Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Admin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
SOURCES + OUTLINE / Miscellany
« on: January 16, 2018, 03:46:52 pm »
Dymaxion World Map for ET
http://geospex.github.io/NSPE_Lectures_sp15/Class_4_Lecture/img/47c4.png
http://geospex.github.io/NSPE_Lectures_sp15/Class_4_Lecture/Class_4_index.html#46

Antarctic pattern
15d40'27.59N  146d3'2.22E

Antarctica = Atlantis = large mass in ocean of space; Cayce predicted Russia would save mankind
JOSEPH FARRELL: ANTARCTICA ATLANTIS! EDGAR CAYCE POSEIDIAN FIRE CRYSTAL - DARK JOURNALIST
Myth: Atlantis = Large Mass that vanished in the Ocean of Space
https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=80-gYbUgoss
Egyptian artifacts found in Turkey at 46' (dating to 10,000BC is wrong)
- https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=I1gVVArdB_g
- https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=enZQt7PldDQ

Olympus Mons to Valles Marineris
https://i1.wp.com/www.volcanocafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Mars-Tharsis.jpg?resize=700%2C494

Lightning Data
Data from NASA’s space-based optical sensors revealing the uneven distribution of worldwide lightning strikes.
Units: flashes/km2/yr. Image credit: NSSTC Lightning Team.
http://www.aharfield.co.uk/img/lightningmap_2001.gif
_The estimated peak power per lightning stroke is 10^12 watts (1,000,000,000,000 watts or 1,000 Giga Watts). The total energy in a large thunderstorm is thought to be enough to power the whole of the USA for 20 minutes.
_A tall thunderstorm cloud can hold over a 100 million volts of potential. The voltage potential in a lightning bolt is proportional to its length, and varies depending on the diameter of the bolt, air density and impurities of the air (humidity, dust, ash). The electrical breakdown of air (ionisation) normally take 3,000,000 volts per metre, however with the ambient electric fields of a charged thunder cloud and impurities in the air, ionisation normally takes place at much lower voltages during a storm. Lab tests have shown a leader will advantage if the tip of the streamer is about 4.5kV (4500v) for a negative charge and 5.5kV (5500v) for a positive charge.
_The current in a lightning strike typically ranges from 5,000 to 50,000 amperes depending on the strength of storm. NASA has recorded strikes of 100,000 amperes and there are other reports of strikes over 200,000 amperes.
_[There are few lightning strikes in cold climates or over oceans. Most lightning occurs in central Africa and in all of Africa south of the Sahara, South & Central America & southern U.S., East Indies, eastern south Asia, northern Australia]

AH: Total Lithosphere Thickness
http://peterbird.name/publications/2008_torque_balances/012_total_lithosphere-Earth5N.jpg

Two Deep Wells Oklahoma
http://www.wnd.com/2005/11/33630/
From 1972 through 1974, the company engineered and drilled two Oklahoma natural-gas commercial wells at depths greater than 30,000 feet (approximately 5.7 miles) – the No. 1-27 Bertha Rogers well (total depth 31,441 feet) and the No. 1-28 E.R. Baden well, both located in the Anadarko Basin, and east-west trending basin in West-Central Oklahoma.

Shungite Formed Electrically
http://www.svpwiki.com/Shungite
_Fullerenes are produced by 2 processes: Combustion of carbon-bearing fuels, and high voltage, high current density, electrical discharges through existing carbon deposits, such as coal.
_In the Kerelia region of Northwest Russia, very large deposits of a mineral now known as shungite (some percentage of fullerines is found in all shungite varieties) were discovered and used for water purification, as far back as Napoleon's time.

Shungite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shungite
_Occurrence[edit]
_Shungite has to date mainly been found in Russia. The main deposit is in the Lake Onega area of Karelia, at Zazhoginskoye, near Shunga, with another occurrence at Vozhmozero.[1] Two other much smaller occurrences have been reported in Russia, one in Kamchatka in volcanic rocks and the other formed by the burning of spoil from a coal mine at high temperature in Chelyabinsk.[5] Other occurrences have been described from Austria, India, Democratic Republic of Congo[1] and Kazakhstan.[6]
_Formation[edit]
_Shungite has been regarded as an example of abiogenic petroleum formation,[4] but its biological origin has now been confirmed.[3] Non-migrated shungite is found directly stratigraphically above deposits that were formed in a shallow water carbonate shelf to non-marine evaporitic environment. The shungite bearing sequence is thought to have been deposited during active rifting, consistent with the alkaline volcanic rocks that are found within the sequence. The organic-rich sediments were probably deposited in a brackish lagoonal setting. The concentration of carbon indicates elevated biological productivity levels, possibly due to high levels of nutrients available from interbedded volcanic material.[3]
_The stratified shungite-bearing deposits that retain sedimentary structures are interpreted as metamorphosed oil source rocks. Some diapiric mushroom-shaped structures have been identified, which are interpreted as possible mud volcanoes. Layer and vein shungite varieties, and shungite filling vesicles and forming the matrix to breccias, are interpreted as migrated petroleum, now in the form of metamorphosed bitumen.[3]

_Geo: Study claims Don Juan Pond in Antarctica, among the saltiest waters on Earth, is fed from deep below
https://www.sott.net/article/368156-Study-claims-Don-Juan-Pond-in-Antarctica-among-the-saltiest-waters-on-Earth-is-fed-from-deep-below
_Geo: Mysterious deep-Earth seismic signature explained?
https://www.sott.net/article/368870-Mysterious-deep-Earth-seismic-signature-explained
_Geo: Drilling in Texas leads to uptick in earthquakes
https://www.sott.net/article/369003-Drilling-in-Texas-leads-to-uptick-in-earthquakes-as-sleeping-faults-reawaken
_Geo: 10 easy ways you can tell for yourself that the Earth is not flat
https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round


