In Memoriam

-  The Boxing Day Tsunami of Christmas 2004 -  
(...Plate Tectonics - earthquakes and tsunamis...)

---

(From the archives - 1st January, 2005)

This page is dedicated to the memory of those tens of thousands of families around the Indian Ocean killed by the Sumatra earthquake and the resulting tsunami of Boxing Day, the 26th December 2004, who have underscored with tragic loss of life the blindness of geological consensus in refusing to recognise the connection between earthquakes and the Earth's rotation and expansion in generating such catastrophies. On account of this deficit, the connection between earthquakes and the global structures that localise them have been and continue to be in large part fundamentally misconstrued.

Fig.1   Synopsis of continental rupture and growth of the ocean floors reflected in the change in the Earth's spin through geological time.   Grey band = mountain belts distended around the Pacific rim; yellow band = lower crustal level distension; grey lines are lines of major apparent 'torsional' displacements (but are largely normal growth faults); finer red lines are transform faults (which are also growth faults).  The individual major elements and movement pictures are described on the site.

From the equatorial dilation of the Pangaean Earth to the trace of structures on the ocean floors describing this, the first-order deformation of the planet is related to its spin.  This simple fact is ignored by geologists and geophysicists, who hubristically deny any association and instead use a working geological model called Plate Tectonics to explain earthquake distribution.

This model, constructed purely on hypothetical principles of convection according to buoyancy and flotation, considered to govern the internal workings of the planet, flies in the face of the obvious that any lay-person can see  - that the continental crust has been distended by the growth of the ocean floors, and that this growth is inscribed by the spin of the planet in the structures known as transform faults.  Views of the Earth from space have spectacularly underscored this spin-symmetry of deformation, yet despite the billions of dollars expended in space exploration and the movement picture being clearly defined in satellite measurement of small movements (image below), as well as the interpretation outlined on this site, scientists  continue to conveniently ignore the obvious pairing of Earth spin and mantle growth and the effect this has in generating earthquakes and killer tsunamis, because through its consequence of Earth expansion it implies the nemesis of plate tectonics which feeds the lifeblood of  consensus of the earth sciences, and because too there are unplatable implications in physics - there is no known way within current consensus whereby the Earth may enlarge to the extent apparent.

Plate tectonics  implies it,  gps movements show it, and the growth of the ocean floors define it.  You might think there would be some scientists who would regard this connection between earthquakes and the Earth's spin as an alternative framework to plate tectonics in which to explore the potential  for earthquake prediction given the huge loss of life that can occur.     But no (however see), ..  despite possible private agreement, when  observations are made that imply fatal errors in consensus, official story-tellers close ranks faster than thieves.  The loudest response by far is not to examine and discuss the evidence, but to proclaim "irrelevance" in the absence of  'peer review' and consensus,  and to otherwise deny,  ignore, and heap ad hominems on the bearer of new data and interpretations of it.

It is not possible to address this connection within the milieu of consensus.  It is only by a juxtaposition such as here, of the recent tragic loss of life caused by the tsunami around the Indian Ocean with the hubristic assertions of Earth scientists that current 'knowledge' of global dynamics is essentially correct, that a rise in the conscience of consensus might be made whereby possible alternatives may be explored and a better understanding might be gained.

Let us pray

...that they waken up, and put the science, if not the concerns of the people in the regions at risk of tsunamis, ahead of their career interest.

Fig.2.  Crustal movements depicting "independent Plate movement" according to GPS measurements (red arrows).  White lines are major movements described on this site; red lines are transforms.

This show is not over till the whole circus of fat ladies promoting plate tectonics sings (in unison):- "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that spin!"


Boxing Day, December 26th 2004 
Posted New Year's Day, 2005

[Addendum : The Tsunami of March 11th, 2011, Japan ]

(Pidgeons, .. coming home to roost (?) ( on the Big Island of Hawaii, April, 2018.)

Eureka

A Eureka moment
( .. is an ephiphany, ..a shortcut... )

---

(Reprise old website, ~2011)

The point deserves a stern look, and from whom better than the man himself. 

Louis Pasteur (wikipedia)

"Chance favours only a prepared mind."

So what is this 'eureka' moment?  An observation, .. interpretation /conjecture /theory, .. a hypothesis, an intuitive guess? 

