No Prizes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stanczyk_Matejko.JPG
Mostly, there are no prizes for contradicting consensus. Prizes
are for consolidating an existing consensus in a way that will allow it
to roll better, not (to use a railroad analogy), for switching the
points that make it turn sharp left, or stops it in its tracks, or, as
is the case here, go into reverse. Not only are all the
bandwagoners likely to fall off, but the vehicle is likely to be so
severely damaged it is only fit for the scrap heap. Even moreso
there are no prizes for blowing whistles while doing so. If significant
deviation is the intention it is usually better to adopt a quieter, more
sober, and more surreptitious (political) approach by canvassing
opinion and building a consensus, so that with time the bandwagon (and
the people on it) are able to take the curve at a more acceptable pace.
It is half a century since Plate Tectonics left the station, and has
been gathering momentum ever since as the framework for interpreting
geology. The increase in momentum however is due more to its path
being downhill, helped by the weight of conjectural baggage, than it is
to to do with any fuel stoking its firebox, which at every test turns
out to be more damp squibs than anything else. "Downhill all the
way" ('subduction'), is Plate Tectonics default acknowledgement of the
imperative of gravity. It would surely far rather have a primary
mechanism
tangential to the Earth's crust whose
full force could better make plates collide and crumple crust.
It's actually something of a discomfiture for Plate Tectonics (not at
all highlighted), that its *primary* mechanism *is* vertical - as in
Earth Expansion. The difference is simply that Earth expansion's
primary verticality acts in the opposite direction from subduction. It is not down (towards the Earth's core, but up, away from it, and has an accompanying signature related to the Earth's rotation and its first-order
deformation (its oblate shape), and the way that oblateness has been
modified in the dilation of the crust. The big question for Earth
expansion, which it can't yet answer (because it is a question for
theoretical physics, not geology), is how rotation and energy are linked
to create the material of the mantle (with its magnetic signature).
There is a further irony for Plate Tectonics too, in that the more
directly its primary downward dynamic is actioned (as in slab 'rollback'), the
less collisional crumpling and moving plates can happen, and the more
crustal extension is increased (e.g. the 'back-arc basins of the Western
Pacific). But crustal extension is what happens at the ridges
where the supposed convection cell is rising. So no matter which way
Plate tectonics turns, gravity-driven extension is its primary dynamic
(as in Earth expansion).
In Plate Tectonics gravitational adjustment (by falling mantle slabs) is the motive force, .. the driver, .. the *
cause* of plate movement. In Earth expansion downwards gravitational adjustment is a *
result*
of upwards (/'outwards') global enlargement, that has a symmetry of
inscription linking it to Earth's rotation - which Plate Tectonics
ignores. What precisely is causing the enlargement is not known,
but it is materially manifest in the creation of the
mantle (including water).
Earth expansion thus *empirically* (not hypothetically) links the
Earth's gravitational field with rotation and the creation of planetary
material, and is a pointer to the physical reality of the quantum world
at a scale that is directly accessible to us. It is an exciting
perspective on a subject that for half a century has shown no
inclination to progress. Plate Tectonics on the other hand remains
mired in the *assumptions, speculations and escapes* of goal-post
shifts of half a century in order to avoid exactly this conclusion, and
even then is forced to recognise gravitational collapse (of the mantle)
as its primary dynamic (subduction /return to the mantle), despite its yearning for a dominantly tangential
one (to crumple continents).
...........................
Of course there's a cost. Financial and health are uppermost. The
time (mis-)spent working through something like this is substantial and
negatively affects income in a number of ways. And a desk job is a
pain, literally. There is also the psychic cost of being irked by
the corruption and the threat to free speech that contrived conformity
induces. Encountering corruption in science (our "truth-teller"),
is not good for you. Scepticism is insidious and leads to cynicism,
which tends to spill over into other areas of life. The often
spectacular, errant behaviour of our commanders of societal institutions
generally, doesn't help. And of course if you're going to indulge
in what others see as a foolish enterprise, then there's the cost of
having to dress the part too. Well, .. it allows some concession to
their view - but if they don't understand the nuttiness of the target
subject(s) I doubt they'd see the irony in the fancy dress
adopted to hob-nob with the walkers and the talkers.