2
EU DEBATE / 1st Tectonics Discussion
« on: October 23, 2017, 03:04:03 pm »
CNPS SPECIAL PROJECT. (((Sunday 6pm Eastern Time))) -- This Project is expected to last a few months. I hope to have discussions weekly or so.
[NEXT TIME MAYBE: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N6DSuZNzgPVRcVhct1_voeGVYgMOzkUcflWg1J2ddIM/edit ]
DIRECTIONS: PLEASE STATE INITIALS & FIRST & LAST NAME IN CHAT BOX AT LOWER RIGHT. START EACH PARAGRAPH WITH YOUR INITIALS.
(If this page freezes on your computer, you may need to reopen the link at https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/CritiquePlateTectonics )
_LK: Hi All. Thanks for your participation. This is for live discussion to question mainstream Plate Tectonics & our own alternative models.
---- The Tectonics Models being compared are ET: Expansion Tectonics; PT: Plate Tectonics; ST: Surge Tectonics; EU: Electric Universe; ESU: Electrostatic Universe; & SD: Shock Dynamics (Links at bottom. Bruce & Louis left early comments at the bottom. Bruce's were accidentally deleted.)
_LK: Below I list the main claims of each model in 5 categories of claims. Let's discuss in the spaces between each category. Let me know if I stated any of the claims incorrectly.
PT is the mainstream position. Let's share BRIEF arguments & links to important evidence in each category against PT & Let's ask important questions for each model. More than one person can write at a time (even in different sections).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. HOW THE EARTH FORMED.
<ET: (F:) Earth formed by gravitational accretion as per the Nebular Hypothesis. Then Earth (and other celestial bodies with magnetic fields) expanded significantly over millions of years.
<PT: (F:) Stars & planets form by gravitational accretion of cosmic dust as per the Nebular Hypothesis
<ST: (F:) Earth formed by gravitational accretion as per the Nebular Hypothesis.
<EU: (F:) Condensed plasma, could have been created and destroyed many times
<ESU: (F:) Stars and planets form by implosions of galactic electrostatic filaments, which produce current-free electric double-layers within the bodies, which produce radiation, earthquakes, volcanism etc.
<SD: (F:) The protocontinent [supercontinent] formed from a massive body that also formed the Moon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_LH: Earth formation - any scientific theory has to be compatible with the culture of the society that uses it. For judeo-christians that means Big Bang model and all its problems. This is the standard model. Proposing acceptable alternatives involves also explaining and replacing the core societal beliefs bundled as religion.
_LK: 1B=Have_ Charles Chandler has the best evidence against the Nebular Hypothesis that I know of. I'll see if I can get the link. He says matter wouldn't accrete in space, that if it condensed too much the heat or hydrostatic pressure would force it apart. __ http//:qdl.sds-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/12682.html
_LH: PN Oat, writing from the Hindu perspective, assumed everything was created "as is" billions of years ago, so a suitable rhetorical assumption could avoid having to deal with the something from nothing idea.
_LH: 1A=Need_ Chandler is right - accretion is not observed, nor can one assume protons accumulating in a core since repulsion has to be factored in. High density phases best explained as Z-pinch products. ===
_LH: 2C=Need_ Planets could be fizzled out stars that are now escaping from Z-Pinch compressive forces? ===
_LK: Bruce, {I meant Louis} can you give more details on how plasma would condense?
_BL: 1B=Have_ Plasma condenses within the Chestahedron geometry, see __Frank Chester wonder of seven. Condensation happens during a charging phase, while plasma dissipation occurs during discharging. The magnetic field also strengthens and weakens from charging and discharging respectively. ===
_MF: The problems with accretion are well known, but I have not focused on this issue. Is the formation of any planetary systems being seen today by astronomers?
_BL: 2B=Need_ The supposed Nibiru, i.e. brown dwarfs near the Sun, seem to be condensation vortices from current charging of the solar system. The coronal holes appear to be the areas where charge enters opened up by magnetic poles of the planets. ===
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. HOW THE CRUSTAL FEATURES FORMED.
<ET: (C:) Earth oceans are where most expansion has occurred at Earth's surface. Earth's mass increase comes from the solar wind, which causes expansion at the core-mantle boundary inside the Earth.
<PT: (C:) Islands formed and mantle convection caused them to slowly form a supercontinent. Mantle convection caused the supercontinent to slowly split apart into continents.
<ST: (C:) Earth shrank significantly over millions of years, due to cooling & the lithosphere contains a worldwide network of deformable magma surge channels in which partial magma melt is in motion, due to Earth contraction and rotation. Flood basalt covering most of the seafloor and parts of continents originated from surge channel ruptures. Oceanization is the tendency of continental land to sink and become seafloor.
<EU: (C:) Electrical circuits heat and cool (expand and contract), Surge Theory with an electrical reinterpretation makes the most sense for our model.
<ESU: (C:) Stars decay, eventually becoming gas giant planets, which lose atmosphere and become rocky planets.
<SD: (C:) A giant meteorite impact north of what is now Madagascar divided the protocontinent into the continents and islands via Shock Dynamics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_MF: 1C=Have_ Earth is not currently expanding, according to __Wu et. al. 2011 Geophysical Research Letters Accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame -- origin and Earth expansion, which uses "multiple precise geodetic data sets" to determine that "the mean radius of the Earth is not changing to within 1 sigma measurement uncertainty of 0.2 mm per yr". They averaged "weekly instantaneous frame origins spanning 26 years of Satellite Laser Ranging observations."
_LH: 3C=Need_ So earth is in volumetric stasis. __Vadim Anfilov years ago interpreted Oz seismic data that shrinkage or cooling is happening.
_BL: 2C=Need_ More likely a pulsating earth due to charging and discharging phases... ===
_MF: 1C=Need_ PT does not explain the positions of crustal features as a whole on the Earth, only locally. However, there is a pattern discernible beginning at a central point just north of Madagascar. Landmasses that moved went away from that point. This is a foundation of SD. ET superficially explains many features, especially if one looks only at the Atlantic Ocean region, but it is no longer obvious in the Southeast Asia region. ET also struggles to explain compression mountain building during expansion, and why mid-ocean ridges show varying speeds at different locations along the ridges, as between the central and south mid-Atlantic ridge. ===
_BL: 3C=Have_ There is an expansion at the equator during El Nino's, from EQ joule heating or warming of the mantle. It moves toward the equator with increasing viscosity and centrifugal forcing. This returns back to a contraction during La Nina. This is according to the __GRACE satellite mission data. Chestahedron geometry shows how this oscillation works. Whether or not there is net expansion or contraction was not addressed in the discussion and remains an open question depending on the time interval under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. HOW MILE-THICK SEDIMENTARY STRATA FORMED.
<ET: (S:) (See JM Manuscript)
<PT: (S:) Sedimentary rock strata were deposited in shallow seas on the continents over millions of years.
<ST: (S:)
<EU: (S:) Sedimentation occurs constantly, can be chemical precipitates, weathered rock, turbidites etc. -- This has been covered well in many text books
<ESU: (S:)
<SD: (S:) During this Flood orbiting asteroid-caused tsunamis deposited sediment from the continental shelf onto the protocontinent.
- As atmospheric pressure fell, much calcium carbonate precipitated from the sea water, forming thick sedimentary rock with fossils.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_LH: 4A=Need_ Thick sediments are "usually" explained by erosion of adjacent mountains over long periods of time. Cliff Ollier would call this the "geological cycle", and is the standard model. Problem is that water cannot transport loads on horizontal planes - so having uniform sandstone deposits hundreds of miles laterally requires miraculous water. Even Gerry Pollack can't rig EZ water to do this, so I 've suggested, after watching the Star Wars Rogue One movie, that massive sediments are formed by electrified erosional products of deeply weathered regoliths via a sort of magnetohydrodynamic process. Very catastrophic in nature, however. ===
_LK: 1A=Need_ Louis, what about an asteroid or other large body orbiting Earth causing megatsunamis that swept mud and sand onto the continent/s from the continental shelf forming sedimentary rock? Also, CO2 in seawater degassed and formed limestone? ===
_MF: Is there evidence for "the bulk removal of crust on the Earth"? Do you mean continental crust or mud and sand?
_BL: 4B=Need_ This fits the arc blast concept of ocean basins being removed electrically. ===
_MF: I can imagine it, but where did all the continental crust disappear to? It currently averages 35 km thick.
_LH: 5C=Need_ Adds weight to the Sial-Sima macro structure proposed years ago too. ===
_MF: 2A=Need_ The work of sedimentologist Guy Berthault has demonstrated that moving water carrying sediment deposits multiple layers simultaneously. Over 40 documented "megaflood" deposits illustrate this, as do the Columbia and Mt Saint Helens landscapes. Many sedimentary geological formations extend over hundreds of thousands of square miles. ===
_LH: 6A=Need_ My field experience negates this - flowing water over bedrock is actually EZ water with a liquid crystal internal structure. It cannot pick up sediment loads. Water in bulk mode can. It's like water sliding over the bedrock like a fluidised glacier. However adding plasma forces makes it easier to explain massive sedimentary deposits. ===
_MF: 3A=Need_ Moving water has enormous erosive and carrying power, including large rocks, and loss of flow energy releases the load. ===
_LH: 7B=Need_ Observations of tsunamis making landfall doesn't seem to involve picking up bedrock - every thing on top and loose is picked up. A common error is arguing the consequent - here that sediments are deposited by water, and rivers flow along river beds, so hence the sediments are formed by the rivers. Isolated gravel deposits, such as chevron deposits abutting highlands, are explained as being put there by massive tsunamis. Load carrying tsunamis cannot carry any load over an ocean. They can only carry a load that they have excavated from bedrock but when a tsunami makes landfall, it rapidly runs out of energy as there is nothing "driving" the wave front. Plunking a stone in a pond causes tsunami-like waves to form but these are effects of the impact made by the stone being plunked into the pond. These waves dissipate into the background the further away they are from their initial generating force. Tsunamis making landfall very quickly run out of steam or energy. Videos of the latest Japanese events suggest the water body is behaving like a massive liquid crystal moving laterally over the land with great power. Not surprising if it is EZ water. ===
_MF: 4A=Need_ The assumed source of sediment is previously eroded bedrock, not the bedrock itself. The tsunamis doing the work are assumed to be cross-continental. ===
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. HOW MOUNTAIN RANGES FORMED.
<ET: (O:) Mountain ranges occur near continental edges due to reduction in the Earth's radius of curvature that occurs with expansion at the surface.
<PT: (O:) Mountain ranges formed slowly from continental collisions and magma plumes etc.
<ST: (O:) Mountain ranges are formed by vertical uplift from below.
_There is Earth's core, mantle and crust interaction, in which thermal energy from the core is the fundamental energy source of global tectonic activities including earthquakes, volcanoes, rise and sink of the Earth surface, and global climate as well
<EU: (O:) Arc Blast or Static discharge between planets and the sun seem to be primary factors -- Recent field work, can be shared.
[Mountain ranges were formed from electric discharges from the Sun or a large planet that heated a large discharge channel, which expanded, uplifting mountains.]
<ESU: (O:) Mountain ranges were formed by rapid continental drift due to a large asteroid impact.
<SD: (O:) The movement of plates raised nearly all of the mountain chains via horizontal compression, and initiated global volcanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_MF: 5B=Have_ "Virtually all major mountain ranges in the world are a consequence of crustal shortening." From: __Some Simple Physical Aspects of the Support, Structure, and Evolution of Mountain Belts. Peter Molnar, H. Lyon-Caen. Special Paper 218, Geological Society of America, 1988, pp. 179-207.
_LH: 8A=Need_ Agreed - but what then is the horizontal force that operated? PT can explain this. ET cannot by definition. Electric plasma effects could by forming strong lateral variants of Lorentz Force as a peripheral effect of a distal electromachining process eroding regolith and upper crust to form ocean basins. Strange that mountains are associated with subducted plates causing shortening or accretion. Rather than ocean plate moving, the plasma arc stripped the regolith and crust off, forming the ocean basin, and as a peripheral effects laterally compressed the adjacent remnant crust, along with volcanic activity etc resulting from the massive inputs of energy into the system. ===
_BL: 5A=Need_ Arc blast in the Grand canyon pushed up the Rockies, the thrust faulting is huge and needed sever energy to have that amount of thrust. ===
_MF: If that happened, wouldn't the Rockies be concentric around the Grand Canyon?
_BL: 6C=Need_ It didn't stop at the Grand Canyon, but traveled up the river systems of the Colorado and Green river creating the current morphology about 12,900 years ago when the Carolina Bays were formed also during the 12,900 megafaunal extinction event... ===
_MF: 6A=Have_ PT is too weak to raise mountain chains. Numbers from the literature have values in this range: Slab pull: 500 bars, 450 bars ("subduction pull"), 300 bars; Ridge push: 200 bars, 250 bars, 250 bars, 200-300 bars, 200-400 bars; Basal drag: 200 bars, 200 bars. And basal drag is considered to be an opposing force to plate movement except beneath cratons. The stress required for crustal shortening to build mountains is hard to find, but has been calculated to be in a range from 1500 to 2500 bars up to 4000 to 6000 bars, inferring the latter "from earthquake data and evaluation of the stresses required to produce specific geological structures". In the case of South America, the combination of ridge push and forward basal drag (by trench suction) could produce only 400 to 600 bars of force, which is clearly insufficient to build the Andes. These forces are already engaged in moving the entire plate westward.
_LK: Mike, I had your reference for that saved up. __It's http://www.newgeology.us/Plate%20Tectonics.pdf
_MF: 7A=Need_ This is one of the problems with PT, that it is okay at explaining the current situation but not the origin. This applies not only to mountain chains, but to the origin of subduction and the splitting of continental crust. A large force, as in SD, is required. ===
_LK: Mike, I'm putting your initials at the beginning of each of your paragraphs, so I know who said what.
_LH: 8B=Need_ Well mountains are readily explained by PT, :-), but whether it is real or not. One fact is __Ollier and Pain's work - that many so-called mountains are actually old landsurface remnants that had their surrounds eroded away. This leaves the highly compressed mountains requiring large horizontal forces. Cosmic scaled electric arcs, as described by Oz aboriginals as Rainbow Serpents, or as Van De Waals phenomena could generate large Lorentz forces in the horizontal plane. ===
_MF: Is the ESU position on mountain ranges really the same as SD? ===
_LK: 2B=Need_ Yes, Charles accepts your model somewhat, but he thinks the continents moved apart more slowly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. WHAT CAUSED ICE AGES & GLACIATION.
<ET: (GL:) (See JM Manuscript)
<PT: (GL:) Glaciation was caused by cooling.
<ST: (GL:)
<EU: (GL:) Cosmic Ray density with particle cascades creating storms, volcanic eruptions and global envelope of cloud cover leading to ice ages. Glaciation is a small subset of the ice ages and increases every winter more snow accumulates than melts. -- I can bring some references on cosmic rays
<ESU: (GL:)
<SD: (GL:) Movement of continents toward the poles along with atmospheric moisture and volcanic and impact dust led to glaciation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_BL: 7C=Need_ Seems to be tied to increasing cosmic ray density as we pass through certain sections of space in the various Milankovitch cycles. ===
Increased cosmic rays = increased particle precipitation = increased charging, increased lighting and storms and increased volcanic activity leading to increased clouds and solar shielding. Ice ages cometh, when earth reaches a certain capacitance the earth and likely the whole solar system is involved, arc blast ends the ice ages melting the caps, flooding from the poles, and twisting the planet's axis creating tsunamis from the oceans, piling animals from various climes together. Classic Velikovsky...
_MF: 8B=Need_ Rather a basketful of assumptions there. An Ice Age would seem to require greatly increased atmospheric moisture, as in heating the oceans, at the same time the atmosphere is cooling dramatically in at least one hemisphere. And this continues for a long time following sudden instigation. Classic SD. ===
_LH: 9C=Need_ Years ago I had an email discussion with Gerry Pollack and I raised the issue of whether ice forms at the poles as a consequence of excess protons entering the ionosphere and surface, thus forming ice. If a body of water, say an ocean, has EZ water as a surface layer, and an inrush of protons occur, then that EZ water gets turned into ice as a reaction to the increased energy supplied by the protons. Hence ice ages could be explained as massive injection of protons via CME's etc, Animals seem to be mainly made of water, in this case EZ water, and an inrush of protons could actually snap-freeze life forms almost instantaneously. This mechanism could explain the snap-freezing of mammoths. So a super Carrington event could be interpreted as an ice-age? The mechanism here is that ice ages are not caused by a drop in temperature but, paradoxically , an in crease in the system's energy state. ===
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_LH: 10A=Need_ Preliminary comment: Whatever mechanism is proposed, gravity remains the elephant in the room. Empirically gravity seems electrical in nature, and if so there are at present more than 20 models proposed for the electron, whether particle or wave. This does not help much in understanding gravity. Rock density is a fundamental physical measurement and relies totally on a correct understanding of gravity. Mantle convection, for example, assumes lower density for higher temperature, everything else being equal. Or lower density is linked to pressure which is caused by gravitational attraction with less dense rising and more dense sinking, eebe. Solar explanations such as proposed by Robitaille etc, assume gravity. Mantle pressure in the Earth assumes gravity. Rivers and streams flow because of gravity, and hence erosion is caused, ultimately, by gravity. Weather is caused by density differentials in the atmosphere caused by gravity. Geological evolution assumes gravity and accretion, cosmological to the smallest bolide. If electrical forces EM AND gravity are considered then we have a problem of magnitude, EM force is 10^38 greater in magnitude than gravity force. We cannot combine the two as a unified "field" because if one is assume a magnitude 1, say EM Lorentz force, then gravity is so small in magnitude it can be ignored, and which is what A.J. Peratt did with his PIC computer simulations using plasma. If gravity can be ignored as an assumption of mass attracting mass, then alternative mechanisms need to explain non-plasma phenomena in lieu of Newtonian gravity. This leads directly to the problem of rock density which is a fundamental physical property of condensed matter, It leads directly to isostasy, from which PT was developed, so explaining rock density becomes crucial., because it is an essential theoretical axiom on which the rest is deduced. ===
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ET: Expansion Tectonics __ James Maxlow __ http://www.expansiontectonics.com
PT: Plate Tectonics __ Wikipedia __ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
ST: Surge Tectonics __ Dong Choi __ http://ncgt.org __ http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/show...hp?tid=113
EU: Electric Universe __ (Ralph Juergens, deceased), Wal Thornhill, Don Scott __ http://holoscience.com __ http://thunderbolts.info __ https://www.iascc.org/the-science
ESU: Electrostatic Universe __ Charles Chandler __ http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031
SD: Shock Dynamics __ Mike Fischer __ http://NewGeology.us , (LK1-4) http://funday.createaforum.com/index.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_LK: WE CAN ALL BRING UP QUESTIONS & COMMENTS BELOW NOW & GO UP ABOVE TO SEE WHAT TO ASK ABOUT IF NEEDED.
_CS: Before we really get into it, I would like to ask two things.
1. Did math solutions give us the very real orthogonal fracture/megatrend intersections and vortex structures on the ocean floor?. ===
2. Did geophysics give us the 1-2 Ga rocks on the magnetic 180 Ma ocean floor? ===
_LH: Lloyd, the color scheme you are using black letters on green background also has a mauve component that is unreadable. :-)
_LK: I don't control the colors. You can go to the gear symbol at upper right and click on Authorship colors to change the background to white.
_LH: You can adjust your own colours by clicking the coloured square next to your name. Took me a while to work it out.
_RF: 1A=Have_ Lloyd have you considered adding the work of Michael Csuzdi to your list of global tectonic models? Thermionic Emission Geophysics__: http://breakthroughinenergy.com
_LK: I haven't heard of that, but always willing to add other ideas. Do you favor it for something?
_RF: 2B=Need_ I think Csuzdi missed an opportunity; his model sees Earth's magnetic field as originating from within the Earth rather than externally. ===
_LK: 3A=Need_ That's how Charles sees it too. He finds that the planets and stars likely have CFDLs and the charges in different layers can speed up or slow down as during impacts, causing the field to change. ===
_LH: 11B=Need_ The internal origin for the geomagnetic field was, at the time it was proposed, logical since we did not know about the Van Allen belts, solar wind, etc. Just that the Sun was an irradiating source, space was empty in which was suspended an inert globe, the earth. Which had a magnetic field that could only be located inside the earth. Much progress has since been made but the theory hasn't changed. This is the problem. [LH thinks the field is Externally generated.] ===
_BL: 8C=Need_ [to CS] 1.) The orthogonal fracture zones (don't know about the math) but geometry again controls. This pattern can also be seen in the eight layers of the human heart, the Chestahedron geometry shows this relationship is tied to "vortex geometry" where all the platonic solids are contained within the chestahedron. The inner double layer of the inner and outer core has tetrahedron or fire element geometry as evidenced by the magnetic spike structure (Quinns inverse magnetic modeling techniques show the delta- y configurations of Giovanni Gregoris "Sea Urchin Spikes"). The next double layer in the mantle has the square "earth" geometry as evidenced by the four north south circuits on the ridges along the corners of the cube, global heat flow and mantle gravity signatures attest to this. As you move up into the water or dodecahedron geometry, you see the hurricanes follow these circuits which are part of the vile vortex system., the air has double diamond or double pyramid structure, this is seen in the Total Electron Content data where the points of the triangles actually point to where EQ [earthquakes?] will occurs sometimes, then there is the aether pentagon geometry where the plasma comes into the poles. Each double layer has its specific geometry, this was the beauty of Plato's forgotten knowledge. The vortex geometry of the chestahedron contains all the platonic solids and is responsible for the harmony or balance of electromagnetic forces linked to or controling the Golden ration or Fibonacci fractalization sequences... ===
_BL: 9B=Have_ The polarity of magnetic stripes on the seafloor has only been confirmed in 7 places by the Deep Sea Drilling Project, magnetic data is collected generally by shipborne and airborne scalar and sometimes vector magnetometers. Most of the stripes are simply what's called susceptibility contrasts and are not confirmed as polarity reversals. __Art Meyerhoff, author of surge tectonics has a good article on this; I don't have the link but it is covered in his text on Surge tectonics. He also states that many of the magnetic stripes are not parallel to the ridges, some are actually perpendicular to the ridges. The electrical orientation of the circuit determines the orientation of the stripe.
_LK: Bruce, I'd love to have a link to that info on magnetic stripe data.
_LK: I read Meyerhoff's book and copied some of it. The book didn't mention the magnetic stripes that I know of. It's good that the article apparently did though.
_MF: According to the numbered issues, this discussion is about the Earth rather than the universe. Apparently there has not been much thought on these issues. It is clear that there are collisions occurring in the galaxy, and perhaps there is exclusive evidence for electrical interaction? How could the electric universe concept [be tested] conceivably be disproved?
_LK: The CFDL theory of Earth might be disprovable. That's current-free electric double-layers.
_MF: How would that be done?
_LK: 4A=Need_ It's part of the Earth, so we have better access than off-planet. Also, calculations can be made to determine feasibility. Charles has found that spacing of plasma cells in the lab and the spacing of planets and of stars in globular clusters all follow the same law or formula. So, knowing the charge on planets should tell us something about whether the planets could be repelled from each other according to that formula. ===
_MF: Is Earth positively or negatively charged?
_LK: 5C=Need_ The planets, as Charles says, have electric double-layers, so they're both charges, but I think they're more positive than negative. Anyway the atmospheres are positive. Charles & others say the Sun is more negative than positive, but the outer layer is positive there too. ===
_BL: 10B=Have_ Also there are the double layers within the earth that have opposite charges, this can be seen in the double layers of __Quinn's inverse modeled magnetic source depth data.
_BL: 11B=Need_ The poles have opposite charges. LK has the answer on repelling planets, I would agree... you can see this in __experiments with small steel balls... ===
_MF: So would Earth repel another planet? It is surprising that planets mimic small steel balls.
_LK: 6C=Have_ Charels' findings suggest that all the planets repel each other. I can look for his paper on that. __ http//:qdl.sds-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/15369.html
_LH: 12B=Need_ Negatively - mainly by the oceans having a surface layer of EZ water. Magnitude is diurnal. ===
_MF: 9B=Need_ Magnetic polarity and intensity have also been found to change with depth in oceanic crust. ===
_BL: 12B=Need_ As well as within cores of volcanic rxs. Polarity and intensity seem to change and rotate within the layers indicating the polarity and intensity are controlled locally via the volcanic electrical system and not a global orientation related to N-S poles... ===
_LK: Bruce, can you get me a link to that evidence from volcanic cores? What's rxs?
_BL: Rxs... abbreviation for rocks. This is stuff I read years ago, I'd have to search for those references. I may have it referenced in one of my publications, but that will take time to find again...
_LH: An earth in a gravitational or electrical environment? At present the whole edifice of Plate Tectonics and Expanding earth are based on the gravitational model. But plasma physics, the Peratt model, ignores gravity. If so then all the tectonic features that we observe on the Earth are presently explained by the gravitational model. Instead we need to explain things in an electrical model.
_LH: Proving the Electric Universe model requires falsifying the Western Cultural paradigm. This is a problem.
_LK: I don't think Western religions stand in the way of science much any more.
_LH: Describing the Earth's evolution requires a starting point, and this remains controversial. Most US geologists seem to favour a short chronology, others a long one. I had the same issue when I edited AIG News - the long chronologists did not like editorial favourable to the short-chronologists being published. It got to rather an excitable situation.
_MF: So long folks. [Disappointing discussions] on the topics, which are worthwhile.
_LK: Mike, what part of the country are you in? You're welcome to make suggestions to improve discussions. I'll try to organize better or find better ways to get info from everyone.
_MF: North Carolina
_LK: A question for you EU people. Looks like there are one or two of you here still, since Louis left. I'm an ESU person, rather than EU. The question is: Is a vacuum an insulator or a conductor, or neither or both?
_BL: Is there really such a thing as a total vacuum, seems to be an idealized mathematical construct, but if there's a few particles in there depending on what it was it seems it could be either or both...
_LK: 7C=Need_ Charles says a vacuum has no resistance to charge. So I think he says interplanetary discharges would likely not occur as EU theorists have said. I should get him here to explain, though, since he has the info. ===
_BL: 13B=Need_ The concept of interplanetary discharge is simply static electric discharge, and we know the solar wind is full of particles, thus the assumption of a vacuum related to our solar system is mute... ===
_RF: 3B=Need_ Vacuum Circuit Breakers are used in high voltage power systems to extinguish the electric arc. ===
_LK: 8B=Need_ Would it be fairly easy to test in a vacuum chamber whether a vacuum is more conducting or insulating? I know Charles referenced some data from satellites or something that indicated that vacuum is "conducting". ======
_BL: Why the insistence the solar wind is a vacuum?
_LK: I don't know the density of the solar wind, but I'm guessing that on Earth it would be considered a vacuum? Do you know the density? Is it some tens or hundreds of particles per cc?
_BL: 14C=Have_ Depends on whether your interested in proton density or other particles,__ http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ lot of information on solar wind properties at that link.
_LK: Thanks, Bruce. I guess we can wrap up soon, if there's not a lot of info to share yet. Do you's have more questions or comments or suggestions how to have better discussions?
_BL: Final comment, the one that got deleted earlier. Seems to me we should begin to understand the tectonic domain as a weather system, where Giovannis Sea urchin spikes are the pressure cells, the plate boundaries or surge channels are the stream flows, like jetstreams, and frontal boundaries, where counter flows to the mantle must exist in the asthenosphere or volcanics. The Westward drift of the magnetic field indicates an deep mantle trade wind etc. The plate tectonic concept of linear upwelling is like the idealized mathematical construct of the net heat flow model of Hadley Cell circulation in the atmosphere. It doesn't exist in actual flow dynamics. If you were a weatherman and all you could report on was heat is rising at the equator and moving towards the poles and you model doesn't allow the existence of pressure cells, stream flow or frontal boundaries, much less trade winds, you couldn't say much about the weather. This is the problem with plate theory, it's driver is based on an idealized mathematical construct that is simple to understand in a text book, but has no basis in reality... That's it in a nutshell, signing off, enjoyed the discussion... ======
_LK: Thanks for repeating that, Bruce. Good Day. I'll try not to delete that this time. Are you in Colorado or Florida?
_BL: Florida
_LK: Robert, do you have a link to your main info? Is it summed up somewhere?
_RF: Which info would that be, Lloyd.
_LK: Info on Tectonics.
_RF: 4A=Have_ __ http:breakthroughinenergy.com

