate field work in the Papua New Guinea highlands and was one of the first geologists to work within the area. This is what Carey had to say concerning the current plate tectonics proposed obduction explanation of ophiolite outcrops in PNG:
"...The current dogma, that the Papuan ophiolite is obducted mantle, is simply a theoretical meme, and misfits the field geology and gravity field. It is amazing that this body was the paradigm on which the obduction concept was founded and followed by a flock of academic sheep who have never been to Papua! ..."and,
"...The thrust contact between the ophiolites of Papua and New Caledonia with the ophiolites over the sediments is not disputed - only the dip of the contact-steep diapiric or flat obduction. Field data and gravity favour the former, only creed the latterbecause current dogma regards the Papuan ophiolite belt as a huge obducted sheet shallowly dipping to the northeast. Indeed the Papuan Ophiolite is the type area on which the obduction concept was [initially] founded..."
These are probably the most scathingly critical words Carey put into print over 60 years of scientific publication. He was appalled at the incomprehensible baselessness and unjustifiability of the current theory of ocean plate obduction in PNG and how this baseless theory has been subsequently slavishly applied by others elsewhere around the globe.
Recent research on the Oman ophiolite has confirmed that it is the result of mantle diapiric emplacement--not obduction! (Newsletter of the US RIDGE Initiative:Volume 10, Number 1- June 1999 Seismic Modeling of the Oman Ophiolite and Comparisons with Data from the East Pacific Rise Undershoot., David Jousselin, Dept of Geological Sciences, University of Oregon, USA.)
The Plate tectonic obduction concept, like compressional intracratonic orogenesis proposal is complete nonsense.
Geodesy
I am sometimes asked how observed crustal compression (shortening) measured via space geodetic systems such as VLBI, GPS and SLR, can be accommodated within an expanding Earth framework. Geodetics, is essentially the very precise measurement and study of Earth's physical proportions. Space geodetic systems such as GPS allow very precise measurement of rates of relative movement between each measurement site each year, and from these, the horizontal site motion and direction of motion.
Such measurements often find seemingly contradictory values of strong compression as well as strong extension within the same geological region or plate/micro-plate context. This pattern will continue and become more persistent as regional geodetic GPS systems proliferate over the coming decade and the spacial resolutions between sites increase the overall density of geodetic measurements.
The letters A, B, C, D and E in the figure below represent GPS geodetic data gathering sites. The overall structural context is one of primary crustal and mantle extension but with secondary intense lithospheric compression within it.
A gross regional extensional setting and a rather simple idealized large-scale structure is displayed. The mantle below is also extending and allowing vertical orogenisis to operate by providing space for material to be emplaced, as well as fracturing the crust above with numerous fault networks, 'core-complex' like crust extensional decoupling and gravity-driven upper crustal flow, inducing peripheral overprinted orogenic sheet thrusting, mylonites, metamorphism and metasomatism, folding and production of sedimentary detrital erosion prisms and fans.
From this it can be clearly seen that compressional tectonics (large-scale folding and low-angle thrusting) are 100% compatible within an expanding Earth and extensional lithospheric framework. Contrary to the misguided assumptions of some commentators, Earth expansion does not deny, nor exclude compressional interpretation aspects of orogenesis, but these are secondary structures within the larger global scale extensional geotectonic reality--and these are reflected by geodetic measurements.
In this context, the observations of strong geodetic chord shortening, can not be sustained as an argument that Earth is dominated by compressional tectonics, nor in portraying Earth expansion as an inadequate interpretative concept. The current popular assumptions of primary compressional tectonics due to mantle convection motivating mechanisms are the false axioms--these must be discarded.
Geodetic measurement of our expanding Earth
My own investigation of the published Cartesian component VLBI dataset (20 years of data) reveals an annual global radius rate of increase of +3.0 mm/yr.