 No, ..none of these. It is simply being in the right place at the right time - with the experience and realisation to see a relevant connection to a pattern that is already apparent.  It's a very personal thing to which no-one else is privy.

Such moments (always something of a red light) nevertheless can provide valuable shortcuts when they happen to be right. They represent a realisation of the way that data is (or should be) structured with respect to symmetry scale and form in relation to experience. There is nothing mystical, magical or 'intelligent' about it. All it is, is having a previous context within which to fit observations and to understand their implications. It is 'filling out', extending the boundaries of previous observation.  To others without the same experience, however, it is easily seen as "off the wall", an invention of the crackpot screwball (cite Feynman - Aunt Minnie,  last sentence.. 

 
Such realisation is not an outward process of thinking of external things, but very much inward and passive - almost not thinking at all.  It's simply letting the 'obvious' reveal itself through context, scale and design. It's as unthinkingly or'nery as can be, and typically happens in moments of reverie  in the most or'nery of places. If it is regarded by others as special, that is only because by definition they do not have the same experience, the same 'preparation', .. the same contextualisation.

And as such it is indeed *highly* subjective.
 
Or is it?  To be sure it is peculiar to the individual, but by the exclusion of consciously directed thought it is arguably also as objective as can be, ..as if the mind itself is an eye of sorts, passively observing and bypassing the filters of conscious thought.  Context is already given by personal experience. 

It is top down, a glimpse of the 'destination', of the wood rather than the trees. In the jigsaw analogy it is the picture on the front of the box. The cognitive work of assembling the pieces are already largely in place.

Science on the other hand is typically a bottom-up affair. It is elemental, anatomical and to a degree an often piecemeal construction in the way that it busily, almost obsessively assembles the data, where more loosely may be more helpful. It takes pride in being 'objective', but it's kidding itself - this sort of 'objective' assembly is typically derived from a plethora of hypotheses, contributed by many people. In science however this variation masquerades as the versatility of one - the so called 'consensus' view. This 'versatility' has enormous value for those in a position to call for 'more research' to 'finesse' the theory in ever more detail, but in terms of useful result it can go nowhere.  By chasing its tail it has painted itself into the proverbial corner.  

On the other hand a correct theory predicts the outcome. Other than routine 'space-filling' it obviates the need for research. In a sense, and within its own terms of reference it also has nowhere to go. Its very success is its nemesis. It has, for all intents and purposes, 'arrived'. 

 

And herein lies the career scientist's dilemma.  For which is the more successful - the one that may be continually used to justify funding, or the one that has arrived at the destination the funding was intended to reach?  Problems, particularly ones that seem insolvable, are money in the bank, .. a milk cow to the career scientist.  Life support. Nothing less.

With the realisation that Plate Tectonics is false, then all must be reassembled: no plates, no collisions causing mountains, no crumpling of the crust causing folding (in the manner Plate Tectonics says), .. nothing of all of that. Earth expansion effectively presses the reset button on the Earth sciences and offers a whole different paradigm for geology, ..one that has not yet even begun to be broached by the broader community, and one that poses a formidable challenge to educational institutions. For how can these continue to teach a syllabus that by the deliberate exclusion of logical alternatives, is at best demonstrably false and at worst, corrupt. 

So where to next? Is there Life after Plate Tectonics?  ...  Indeed, is there life for geology after Earth expansion once, it is consolidated? 

Well (again), .. it wouldn't be the first time geology has been the start-point for enquiry into the human condition and its place in the environment, and no doubt it won't be the last. The implications of an earth that is in a state of slow explosion has obvious implications with respect to physics.  However they are more appropriately addressed by the respective disciplines, and anyway are not ones that should unduly concern us given the time scale on which humanity exists (notwithstanding the hype of "Climate Change" since this (present) article was posted on my website way.y back).  'Climate' has a different connotation in geology than it does in more regular public parlance. 

 

But that is another story .

feed

 Feedback page to 1st edition
( .. my part in the downfall of Plate Tectonics .. )

---

(site originally via http://users.indigo.net.au/don/)

Comments are unfiltered. They trailed off about the same time mobile phones became the preferred access to the internet, possibly a reflection of the small screen being unsuited to global imagery.  The degree of polarisation of views was unexpected though, and is illustrative enough of the controversy of the subject to justify posting. Many later comments have become lost through my own sloppy records-keeping, but the clear trend was towards support. 