3
CNPS Structured Discussion / Comparing ET with Other Geology Theories
« on: August 08, 2017, 08:33:37 am »
Goal is to make a Table that compares Expansion Tectonic theory with other Geological theories.

First, I'm listing CNPS papers on ET.

This is the present alphabetic arrangement with possible main topics added before each title. Some of the titles may be miscategorized. After this will be the list arranged alphabetically by subject.

Category: Expansion Tectonics

__A
_Africa) _On The Ages of African Land-Surfaces
_Galaxies) _An Analysis of 900 Rotation Curves of Southern Sky Spiral Galaxies: Are the Dynamics Constrained to Discrete States?
_Tectonics) _Architectonics of the Earth
_Satellites) _Are Artificial Satellites Orbits Influenced by an Expanding Earth?
_Atlas) _Atlas of Continental Displacement, 200 Million Years to the Present
__B
_Biogeography) _Biogeography in a Changing World
__C
_ZPEnergy) _Cosmology and the Zero Point Energy
_ZPEnergy<?>) _Cosmology and the Zerto Point Energy
_Theories) _Creeds of Physics
_ContainerSpace) _A Critical Note Concerning Conventional Container Space Concepts
_Crust) _Crustal development and sea level : with special reference to the geological development of southwest Japan and adjacent seas
__D
_Dinosaurs) _Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth - Second edition (ebook)
_QM<?>) _Discrete Time Realizations of Quantum Mechanics and their Possible Experimental Tests
__E
_Palaeo-Magnetism) _Early Palaeozoic Palaeo-Magnetism and Biogeography - Plate tectonics or Expansion?
_GeoComplexity) _Earth Complexity vs. Plate Tectonic Simplicity
_Expansion) _Is the Earth Expanding (Dehnt sich die Erde aus?)
_NebHyp+Subduction) _Earth IS Expanding Rapidly: Kant's Nebular Hypothesis and Subduction are False
_ObjectionsSolved) _Earth Expansion Major Objections Solved
_Earthquakes) _Earth Expansion and the Prediction of Earthquakes and Volcanicism
_MassIncrease) _Earth Expansion Requires Increase in Mass
_PermianClimate) _The Earth Expansion Theory and the Climatic History of the Lower Permian
_Universe) _Earth, Universe, Cosmos
_Expansion) _Earth is Unquestionably Growing and Expanding
_Evidence) _Education Concept of Earths Expansion: Main Grounds, Space-Geodetic and Paleomagnetic Evidence, Metallogenic Consequences
_Electrodynamic) _Electrodynamic Origin of Gravitational Forces
_Galaxies) _Empirical Evidence on the Creation of Galaxies and Quasars
_Electrodynamics) _Evidence For Weber-Wesley Electrodynamics
_Expansion) _An Evolutionary Earth Expansion Hypothesis
_Continents) _The Expanded Earth: The Continents Positioned by Radical Movement Due to Expansion; a Craftsmans Look at the Globe
_Expansion) _Expanding Earth?
_Expansion) _The Expanding Earth
_Expansion) _Why the Expanding Earth?
_Sea-FloorSpreading) _An Expanding Earth on the Basis of Sea-Floor Spreading and Subduction Rates
_Causes) _The Expanding Earth: Evidence, Causes and Effects
_Gravity) _The Expanding Earth: Evidence From Temporary Gravity Fields and Space-Geodetic Data
_Gyrotation) _The Expanding Earth: Is the Inflation of Heavenly Bodies Caused by Reoriented Particles under Gyrotation Fields?
_InnerCore) _The Expanding Earth : The Inflation of Heavenly Bodies Demands for a Compression-Free Inner Core
_Catastrophism) _Expanding Earth, Or Natural Catastrophism
_Expansion) _The Expanding Earth: A Sound Idea for the New Millenium
_Cause) _Our Expanding Earth, the Ultimate Cause
_Overview) _Expansion Tectonics: An Overview
__F
_Universe) _Finite Theory of the Universe, Dark Matter Disproof and Faster-Than-Light Speed
_Fixed-Earth) _Fixed-Earth and Expanding-Earth Theories -- Time for a Paradigm Shift? -- Version 2
_Cartography) _Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartography
_Expansion) _The Fourth Revolt
_Fuels) _Fuels: A New Theory (Second Edition)
__G
_Causes) _Geological-Geophysical Proofs and Possible Causes of Earth Expansion
_Eduction) _Global Eduction Tectonics of the Expanding Earth
_Explanation) _Global Expansion Tectonics - A More Rational Explanation
_PhysicsChallenge) _Global Expansion Tectonics: A Significant Challenge for Physics
_Models) _Global Models of the Expanding Earth
_InflatingSun) _On the Gravitational Constant of Our Inflating Sun and On the Origin of the Stars' Lifecycle
_Gravito-MagneticInflation) _The Gravito-Magnetic Inflation of Rotating Bodies and the Nature of Mass and Matter
_Gravitomagnetism) _Gravitomagnetism: Successes in Explaining the Cosmos
_Earthquakes) _Great And Old Earthquakes Against Great And Old Paradigms ? Paradoxes, Historical Roots, Alternative Answers
_Expansion) _The Growing and Developing Earth
_Expansion) _The Growing Earth
__H
_Hydrocarbons) _Hydrocarbons in the Context of a Solid, Quantified, Growing and Radiating Earth
__I
_Sphere-Cylinder) _Interbasis "Sphere-Cylinder" Expansions for the Oscillator in the Three-Dimensional Space of Constant Positive Curvature
__L
_Expansion) _The Land of No Horizon
_Subduction) _Is Large Scale Subduction Made Unlikely By The Mediterranean Deep Seismicity?
_Impacts) _Lava Flows from Disruption of Crust at the Antipode of Large Meteorite Impacts
_Relativity<?>) _Le Verrier Historical Mistake that Created Relativity Stupidity
_Light) _Light Propagation in an Expanding Universe
_AstronomicalObjects) _Limitations on Viewing Distant Astronomical Objects
__M
_Hoax) _Mankind's Greatest Hoax
_Plumes) _Mantle Plumes and Dynamics of the Earth Interior - Towards a New Model
_SunVelocity) _Marinov's Toothed-Wheels Measurement of Absolute Velocity of Solar System
_Mountains) _On the Mechanism of Mountain Building and Folding
_Plates) _Migrating Fossils, Moving Plates and an Expanding Earth
__N
_EarthInterior) _A New Dynamic Conception Of The Internal Constitution Of The Earth
_BlackHoles<?>) _The No-Hair Theorem Parameters can be Reduced to solely the Black Hole's Specific Angular Momentum
_RottnestIsland) _Nuteeriat: Nut Trees, the Expanding Earth, Rottnest Island, and All That
__O
_Granite) _The Origin of Granite and Continental Masses in an Expanding Earth
_Mountains) _The Origin of Mountains
_UniversalSystems) _Origins of Universal Systems
_OrogenicModel) _An Orogenic Model Consistent with Earth Expansion
_Hilgenberg) _Ott Christoph Hilgenberg in twentieth-century geophysics
__P
_Palaeomagnetic) _Palaeomagnetic Evidence Relevant To A Change In The Earth's Radius
_Palaeopoles) _Palaeopoles on an Expanding Earth: A Comparison Between Synthetic and Real Data Sets
_Comprehensive) _Five Para-Myths and One Comprehensive Proposition in Geology
_Redshifts) _Periodicity in Extragalactic Redshifts
_Philosophy) _A Philosophy of the Expanding Earth and Universe
_SouthernHemisphere) _Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere
_Diamagnetism) _The Pivoted Current Element and Diamagnetism
_Expansion) _Is Planet Earth Expanding?
_Eocene) _Planet Earth Expanding and Eocene Tectonic Event
_Dynamics) _Beyond Plate Tectonics: 'Plate' Dynamics
_PT) _Plate Tectonics and this Expanding Earth
_PT) _Is Plate Tectonics Standing the Test of Time
_PT) _Plate Tectonics Subducted
_Microphysics) _On the Possibility of a Rationalistic Approach to Microphysics
_DarkMatter) _Possible Relation Between Earth Expansion and Dark Matter
_DeepDrilling) _The Primordially Hydridic Character of our Planet and Proving it by Deep Drilling
_Plates) _Principles of Plate Movements on the Expanding Earth
__R
_Expansion) _Rapid Earth Expansion: An Eclectic View
_IncreasingGravity) _Relationship Between Gravity and Evolution: The Theory of the Increasing of Gravity
_PolarMotion) _Releaions Among Expanding earth, TPW, and Polar Motion
__S
_Test) _A Simple Physical Test of Earth Expansion
_SunVelocity) _A Simplified Repetition of Silvertooth's Measurement of the Absolute Velocity of the Solar System
_Expansion) _Once a Smaller Earth
_Expansion) _The Solid, Quantified, Growing and Radiating Earth
_Electron) _On the Space-time Structure of the Electron
_Planets) _The Spacing of Planets: The Solution to a 400-Year Mystery
_Subduction) _Subduction: The Extent and Duration
_Superluminal<?>) _On Superluminal Velocities
_ST) _Surge Tectonics: A New Hypothesis of Global Geodynamics
__T
_DeepSeismicData) _The tectonic structure of the continental lithosphere considered in the light of the expanding Earth theory? a proposal of a new interpretation of deep seismic data
_IslandArcs) _Tension - Gravitational Model of Island Arcs
_Expansion?) _Terra non Firma Earth
_PalaeomagneticData) _A Test of Earth Expansion Hypotheses by Means of Palaeomagnetic Data
_Theories) _Theories of the Earth and Universe: A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences
_Expansion) _The Theory of the Expanding Earth
_Thermal) _The Thermal Expansion of the Earth
__V
_Unorthodoxy) _A Venture in Unorthodoxy
_Petroleum) _Voyage of Discovery: A History of Ideas About the Earth with a New Understanding of the Global Resources of Water and Petroleum and the Problems of Climate Change
__W
_Sea-floors) _Wandering Continents and Spreading Sea-floors on an Expanding Earth