The vertical error margin of geodetic VLBI:
“…The historical data base contains positions for 123 sites, with the smallest errors approximately 1 mm in horizontal, and 1-2 mm in vertical. There are VLBI velocity estimates for about 60 sites, and the best precision is better than 1 mm/year. Vertical rates have uncertainties typically two to three times larger…” NASA GSFC
It can be seen from this that the +3.0 mm/yr radius increase I have uncovered, is slightly greater than the published average error level--not a 'clear-cut' case of expansion, but the published Cartesian data, clearly leans toward a low-rate secular Earth expansion.
A consistently similar global vertical change rate was uncovered during the tree year course of TOPEX/POSEIDON which detected global ocean surface changes of up to +4.0 mm/yr. This corroborating figure was explained away (basically down-played and swept under the carpet) via various 'normal sea level variation processes such as ice sheet melting and thermal changes. The problem with such an asinine, illogical and untenable explanations, is that these rates of annual sea level change were not detected within meticulously gathered global tide gauge data. If such annual sea level changes of up to ~+4.0 mm/yr were present within global tidal gauge data, there would be a veritably international panic about immediate greenhouse sea level changes--would there not? We would all be over-informed about this ~+4.0 mm/yr change, because the television would go on and on at length about it's near term implications for humanity and the united nations assembly would be in uproar over it.
We don't need to be alarmed however, because this detected dramatic sea level rise is not reflected within global tide gauge data, therefore we know for certain it is not a real-world sea level change relative to the height of the dry land. The question therefore remains, just what was it that TOPEX/POSEIDON detected if not globally rising sea levels?
It certainly was not any real-world change in sea level. It could only have been secular global radius increase which made the oceans "appear" in the data, to be rising at a dramatically high rate. Yes, sea surface is rising dramatically upward as TOPEX/POSEIDON established, but so is the dry land which the globally distributed tide height gauges are attached to. There is no other reasonable logical explanation for global vertical changes observed within in both VLBI and satellite altimetry data. Earth is expanding, but the question is, exactly how fast?
All current geodetic methods ultimately rely upon VLBI (Very Long Base Interferometry) for their overall system calibration. VLBI is the master reference geodetic method with which all other space geodetic systems such as SLR and GPS are calibrated. This VLBI master geodetic system is itself calibrated via precise geometric locations in space, of ~ 600 quasars in all directions from Earth, These geometric relationships of Earth to these quasars define what is called the celestial reference frame, and from this, Earth's terrestrial reference frame is calculated, then utilized within all current global geodetic systems. Space Geodetic systems use the product GM to calibrate satellite altimetery with reference to the centre of Earth.
Both G (gravity), and M (mass), are assumed by convention to be constant, but within an expanding Earth context both G and M are predicted not to be constant--nor the product GM used by NASA GSFC in their production of all global geodetic solutions.
Hence, secular variation of the product GM will be implicated in expansion changes of palaeo-radius, but because of the assumption that Earth has a 'constant' palaeoradius, and also that the paleo product GM was a true constant, and that both of these assumptions are implicitly and intimately integrated into today's published geodetic solutions, these solutions consequently will not, and can not properly record a true rate of global expansion at the rate predicted from Earth expansion kinematic modelling. The geodetic solution programs used today have algorithms which are implemented according to a general assumption that GM is a constant value. If Earth expansion is the reality, space geodetic systems are not going to be able to properly detect it for those reasons. In the words of a professional and very senior experience NASA geodetics expert(who requested anonymity):
QUOTE:"...There is only one parameter in our solutions, that I can conceive of, that would have any possibility of soaking-up some part of a geometric global expansion coefficient and that parameter would be our [NASA's] estimate of GM, the product of the gravitational constant and the mass [constant] of the Earth. We make such an estimation to provide a means to assess the overall scale of the solution. It is largely a dynamic scale factor which helps to control the size of the satellite orbit.We have noted some tiny temporal variations in GM, but these variations are statistically insignificant and there is no overall trend seen in our estimates of GM. Any such trend might have an explanation, theoretically, from Earth expansion. ......Now, because GM controls the size of the satellite orbit, then a couple of interesting physics questions arise, but before we ask those, we need to understand the following point. That it is indeed true (i.e., seen directly in the SLR observations) that the laser range distances, between the tracking sites and the satellite itself, are getting smaller with time.Most celestial mechanicians attribute this decrease in distance as "orbital decay." Typically, orbital decay is attributed to atmospheric drag, solar radiation pressure and non-linear gravitational perturbations caused by the "lumps and bumps" in the Earth's gravity field and by the tidal effects of the Sun and Moon. Anyway, the following questions may be worth pondering in a very general way.
