Saturday, November 8, 2008

Biogeographical Falsification of Subduction

If the Pacific Ocean/Ring of Fire is shrinking in size as required by subduction, how is it possible that Australia was once connected to South America?

Most of the marsupials alive today are confined to South America and Australia.

Via Retardipedia:

There are about 334 species of marsupial, and over 200 are native to Australia and neighboring northern islands. There are also 100 extant American species; these are centered mostly in South America
Harrison, L., The Migration Route of the Australian Marsupial Fauna, Australian Zoologist, Volume 3, Pages 247-263, 1924

McCarthy, D.D., The Trans-Pacific Zipper Effect: Disjunct Sister Taxa and Matching Geological Outlines That Link the Pacific Margins, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 1545-1561, 2003

"Biogeographic arguments for a closed Pacific (just like biogeographic arguments for a closed Atlantic and closed Indian) are based on evolutionary theory. Specifically, according to the theory of evolution, you can't have a host of closely-related, poor dispersing taxa suddenly appearing on opposite sides of an ocean -- when it is highly improbable for any of the ancestral taxa to cross oceans. So according to the referenced paper above, unless plate tectonic theorists want to rely on divine intervention, a slew of creation stories or a myriad of impossible trans-oceanic crossings of terrestrial taxa, their paleomaps are wrong. Panthalassa could not have existed between all of the hundred plus referenced taxa, which is to say, it didn't exist." -- Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, 2003

Briggs, J.C., The Ultimate Expanding Earth Hypothesis, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 31, Issue 5, Pages 855 - 857, 2004

McCarthy, D.D., Biogeographical and Geological Evidence for a Smaller, Completely-Enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 32, Issue 12, Pages 2161 - 2177, 2005

Ali, J.R., Biogeographical and Geological Evidence for a Smaller, Completely-Enclosed Pacific basin in the Late Cretaceous: a Comment, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 1670-1674, 2006

Briggs, J.C., Another Expanding Earth Paper, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 1674 - 1676, 2006

Ebach, M.C., and Tangney, R.S., Biogeography in a Changing World, 2007

"The present-day cordilleran system of eastern Australia was formed in still earlier times; it arose at the same time as the earlier folds in South and North America, which formed the basis of the Andes (pre- cordilleras), at the leading edge of the continental blocks, then drifting as a whole before dividing." -- Wegener, A.L., The Origin of Continents and Oceans, 1915

UPDATE: Dennis D. McCarthy is an important genius and I put him up there with Tassos. His website is called The Fourth Revolt.

See video: here.


Anaconda said...


1. The diagram depicting distance measurements in the Pacific Basin suggests that the Pacific Basin is expanding in direct contradiction of Subduction theory, which as pointed out calls for the Pacific Basin to contract.

2. The map showing Australia next to South America shows the fit between the two continents. Again, as OilIsMastery commented, how does Australia end up across the Pacific Basin, if Subduction theory states that the Pacific Basin is contracting?

3. The biogeographical evidence is one more evidenciary thread supporting Expanding Earth theory.

Quantum_Flux said...

Take a look at the USGS videos (Secrets in Stone; Plate Tectonics in Action) of this blogpost I created a while ago. Do you disagree?

In Awe of Our Evolutionary History

OilIsMastery said...

I disagree because geological, astronomical, and biogeographical evidence contradict that model.

Here is a realistic model provided by geologist David Ford.

Quantum_Flux said...

How did geologists come up with the ideas of the supercontinent cycle?

Rodinia 1.3 bya during the Neoproterozoic

Pannotia 600 mya during the Precambrian

Pangea 225 mya during the Permian

To me, it's not like geologists are just making up stories or anything, there has to be ample evidence in the geologic record for their claims.

Anaconda said...


Pangea assumes all the Continents were in contact, which with a smaller Earth they were in contact.

In a sense, all geologists agree on that idea, but HOW that single land mass was formed is where the dispute lies between Subduction and Expanding Earth theory.

As for the supposed older land masses you mention, there isn't solid scientific evidence for them as seperate gatherings of the continents.