-------------------------------------------------------

Category: Expansion Tectonics (by Subject)

_Africa) _On The Ages of African Land-Surfaces
_AstronomicalObjects) _Limitations on Viewing Distant Astronomical Objects
_Atlas) _Atlas of Continental Displacement, 200 Million Years to the Present
_Biogeography) _Biogeography in a Changing World
_BlackHoles<?>) _The No-Hair Theorem Parameters can be Reduced to solely the Black Hole's Specific Angular Momentum
_Cartography) _Fossils, frogs, floating islands and expanding Earth in changing-radius cartography
_Catastrophism) _Expanding Earth, Or Natural Catastrophism
_Cause) _Our Expanding Earth, the Ultimate Cause
_Causes) _Geological-Geophysical Proofs and Possible Causes of Earth Expansion
_Causes) _The Expanding Earth: Evidence, Causes and Effects
_Comprehensive) _Five Para-Myths and One Comprehensive Proposition in Geology
_ContainerSpace) _A Critical Note Concerning Conventional Container Space Concepts
_Continents) _The Expanded Earth: The Continents Positioned by Radical Movement Due to Expansion; a Craftsmans Look at the Globe
_Crust) _Crustal development and sea level : with special reference to the geological development of southwest Japan and adjacent seas
_DarkMatter) _Possible Relation Between Earth Expansion and Dark Matter
_DeepDrilling) _The Primordially Hydridic Character of our Planet and Proving it by Deep Drilling
_DeepSeismicData) _The tectonic structure of the continental lithosphere considered in the light of the expanding Earth theory? a proposal of a new interpretation of deep seismic data
_Diamagnetism) _The Pivoted Current Element and Diamagnetism
_Dinosaurs) _Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth - Second edition (ebook)
_Dynamics) _Beyond Plate Tectonics: 'Plate' Dynamics
_EarthInterior) _A New Dynamic Conception Of The Internal Constitution Of The Earth
_Earthquakes) _Earth Expansion and the Prediction of Earthquakes and Volcanicism
_Earthquakes) _Great And Old Earthquakes Against Great And Old Paradigms ? Paradoxes, Historical Roots, Alternative Answers
_Eduction) _Global Eduction Tectonics of the Expanding Earth
_Electrodynamic) _Electrodynamic Origin of Gravitational Forces
_Electrodynamics) _Evidence For Weber-Wesley Electrodynamics
_Electron) _On the Space-time Structure of the Electron
_Eocene) _Planet Earth Expanding and Eocene Tectonic Event
_Evidence) _Education Concept of Earths Expansion: Main Grounds, Space-Geodetic and Paleomagnetic Evidence, Metallogenic Consequences
_Expansion?) _Terra non Firma Earth
_Expansion) _An Evolutionary Earth Expansion Hypothesis
_Expansion) _Earth is Unquestionably Growing and Expanding
_Expansion) _Expanding Earth?
_Expansion) _Is Planet Earth Expanding?
_Expansion) _Is the Earth Expanding (Dehnt sich die Erde aus?)
_Expansion) _Once a Smaller Earth
_Expansion) _Rapid Earth Expansion: An Eclectic View
_Expansion) _The Expanding Earth
_Expansion) _The Expanding Earth: A Sound Idea for the New Millenium
_Expansion) _The Fourth Revolt
_Expansion) _The Growing and Developing Earth
_Expansion) _The Growing Earth
_Expansion) _The Land of No Horizon
_Expansion) _The Solid, Quantified, Growing and Radiating Earth
_Expansion) _The Theory of the Expanding Earth
_Expansion) _Why the Expanding Earth?
_Explanation) _Global Expansion Tectonics - A More Rational Explanation
_Fixed-Earth) _Fixed-Earth and Expanding-Earth Theories -- Time for a Paradigm Shift? -- Version 2
_Fuels) _Fuels: A New Theory (Second Edition)
_Galaxies) _An Analysis of 900 Rotation Curves of Southern Sky Spiral Galaxies: Are the Dynamics Constrained to Discrete States?
_Galaxies) _Empirical Evidence on the Creation of Galaxies and Quasars
_GeoComplexity) _Earth Complexity vs. Plate Tectonic Simplicity
_Granite) _The Origin of Granite and Continental Masses in an Expanding Earth
_Gravito-MagneticInflation) _The Gravito-Magnetic Inflation of Rotating Bodies and the Nature of Mass and Matter
_Gravitomagnetism) _Gravitomagnetism: Successes in Explaining the Cosmos
_Gravity) _The Expanding Earth: Evidence From Temporary Gravity Fields and Space-Geodetic Data
_Gyrotation) _The Expanding Earth: Is the Inflation of Heavenly Bodies Caused by Reoriented Particles under Gyrotation Fields?
_Hilgenberg) _Ott Christoph Hilgenberg in twentieth-century geophysics
_Hoax) _Mankind's Greatest Hoax
_Hydrocarbons) _Hydrocarbons in the Context of a Solid, Quantified, Growing and Radiating Earth
_Impacts) _Lava Flows from Disruption of Crust at the Antipode of Large Meteorite Impacts
_IncreasingGravity) _Relationship Between Gravity and Evolution: The Theory of the Increasing of Gravity
_InflatingSun) _On the Gravitational Constant of Our Inflating Sun and On the Origin of the Stars' Lifecycle
_InnerCore) _The Expanding Earth : The Inflation of Heavenly Bodies Demands for a Compression-Free Inner Core
_IslandArcs) _Tension - Gravitational Model of Island Arcs
_Light) _Light Propagation in an Expanding Universe
_MassIncrease) _Earth Expansion Requires Increase in Mass
_Microphysics) _On the Possibility of a Rationalistic Approach to Microphysics
_Models) _Global Models of the Expanding Earth
_Mountains) _On the Mechanism of Mountain Building and Folding
_Mountains) _The Origin of Mountains
_NebHyp+Subduction) _Earth IS Expanding Rapidly: Kant's Nebular Hypothesis and Subduction are False
_ObjectionsSolved) _Earth Expansion Major Objections Solved
_OrogenicModel) _An Orogenic Model Consistent with Earth Expansion
_Overview) _Expansion Tectonics: An Overview
_Palaeo-Magnetism) _Early Palaeozoic Palaeo-Magnetism and Biogeography - Plate tectonics or Expansion?
_Palaeomagnetic) _Palaeomagnetic Evidence Relevant To A Change In The Earth's Radius
_PalaeomagneticData) _A Test of Earth Expansion Hypotheses by Means of Palaeomagnetic Data
_Palaeopoles) _Palaeopoles on an Expanding Earth: A Comparison Between Synthetic and Real Data Sets
_PermianClimate) _The Earth Expansion Theory and the Climatic History of the Lower Permian
_Petroleum) _Voyage of Discovery: A History of Ideas About the Earth with a New Understanding of the Global Resources of Water and Petroleum and the Problems of Climate Change
_Philosophy) _A Philosophy of the Expanding Earth and Universe
_PhysicsChallenge) _Global Expansion Tectonics: A Significant Challenge for Physics
_Planets) _The Spacing of Planets: The Solution to a 400-Year Mystery
_Plates) _Migrating Fossils, Moving Plates and an Expanding Earth
_Plates) _Principles of Plate Movements on the Expanding Earth
_Plumes) _Mantle Plumes and Dynamics of the Earth Interior - Towards a New Model
_PolarMotion) _Releaions Among Expanding earth, TPW, and Polar Motion
_PT) _Is Plate Tectonics Standing the Test of Time
_PT) _Plate Tectonics and this Expanding Earth
_PT) _Plate Tectonics Subducted
_QM<?>) _Discrete Time Realizations of Quantum Mechanics and their Possible Experimental Tests
_Redshifts) _Periodicity in Extragalactic Redshifts
_Relativity<?>) _Le Verrier Historical Mistake that Created Relativity Stupidity
_RottnestIsland) _Nuteeriat: Nut Trees, the Expanding Earth, Rottnest Island, and All That
_Satellites) _Are Artificial Satellites Orbits Influenced by an Expanding Earth?
_Sea-floors) _Wandering Continents and Spreading Sea-floors on an Expanding Earth
_Sea-FloorSpreading) _An Expanding Earth on the Basis of Sea-Floor Spreading and Subduction Rates
_SouthernHemisphere) _Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere
_Sphere-Cylinder) _Interbasis "Sphere-Cylinder" Expansions for the Oscillator in the Three-Dimensional Space of Constant Positive Curvature
_ST) _Surge Tectonics: A New Hypothesis of Global Geodynamics
_Subduction) _Is Large Scale Subduction Made Unlikely By The Mediterranean Deep Seismicity?
_Subduction) _Subduction: The Extent and Duration
_SunVelocity) _A Simplified Repetition of Silvertooth's Measurement of the Absolute Velocity of the Solar System
_SunVelocity) _Marinov's Toothed-Wheels Measurement of Absolute Velocity of Solar System
_Superluminal<?>) _On Superluminal Velocities
_Tectonics) _Architectonics of the Earth
_Test) _A Simple Physical Test of Earth Expansion
_Theories) _Creeds of Physics
_Theories) _Theories of the Earth and Universe: A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences
_Thermal) _The Thermal Expansion of the Earth
_UniversalSystems) _Origins of Universal Systems
_Universe) _Earth, Universe, Cosmos
_Universe) _Finite Theory of the Universe, Dark Matter Disproof and Faster-Than-Light Speed
_Unorthodoxy) _A Venture in Unorthodoxy
_ZPEnergy) _Cosmology and the Zero Point Energy
_ZPEnergy<?>) _Cosmology and the Zerto Point Energy