1) What happens to the semi-major axis of an orbiting satellite that revolves around a planet that is increasing in radial size only and not in mass?
2) What happens to the semi-major axis of an orbiting satellite that revolves around a planet that is increasing both in radial size and in mass?
The answer to the first question is "nothing."As long as the product GM is constant, it matters whether it is the size of a pea or a planet. You'd have a problem if the planet expanded to the point of reaching the same size as the semi-minor axis, at which point the satellite will plow into the planet, thus ending it's happy little orbit.
The answer to the second question is of more interest because then GM would increase ..." END QUOTE.
Earth must be allowed to deliver up it's tectonic history from the available rock record--free of anachronistic and blindly adhered to axioms (including the assumption of constant GM), integral to the plate tectonic interpretative preconception. Plate tectonics automatically categorizes every geological phenomena discovered according to an imposed monopolistic mental framework--to the automatic and complete exclusion of any other empirically supported alternative.
Current global geodetic measurements do not provide reasonable cause with which to doubt Earth expansion or conclusive evidence of static radius. On the contrary, space geodesy provides a reasonable cause to doubt the constant GM parameter utilized in NASA's "Crustal Dynamics Project", and its' ensuing blizzard of papers claiming to have quantitatively proven plate tectonics is real.
A new global free-floating 4-D analysis of VLBI and other geodetic data types will need to be redone--minus the gratuitous two assumptions of constant GM and constant paleo Earth radius. There will be no desire, and and much foot dragging over this, as the previous NASA CDP analysis cost 500 million dollars (U.S. taxpayers') and liberally financed many high profile plate tectonicists' careers. The subtle duplicitous politics of plate tectonics research funding will prevail for some time, but eventually, the continuing accumulation of evidence for Earth expansion will turn this tide of opposition, and force the issue beyond their control.
Venus - Earth's sister planet?
Venus has often been called Earth's sister planet by planetary geologists (though other than their radius, they appear rather dissimilar in many respects). For plate tectonics proponents, Venus represented their most enticing prospect of finding evidence of subduction on another planet. Unfortunately, nothing even remotely resembling a subduction zone morphology was ever found within the razor sharp high resolution radar images gathered by the Magellan orbiter's mission to Venus a decade ago. The Magellan probe was equipped with an outstanding high resolution radar imaging-mapping system, and it produced the most complete and spectacular geological imagery of another planet yet gathered.
Until very recently, even Earth has not been mapped to this level of geological detail due to the presence of oceans, ice-packs and thick sedimentary deposits. Mars is currently being surveyed with an even higher resolution optical mapping system but the presence of extensive sedimentation on Mars will prevent the gathering of even more detailed geological imagery of another planet (at least, until an orbital radar mission is sent to map Mars). The wealth of global geological detail within the Venus imagery is stunning and a lasting tribute to the scientists and engineers which designed, built and controlled the spacecraft and it's instrumentation.
The prime reason a subduction morphology was not found on Venus, is because the water necessary for weathering and transport of sedimentary detritus and the accumulation of thick sedimentary deposits does not exist on Venus. Venus does not possess the physical conditions to allow the accumulation of a hydrosphere and any water out-gassed from the mantle via volcanism, is rapidly vaporized (or perhaps Venus doesn't process volatiles within it's mantle though I consider that unlikely).