Really it's the same as "Pangea".

But these seperate groupings are imagined to complete the imaginary "Wilson Cycle". According to the Wilson Cycle continents come to together and spread apart in a endless cycle.

So, in order to account for the 4.6 billion years age of the planet, that's how many times the continents spread out and came together.

When you think about that way, it really hits home how absurd the Wilson Cycle and the rest of Subduction theory is.

Continents wondering around the planet's surface regularly coming together for a big clusterf#&k and then going their seperate ways.


And repeat.

How realistic is that.

Try and picture a planet Earth with one land mass and the rest ocean.

That always did make me wonder.

Quantum_Flux says, "there has to be ample evidence in the geologic record for their claims."

600 million years ago?

1.3 billion years ago?

No, there isn't much evidence other than the continents were in contact, and they were...on a smaller Earth.

but the island supercontinents are as imaginary as their names.

Quantum_Flux said...

If the continents don't collide with each other, the how do you explain India colliding with Asia and scrunching up the Himalayas? That is exactly what it looks like on google Earth.

It can't be explained by the perpetual motion required for Excess Mass Theory. 4 nucleons fusing together to form helium and then emitting 2 protons or hydrogens is a severe lack of mass balance, not to mention that the Earth's interior can't be modelled as a real gas or a superfluid (Bose Condensation), there is iron in that core, and denser (metallic bonding necessitates viscoplastic or viscoelastic behavior, an incompressible real liquid at most). The only hydrogen present would be due to radiocative decay or some other nuclear process that doesn't create excess mass-energy from nothing.

Quantum_Flux said...

I found a process that starts with 6 protons and produces 2 protons & 1 alpha partical.

1. (H+H=> 2H, H+H=> 2H)

2. (2H+H=> 3He, 2H+H=> 3He)

3. (3He+3He=> H+H+4He)

The problem this presents for expanding Earth theory is that low order fusion typically decreases specific volume. (6 Hydrogens input => 2 Hydrogens + 1 Helium output) That's a reduction of volume of about 1/2.

Anaconda said...


Your question regarding the Himalayans is reasonable.

Although, your opening sentence assumes the Indian Subcontinent collided with Asia.

The following paper is an even handed look at the scientific evidence: Expanding Earth?, Bill Mundy, Professor of Physics
Pacific Union College, Angwin, California.

I do advise readers to review the paper, including you, Quantum_Flux.

The following paragraph discusses mountain formation:

"But the expanding-earth concept is not without its problems. A natural question is, how do mountains form on an expanding earth (Stocklin 1983)? In the context of plate tectonics, mountains are understood to be the consequence of colliding plates. But colliding plates would not be expected to be a prominent feature of an expanding earth. Carey has developed a "diapiric extension model" of "orogenesis" (Carey 1986). This model (see Figure 3) proposes that as the earth expands, the lithosphere thins at various locations and mantle material, with the reduced pressure, experiences phase changes, expands and rises sufficiently to maintain an isostatic balance. In the resulting break-up of the crust and elevation of mantle material, gravity spreading (downslope motion of overlying material) occurs. There are some similarities between the diapiric process and a very slow motion volcano. Characteristic patterns of mountains can thus be obtained. Carey has detailed the Himalayan tectonics and other mountain ranges using his model. See Figure 4. On the basis of faunal and floral elements, Ahmad concludes that "the Himalayas could neither have been born of collision nor of subduction, but resulted from vertical uplift" (Ahmad 1983). And while Stocklin does not feel that Carey's model of diapiric deformation is sufficient to account for the "general Himalayan style", he does allow that the "structure of the Himalaya is in no contradiction to an expanding earth" and that a previously smaller Earth radius would allow India, Africa and Eurasia to be positioned as required by paleomagnetic data without detaching India, which is just what geology requires (Stocklin 1983). Even advocates of standard plate tectonics recognize that Himalayan orogeny and the associated Tethyan paradox (lack of evidence for postulated Tethys ocean) are complex and elusive of interpretation, providing evidence that often leads to diverse and very incompatible models (Funk et al. 1987; Jiwen et al. 1987; Lemoine, Tricart and Boillot 1987; Searle et al. 1987; Sengor 1987; Srikantia 1987; Valdiya 1984; Verma and Kumar 1987)."