4
CNPS Structured Discussion / BN-LK Discussion Highlights
« on: June 14, 2017, 11:05:08 pm »
__« April 22, 2017, 01:20:31 pm »
Major Unexplained Science Facts & Alternative Models
LK Ideas for Organizing a Wiki
1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
2. List Major Fields of Science
3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws for Main CNPS Wiki Topics
(See Sample Wiki thread.)
Paraphrasing Bruce's Forum/Wiki Ideas
a. Tell readers the goal is to produce one or more papers and Wikis.
- Ask readers to submit other flaws &/or alternative theories
b. To structure the topic put it into the forum as 3 co-located threads.
- Create an outline of the local discussion & put it in your “coordination” post.
- Use Mark’s MIT MAP concepts: Questions ( ? ),  Ideas ( lightbulb),  pros and cons (thumbs up and down ) etc.
Aether Lattice Holes Theory
DEMOCRACY:
__« April 23, 2017, 11:37:33 am »
Invite: TB Members possibly interested in helping Improve Science:
bdw000, BirdyNumNums, Brigit Bara, Chan Rasjid, chut, Cubit32, D_Archer, dd6, Elder, fractal-geoff, GaryN, GenesisAria, Grey Cloud, jacmac, JCG, JeffreyW, JHL, jimmcginn, Keith Ness, Kuldebar, Melusine, philalethes, Phorce, phyllotaxis, Pi sees, Plasmatic, pln2bz, popster1, RayTomes, Roshi, Rushthezeppelin, saul, seasmith, Solar, Sparky, StefanR, trevbus, Webbman, Zelectric, ZenMonkeyNZ, Zyxzevn
__« April 23, 2017, 11:50:36 am »
RESOURCES
__« May 07, 2017, 12:08:53 pm »
<BN: Phone
Catastrophism Topic
Expansion Tectonics
So, a way to find people for your ideas is to post a request on that forum
A second way is to compose an article for the monthly newsletter
getting the newsletter, send a note directly to David de Hilster
Third, there is a blog on the main website
Re sedimentary rock strata, first do some literature analysis on the history of this topic
LK's List of Topics
I put a new forum in there for you: The Scientific Method.
The list of facts and flaws is one of the issues I wanted to talk to you about directly.
__May 8, 9AM
do a test right here on FUNDAY
__« May 11, 2017, 05:14:55 pm »
Message to Dave Talbott re Wiki
I started a thread called, Need Data to Help Create Alternative Science Wiki
I have gotten a Catastrophism board and E.U. boards etc at the CNPS forum.
__Postby Lloyd » Thu May 11, 2017 4:06 pm
Initial preferred topics for discussion are:
Catastrophism: Ancient Global Cataclysm
Mythology: Ancient Myths
Earth Sciences: Global Tectonics
Astronomy: Solar Science
__« May 21, 2017, 01:56:44 pm »
>BN: the CNPS Wiki a collection of alternative science papers
would help to establish a system for evaluating them
Making the list of essential elements of each theory or claim
then a process for evaluating each element
CNPS could publicize the best theories
__Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:45 PM
<Bruce: find me ANY MM reports
system for evaluating is my next TOP priority
publishing a summary of what elements of ALL the papers were good breakthroughs
reward great Peer Reviewers
Peer Review Guidelines [from web search]
__5/23/17 8:50AM
>Bruce: date on the threads
experiment with "peer reviewers"
__« May 23, 2017, 09:21:11 pm »
"sticky" function
date labeling
email string
"probable" reviews would give a theory a high place in a WIKI
summary reference to the dissents
many theories submitted
PHOTON; challenge this definition
prioritizing
__5/23 9 PM
>Bruce: date labeling
P.U.T structured format
invite members
Space Lattice Theory
rate P.U.T.
__Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:38 PM
<Bruce: suggest a better title
membership fee
Lattice Theory
rating a few P.U.T. Elements
__5/24 7:33 PM
Hi Bruce: discussion thread
I started 3 threads for "theory rating"
I included the reasons for my I-ratings
__« May 26, 2017, 07:28:59 pm »
<BN: Inviting members
"discussion summary" as a "status report"
"coordination": coordination of the discussion
"external inputs": to focus or promote the discussion
"documentation"
Possible solution
__May 26, 2017, at 12:55 AM
>Bruce: Why wouldn't each topic in the forum have a Working Paper thread?
__Friday, May 26, 2017 10:39 AM
<Bruce: multiple purposes for the structured forum
break down disagreements among members
structure to improve all discussions
separate resolution
member recruitment, CNPS marketing, promotion of papers, and expansion of conferences
coordinating scientific research
cover the needed structure issues
__5/26 7:11 PM
Hi Bruce: your structured forum goals
A. Attempt to resolve disagreements among members:
B. Set up bibliographies to reduce newbies' questions:
C. Each section develop goals, like doing experiments, writing papers ... :
D. Improve & promote CNPS & scientific research:
CNPS forum survey eventually
1st - purpose, status report & assignments
2nd - wiki working paper
3rd - bibliography & important outside viewpoints
discussion section
__Saturday, May 27, 2017 5:33 PM
<Bruce: Important threads; using a "sticky" function
bibliographies < many forums making a few contributions each
8. Definitions
__Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:25 AM
<Bruce: I can't do the rating without details
I don't find value in the a simple rating scale
help locate interested people
__5/31) 11AM)
>Bruce: "help locate interested people
encyclopedic list of good alternative theories
PUT rating I, which was helpful
__6/1 - 11AM
>Bruce: let members start their own threads in any of those 9 sections
let moderators request moderator-controlled threads
consulted with any forum experts?
__« June 02, 2017, 09:55:43 pm »
Hi Bruce: start one or two threads in section 1
your critique of my 8-point scientific method
repeats of the MM experiment
5-part idea
Store raw data
Self-organize teams to rectify false media claims
corporate greed
__Monday, June 5, 2017 1:45 PM
<BN: Members can post new Threads, but not "forums"
email notification
MM experiment repeats
raw data
__« June 09, 2017, 02:29:14 pm »
REVIEW PROCESS
__Friday, June 9, 2017 10:00 AM
<Bruce:  I ratings vs P (probable) " ratings
guide a number of members to review them in depth
be published by CNPS + indexed
__Fri 6/9 2:23PM
>Bruce: look for fellow reviewers?
essential elements of P.U.T. that most interest me

5
EU DEBATE / COMET ELECTRICAL EROSION
« on: June 08, 2017, 08:21:50 pm »
Comet mesa and crater erosion by electrical surface erosion.

See electrical erosion of Comet Temple I in the 47 to 50 minute segment of this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34wtt2EUToo

A mesa on Temple I shows electrical[?] erosion over a short period of time in 2005, shortening the mesa by 50 meters after sunspot and solar wind activity had increased significantly.

Here are images from the video.

6
EU DEBATE / May 30
« on: May 30, 2017, 11:21:06 pm »
LK QUESTIONS
<LK to RF>
Q1: Have you done or read any calculations on EDM that support those ideas in  detail?
Q2: Do you know of experiments that show that EDM can erode surfaces like that and  produce partly melted clays and quartz sand?
Q3: A close encounter between planets would surely raise very high tides, causing  megatsunamis, so why would not the cavitation effect produce the sand from granite  bedrock and the tsunamis account for the sediment deposition and erosion, leaving  behind some mesas?
Q4: Doesn't water erosion produce dendritic patterns?
Q5: The EU team accept much of Velikovsky's evidence on catastrophism, and  Velikovsky referred to violent winds that occurred, so wouldn't the winds account  for loess and volcanism account for deep sea ash?

------------------------------------------

<RF to LK>
INTERPLANETARY ELECTRIC DISCHARGE
_[See] ‘An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics’:  https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534
_See: https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16534#p116159
_(Johnson. Robert. 2014. Massive Solar Eruptions and their contribution to the  causes of Tectonic Uplift. NCGT Journal Vol.2 No.1.)  _http://www.ncgtjournal.com/assets/NCGT_Journal_Contents_March_2014.pdf
_demonstrates that an external source of energy arising from massive solar  eruptions is likely to have been available on rare occasions in past eras.
_electric discharges to the Earth’s surface many orders of magnitude larger than  present-day lightning strikes would result from the impact of an extreme Coronal  Mass Ejection.
_The energy delivered directly to the crustal strata could have been sufficient to  contribute to uplift via many of the existing thermal expansion and phase change  models.
>>>_Rapid ion diffusion in the electric fields associated with the discharges is also  likely to have occurred, thereby potentially offering a solution to ‘the granite  problem’.
_(Gold, 1962, discussion p. 170) considered what effect a more massive solar  eruption would have on the Earth
_the increased solar wind pressure would drive the inner edge of the Earth’s  [outer] magnetosphere down into the upper atmosphere
_storm-generated electric currents would then encounter great resistance
_the path of least resistance is to short down in a massive and continuous  ‘lightning strike’ or discharge through the atmosphere, run through the more  conducting surface of the Earth, and short back up to the magnetosphere in a second  discharge to close the circuit back to the magnetosphere (figs. 1 and 2)
_huge direct currents of “hundreds of millions of Amps” would run in the surface of  the Earth
_Robert Johnson proposes that just such electrical discharges acted to uplift  modern mountainous regions
_Such currents would flow if either Earth encountered another celestial body or  Earth’s electrical environment changed
_I see such discharge altering Earth’s surface gravity which may have contributed  to the vertical tectonics at that time
_(see ‘An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics’ for my views on vertical  tectonics).
_We can picture both electrical and physical processes generating sediment but wave  action certainly did not sculpt Mt Everest
_the dendritic patterns of mountain ranges must have an electrical origin
_Paul Anderson has done work in this respect. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=c7w1rGeqXBg
_“Paul Anderson uses fractal analysis to determine what process –fluvial or  electrical- shaped the various landforms on the Earth, the main focus being canyons  and riverbeds.
_This analysis is then compared to electrical discharge patterns recorded in  laboratory experiments.
_Water flow does not appear to form structures with as many branches, particularly  perpendicular branches, as do electrical events.
_the current from the source must have been higher than it is today in the present auroras.
_The auroral process would have extended well beyond the current northern and  southern locations,
_and once the atmosphere could not support the ionization it would break down in  the form of electric discharges.’
_mountain formation was not only due to electrical uplift but also due to  electrical erosion.
_In this image of the Tibetan Plateau the rim has been eroded to form snow-capped  mountain ranges.
_“This is the pattern we see the world over
_What strata escaped being metamorphosed were eroded, pulverised and scattered by  intense electrical winds
_(something similar but on a vastly reduced scale still occurs on Mars today

<>Are you referring to global dust storms from electrified dust devils?
<>Do you see dendritic patterns on Mars from that?

ASH & DUST
_In the same thread I write: “Ashes and Dust
_Large areas of the Earth’s strata and surface record what geologists perceive as  ‘massive volcanic eruptions’ quite often these prehistoric eruptions dwarf any  recorded eruption.
_For example, Dinosaur National Monument (Utah, USA) is part of the Morrison  Formation which covers some 700,000 square miles.
_Part of the formation is: ‘dominated by silica-rich volcanic ash representing  explosive volcanism on a colossal scale
_A staggering quantity of volcanic materials, estimated at more than 4,000 cubic  miles, occurs within the thin but widespread Brushy Basin Member in Wyoming, Utah,  Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona.
_No volcano is known within the boundary of the Morrison deposit, no local lava  flows are known within the Morrison boundary, and geologists place the nearest  explosive volcanic source vents in southern California or Nevada.
_How these coarse volcanic materials in such colossal quantities were distributed  on so wide a scale remains a mystery.’(15)
_“The Worzel Deep Sea Ash consists of colourless shards of volcanic glass with an  index of refraction of 1.500 and varying in size from 0.07 to 0.2 mm.
_There is no particle size sorting.
_Most of the shards are in the form of curved, fluted, or crumpled films of glass.
_A minority are nearly equidimensional fragments of silky pumice.
_No crystalline minerals have been found.
_In all important respects it is similar to material which has been classified as  volcanic ash in the deep-sea deposits of the world.
_On preliminary examination, the ash of the Worzel layer appears to be quite  similar to the ash layer which occurs in a suite of cores from the Gulf of Mexico.
_Rex and Goldberg have found quartz particles of continental origin in abundance in  Pacific sediments as much as 2,000 miles from the nearest continent
_The ash is entirely unlike material described as meteoritic dust.’
_“The researchers concluded: ‘Apparently we require either a single very large  volcanic explosion, or the simultaneous explosion of many volcanoes
_or a cometary collision similar to that suggested by Urey as explanation" for the  origin of tektites.’
_In other words a global cataclysm is required to account for the ash.
>>>_However, if we look at the chemical composition of the ash (17) we find it shares similar chemical properties with granite (18).
_“Loess covers about 10% of the Earth’s land surface
_according to Michael Oard it is generally considered to be wind-blown (Aeolian)  silt.
_It is composed mostly of quartz grains, with minor portions of clay and sand often  mixed with the silt.
_Loess is commonly intermixed vertically with ‘paleosols’, which are supposedly  fossil soils that have been preserved in the geologic record or buried deeply  enough that it is no longer subject to soil forming processes.
_Scientists previously believed the silt particles in loess were derived from ice  abrasion, but they now believe that loess has both a glacial and non-glacial  origin.
_In central China it is up to 300m thick.
_Millions of woolly mammoths and other Ice Age animals are mostly entombed in loess  in non-glaciated areas of Siberia, Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada.
_Wind blown material is common within the Ice Age portion of the Greenland ice  cores.
_“Whether it be ‘volcanic ash’, deep sea ash or loess, all this material may be the  by-product of the electrical erosion that occurred during the mountain forming  period.
_material eroded in the early stages may have been deposited whilst marine  incursions were still ongoing
_this material would have been incorporated into marine strata and interpreted as  ‘volcanic’.
_During the latter stages when marine transgressions had subsided electrical dust  storms would have scattered the material globally- eventually to settle on the  ocean floor or entrap ‘Ice Age’ mammals.
_“Furthermore, marine sponge spicules have been identified in loess,
_we have already seen that the fossilised remains of sea creatures have been found  atop Mount Everest
_it is likely that the remains of sponges originated from the uplifted uppermost  sedimentary strata pulverised and scattered by an electrical discharge

RADIOACTIVE CRATER
_Louis Hissink https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/indian-impacts- hammerhead-geology-by-louis-hissink/
_Woolfe Creek Crater with its radioactive crater rim is an electrical discharge  producing radioactive elements in situ.

GRANITE
_Given the association of radioactive elements with granite
_and great masses of granite are found to have been emplaced among deformed and  metamorphosed sedimentary strata to form enormous granite bathyliths in the cores  of major mountain ranges
_Granite is never found outside mountain belts (Bucher, 1950, p. 37).”
_There's a link between electrical discharges and topographic uplift

------------------------------------------

MT ST HELENS EROSION
Dendritic erosion at Mt. St. Helens Fig. 3
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04

SOIL EROSION
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/600x315/27/d1/f2/27d1f2af2117530c81dd959e6be06873.jpg

GRANITE
Wikipedia: Occurrence
Granitic rock is widely distributed throughout the continental crust. Much of it was intruded during the Precambrian age; it is the most abundant basement rock that underlies the relatively thin sedimentary veneer of the continents. Outcrops of granite tend to form tors and rounded massifs. Granites sometimes occur in circular depressions surrounded by a range of hills, formed by the metamorphic aureole or hornfels. Granite often occurs as relatively small, less than 100 km² stock masses (stocks) and in batholiths that are often associated with orogenic mountain ranges. Small dikes of granitic composition called aplites are often associated with the margins of granitic intrusions. In some locations, very coarse-grained pegmatite masses occur with granite.
Origin
Granite has a felsic composition and is more common in recent geologic time in contrast to Earth's ultramafic ancient igneous history. Felsic rocks are less dense than mafic and ultramafic rocks, and thus they tend to escape subduction, whereas basaltic or gabbroic rocks tend to sink into the mantle beneath the granitic rocks of the continental cratons. Therefore, granitic rocks form the basement of all land continents.