The net result of Venus having no hydrosphere is quite evident within the Magellan radar imagery--a pristine global system of uplifted through-crust diapiric mountain belts are delineated by steep fault scarps that have not been weathered and covered by deformed and thrusted sedimentsas they would have been on Earth.Because of this, Earth's typical Pacific margin "trench zone" morphology can not develop on Venus or reproduce the characteristically asymmetric depressed crustal troughs paralleling active uplifted orogenic deformation belts.
i.e. No paralleling margin "trench" feature is observed on Venus because the over-thrusting fluvial sedimentary pile and basin water does not exist on Venus to buckle the surrounding crust into a dipping broad trough shape and the elevated crustal temperature allows rapid curvature curvature and isostatic adjustments. Nevertheless, the same basic orogenic features exist on Venus as on Earth, and they are most clearly diapiric and extensional--just as they are on Earth.
The geological effects of continuous surface curvature adjustment is starkly apparent within the Magellan imagery and also a range of extremely ancient and also very young crust/terrane features. The elevated crustal and surface temperature, along with the very steep aspect terranes of Venus, demand that Venus must be a VERY tectonically active planet, because this very hot crust will very quickly deform plastically, damping out any topographic departure from isostasy.
It was the erroneous intellectual fixation on compressional plate tectonic subduction interpretations which blinded early Magellan radar image interpreters, to these unexpected morphological features. Anywhere an image interpreter looks upon a Magellan radar image of Venus's surface, tensional scars at all resolvable scales are observed. These ubiquitous tension features inescapably demand gross global crustal extension and growth due to planetary expansion.
Venus is obviously a very tectonically active planet but no matter how determinedly the proponents of subduction have studied these images, not even a hint of subduction is observed anywhere! Think about that a moment; the planets surface has been mapped with outstanding resolution, precision, contrast and detail. Because of the nature of radar imagery, highly accurate and reliable global 3-D digital topographic imagery is also available, but after studying the entire surface of the planet at great length, no subduction candidates were observed, but almost the entire surface displays outstandingly stark and unmistakable evidence of massive ongoing crustal extensions and dilations!
Plate tectonic adherents irrationally insist that, "some form of subduction must exist somewhere on Venus", because either a subduction process is present, or Venus is expanding. No other option is available. The global expansion option is just too overwhelming to accept, because if global expansion is recognized on Venus, it will instantly throw geology and the physical sciences into chaos over what could cause massive planetary expansion over geological time scales. Some planetary image interpreters may remain in blinkered denial of planetary expansion for a few more years, but their prime theoretical interpretative foundation has collapsed.The current Galileo mission to Jupiter and also the Mars imagery, verify, the non-occurrence of crustal recycling back into the mantle via any subduction process present.
Question: What does the reader think this means in terms of an orogenesis mechanism, in light of the obvious fact that the hoped for subduction explanation for Venusian tectonism has proven to be out of the question?Answer: Considering the low rigidity and very high ductility of Venus's basaltic crust (due to its high temperature), the observed uplift on venus can not be caused by mantle convection, or we would surely see abundant subduction zone processing. These considerations, combined with the observed global extension, means Venusian uplift has to be controlled by vertical mantle emplacement, causing on-going enormous departure from isostasy. (If you still doubt this, how else then, can those vast, high mountain range's continuing existence be reasonably explained in any other way?)
The complete global set of the Venus radar images leaves no room for doubt, Venus is undergoing a volumetric increase and is inflating outward with obvious pull-apart tensional cracking over its entire surface. That is geologically unpalatable, but it is also inescapably correct, and can be verified by anyone with basic skills in high resolution radar image interpretation and a knowledge of structural geology. The reality of planetary expansion is abundantly demonstrated on Venus and I challenge any geologist to review the imagery and reasonably disprove this.
The rim-of-fire is being constantly gravitationally deformed and weathered away by the Earth's hydrosphere, producing thick accumulations of deformed sediments due to gravity spreading away from the rising high pressure and temperature orogenic core. Venus is our sister planet, but it does not have a hydrosphere and therefore, does not have sedimentation or sedimentary deformation regimes like Earth's--that is, the most important lithological difference between the surface of Earth and that of Venus. Other than this, the geological similarities are striking.