Others, scientists among them who should know better, typically trot out
the shibboleth, "If you have something to say, you should say it within
the pages of scientific discourse and test it with peer review, ..
scientists would give their right hand to say something new..etc
etc." This of course is a myth. To bring any
alternative message to the attention of a monolithic consensus
(particularly when it reeks of corruption) is simply an invitation to be
shot. As has been demonstrated over the period of some ten years
["ten" refers to my old website; today (20200522) it is more like twenty]of posting about this on the internet, scientists are *not* interested
in questioning the cardiac health of consensus, especially when that consensus
appears increasingly like a
cadaver. The reasons are not on account of
any geo-logic, but on account of their own personal professional
security. Despite its logic and scientific credentials, Earth
expansion is a professional poison that, by the evidence, virtually all
academics will not touch however much they might be inclined, or even
want, to do so. And be sure there are no prizes for drawing
attention to the courage of their convictions.
Finally, a word of caution for others who think they might be in a
position to go forward with this. Make no mistake, there will be
no prizes. Geology today is far too ensconced in its own
convictions and the (unwarranted) institutional kudos that supports it.
Previous advances in the field followed crises of sorts, when things
weren't working. There were questions about what to do with the
ocean floors. Were they submerged continents? Did
landbridges exist? Exactly how were the vertical movements of
orogenesis, taphrogenesis and epeirogenesis related? And what about the
thousands of kilometres of trans-Atlantic displacement (Continental
Drift")? And the heat source apparently necessary to do
that? And (to cap it all) the astounding discovery of recent
sea-floor spreading. All of these represented advances from a
position gained. Earth expansion represents nothing of the sort,
but a return to an earlier position already discarded. Investigating it
means undoing everything that has been assembled to support a false
consensus, and by implication to a considerable extent, the reputations
of those who have built it. Despite the manifest
contradictions of Plate Tectonics, and the vistas offered by the
alternative of expansion, the advocates of Plate Tectonics will do everything in their power to
maintain its current status.
After the war and the triumph of theoretical physics in the creation of
The Bomb, the whole way science was done, changed. Natural
philosophy was replaced by more quantitative and theoretical methods to
which the principle of multiple working hypotheses was seen as better
adapted. It allowed focus, .. a more reductionist, 'scientific'
approach. Logic took a back seat. Overnight it was
acceptable to allow illogical contradictions, because if you scratched
beneath the surface (with a little more arithmetical scribbling based on
a 'good idea') you might find (at best) they were not contradictions at
all, or (at worst) have another 'piece-of-the-jigsaw' to add to the
mix. In geology, neither proved to be true.
There has been no conceptual advance since Plate Tectonics was first
formulated, only goal-post-shifts of the 'escape' sort. Of course,
these are not seen as such by a new generation who have learned the
litany (and the method), but as proof of the theory.
Is this why (Earth) science is failing? Because its core principle
of logic has been usurped by theory? Because theory has come to
be maladapted? .. and, in the case of the Earth sciences at
least, made it possible for those who inherently cannot see the
difference between the two, to hog the driving seat?
Sam Carey (on Earth expansion; interviewed in 2002 just before he died).
"Through the 30s and 40s and 50s if you dared to propose this sort of
thing [EE - d.f.] in America you'd be laughed at, you're a ratbag
flat-earther. And there was no chance of getting a job if you had that
kind of idea. But by about 1956 I could see the glimmerings of the
recognition that something was wrong." http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/tribute-to-sam-carey-and-peter-hunt/3508908#transcript
The present cohort, demonstrating obeisance to consensus.
Paradoxically, those who can, and should, and who are ostensibly in the
best position to do so, .. will not, because like ingenues coerced to
the sex trade, their hands are tied by the threat of retribution.
Even when the door is opened to set them free they cannot escape.
The risks are too great. They are prisoners of the politics of
consensus.
"Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of
science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not
unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference--
science and the nation will suffer." (Michael Crichton quoting Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences.)
Plainly, the worst of it is that the science is not the issue. Rational
argument is irrelevant. The subtext, 'consensus' and the politics of one
sort or another that attend it, is the issue.
Why science is failing? - willing idiotry in the driving seat,
incompetence stoking the firebox, and consensus politics in the guard's
van.
[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-
http://www.platetectonicsbiglie.blogspot.com/ ]
