Saturday, November 8, 2008

What the Fascists Don't Want You To See

Egyed: Some remarks on continental drift

L. Egyed1

(1) Geophysical Institute, Eötvös University, Budapest, Hungary

Received: 5 April 1960

Summary: The continental drift may be explained by an expanding Earth only.
Cox and Doell: Palæomagnetic Evidence Relevant to a Change in the Earth's Radius.

INTEREST in the hypothesis that the Earth's radius has increased during geological history has been renewed in recent years because of several sets of independent observations and interpretations. From studies of the deformation of mountain ranges and the distribution of faults and oceans, Carey1 proposes an increase in the Earth's area of 45 per cent since the Palæozoic era. Heezen2 similarly interprets submarine topography as indicating that the oceans may be immense rift valleys formed by a pulling apart of the continents as the Earth expanded. Using a different approach, Egyed3,4 infers a rate of increase of the Earth's radius of 0.4–0.8 mm. per year. This calculation is based on a decrease in the total amount of continental area covered by oceans during the past 400 million years, as determined palæographically. Egyed4 has also pointed out the desirability of using palæomagnetic data to test this hypothesis.
Carey: Palæomagnetic Evidence relevant to a Change in the Earth's Radius.

Cox and Doell1, applying a suggestion of Egyed2 to test the reality of the expansion of the Earth through geological time, have calculated the radius of the Earth implied by comparison of Permian palseomagnetic measurements in the Maymecha–Kotuy region of Siberia and localities in western Europe, and find that although the standard deviation of the individual results is very wide indeed, the average of the computed radii of the Earth is close to the present radius. From this they conclude that the substantial post-Palæozoic expansion of the globe deduced by me on tectonic grounds is unlikely.


Anaconda said...


After reviewing the materials on Expanding Earth theory (not just on this website), it seems that Expanding Earth theory was GAINING momentum with an increasing body of scientific work, acceptance was starting to follow momentum, but then subduction was proposed and BOOM, subduction gained the upper-hand in only a few short years.


Because subduction allowed men (geologists) to maintain their belief in a constant sized diameter Earth.

Deep, ingrained beliefs didn't need to be jettisoned with the invention of subduction.

If there is one thing I have learned in all this: Deep, ingrained beliefs are the hardest beliefs to change and people will go to great lengths to preserve those beliefs.

Science is no different when it comes to this phenomenon. Perhaps, it's subject to this phenomenon even more so because scientists convince themselves they only subscribe to a particular belief after much study of supposedly objective evidence.

Anaconda said...


What I found intriguing in this post was the statement regarding how L. Egyed came to his conclusion supporting an expanding Earth:

"This calculation is based on a decrease in the total amount of continental area covered by oceans during the past 400 million years, as determined palæographically."

Why is this significant?

Because there is consensus in the geological community that ocean levels were much higher in the distant geological past. For example, it's known that an inland sea ran up the middle of the North American continent; and also that Monument Valley in Utah was also an inland sea in the distant past.

These are not transient examples that are easily ascribed to ice ages and other short duration sea level increases (geologically speaking).

This seems to be a powerful line of scientific evidence supporting expanding Earth theory. I would like to see this line of evidence expanded on (no pun intended).

Of course, there is another inescapable conclusion from this line of evidence: The great abyssal salt deposits of the continental margin and beyond
are not an evaporite.

Frankly, the idea that sea levels were literally 10,000 feet lower than today is absurd.

The salt layers that are several thousand feet thick off the coast of Brazil are under several thousand feet of water and several thousand feet of rock. In order for that salt to be the product of evaporation, the sea level would need to be at the level of the salt deposition.

Any proposition that places the sea level at the absyssal salt level is totally unsupported by scientific evidence.

The idea that "somehow" the abyssal salt "descended" from a higher level after deposition is not supported by scientific evidence.

Rather, it's a naked assumption.

And why is all this important?