Some Early Earth Considerations
Perhaps when Earth was young, the crust thinner and more ductile, perhaps convection flow within the upper-most mantle could have allowed some thin-skinned resumption back into the mantle of a primordial crust. An analogue of this style of resumption of a thin primordial crust can be observed by watching the surface behaviour of a convecting liquid lava lake as it solidifies. This style of resumption of the Earth's crust has not occurred for billions of years. It is shown in documents available from this web site that macro-scale mantle convection can not exist within the mantle of an exponentially expanding planet. With this I fully agree. Large scale convection cells could not persist within an exponentially expanding mantle and are of little geological consequence for lithospheric tectonism.
Nevertheless, there exists convincing metamorphic (temperature/pressure) mineralogical evidence of ancient deep geological burial processes that buried rocks to depths greater than the average thickness of continental crust--then subsequent uplift of these rocks to the near surface temperature-pressure environment again. This deep burial evidence is claimed as proof of subduction but this completely fails to explain how these rocks were uplifted to the surface again. This could never happen according to the standard plate tectonic model. Such extreme uplift clearly demands through-crust vertical orogenesis as nothing else could achieve the result.
There is growing evidence that surface gravity must have been less in the recent past or the dinosaur's could not have supported their own weight, let alone been able to move about quickly without smashing their bones to pieces if they attempted it. Paradoxically, the available evidence indicates that these were agile active animals, as shown in dinosaur stampede tracks etc. When they wanted to sprint to get away from a predator they clearly could, but if you calculate their body weight and analyse their skeletal structure, they would have shattered their leg bones if they did so. The only explanation that seems to work is that Earth's gravity must have been less in the past but is is increasing as mass is added to the mantle, causing expansion.
Hence, current interpretations of mineral thermodynamic pressure temperature plots may contain serious errors due to the assumption of constant Earth mass. The discovery of organic carbon inclusions in some diamonds also seems to suggest an ancient deep burial process may have been active. Diamond is only stable below about 150 kms depth and its preservation is dependant on rapid eruption and cooling. It is very difficult to comprehend explosive generation of a volcanics containing diamonds by a mechanism which did not involve tensional crustal dilation and fracture (with associated crust to upper mantle trauma following a large meteorite or cometary impact?).
These issues are but a few which indicate that geological processes were radically different during Earth's earlier history. There are many such anomalies within Earth science which are not yet understood or explained and almost certainly a vast number of similar oddities that are not yet discovered or recognized. We have literally scratched the Earths surface. What is becoming apparent is that the Earth has been continuously expanding on an exponential path since it was around one quarter to one third of its current radius 4.5 to 4.6 billion years ago.
- Expansion of the Earth image:Observe carefully the migration of the poles and the equatorial zones as displayed in this image. These pole-of-rotation and equatorial shifts account for many of the long-term climatic variations which are starkly apparent within the stratigraphic record. This image sequence demonstrates that no pan-global continental drift mechanism is required to account for observed long-term climatic changes Note the formation and overprinting of successive orogenic rift zones of which the circum-global Tethys was the most recent.
Enormous equatorial dilational rifts, transcurrent faults, volcanism and associated orogenic and oroclinal structures are the most prominent geological features on the surfaces of both Venus and Mars.
When the continents are re-assembled on a globe of smaller size, as in this model globe made by Klause Vogal, it can be seen that continental crust forms a continuous, unbroken surface over the entire globe. The inner globe represents the Earth over 200 million years ago, before deep ocean basins formed and subsequent rapid asymmetric expansive dispersal of the continents occurred. Little lateral plate movement or rotation of plates is required to fit the geo jigsaw back together again.
This fact demonstrates that lateral continental drift plays only a minor role in lithospheric development. Rotation , transverse faulting and vertical orogenesis have a much greater morphological influence than the minor lateral plate movements. The far more dominant tectonic influence is the obvious recent expansion of Earth and dispersal of the continents with the formation of extensive intra-continental ocean basins (a bi-modal crust). The fossil record clearly shows that these deep oceanic oxygenated environments never existed prior to 200 million years ago. Palaeozoic geosynclinal sedimentary basins dominate the geological record prior to this time.