Also, Neal Adams has a video presentation regarding the Himalayan mountain range.

And, Neal Adams has a video presentation regarding general mountain formation.

OilIsMastery can respond regarding your critique of Tassos' theory.

I presented a hypothesis based on Plasma Universe theory which recently was provided additional support by these two reports from NASA.

Science@NASA Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth, October 30, 2008. "During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page. It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,'" says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."


Science@NASA Solar Superstorm, October 23, 2003. "Newly uncovered scientific data of recorded history's most massive space storm is helping a NASA scientist investigate its intensity and the probability that what occurred on Earth and in the heavens almost a century-and-a-half ago could happen again.

In scientific circles where solar flares, magnetic storms and other unique solar events are discussed, the occurrences of September 1-2, 1859, are the star stuff of legend. Even 144 years ago, many of Earth's inhabitants realized something momentous had just occurred. Within hours, telegraph wires in both the United States and Europe spontaneously shorted out, causing numerous fires, while the Northern Lights, solar-induced phenomena more closely associated with regions near Earth's North Pole, were documented as far south as Rome, Havana and Hawaii, with similar effects at the South Pole."

For the doubters of Plasma Universe theory, when you put these two stories together it paints a powerful picture.

There is evidence that energy and mass are added to the Earth, which causes some pretty fantastic fireworks. Maybe even expands the planet over time...

My theory would seem to overcome your objection, Quantum_Flux, because matter is added to the planet over time on a consistent basis.

I would appreciate a response Quantum_Flux, regarding my hypothesis taking into account the additional evidence provided by NASA.

I privided these reports before in response to a comment of yours, but you never addressed their significance.

I try to respond to questions as best I can, hope you would do the same, Quantum_Flux.

Quantum_Flux said...

I'll take a closer look at that solar plasma waveguide later and get back to you Anaconda, I'm curious how the plasma is supposed to penetrate through the Earth and get to the center of it.

However, currently my own hypothesis for expanding planets would be that perhaps there cores started out as high density fissionable material fused from a previous star that went nova, and then they expanded over time with the decay rate of that fissionable material to the lower order atomic elements we see all around us now. That would be true for Earth and the rest of the solar system too.

If the inner planets started with denser fissionable material, there should have been lighter fissionable material further out consistant with gravitational centrifuge effects (to say nothing of the decay rates, I don't know of any patterns between denser and lighter elements yet, I'll look into that). Anyhow, the entire solar system should have the same initial decay time (time Nova), and perhaps subject to gravitation as per general relativity (more massive planets would decay slower than less massive planets, but by how much is a physics problem).

Quantum_Flux said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quantum_Flux said...

Regarding link 1: If the radius of the Earth were expanding uniformly, then it should be the arcangle that remains constant between two points on a great circle (hopefully the equator since the Earth is an oblate spheroid). The arclength between two points on an expanding great circle should change, not remain constant. Then, that derivative for the length of the cord with time is bogus.

If a constant velocity change in radius (r=k*t), then the cord length should change as follows.

dC/dt = 2*(dr/dt)*sin(theta/2)

dC/dt = 2*k*sin(theta/2)

Anaconda said...


You're to be commended for "digging into the subject."

Admittedly, it's hard for me to follow when you turn up the mathamatics quotient, but, hey, that's science.

Quantum_Flux asks, "I'm curious how the plasma is supposed to penetrate through the Earth and get to the center of it?"

Good question.

I think there may be an answer, provided by OilIsMastery in one of the papers he linked in his most recent post: The ESF Meeting On Earthquakes, November 12, 2008, entitled, Rocks That Crackle and Sparkle and Glow: Strange Pre-Earthquake Phenomena, by Friedemann T. Freund.