Because if tectonic salt was not the result of evaporation, but of supercritical water mechanics where the supercritical water deposes it's salt as the result of high pressure and temperature, then it goes to reason that anything found below the salt can't be the result of stagnant shallow sea environments.

In other words, higher sea levels in the geological past are one more line of evidence, among many, that proves Abiotic Oil theory.

Anybody who casually says subsalt oil is the product of "fossil" theory is deluding themselves.

Or intentionally trying to keep up the pretense of "fossil" theory.

Crude oil, all of abiotic.

Quantum_Flux said...

If no subduction, then what caused the India mountain ranges?

OilIsMastery said...


Mountains are formed by oceanic seafloor spreading, excess mass stress, and the growth of the Earth.

Quantum_Flux said...

You think India is spreading away from Asia and that the Himalaya Mountains are formed by this?

OilIsMastery said...

No. However there is no subduction causing the mountains.

Quantum_Flux said...

My apologies, it's called a "convergent continental boundary" instead of a subduction zone there. I guess the physical difference is due to continental crust being nearly of the same density and thereby the collision causes the uplifting of the mountains (rather than a subduction event where denser oceanic crust subducts beneath continental crust).

In general....I guess there are also transform faults and convergent boundaries wherever two continental plates or two oceanic plates combine together, and then there are oceanic trenches (subduction zones) and oceanic rifts/ridges (seafloor spreading zones) too.

Quantum_Flux said...

The Earth is also spreading too, mainly due to expansion of Earth's cooling core.

Quantum_Flux said...

Magic =)

"for every 4 nucleons that combine to create a helium nucleus, 2 protons are recycled (Fishbane et. al. 1993)"

Besides, fusion causes an increase in density, thereby a decrease in specific volume.

Anaconda said...


Your question about the formation of the Himalayan mountain range (excellent picture) is sound.

In my review of Expanding Earth theory, references to specific mountain ranges are less than satisfactory. Most treatments of Expanding Earth theory rely on general explanations, rather than specific interpretations of various mountain range morphology, at least so far in my research. Specific case studies would be very helpful for explaining the theory.

A good place to start is to review the theory of mountain formation known as geosyncline, which was the accepted process prior to subduction, which now seems to be the catchall for all mountain formation, no matter how far a mountain range is from a supposed subduction zone.

The Earth has anomalies, individual variations in specific geologic formations.

My understanding for mountain range formation according to Expanding Earth theory is that some areas are subject to an "uplifting" due to the expansion of the Earth.

In other areas rifts form as geologic structures are pulled apart.

The Himalayans are the greatest mountain range in the world, they also are in the middle of Asia. I suspect there is a combination of forces.

These forces combine, part of it is that the Himalayans are in the middle of Asia, part of it is an anomalous uplifting in that region due to an expanding Earth.

More research on my part is in order.

I must challenge your statement that oceanic crust slips beneath continental crust; the evidence is remarkably skimpy for that proposition.

The idea that continents "slip around" like butter on a hot skillet seems implausible at best.

The mantle is not liquid, but generally ductile, and doesn't have a slippery coat. Evidence suggests continents are rooted into their location like a tree is rooted into the ground. The tree and the ground are two different bodies, yet they are locked together as if they were one. Continental crust reaches much deeper than oceanic crust because continental crust is much thicker. Although, not as dense as oceanic crust, contiental crust is "dug in", but also is much heavier than oceanic crust considering its over all mass.

All the above makes it improbable that oceanic crust slides under continental crust.

Ice floating on top of water is not a suitable analogy for continental crust and oceanic crust sitting on the mantle.

Quantum_Flux said...

More EM Magic =)

Modeling the Earth's interior as a real gas.

The Earth's interior is more an incompressible fluid or viscoelastic solid than a real gas. Due to the metallic bonding, it can't exactly be modeled as a rigid body or an ideal gas either.