Global expansion processes are asymmetric--expansion with hemihedral and antipodal distributions of continents. Asymmetric expansion gives rise to both vertical and horizontal tectonic vector components. The expansion process is more like a bloat or blow-out of the ocean basin lower mantle, rather than uniform radial inflation.
Origins of water
One of the most interesting implications of Earth expansion is that the volume of water in the oceans is increasing approximately in proportion to the generation of new oceanic crust. Oceanic crust forms directly from to the top of the mantle being exposed at mid ocean ridges as Earths' waxing internal expansion pulls the crust apart at submerged rifting fissures commonly called mid-ocean-ridges. Geochemical studies of evaporites (evaporated sea water solutes that became layers of sedimentary rock) has reveal that the geochemical make-up of sea water - the quantity and proportions of elements and molecules present in solution, has remained essentially constant for greater than 200 million years (some geochemists suggest for more than 500 million years).
Earth expansion raises questions about the nature of exhalative black-smokers at volcanic underwater rift centers and the geochemical buffering processes of shallow sea and ocean waters. The standard plate tectonic interpretation claims that mid-ocean-ridge black-smokers are hydrothermal recycling systems that suck deep ocean water through many kilometres of fresh, fine-crystalline basaltic crust via a postulated micro-cracks which somehow draw freezing deep ocean water toward magma chambers where-upon it is regurgitated back into the ocean at black-smokers as super-heated mineral laden brines. Does that sound very probable?
If so, just what is it that draws or sucks freezing ocean water through kilometers of solid basalt toward a hellishly hot magma chamber? Why would water do that? If this were actually possible why doesn't this super-heated water just exit back out through the same micro-cracks, and on the way out, seal them via mineral precipitation therefore preventing further flow? It is bewildering how any one could be satisfied with such a farcical explanation for black-smokers--but that is the standard explanation! That interpretation for black-smokers originates solely from the unnecessary fixation upon subduction.
- As a student I vividly remember listening to this explanation during an igneous petrology lecture and without exception, every student in the lecture was incredulous that such a model had not only been proposed but was actually accepted theory. Many students quizzed the lecturer with questions like, "...would it not be more reasonable to explain this exhaled water by saying it originates from the MOR's magma chamber itself as juvenile mantle water?". The controversy and disbelief displayed during the lecture spilt over into the next week's lectures. The unfortunate lecturer eventually produced polished sections of MOR basalt supposedly containing these "infiltration micro-cracks" but none of us could actually identify any micro-cracks in the samples--nor could our perplexed lecturer! He never did manage to find a sample with micro-cracks in it. The students in my year considered infiltration micro-cracks to be analogous to "The Emperor's-New-Cloths". I have never before, nor since seen any other geological explanation cause such instantaneous insurrection against it by students during a lecture. I'm sure many others have witnessed similar responses to the standard plate tectonic explanation of exhaled black-smoker water.
I reject the standard explanation for the origin of water exhaled from black smokers. Is the standard explanation as plausible as simply suggesting that this expelled brine water is "juvenile water" entering the ocean basins for the first time due to on-going mantle degassing? Indeed, what other explanation is resonable or plausible? I consider black smokers are one of the more tangible evidences that the volume of ocean water is continually increasing. Around 75% of gaseous emissions from volcanic craters are H2O in the form of vapor. Standard models state that these volcanic emissions are almost all connate water (ground water) with only a minor component of juvenile mantle derived water present (out-gassed mantle water).
In the expansion model:
- subduction of oceanic crust is not occurring,
- nor theoretical partial melting of subducted oceanic crusts,
- nor dehydration of subducted deep marine sediment.
The ascending water and "volatiles" in the Pacific rim-of-fire are primarily due to the continuous degassing of Earth's mantle as deep upwelling and expansion proceeds--just like at mid-ocean-ridge black smokers.