---

". It is an insult to the profession that such an idea should be remotely considered these days, when so much is known about how ore deposits form." [H.R.H. (CSIRO) pers.com. on the proposal that the necks of boudinage structure control the location of ore deposits (with reference particularly to ultramafic-hosted nickel sulphide ores.] (That's a blast from the past of deep time - 1973, from the precursor theme of Principles controlling the location of ore deposits', showing that the more things change the more they stay the same .. just for starters.) (talking about "support")..

---

(Back on track with Plate Tectonics .. )
"... You are practicing "looks-like" geology... Prove it, don't just show me pictures of it. " (D.J. on global tectonics)

---

"Sir, - I may kindly be issued the copyright permission for using your website for information and pictures strictly for educational purpose. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (P). "

---

".... I will be returning to run 2 short-courses for the MSc program next month. One (one-day) course is on extension tectonics and implications for mineralisation. I will be focusing on how extensional settings are often misinterpreted as implying regional shortening, presenting results of recent centrifuge modelling and field studies of folding during crustal extension. I would also like to mention your ideas on boudinage and mineralisation (although I would debate some of the models you propose, others I consider to be excellent models). I would therefore like to seek permission to use several of your figures from your Web page in lectures and in accompanying hand-outs (citing your pages as the source of course)." ( L.H.)

---

" PT (plate tectonics) stands on incredibly firm foundations...what does EE stand on?  just  your unintelligible bullshit web site.)    ( J.H, Ucla.)  (easylink)

---

" I think its about time you've read something written in the last 20 years on geophysics.  For until you  do, watching you argue against plate tectonics is like watching a one legged man in an butt kicking contest."  ( S.W. - Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre, Hawaii.)

---

" ....I've been quietly beavering away since the mid-1980s accumulating empirical evidence for expansion from published data, ... starting from the basis of Carey's work.   ...    A very stimulating web-site - Thank you!"   (J.N.)

---

 Your God complex is legend in the halls of BHP.   I see you have found another place to hang out your vehement railings against science and real scientists.   (A. J. in reply to this post),

---

"  I enjoy your website, ...brings to light some geological principals that I need to rethink.  I have been a follower of the traditional geology and your web site has opened my thinking to looking at things in a different way.  Thanks for the website, explanations and the pictures.   Keep up the good work."    (T.C.)

---

"I am somewhat aghast that your web page managed to escape notice on crank.net up to this point.  Rest assured that Erik has been apprised of your existence and you will shortly be classified properly for all time."   (G.W. Herbert,  Moderator, sci.space.tech & sci.space.science,   in response to this posting.)

---

"The sad fact is that your arguments *are* transparent bullshit.  Everyone else reading this realizes that only a person with serious mental defects would be sticking to it.  The obvious conclusion is that you're another usenet psychotic." P.F.Dietz, computer scientist,  in response to this posting.) [don's blog page 6, 12/14/04)

---

"Anyhow, thanks for the most exciting geological site on the web right now! I have always felt that plate tectonics could not explain the shape of the earth's crust. There was always the feeling that the solution was there staring at me, but I could not see it."  L.A.G. Norway.  (Hi Lars) (remembering.)

---

"Each time I visit your site, I am astounded by the amount of work you have compiled and more importantly how rich it is in relevant material and insight. ...  I have come across various discussions in sci.geo.geology that reference your name when I have done google searches. I have been turned off by the puerile responses and the degree of anger so many people display and the unwillingness to talk facts and specifics. "  A.B., .. Billings, Montana, USA

---

"   ... I have a degree in geology, although I don't work in the field, and have always had doubts on Plate Tectonics, ever since it was taught to me at school and at University. Finding your site was a real revelation, and I finally saw clearly pointed out the objections to PT I always had in mind, but unable to focus.  So, now it's time to dig deeper and really get serious about Global Geodynamics.   <....>  .. the rationality and elegance in your alternative to PT is striking, it all fits in in a perfect, complete jigsaw puzzle..."   (P.B., Italy)