More EM Magic =)

Saying that the Earth's core exhibits superfluious bose condensation due to cooling which is observed only in bose particles such as helium. The Earth's interior gets hotter as it goes deeper, so there can be no such superfluidity (frictionless fluid states) at all. At best, molten iron rock is viscoelastic or viscoplastic kind of like a pasty cement or tile mortar.

I've seen my fist subduct into wetted tile mortor, perhaps that wetted reduction in viscoscity model better explains the subduction of oceanic crust under continental crust into the upper mantle.

Quantum_Flux said...

Tile mortar is denser than my fist, by the way, just less rigid.

Anaconda said...


I'm not catching your "More EM Magic =)". What are you refering to?

Your example about your fist in concrete is good, but it only goes so far. I can say the same thing about the metal mercury. The parameters are important. How rigid is the mantle? Scientific evidence suggests that except in places of partial melt, the mantle is fairly rigid. Also, the pressure must be included. Obviously, your fist in concrete doesn't take into account pressure. The pressure at the mantle/crust interface (Moho) is very high. Also, the would-be downward force of the oceanic crust must be taken into account.

There is no scientific evidence suggesting oceanic crust has anywhere near the "downward force" needed for subduction.

That is why subduction analysis rests primarily on qualitative description, rather, than quantitative analysis because when quanitative parameters are factored into subduction analysis, it doesn't work.

Subduction theorists can't explain the mechanism with quanitative analysis.

That's a big problem.

In other words, subduction theory rests on an assumption...

Assumption...we've seen that before is this discussion, haven't we?

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, how about my fist steadily subducting into a real gas then, or a fluid of some sort? If subduction into the melted mantle in one spot, then the uplifting of the melted mantle in another spot....ergo volcanic displacement.

The discrediting of subduction is flawed. Obviously there can be subduction wherever the mantle melts and becomes less rigid than the oceanic crust above, ideally the bouyancy force will be overcome by sea floor spreading force on the opposite side of the plate. At this point, there are so many equations and rapidly changing material properties going on that objective testing is required instead of modeling since it is dealing with an equilibrium of many different materials and physical processes interacting with each other. Computer models just aren't sufficient since (1) programmers can't take all the variables into account and (2) the more variables and equations required the slower the simulation goes. Objective testing or measurement should help hilight some of the more predominant processes in that case if I missed some.

Anaconda said...


Your comment over all is strong. Particularly your notation of the many varibles that make validation of any one theory difficult.

Scientific validation by compulsion is the strongest validation, but geology presents difficulties because testing and measurement are problematic.

This difficulty directly leads to the diversity of geological theories. Good faith individuals can draw different conclusions from the same set of facts.

Quantum_Flux states: "If subduction into the melted mantle in one spot, then the uplifting of the melted mantle in another spot....ergo volcanic displacement."

Again, it's a matter of parameters.
In the above quote you say, "melted mantle", is that different from "partial melt"? How much "melting" would be required to permit subduction? That hasn't been answered quantitatively.

This goes to the rest of your comment.

Here is a question regarding the second half of the quote: Is there evidence that the volcanic activity observed is equal to the amount of subduction assumed?

After all, look at the assumed Cascadia Subduction Zone. This is supposed to be one of the most "active" subduction zones in the world, but the last major volcanic eruption was Mt. St. Helens in 1980.

The diagrams depicting subduction always shows volcanoes erupting, that obviously isn't the case with the Cascadia Subduction Zone.

Major eruption is the exception.

This would seem to be a gap between predicted modelled behavior and actual behavior.

Also, it would seem that if subduction is occuring then "deep" earthquakes would be predicted to occur regularly, yet they are actually rare in occurance.

As strong as your statement is, it also shows the difficulty of language in validating scientific theories: It sounds good, yet nothing is quantitatively measured.

You say, "obviously". But I don't think it's obvious at all. I'm from Missouri, "show me".

There is no substitute for quantitative measurement of objective observations.

But there seems to always be a shortage quantitative measurements.

Quantum_Flux said...