I'll quote two parts of the abstract:

"Seismic waves are the most dramatic and most intensely studied manifestations of earthquakes. However, we also know of non-seismic phenomena, which precede large earthquakes. Some of them have been reported for centuries, even millennia. The list is long and diverse: bulging of the Earth’s surface, changing well water levels, ground-hugging fog, low frequency electromagnetic emission, earthquake lights from ridges and mountain tops, magnetic field anomalies up to 0.5% of the Earth’s dipole field, temperature anomalies by several degrees over wide areas as seen in satellite images, changes in the plasma density of the ionosphere, and strange animal behavior."

Quantum_Flux, please note that many of these phenomena are electromagnetic.


"Evidence will be presented that, once the positive holes are generated, currents propagate through the rocks leading to electromagnetic emission, to positive surface potentials, to corona discharges, to positive ion emission, and to mid-infrared radiation. These phenomena are expressions of the same fundamental process: the ‘‘awakening’’ of dormant positive hole charge carriers that turn rocks momentarily into p-type semiconductors."

The paper is extremely interesting (at least to me) because it demonstrates and explains these electromagnetic properties, which seems to provide a pathway for plasma into the center of the Earth. Specifically, the paper discusses ion conductivity, which is crucial to my hypothesis because ions provide the mass for an expanding Earth.

I highly recommend you take the time and read the paper or at least review it.

Evidence is mounting that electromagnetism is the "third axis" along with the axis of temperature and pressure for chemical thermo-molecular bonding reactions in the Earth's crust and mantle, and that Plasma Universe theory is the driving force for the this "third axis".

Also, this is interesting because it directly sheds light on Abiotic Oil theory, my driving interest, here, on the Oil Is Mastery website.

It's beginning to seem that Abiotic Oil theory, Expanding Earth theory, and Plasma Universe theory are converging. Indeed, it may turn out that that these three theories (Abiotic Oil theory being the "little brother") may be the main leg of a "unified theory" of geological and astrological dynamics.

Please read the comments section of the above linked post, as I will follow up there with additional comments (the overall post is also interesting).


Quantum_Flux said...

The friction from rocks sliding over each other is bound to create a lot of electrical charge buildup.

Assuming a constant arclength instead of a constant arcangle, and r=k*t, then that chord length derivative would look like:

dC/dt = 2*k*sin(s/(4pi*k*t))
- (s/(2pi*t))*cos(s/(4pi*k*t)) that the angle change is taken into account. But that would still be a worthless equation.

Anaconda said...


No doubt, friction does create "electrical charge buildup," in other words, static electricity.

But the scientific evidence paints a picture where static electricity fails to account for the magnitude of electromagnetic fields and currents observed.

Electricity has to be going from one place to another. In fact, electromagnetic fields only occur in association with electric currents.

When you add up the phenomenon I've provided in this comment thread and the additional evidence at the Oil Is Mastery post I've linked to, the body of evidence is substantial if not overwhelming.

Now, with your proceeding comment, I'm not sure if you're objecting to my hypothesis of a Plasma Universe mechanism for an expanding Earth, or the entire Expanding Earth theory.

But I'll agree with you on one thing, "...that would still be a worthless equation."

I think you are needlessly hung up on equations, or using them for an excuse.

Reasonable objections are fine, indeed, reasonable objections are necessary to the scientific method, but you're bordering on the unreasonable, padantic objections of someone who simply can't bear to come to grips with a scientifically superior idea.

The gods were wrong:-)

And if you are objecting to the entire Expanding Earth theory, then there are numerous other scientific lines of reason chalked up in support of it.

Reasonable objections are a sign of strength, unreasonble objections are a sign of weakness.

Wisdom and judgment know the difference.

Quantum_Flux said...

What is given in that report:

dC/dt = 2dR/dt sin(q/2) + Rdh/dt cos(q/2)

What does "h" represent in that equation? What is the parameter that is supposedly moving at Australia-Hawaii (-7 cm/yr), Hawaii-USA (+4 cm/yr), and Australia-USA (-3 cm/yr)?