LOESS
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/loess_deposits.gif
Loess is a sedimentary deposit composed largely of silt-size grains that are loosely cemented by calcium carbonate.

Distribution and composition of loess sediments in the Ili Basin, Central Asia
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618213009877
The bulk mineral components of the Ili loess are dominated by quartz and feldspar with minor amounts of calcite, chlorite, mica, dolomite and hornblende. More than 20 types of heavy minerals were observed with major components of amphibole, magnetite and epidote. The major elements of the Ili loess are characterized by high abundance of SiO2, Al2O3 and CaO and minor amounts of Fe2O3, MgO, Na2O and K2O.

WORZEL ASH
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,244845,245282

The "Worzel Ash" (Los Chocoyos Volcanic Ash)
Author: Xebec ()
Date: June 26, 2008 03:47AM
legionromanes wrote:

"The debris Venus allegedly deposited in Earth's atmosphere causing 40 years of darkness after the Exodus left no trace in the world's ice caps or ocean bottoms, [See "Ice Cores", Kronos X:1, 1984, 97-102, or Appendix D at end of [abob.libs.uga.edu].] a test ignored by Rose [and an example of negative evidence with which Velikovskians do not have a good track record of dealing. N.B.: The "Worzel Ash" touted by Velikovsky and his epigoni is known to be volcanic (to the exclusion of any other source) from eruptions in Central America, limited in extent (i.e., not global), and far older than 3500 years; see "The Worzel Ash," Kronos X:1, 1984, 92-94 or section "The 'Worzel' Ash" in Mewhinney's "Minds in Ablation". (12-III-99) .]"

Note "Minds in Ablation Part Seven: Dust" is at: [ www.pibburns.com ]

The extent of the "Worzel Ash" of Worzel (1959) and as discussed by Ewing et al. (1959) and Anders and Limber (1959) is now known to have been vastly overestimated. Detailed research published by Bowels et al. (1973), Drexler et al. (1980), Ledbetter (1984, 1985), and Ledbetter and Sparks (1979), which included trace element analysis and dating by biostratigraphy, oxygen isotope stratigraphy, and radiometric methods not performed by Worzel (1959), show that what he mapped as the "Worzel Ash" actually consists of a number of different beds of volcanic ash that vary greatly in age. They found that the "Worzel Ash" was not a single global ash bed. From the trace and minor element analysis of 128 volcanic ash samples from 56 cores, Bowles et al. (1973) concluded that the unit, which Worzel (1959) mapped as the "Worzel Ash" consists of different ash beds of differing ages including three regionally widespread volcanic ash beds. Ledbetter and Sparks (1979) found what they called the "Worzel D ash" to be the distal counterpart of the rhyolitic Los Chocoyos ash-flow tuff of Guatemala and both were the result of a caldera ("supervolcano") eruption. Drexler et al. (1980) found that the "Worzel D" (Los Chocoyos) ash was created by a massive caldera eruption of the Atitlan caldera, which buried the much of the Guatemalan Highlands and Pacific coastal plain under a thick layer of ignimbrite and spread volcanic ash from Florida to Ecuador. Drexler et al. (1980) contains a map showing the distribution of the Los Chocoyos ("Worzel D" and Y8) ash bed. In this eruption, the Atitlan caldera erupted 270-280 cubic kilometers of volcanic material and created a huge volcanic caldera now filled by Lake Atitlan (Rose et al. 1987).

More coring and detailed geochemical analyses by Ledbetter (1985) of ash layers recovered from cores in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean adjacent to Central America defined 11 distinct ash beds within the sediments underlying the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean surrounding Central America. He was able to delineate the extent of each of the ash layers. The two most widespread ash layers, the Los Chocoyos ("Worzel D") ash bed was estimated to be 84,000 years old and the Worzel L ash bed was estimated to be 230,000 years old. Ledbetter (1984) noted that the Y8 ash bed in Gulf of Mexico is the same as the Los Chocoyos (Worzel D) ash bed.

The distributions of the Los Chocoyos (Worzel D) and other regionally extensive volcanic ash beds (tephras) are shown in figure 2 (page 6) of Machida (2002). In this figure, The Wozel D ash is ash deposit no. 26.

References

Anders, E., and N. Limber, 1959, Origin of the Worzel Deep-Sea Ash. Nature. vol. 184, pp. 44-45.

Bowels, F.A., R.N. Jack, and I.S.E. Carmichael, 1973, Investigation of Deep-Sea Volcanic Ash Layers from
Equatorial Pacific Cores. Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 84, no. 7, pp. 2371-2388
DOI: 10.1130/0016-7606(1973)84<2371:IODVAL>2.0.CO;2

Drexler, J.W., W.I. Rose, Jr., R.S.J. Sparks, and M.T. Ledbetter, 1980. The Los Chocoyos Ash, Guatemala: a major stratigraphic marker in middle America andin three ocean basins. Quaternary Research, vol. 13, pp. 327-345.

Ewing, M., B.C. Heezen and D,B. Ericson, 1959, Significance of the Worzel Deep Sea Ash. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 355-361.

Ledbetter, M.T., 1984. Late Pleistocene tephrochronology in the Gulf of Mexico region. In N. Healy-Williams, ed., pp. 119-148, Principles of Pleistocene Stratigraphy Applied to the Gulf of Mexico. IHRDC Press, Boston.

Ledbetter, M.T., 1985, Tephrochronology of marine tephra adjacent to Central America. Geological Society of America Bulletin. vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 77-82.
DOI: 10.1130/0016-7606(1985)96<77:TOMTAT>2.0.CO;2

Ledbetter, M.T., and R.S.J. Sparks, 1979, Duration of large-magnitude explosive eruptions deduced from graded bedding in deep-sea ash layers Geology. vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 240-244
DOI: 10.1130/0091-7613(1979)7<240:DOLEED>2.0.CO;2

Machida, H. 2002, Quaternary Volcanoes and Widespread Tephras of the World. Global Environmental Research. vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3-17. [ www.airies.or.jp ]

Rose, W.I., C.G. Newhall, T.J. Bornhorst, and S. Self, 1985, Quaternary silicic pyroclastic deposits of Atitlan Caldera, Guatemala. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. vol. 33, no. 1-3, pp. 57-80.

Worzel, J.L., 1959, Extensive deep sea sub-bottom reflections identified as white ash. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. vol. 45, no. 3, pp.349-355.

Some URLS
Los Chocoyos ash [ volcano.und.edu ]
Atitlan, Guatemala [ volcano.und.edu ]
Lake Atitlan [ volcano.und.edu ]
Lago de Atitlán [ en.wikipedia.org ]
Essen in "Re: The Evidence of Mu" <[ www.grahamhancock.com ];
C. Leroy Ellenberger - [en.wikipedia.org]


Yours,
David

------------------------------------------


7
Mike Messages / Robert on Collaboration
« on: May 13, 2017, 03:00:45 pm »
Re Robert's TB thread: Catastrophist Geology
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16703

Hi Robert.

Thanks for interest in collaboration.

Except for the last few pages of my thread on Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysms, I copied and reorganized nearly all of the posts on a private forum of my own at http://funday.createaforum.com . They're mixed in with other material from other sources. And they're mostly in the sections called LK1 to LK4. I started writing a paper in section LK1 at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/1-71 . So that and the other LK sections and the Sources & Outline section cover most of the discussions and evidence. Also the Mike Messages and XX First Draft sections cover additional or reorganized material.

The CNPS section is the most recent and involves discussing Catastrophism on the CNPS forum in an effort to use the discussion with scientists, pros and laymen, to write a paper for the CNPS Wiki for Alternative Science.

This recent post at my Thunderbolts thread above has my Letter to the Editor of NCGT Journal at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025&start=720#p119437 . The letter discusses reasoning that most of the sedimentary strata must have been deposited over a short time span by megatsunamis not many millennia ago.

I favor Charles Chandler's EU model instead of the Thunderbolts team's model. His model is much more thorough and well-reasoned. It's at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-5653-5660-6031 . He found that stars etc likely form from electrical recombination after ionization-caused charge separation, via implosions that produce mainly current-free electric double layers within stars, planets etc. So stars etc are storage batteries that slowly lose charge, instead of being loads on a circuit as in Thornhill's model, which lacks electric generators for the circuits.

Impacts are bolide collisions, not just electric discharges. But the bolides are highly charged and can cause E.D.'s etc. Tidal forces are also electrical. Both impacts and tidal forces caused megatsunamis, which produced the sedimentary rock strata. The Phanerozoic may have some fossils, e.g. pollen, I think. It may lack most fossils because the sediments may have formed before there was much life on Earth.

If you have counter-evidence for any of this, I'm always open to it and want to know about it.

Are you ready to discuss collaboration?

G'Day

8
CNPS Structured Discussion / CNPS Contacts
« on: May 08, 2017, 10:42:29 am »
Email String
"Akinbo Ojo" <taojo@hotmail.com>
"Bruce Nappi" <bnappi@a3ri.org>
"HARRY RICKER" <kc3mx@yahoo.com>
"ROGER ANDERTON" <r.j.anderton@btinternet.com>
"Don Briddell" <donbriddell@fieldstructure.org>
"Al McDowell" <almcd999@earthlink.net>
"Carl Littmann" <clittmann@verizon.net>
"Carl Reiff" <creiff@elgenwave.com>
"Cameron Rebigsol" <crebigsol@gmail.com>
"Christopher Provatidis" <cprovat@gmail.com>
"David Taylor" <dgtaylor@telusplanet.net>
"David Tombe" <sirius184@yahoo.com>
"Dennis Allen" <allens10@sbcglobal.net>
"Franklin Hu" <franklinhu@yahoo.com>
"Hartwig Thim" <hartwig.thim@jku.at>
"Harvey Fiala" <hefiala1934@gmail.com>
"IMontgomery52Private" <imontgomery52@atlasgas.com.au>
"Ivor Catt" <ivorcatt@gmail.com>
"Jeff Baugher" <jpbaughernps@gmail.com>
"Lou Ellen LaFollette" <rmlaf@comcast.net>
"Matthias Grabiak" <matthias.grabiak@gmail.com>
"Musa D. Abdullahi" <musandaji@gmail.com>
"Nick Percival" <npercival@snet.net>
"Pal Asija" <PalAsija@gmail.com>
"Phil Bouchard" <philippeb8@gmail.com>
"Rajendra Prajapati" <raju2180@gmail.com>
"Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@rcn.com>
"Roger Munday" <mundayroger@gmail.com>
"Roger Rydin" <rarydin@earthlink.net>
"Slobodan Nedic" <nedic.slbdn@gmail.com>
"X Baunes" <baunes@gmail.com>
"Yuri Keilman" <altsci1@gmail.com>
"A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kracklauer@web.de>
"james carter" <circlon@yahoo.com>
"cowani" <cowani@eircom.net>
"dgsasso@alice.it" <dgsasso@alice.it>
"Kay Scarborough" <dubuissonk@bellsouth.net>
"Jean de Climont" <jeandeclimont@yahoo.ca>
"John Middlemas" <john.middlemas@hotmail.com>
"julie haberle" <juleshaberle@yahoo.com>
"karl thompson" <karl.virgil.thompson@gmail.com>
"Mike ****" <mike.****.retired@gmail.com>
"Abridged Recipients" <npa-relativity@googlegroups.com>
"Osvaldo Domann" <odomann@yahoo.com>
"?e?t???? ?a?a???t?d??" <panaleft@gmail.com>
"Peter Whan" <peter.whan@landisgyr.com>
"Guy at Epola" <rgg@epola.co.uk>
"John Fiala" <servant@wt.net>
"sungenis@aol.com" <sungenis@aol.com>
"Stephen Crothers" <thenarmis@yahoo.com>
"verhey cornelis" <verhey.cornelis@gmail.com>
"relativity@grabiak.net" <relativity@grabiak.net>

NPA Contacts
NPA CLIMATOLOGY, GEOLOGY & EARTH EXPANSION Websites
(from http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12828 )
CLIMATOLOGY
Arteha, Sergey N. (Dr.) == http://www.antidogma.ru
Beaty, William J. == http://amasci.com
Chukanov, Kiril B. (Prof.) == http://www.chukanovenergy.com
Hayden, Howard C. (Dr.) == http://www.phys.uconn.edu/people/faculty/emeriti/hayden
Intini, Francesca (Dr.) == http://intini@fisica.uniba.it
Johnson, Claes (Prof.) == http://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com
Jonson, Jan Olof == http://jajo8088@student.su.se
Nichols, Bill D. == http://b.nichols@mchsi.com
Nott, Ronald == http://ron@nottltd.com
Osmaston, Miles F. == http://osmaston.org.uk
Taylor, Helen Look-Yat == http://discoveryofthecentury.webs.com
Tombe, Frederick David == http://sirius184@hotmail.com
Treat, Michael R. (Dr.) == http://TeslaScienceFoundation.org
 
GEOLOGY
Brady, Terry O. == http://teslatech.info
DeWitte, Roland == http://teslaphysics.com/DeWitte/index.htm
Gold, Thomas (Prof.) == http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold
Guy, Bernard (Prof.) == http://emse.fr~bguy
Haberle, Julie Ann == http://whoisyourcreator.com
Khaidarov, Karim Amen (Dr.) == http://bourabai.kz/index.html
Kolasa, Pawel == http://wiser.tv/physics
McCarthy, Dennis J. == http://4threvolt.com
Nahhas, Joe Alexander (Prof.) == http://worldsci.org
Osmaston, Miles F. == http://osmaston.org.uk
Scarborough, Alexander A. == http://alexscarborough.com
Setterfield, Barry John == http://setterfield.org
Taylor, Helen Look-Yat == http://discoveryofthecentury.webs.com
Wachspress, How == http://auditac.com