Yes! Nice with the show me, but unfortunately I don't have a drill big enough to make these observations (my biggest drill bit is 1 inch I think).

Anyhow, I think that subduction also causes the rise of continental plates too and receding sea levels, there is probably chemical oxidation going on with the magma and thereby material expansion that way too. Gotto go, I'll link you to a USGS video when I get back later.

Anaconda said...

(Okay, not the WHOLE history of thought)

Perhaps, a review of the historical development of Continetal Drift theory is in order.

Continental Drift theory had been around since Wegener, but it had been ridiculed and rejected by the majority of geologists for a long time.

Then starting in the 1950's the scientific evidence was beginning to mount. Samuel Carey was one of the leading geologists that strongly supported Continental Drift theory in the 1950's.

As difficult as it was for a majority of scientists to accept Continental Drift theory, it was even harder to envision a mechanism or process for Continental Drift theory.

In fact, that was why it was so hard to accept Continental Drift theory. But the evidence kept mounting. By the 1960's the pressure for acceptance was tremendous, but there was still tremendous resistance to the idea in the geology community.

In general, this was because Uniformitarianism held sway. "The present explains the past."

Continental Drift theory stood athwart and in direct opposition to this strongly held view.

It became even more difficult to accept Continental Drift theory when it was connected to an expanding Earth mechanism, which Carey had postulated in the late 1950's, and others before that.

Continental Drift theory had two strikes against it, as it were.

But the evidence kept mounting.

A constitutional crisis in the geological community was occuring in the early 1960's. A conflict between general principles of Uniformitarianism and the scientific method was at hand.

Something had to give.

Then the hypothesis of Subduction was postulated.

Much like two centuries before when the "fossil" hypothesis was postulated regarding rock oil's origin, little evidence was at hand, only a naked hypothesis.

But the geology community was in crisis, Continental Drift theory had a mounting stack of evidence to support it.

To turn away from this theory could possibly have shattered the geological community and all the consensus built up over the years.

Not just individual careers were at stake, but the whole community's survival as a coherent discipline.

Subduction was the saviour.

But like The Saviour, belief rested on faith.

There simply hadn't been time to build a foundation of scientific support.

But the other two choices were even worse in the eyes of the geological community: Continue to reject Continental Drift theory and risk the shattering of the geological community, or accept Continetal Drift theory with it's logical and scientifically supported corollary, Expanding Earth theory.

And to accept Expanding Earth theory seemed even more likely to shatter geology as a coherent discipline.

There wasn't any choice as the leading minds of the community saw it.

So even though Subduction was little more than an intial hypothesis with skimpy scientific backing, certainly not a theory in the understood usage of the word, the geology community took the plunge.

And circled the wagons.

Now, the race was on to prove subduction as fast as possible and make it a theory the community could rally around.

Regrettably, under those conditions -- a rush to judgment -- mistakes were made.

Not only was there a rush to judgment to confirm the theory, but then individual "races" were undertaken to articulate each imagined nuance to make a name for oneself in the geologic community.

The result has been that the geological community has run itself down a box canyon and finds itself in even more desperate straights -- admit they violated all norms and cannons of the scientific method because the community was hung up on Uniformitarianism (itself, a antiquated idea) or hunker down in a denial born of the realization that careers and the community itself were at stake, again.

That's hardly a sound basis to pronouce Subduction theory, "obvious."

Anaconda said...


You say: "Yes! Nice with the show me, but unfortunately I don't have a drill big enough to make these observations (my biggest drill bit is 1 inch I think)."

But you aren't the problem, you aren't expected to have the measurements, but the geology community IS EXPECTED to have the measurements and they DON'T!

See the problem?

Scientists aren't gods, they're men.

Subject to being wrong.

But also subject to vigorously denying they're wrong.

It's their obligation to have the measurements, but they don't have the measurements, yet they conviently go on ignoring the lack of measurements.

That's not science!

That's bullshit!