---

"...Yes I routinely go back and read various pages at your web site. You have been quite busy with your additions. It is your illustrations that I finding compelling and find myself wanting to see more. The more I read, study and observe things in the natural world the more I come in line with your way of thinking. "  (A.B. USA)

---

"   I have down-loaded your "Plate Tectonics' Ten Great Big Bad Ugly Fat Nonsenses", took it home and read it over the weekend. I think you have hit a lot of nails on the head. <  ....>   My basis for EE was originally through palaeoecology.  It is an interesting confirmation that my conclusions and yours, and others like you with a background of physics, end up at about the same place.  < .....>  Palaeontological support for EE is extensive, but, as you point out, not open because of the bias of granting bodies. Round about 1990 the Geological Survey of India adopted the official policy that it had no preference for either EE or PT.  As far as I am aware this is still the official policy. Support for EE is common and generally open amongst palaeontologists in India, China and Russia, not secretive as here and USA. Not many have published on EE."   (J.R. Australia)

---

" ...  He was a very imaginative thinker on the subject especially the mountain building part. He had an amazing grasp of the subject even though he had no formal courses in Geomorphology and even though I did, I still found it hard to understand until I found your site.  That's why I was so excited to get the disc.  You really are an inspiration to me and a true verification of all my imaginings about the expanding earth.   Do you have plans to publish your work in written form?  I could not find a copy of Dr Carey's book (except at the local library) but thank God it was published on the internet.   <....>  Browsing thru the disc is very easy and user friendly.  It is hard to believe all the work you have put into this disc.  The graphics are just amazing and because they are so clear and understandable I am convinced that this type of educational experience will turn the tide for the expanding Earth theory.  This disc should be in every educational library in the world, if for no other reason than to give students an opportunity to see the world in a whole new light.   Thanks again, ...  By the way I really like the way you have put together your images."  (H.T. USA)

---

"...  I have a university education in the earth sciences but have never practiced as I went into finance after university.  I am still an avid reader in my own time however and have independently reached conclusions regarding expansion of the earth and am trying to get as much supporting reading together as possible. Once the light goes on its incredibly obvious and very exciting to realise everything I have been taught (in error) actually has to be reinterpreted -and now makes sense."  (C.S. U.K.)

---

" ...Terrific website - Thanks )

---

"...  M.M.  was much taken with your work and used part of it as an example. I have found that gaining "knowledge in depth" usually requires multiple reads. Using this philosophy I went back to review your site and found things I hadn't seen before.   <....>   By the way, my comments about your "angst" I believe are true, appropriate and add a needed human touch to all this science. Like you, I don't proclaim to have the answers, but I damn well want the discussion to be heard and advanced. <....> I agree that the most important thing is that minds are cracked open to the possibility by any method possible. I'd be happy to let it go (or expand or grow) from there.  ..."    (K.W. USA )

---

Sledge

 Plate trouble
( .. the Trouble with Plate Tectonics is .. )

---

[From first edition /archives]

... that it is basically a construct of geophysicists, ..who firstly (by-and-large) (and by their own admission) don't have much of a geological clue, and secondly do not obey the falsification rules of science.

And that's not me saying it.  Read what Shawna Vogel has to say.  Her considered words make for a much more effective sledge than mine. She met a lot of the people in the process of researching her book and got the inside story from a number of people directly involved:-

" Even with advances in the field, however, crucial pieces of information are missing, especially in these studies of the surface. One of the main reasons is that geophysicists have been strangers to the field of geology for such a long time. In many researcher's minds, and for obvious reasons, deep Earth science leaves off where surface science begins - in other words, where geology begins. For decades there has been a lack of communication, some even say a disdain for each other, between the two fields. As geologist Christopher Scotese at the University of Texas explains it, geophysicists have always had the upper hand in terms of making models and amassing numbers. Theirs was the dominant field so there has been resentment as a result of that. The main reason however is that each group has defined itself and its work in a certain way and each has continued along that path. Geologists and geophysicists rarely go to the same meetings or collaborate on the same problems. Geologists have all grown up believing that the rocks tell a story. The layers upon layers of stone are all laid down in a specific sequence, and those who know how to read that sequence can read the story of a region - when uplift took place, when volcanoes loosed their contents. Geophysicists on the other hand have become so specialised in the subfield that few of them know how to read geologists' maps or understand the subtleties of strata. This parochialism [d.f. link] leads many geologists to believe that without the hard evidence geophysicists are missing a big piece of the Earth's story."  [Shawna Vogel (1995) 'Naked Earth, the new Geophysics, p.139, Dutton, Penguin Books, 217pps.]