Big Bang: Akinbo Ojo, Bruce Nappi, Lloyd Kinder, Phil Bouchard
DarkMatter: Akinbo Ojo, Bruce Nappi, Lloyd Kinder, Phil Bouchard
Relativity: Akinbo Ojo, Phil Bouchard, Viraj Fernando
Gravity: Akinbo Ojo, Bruce Nappi, David Tombe, John Fiala, Lloyd Kinder
Radiometric: John Fiala, Lloyd Kinder
taojo@hotmail.com, hefiala1934@gmail.com, virajplf@yahoo.co.uk, sirius184@hotmail.com

Intini, Francesca (Dr.) intini@fisica.uniba.it
Jonson, Jan Olof jajo8088@student.su.se
Nichols, Bill D. b.nichols@mchsi.com
Nott, Ronald ron@nottltd.com
Tombe, Frederick David sirius184@hotmail.com
Treat, Michael R. (Dr.) info@TeslaScienceFoundation.org

b.nichols@mchsi.com
intini@fisica.uniba.it
jajo8088@student.su.se
info@TeslaScienceFoundation.org
ron@nottltd.com

Email String
af.kracklauer@web.de
allens10@sbcglobal.net
almcd999@earthlink.net
altsci1@gmail.com
baunes@gmail.com
bnappi@a3ri.org
circlon@yahoo.com
clittmann@verizon.net
cprovat@gmail.com
crebigsol@gmail.com
creiff@elgenwave.com
dgsasso@alice.it
dgtaylor@telusplanet.net
donbriddell@fieldstructure.org
dubuissonk@bellsouth.net
dynuionel@yahoo.com
franklinhu@yahoo.com
hartwig.thim@jku.at
hefiala1934@gmail.com
imontgomery52@atlasgas.com.au
ivorcatt@gmail.com
jeandeclimont@yahoo.ca
jimcasey@berkeley.edu
john.middlemas@hotmail.com
jpbaughernps@gmail.com
juleshaberle@yahoo.com
karl.virgil.thompson@gmail.com
matthias.grabiak@gmail.com
matthias@grabiak.net
mundayroger@gmail.com
musandaji@gmail.com
nedic.slbdn@gmail.com
npercival@snet.net
odomann@yahoo.com
PalAsija@gmail.com
panaleft@gmail.com
peter.whan@landisgyr.com
philippeb8@gmail.com
r.j.anderton@btinternet.com
raju2180@gmail.com
rarydin@earthlink.net
rgg@epola.co.uk
rmlaf@comcast.net
Robert.bennett@rcn.com
Ron.R.Hatch@outlook.com
servant@wt.net
sirius184@yahoo.com
Sungenis@aol.com
taojo@hotmail.com
thenarmis@yahoo.com
virajplf@yahoo.co.uk

cowani@eircom.net

b.nichols@mchsi.com; intini@fisica.uniba.it; jajo8088@student.su.se; info@TeslaScienceFoundation.org; ron@nottltd.com; af.kracklauer@web.de; allens10@sbcglobal.net; almcd999@earthlink.net; altsci1@gmail.com; baunes@gmail.com; bnappi@a3ri.org; circlon@yahoo.com; clittmann@verizon.net; cprovat@gmail.com; crebigsol@gmail.com; creiff@elgenwave.com; dgsasso@alice.it; dgtaylor@telusplanet.net; donbriddell@fieldstructure.org; dubuissonk@bellsouth.net; dynuionel@yahoo.com; franklinhu@yahoo.com; hartwig.thim@jku.at; hefiala1934@gmail.com; imontgomery52@atlasgas.com.au; ivorcatt@gmail.com; jeandeclimont@yahoo.ca; jimcasey@berkeley.edu; john.middlemas@hotmail.com; jpbaughernps@gmail.com; juleshaberle@yahoo.com; karl.virgil.thompson@gmail.com; matthias.grabiak@gmail.com; matthias@grabiak.net; mundayroger@gmail.com; musandaji@gmail.com; nedic.slbdn@gmail.com; npercival@snet.net; odomann@yahoo.com; PalAsija@gmail.com; panaleft@gmail.com; peter.whan@landisgyr.com; philippeb8@gmail.com; r.j.anderton@btinternet.com; raju2180@gmail.com; rarydin@earthlink.net; rgg@epola.co.uk; rmlaf@comcast.net; Robert.bennett@rcn.com; Ron.R.Hatch@outlook.com; servant@wt.net; sirius184@yahoo.com; Sungenis@aol.com; taojo@hotmail.com; thenarmis@yahoo.com; virajplf@yahoo.co.uk; cowani@eircom.net

9
Family & Friends / Read My Stuff
« on: April 23, 2017, 06:07:02 am »
EDUCATION: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn
Research professor, Peter Gray', blog Freedom to Learn at PsychologyToday.com exposes problems in the education system, such as extreme stress, and better ways to teach and learn.

HEALTH: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=28796.0
James Sloane was a doctor for 13 years, but got fed up when he wasn't allowed to provide patients real curative nutritional support when dying of cancer and other diseases, so he entered alternative health care. I'm listing his remedies at the link above.

Some of the worst health mistakes are:
_1. low-fat, high carb diet;
(higher natural fat, and low grain & sugar diet is best; sugar & honey are better than artificial sweeteners)
_2. using pain meds, which can cause organ failure etc;
(I'll list alternatives for pain at the link above)
_3. using antacids & other meds for indigestion
(drinking water & good diet are better for indigestion & acid reflux)
_4. getting constipated
(I finally learned that drinking enough good water prevents it; I have to drink almost 2 quarts of water a day; you can add honey etc, but I blend it with about 1.5 bananas per quart)
_5. not getting enough nutrition for adrenal & circulatory system support for stress & circulation
(get it from natural stable vitamin C in Amla Berry powder in capsules or Acerola Berry extract powder etc and B vitamins in Rice Bran)

SCIENCE: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=23835.0
I post some of the best science & tech news at that link. Some of the articles explain how a lot of conventional science is fraud. So it's best to be skeptical about all science claims. I'm working with others on improving science.
_There's no way to tell yet how old the Earth is.
_3/4 of continental land consists of sedimentary rock over a mile thick.
_Almost all of that rock was formed during a Great Flood over 4,000 years ago.
_At that time there was only one supercontinent without any mountains.
_The flood was caused by tidal attraction to a swarm of asteroids, which caused huge tsunamis.
_The tsunamis washed all of the sedimentary strata onto the supercontinent from the seafloors and the continental shelf over several months time.
_Many people around the world have different stories of a Great Flood.
_A few centuries after the Great Flood the largest asteroid of all hit the supercontinent just north of Madagascar, east Africa.
_The impact broke the supercontinent apart and caused the Americas, Australia, India and Antarctica to slide over the Moho layer to where they are now.
_It also caused the mountain ranges to form.
_Most scientists think the sedimentary rock strata formed slowly over millions of years.
_But sedimentary rock is separated into three kinds: sandstone, mudstone and limestone, each kind being usually many feet thick over large areas.
_How could there have been thousands of years of just one kind of sediment being deposited and then thousands of years of a different kind of sediment?
_The only proven way most sediments can be separated is in flooding over short timespans.
_Radioactive elements are used to date rocks incorrectly, because scientists assume that certain radioactive decay takes millions of years.
_But electrical ionization causes radioactive elements to decay millions of times faster than normal.
_The impact and continental sliding produced a lot of ionization.

POLITICS & ECONOMICS: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=63.0
I post a lot of articles at that forum a few times each month. Local community self-government is probably the best way to end corruption & provide opportunities for local people.

RELIGION: http://BILIB.webs.com
Everyone will be "saved" but not usually painlessly. Jesus said he's the good shepherd who goes after all lost sheep. The prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin almost certainly meant in the sign of the Virgin, which was Virgo, and he was born on Sept. 11, in Virgo. Look it up online. We're saved by following Jesus' example of loving or caring about everyone. That's what will save civilization IMO.

FAMILY TREE: Let me know if you want a copy of the Family Tree online. It needs to be updated, since it's mostly 20 years old.

10
CNPS Structured Discussion / CNPS General Discussion
« on: April 22, 2017, 01:20:31 pm »
Request New Forum Section
(from 9. CNPS Work Groups › CNPS Forum)
(04-19-2017, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 04-19-2017, 10:48 AM by Lloyd Kinder.)
I'd like to have a new forum section on Major Unexplained Science Facts & Alternative Models.

As an example, a major unexplained fact is that sedimentary rock strata are mostly separated over large areas into 3 major types, sandstone, claystone & limestone. Mainstream theory claims that the strata were deposited slowly over thousands and millions of years. But that would mean that over large areas only one type of sediment was deposited for many thousands of years, followed by many thousands of years of another type of sediment, etc. A better explanation is that the strata were separated during major flooding over very short time spans. (This would lead to the issue of radiometric dating, but there is a better explanation for that as well.)

Some other brief examples relate to universe expansion, black holes, quasars, neutron stars, science math, gravity, star and planet and galaxy formation etc, magnetic fields, chemistry, biology etc.

My idea is just to list everything briefly, including brief arguments, like with the first example above, and provide links to the best, more thorough discussions elsewhere, preferably in the CNPS Wiki.

Each unexplained fact could be given a name and listed alphabetically as well as by topic hierarchy.

-----

LK Ideas for Organizing a Wiki
(April 22 ca 10:30 AM)
1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
2. List Major Fields of Science
3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws for Main CNPS Wiki Topics

1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
The Scientific Method involves:
1.1. making accurate observations of reality;
--- [I just happened to notice that reality even includes things like imagination too.]
1.2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
1.3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
1.4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted [during testing];
1.5. publishing the experiment;
1.6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
1.7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
1.8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.
---
Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:
1.1. making inaccurate observations of reality;
1.2. making an untestable hypothesis;
1.3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
1.4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate notes;
1.5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
1.6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
1.7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
1.8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.
---
Human imperfection results in many experiments being done improperly, or reported on inaccurately, or suppressed unfairly. Sociology needs to study these problems and devise means to prevent abuse of science.

2. List Major Fields of Science
Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Catastrophism, Paleontology, Archeology, Mythology, Biology, Neurology, Psychology, Sociology, Parapsychology

3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws
(See Sample Wiki thread.)

-----

Paraphrasing Bruce's Forum/Wiki Ideas
[Prior note to Bruce:] I wanted to start working on a CNPS Wiki Outline, but I can't find anywhere on the CNPS forum, so I started doing it on my private forum at http://funday.createaforum.com/new-board/cnps-wiki-outline .

Here's my rephrasing of your suggestions for the CNPS structured forum, to be followed by my comments.
a. Tell readers the goal is to produce one or more papers and Wikis.
- Each would have multiple identified authors, comments, and possibly subjections.
- So the Wikis and papers would look like conventional academic material.
- Wiki members have a choice to create a Wiki in conventional Wiki format
or do it using my Word template then give it to a Wiki editor
LK Forum Request:
1. Name Major Science Flaws
2. & briefly describe the Flaws
3. & briefly describe the most promising alternative theories or facts
- For #1 have a separate thread for each significant flaw
- Compose a list of flaws
- Ask readers to submit other flaws &/or alternative theories
- Post each submitter’s name with their submissions- Edit & post flaws alongside proposed alternative theories
b. To structure the topic put it into the forum as 3 co-located threads.
ba. "Topic" - discussion (for unedited input, only lightly moderated);
bb. "Topic" - external inputs (for edited questions, challenges, clarifications and other stimulus to stimulate scientific discussion, containing only one or few posts);
bc. "Topic" - summary and coordination (for edited summaries to steer the discussion, with sections like:
what is the current point being discussed;
what are people hung up on;
what needs to be discussed;
what accomplishments have been made so far;
special assignments etc.
- Create an outline of the local discussion & put it in your “coordination” post. - Use Mark’s MIT MAP concepts:
Questions ( ? ),
Ideas ( lightbulb),
pros and cons (thumbs up and down ) etc.
- See the user guide I made for the MAP that shows all his features.
- Add in new heading functions as appropriate:
Lines just as general outline headings: e.g. “Physics – General Principles”;
Subheadings: e.g. “What have others said about this?” or “This is what the discussion has concluded so far on this point”

My comments: I'm willing to experiment with that idea, if you or we can get at least 2 or 3 people involved in trying it out. It seems a bit complicated and it's not clear what the payoff would be. I'm wanting to work on listing major science flaws and maybe asking others to contribute to the list, because the payoff would seem to be correcting major flaws and making them well-known and contributing to science progress, assuming a popular website can be developed.

Aether Lattice Holes Theory
LST: I started reading your LST yesterday & it seems a little promising. I don't understand how dislocations would have mass etc, but I'm open-minded. So far, LST doesn't seem likely to explain how atoms could spin. I favor the idea that electrons and neutrons are connected to protons and the whole atom has to be balanced in order to spin. And unbalanced atoms fly apart, which is radioactivity. I haven't read enough to see if you covered radioactivity etc.

DEMOCRACY:
A day or two ago I mentioned some of my work with Sociocracy, CNVC etc. Then synchronicity hit. One of the members of the group chat in 2006 from Sri Lanka emailed me last night saying he uses NVC in his social work and he wants to learn more by taking a class in Denmark in June. He said he's working with leaders of his country to try to prevent more war there, after the 25 year war that ended a few years ago. He said he lost many friends and relatives in the war. Your democracy proposal might be something they could benefit a lot from. It seems like it would work well, but have you considered how to persuade anyone to adopt it in the first place? Most people who run for public office seem to be mainly interested in how they can benefit just themselves and seldom seem much concerned about improving conditions for the public. CELDF seems to have some experience with the persuasion part by actually having gotten a number of communities to adopt some of their suggestions for local ordinances. I think CELDF also is trying to work with other countries too, so I guess I should contact them about my Sri Lanka friend. Should I also give him suggestions from you?