Recent very deep continental crust drilling projects on several continents have reported, "totally unexpected volumes of brine water", in deep continental basement rocks. These rocks were expected to be pressurized making them impermeable and "dry" but instead the rocks contained "extraordinary quantities of water". The origin of this deep brine water was reported as being "entirely enigmatic". If the crust has always been under tension and ocean water is derived from the mantle as the expansion model predicts, this deep crustal brine water should be completely expected. I personally would have been most surprised and somewhat perplexed if copious quantities of brine water had not been found at great depth within continental crust.
Surely the above is reason enough to treat standard water derivation models with unrestrained suspicion.
Matter-energy generation and cosmology
Many scientists have developed matter generation models to explain observed macro-scale cosmological and micro-scale quantum mechanical phenomena. This work has an extended theoretical development and a substantial scientific literature exists concerning it. These matter generation models are the product of numerous prominent scientists within the fields of Quantum Mechanics, Astro-Physics and Cosmology.
The discovery of a universal Cosmic-Background-Radiation field and subsequent ascendancy of the Big Bang model displaced earlier theories of continuous matter generation from scientific prominence during the late 1960's. The observed cosmic-background-radiation was interpreted by Big Bang supporters as tangible evidence of a big bang beginning to our universe--but again a better explanations exist.
THE COSMOLOGICAL OPTICAL BUBBLE (An explanation of the Cosmic Background Radiation)
Many scientists still vigorously disagree with the big-bang's interpretation of the microwave cosmic-background-radiation(and the more recently discovered Infra-red cosmic background DIRBE detects a Cosmic Infrared Background Radiation). One quite recent refutation of the big bang model and re-interpretation of the cosmic back ground radiation can be found in papers concerning the Quasi-Steady-State Cosmos model. This particular model of the cosmos invokes continuous matter generation within a universe which is infinite in all four dimensions.
It must be realised that a Big Bang theory is nothing less than a large scale 'matter-creation' model. That fact should satisfy any individual doubting the veracity of matter creation models within modern cosmology. All theorists in the field of cosmology agrees that the universe came about via "matter creation" in one form or another. All of the past and current proposed explanations of the cosmos invoke spontaneous matter and energy generation as the fundamental cause of everything we observe in the cosmos. Only the mechanism and style of matter generation is debated.
The Big Bang requires a spontaneous inexplicable "singularity" occurred in the distant past where all the energy and matter that has ever existed suddenly popped into existence from nothing and for no particular reason in the form of a single sub-atomic sized, super-dense point of all presently existing energy and matter within the universe, at unspeakably high temperatures, pressures and density. Before this "singularity" there was apparently no space, no time, no laws of energy or matter, no physical constants, no quantum vacuum of deep space, not a single atom or photon--nothing whatsoever!
This theoretical "mother of all black holes" singularity apparently popped into existence whilst also, at the same instant, it defined and set in motion 4 dimensional space-time and all of the universal laws such as the conservation of matter and energy which say such a big bang is impossible and a transgression of the laws which it is supposed to have set into effect!
This proposed singularity immediately exploded with enough force to allow the entire universe to escape from the greatest gravitational black hole that has ever supposedly existed, and form our observed cosmos. That would have to be quite a big bang considering that not even light can escape from a normal "garden variety" black hole! ...
The initial requirements of the Big Bang model (i.e. less-than nothing) seem quite fantastic in comparison to the notion of continuous matter generation in a universe that is infinite in all dimensions.
Nevertheless the incongruous big bang theory permeates our "accepted" modern scientific view of the universe. As was earlier mentioned with regard to other planets and moons of the Solar system, almost all of them show obvious signs of global inflation. These astonishing images are invaluable because they reveal the stark reality of things beyond authoritative postulations of current cosmology and the paradigms of mainstream experts.
Standard accepted notions of universal mater and energy conservation are experimentally correct, but our present understanding of such conservations is quite likely to be incomplete.
I now end this general introduction to Earth expansion and refer you to the books and papers section for greater in-depth study of Planetary and Universal expansion.
David Ford