What she's saying here in a more polite way than me, is that while geologists stick as best they can to the geological reality that is written in the rock, geophysicists, being essentially restricted to interpretation of what happens at the end of a scribbling, shaky pen, .. a seismograph (usually on the other side of the world from where the action is taking place), consider themselves having a licence to invent constructions with an unfettered disregard for geological reality.

"Poor buggers they", you could say, "restricted by such limitation", except that in their extravagance they show absolutely no respect for the essence of science - falsification.  

The whole of Plate Tectonics is a litany of contradictions, which after half a century they still show no inclination to rationalise.  Why?  Well, firstly, they can't, because there *is* no logical reconciliation.  And secondly they probably think it doesn't matter since the more furfies they can successfully strew around and bamboozle everybody with, the more they can control the agenda.  And physics being what it is (the key to understanding the ghostly quantum world with its wherewithal to destroy the natural material one) (... and recalcitrant neighbours), attracts the major part of funding (link).  Get on the back of that one and you're on a winner, professionally speaking.

And so we have dubious suppositions assumptions and speculations tricked out in rubbery arithmetic as their support, and promoted by a media cheer squad with its own separate agenda - the more 'ideas' out there, no matter how nutty, the more there is to write about and the more secure is their financial base (provided people prefer fake news and fairy floss romance novels over hard facts written in stone that speak for themselves, that is).

The whole schemozzle is essentially supported by disinformation.  There is huge capital in being wrong, provided it is coloured with the kudos of learned institutions.  Being wrong underwrites the chance to try again ("more research is needed"), and gets rid of the problem that being right presents - what to do for an encore.  To the career research scientist "more research needed" is virtually a catch phrase for 'money in the bank'.   There is no reward in being right when it has the potential to put everybody offside and upset the applecart, not in the short term anyway, .. like here.  And put you out of a job into the bargain.

But models sourced in falsehood and speculative imagination at the expense of hard geological fact are valueless, no matter how inventive the arithmetic used to support it.

And that is why there is no inclination from geophysicists to include geological reality.  The 'geology' that they do attempt to include is a half-formed, flung-about, dissonant cacophony, a Heath-Robinson contraption whose purpose seems solely to bamboozle the onlooker in a morass of gratuitous construction, to pull wool over eyes whilst trying to attract funding for their misbegotten enterprise -  Plate Tectonics.

So that's where it begins, .. and where it stops.  Were they to include geological reality instead of the fiction of hypothesis and theory, typically represented as 'fact', they would have no story other than Earth Expansion with all its acknowledged problems of mechanism for Earth enlargement, ..and that would incur the wrath of their fellow physicists.   Physics, the big money spinner, would become controversial, introduce schism, divide funding and put people out of a job.  As things are, its easy.  Why make things hard for yourself, a cross for your own back?

It's all about jobs and careers.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with jobs and careers, except that in this case the science itself (with its essence of falsification that no-one is interested in other than whistleblowers like here) is clearly of secondary importance.  To the career scientist, the creed is "We are a community", whose dictate by its very exigencies of organisation, is that it must be unconditionally obeyed - and woe betide any who cross it.

So why do geologists put up with it if they recognise the problem with geophysics?  They put up with it because they recognise realities, and the imperative to publish for the sake of career.  A consensus allows this to happen.  And according to Shawna Vogel (above), in adopting Plate Tectonics' assumption of a Panthalassa Scotese is leading the way, with his throwaway line:-  "...There probably  has been an ocean in the present-day position of the Pacific Ocean for nearly a billion years..." (link)

"Probably"?  Really?  Why?  ... How much uncertainty is tied up in that 'probably'?  How much 'more research' is going into the validity of that "billion years"?  I submit none, because if it were, then the supposed pairing of ridge creation and mantle destruction would be more closely examined than it is, and that would risk upsetting the applecart.  As it stands, it is silent homage to the axiom that underpins plate tectonics and which everyone understands (as the 'ghost that dare not speak its name')  - the assumption that the Earth must remain a constant size .

Even geologists need to face the realities of a job and a career, ..and in the academic world if you don't publish you don't have one.  And as noted above, being wrong lots of times can be argued to have more currency than being right once.  It underwrites the chance for more research, more publications, and therefore (whether right or wrong) more standing.  Being right (in a milieu of 'wrong') on the other hand arouses all sorts of indignation from vested interests ensconced in the comfort of consensus and "more research needed":-

" When thoughts, logic and facts have the potential to humiliate and frighten, they will always be ignored. " (Mister supernatural)

Sites such as this arguing that a transparent deficit exists between the theory and the facts might be hoped to engender a more considered assessment of Plate Tectonic theory, but almost certainly the reverse will be true as authors and peer review alike close ranks and conspire to shore it up.  Almost certainly a more strident, more muscular exposition  as well as an increasing (and intentional) drop in the standard of peer review may be expected as ever more straws are clutched to present assumption, interpretation and theory as fact.  

But in the end, given enough rope it will hang itself as it becomes increasingly and transparently less credible, ..even to the frontline footsoldiers, ..the Hill-Buildies.

Wherever there is power, corruption poisons even the cleanest of newbie slates - eventually ('maiden')
 
............................

(This was written before I came across W.H. Menard's book, The Ocean of Truth, in which he admits the point (about not having a geological clue) - and justifies it by saying that those who developed Plate Tectonics "didn't need one" (repeat link).

Again .. it's the"whether-the-Earth-is-flat-or-round" 'scale' thing, but perhaps the irony here is that for all Plate Tectonics' claim to the high ground of scale, Earth expansion is working on a far bigger scale than Plate Tectonics by demonstrating that the Earth is essentially one 'plate' whose surface is continuously moving outwards from its centre and collapsing to take up the change in surface curvature, thus making its surface flatter than it used to be. 

(goes to 'erosion')

latlong1

Tracking the change
( ..  from Plate Tectonics to Earth expansion .. )

---

Below is a screenshot of a page posted to my old website back in early-mid 2004, noting an attempt by Plate Tectonics to turn transform faults into subduction zones [by a Hey Presto & abracadabra !].  You can read that publication here  (reposted on the web after a considerable time behind a paywall).

A collection of pages posted on my old website at the time under the rubric of "The Big Rip", detailing the structural evolution of the Western Pacific margin and the separation of the Americas from Asia, compiled some key observations (by me) leading to my recognising Earth Expansion.
 
I did wonder (then) if that publication might be an example of appropriation of those observations (perhaps even with the intention of staking a claim to Earth Expansion), since the structural evolution of that margin was (for me) fundamental to recognising expansion. At the time, I was writing a promo for my 'book' (e-book) first edition).  There was absolutely nothing on the web along similar lines.  So when that publication popped up advocating transforms evolving to subduction zones  (and further to the wholesale equatorial opening of the crust (which was the central thesis of my site) I did think (I did, so I did) (as one does) .. "Oh-ho, .. what have we 'ere",.. ?? 

So here we are, nearly two decades on since those pages appeared (and a year after I have taken my site down - service provider no longer supported) and the Big Ship Plate Tectonics is still celebrating half a century of business-as-usual.  Apparently something in that publication (whatever it was) didn't work, despite the claim made in it (with which I would agree) that that "something" ..

".. promised to be exciting and fruitful areas of future research."

However we do differ as to what that 'something' exactly is.  As readers will know, I'm not big on subduction (in fact I think it is a woeful example of wilful ignorance and a con-job all at once).  And Plate Tectonics is not big on transform faults.  In fact according to Fred Vine commenting on convection (link)(in Menard, 1986) Plate Tectonics would be a whole lot better off without them, predicated as it is on just creation and destruction of ocean floors, and "moving" (and "moving past") is crass misrepresentation of what is actually happening. So between us, let's see where this goes.

Here's "the page" (it's a screenshot)  (I see it drops the capitalised "blinking text") (I must have caught it on the blink).  It says :" The observation  of a  ** TRANSITION  FROM LATITUDINAL TO LONGITUDINAL  OPENING**  has no place in plate tectonics, but is the CENTRAL THEME of this  site,")  :-