11
CNPS Structured Discussion / SAMPLE WIKI
« on: April 22, 2017, 10:53:01 am »
Wiki Planning Outline
The purpose of this thread is to discuss and help plan the CNPS Wiki for Science Improvement.

Plans for Organizing a Wiki
1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
2. List Major Fields of Science
3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws for Main CNPS Wiki Topics

1. Plans to Improve the Scientific Method
The Scientific Method involves:
1.1. making accurate observations of reality;
--- [I just happened to notice that reality even includes things like imagination too.]
1.2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
1.3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
1.4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted [during testing];
1.5. publishing the experiment;
1.6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
1.7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
1.8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.
---
Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:
1.1. making inaccurate observations of reality;
1.2. making an untestable hypothesis;
1.3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
1.4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate notes;
1.5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
1.6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
1.7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
1.8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.
---
Human imperfection results in many experiments being done improperly, or reported on inaccurately, or suppressed unfairly. Sociology needs to study these problems and devise means to prevent abuse of science.

2. List Major Fields of Science
Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Catastrophism, Paleontology, Archeology, Mythology, Biology, Neurology, Psychology, Sociology, Parapsychology

3. List Major Science Facts & Flaws
(This is a Suggested Wiki Outline)

(Give priority to flaws, shown with asterisks.)
Cosmology/Astronomy:
3.1- Universe
-Origin:
*Big Bang
*Creation
Eternal;
-Motion:
*Expansion
*Steady State
*Relativity
Spinning
Indeterminate
-Formation of 3.1-3.7:
*Gravitational
Electric
*Magnetic
Radiation
3.2- Uniweb
Great Voids
(The uniweb is the universal web of strings of galaxy clusters)
3.3- Galaxy Clusters
3.4- Galaxies
3.5- Galactic Bulge
Interstellar Medium
Galactic Halo
3.6- Star Clusters
Star Systems
Gas Clouds
3.7- *Black Holes
*Worm Holes
Stars
Ringstars
*Neutron Stars
Planets
Moons
Asteroids
Comets
Meteors
Physics/Chemistry:
3.8- Dust
Matter
Ions
Electric Discharge
Magnetism
Radiation
*Dark Matter
*Dark Energy
3.9- Space
Time
Motion
Aether
3.10 Earth Local Science:
Geology
*Uniformitarianism
Catastrophism
Paleontology
Archeology
*Mythology
3.11- Life - Biology
3.12- Consciousness - Neurology
3.13- Intelligence - Psychology & Philosophy
3.14- Society - Sociology
3.15- ESP - Parapsychology

12
Mike Messages / CHARLES CHANDLER
« on: April 03, 2017, 10:30:54 am »
Hi Charles. In late 2013 we were discussing how to improve science communication and science papers etc on the TB forum starting at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=14667&sid=2528a4cfbcee64c0794f9a1007e2f1a9&start=45#p90668 --- I rejoined the Natrual Philosophy group lately (naturalphilosophy.org) and was pleasantly surprised that they're working on sort of the same thing there now. They have a regular forum there, but they're working on a more structured forum, as well as an alternative science Wiki, based on ideas similar to Deliberatorium. The person most responsible for that work seems to be Bruce Nappi, who has worked with Mark Klein, the guy at MIT who was experimenting with developing Deliberatorium there. Bruce says he was able to find ways to make Delib. work by modifying it a lot, with Mark's blessing. So I've been in touch with Bruce by email for a couple days and I volunteered to help develop the CNPS structured forum and their Wiki and to invite others to help, like from the TB forum etc. I told Bruce about our TB forum discussion that I linked above and he was very impressed with your part of the discussion. I told him he'd probably benefit by registering on your website and that you're a software developer. Bruce seems to be pretty good as a webmaster, but I didn't ask him yet how much experience he has. He writes a lot online and has a business apparently. One of his topics in online articles is participatory democracy via internet communication. His ideas on that are very similar to mine. I favor supermajority rule, instead of simple majority, and he says we can have 100% majority rule, which is unanimous rule. So I want to work with him on that too.

I asked Bruce yesterday to add a new section to the forum for the Electric Universe. I said I'd like to have discussion of at least 4 models there, the EU team's, yours, Oliver Manuel's and Brant's. Maybe there should be one for Bob Johnson's too, come to think of it. I hope a lot of TB forum members will want to discuss there and that we can develop efficient ways to have debates that lead to sound science for the CNPS Wiki etc. I think you're especially interested in saving people's lives from natural disasters etc, so I hope your papers on earthquakes, volcanism, tornadoes etc will get proper exposure, both at NCGT.org and at CNPS to start with. CNPS is having a conference in Vancouver, BC around July 20. Deadlines for submitting papers is May 31. I hope you may like to submit one or more of your papers. I don't know if you'd want to go to Vancouver to read your paper, but, if not, I imagine they'd allow someone else to read it there for you. Dwardu Cardona lives in Vancouver.

I think John Casey and Dong Choi may be able to improve their methods for predicting earthquakes etc, if they can learn something from your papers. I've been working with Mike Fischer of NewGeology.us for a couple months or so on a paper on Catastrophism for NCGT. Since NCGT seems to mainly support Surge Tectonics, I wanted to understand that better, so Dong Choi suggested I read Meyerhoff's book on Surge Tectonics. Meyerhoff was his mentor. Below is part of what I wrote lately to Mike.

- In the quote below from the book, Surge Tectonics, you can see they say the surge channels form at the top of the Moho.
- Here from the book is a Surge Channels Map I found online:
http://www.huttoncommentaries.com/images/ECNews/HeatFlow/WorldHeatFlowMap750.jpg
- The Webpage which seems religious is: http://www.huttoncommentaries.com/article.php?a_id=93
- They say the surge channels are within those warm bands. Many are said to be active channels and some are inactive, which I think means solidified.
- 3.9.3 ROLE OF THE MOHOROVIC DISCONTINUITY
Thus, when the postulated tholeiitic picrite magma reachs the Moho- [rising from below] ([P-waves] ... between  8.0-km/s ... and 6.6-km/s ...), it has reached its level of neutral buoyancy and  spreads laterally. Under the proper conditions---abundant magma supply and  favorable crustal structure---a surge channel can form. We suggest the possibility  that the entire 7.0-7.8-km/s layer may have formed in this way. In support of this  suggestion, we note that the main channel of every surge channel studied, from the  Archean to the Cenozoic, is located precisely at the surface of the Moho-. This  indicates that the discontinuity is very ancient, perhaps as old as the Earth  itself. This fact and the great difference in P-wave velocities above and below the  Moho- surface suggest in turn that the discontinuity originated during the initial  cooling of the Earth.
- Here's a quote from the Conclusions section of the book.
9. Surge channels, active or inactive, underlie nearly every major feature of the  Earth's surface, including all rifts, foldbelts, metamorphic belts, and strike-slip  zones. These belts are roughly bisymmetrical, have linear surface swaths of faults,  fractures, and fissures, and belt-parallel stretching lineations. Aligned plutons,  ophiolites, melange belts, volcanic centers, kimberlite dikes, diatremes, ring  structures and mineral belts are characteristic. Zoned metamorphic belts are also  characteristic. In some areas, linear river valleys, flood basalts, and/or vortex  structures may be present. A lens of 7.8-7.0 km/s material always underlies the  belt.

End quotes. So I figure the surge channels likely formed as a result of the SD impact off east Africa. Wherever the crust, whether oceanic or continental, fractured severely, folded, etc, there was excess heat that produced the surge channels at the top of the Moho-. Since Choi already is favorable to the idea of Earth acting as an electrical battery, which one of NCGT's member groups wrote a paper on back around 2004, I think he and that group may be very impressed with your model. Louis Hissinck, one of NCGT's editors, who is also a member of the EU team who favors Thornhill's model at least somewhat, should be somewhat interested in your model too. Peter James is another contributor to NCGT who may have connections to the EU team. Anyway, does my idea about surge channels in the Moho- caused by the SD impact make sense to you? I know the Moho- probably would have existed before the impact, but they say it's a few km thick, whereas you say only about a meter of the thickness is caused by the tides. So I figure the extra thickness, if true, may have resulted from the impact. Got any comments?

13
Mike Messages / SURGE TECTONICS
« on: March 22, 2017, 09:24:31 am »
Surge Tectonics
CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Why a New Hypothesis?
1.2 Former & Current Concepts of Earth Dynamics
1.2.3 Mantle Convection
1.2.4 Earth Expansion
1.2.5 Vertical Tectonics
1.2.6 Zonal Rotation
1.2.7 Continental Drift, Polar Wandering
1.2.8 Seafloor Spreading and Plate Tectonics
1.2.9 Tectonostratigraphic Terraces
1.2.10 Wedge Tectonics
1.2.11 Plate Tectonics with Fixed Continents
1.2.12 Zipper Tectonics (Spiral Tectonics)
1.2.13 Viscous Flow Model
Chapter 2 Unraveling Earth History: Tectonic Dating Sets
2.1 Data Availability
2.2 New Data Acquisition
2.2.1 Submersibles and Deep-Sea Drilling
2.2.2 Sonography
2.2.3 Accurate Bathymetry
2.2.4 Seismotomography
2.2.5 Space Geology
2.2.6 Satellite Photography
2.2.7 Satellite Radar Altimetry
2.2.8 Radar Mapping of Venus
2.2.9 Other Techniques
2.3 Data Sets Unexplained in Current Tectonic Models: Foundation for a New Hypothesis
Chapter 3 Surge Tectonics
=3.2 Velocity Structure of the Earth's Outer Shells
3.2.1 Basic Framework
3.2.2 Continents Have Deep Roots
3.3 Contraction
3.3.2 Contraction Skepticism
3.3.3 Evidence For a Differentiated, Cooled Earth
3.4 Contraction as an Explanation of Earth Dynamics
3.5 Review of Surge and Related Concepts in Earth-Dynamics Theory
3.6 Geotectonic Cycle of Surge Tectonics
3.7 Pascal's Law---the Core of Tectogenesis
3.8 Evidence for the Existence of Surge Channels
3.8.1 Seismic-Reflection Data
3.8.3 Seismotomographic Data
3.8.4 Surface-Geological Data
3.8.5 Other Data
3.9 Geometry of Surge Channels
3.9.1 Surge-Channel Cross Section
3.9.2 Surge-Channel Surface Expression
3.9.3 Role of the Moho
3.9.4 Formation of Multitiered Surge Channels
3.10 Demonstration of Tangential Flow in Surge Channels
3.11 Mechanism for Eastward Surge
3.12 Classification of Surge Channels
3.12.2 Ocean-Basin Surge Channels
3.12.3 Continental-Margin Surge Channels
3.12.4 Continental Surge Channels
3.13 K Structures
3.14 Criteria for the Identification of Surge Channels
Chapter 4 Examples of Surge Channels
=4.1 Ocean-Basin Surge Channels
=4.2 Surge Channels of Continental Margins
4.3 Continental Surge Channels
4.4 Surge Channels in Zones of Transtension-Transpression
Chapter 5 The Tectonic Evolution of Southeast Asia - A Regional Application of the Surge-Tectonics Hypothesis
5.1 Surge Tectonic Framework
5.2 Surge-Tectonic History
Chapter 6 Magma Floods, Flood Basalts, and Surge Tectonics
6.2 Descriptions of Selected Continental Flood Basalt Provinces
6.3 The Use of Geochemistry in Identifying Flood Basalts
6.4 Geochemical Comparisons among Basalts Erupted in Different Tectonic Settings
6.5 Duration of Individual Basalt Floods
6.6 Flood-Basalt Provinces and Frequency in Geologic Time
6.7 Non-Basalt Flood Volcanism in Flood-Basalt Provinces
6.8 Flood Basalts or Magma Floods?
6.9 Surge-Tectonics Origin of Magma Floods
Chapter 7 Conclusions
APPENDIX

Chapter 3
SURGE TECTONICS
3.1 Introduction
Surge tectonics is a new hypothesis quite unlike previously proposed hypotheses, although many of its component parts are based on ideas long known. We believe the hypothesis provides a comprehensive and internally consistent explanation of all tectonic phenomena without the necessity of making unsupported assumptions or ad hoc explanations. We have found nothing that surge tectonics cannot explain in a simpler way than other tectonic hypotheses. Surge tectonics draws on well-known physical laws, especially those related to Newton's laws of motion and gravity. Fluid dynamics plays an important role in surge tectonics. (For more information on the laws we utilize, those mentioned in the text are defined in the Appendix; those withing more detail are referred to two standard physics textbooks by Sears et al. [1974] and Blatt [1983]. An excellent state-of-the-art fluid-dynamics text is that by Tritton [1998]).
 Surge tectonics is based on the concept that the lithosphere contains a worldwide network of deformable magma chambers (surge channels) in which partial magma melt is in motion (active surge channels) or was in motion at some time in the past (inactive surge channels). These surge channels play the role of the holes in the "hole-in-the-plate" problem ("elliptical hole problem") of civil and construction engineering, industrial engineering, and rock mechanics (..., 1913-1991). The presence of surge channels means that all of the compressive stress in the lithosphere is oriented at right angles to their walls. As this compressive stress increases during a given geotectonic cycle, it eventually ruptures the channels that are deformed bilaterally into kobergens (Fig. 2.15). Kobergens were named by Meyerhoff et al. (1992b) in honor of Austrian geologist, Leopold Kober (1921-1928). Kober observed that Alpide foldbelts have been bilaterally deformed with the northern ranges vergent toward Europe and the southern toward Africa (see Fig. 12 in M-b, 1992b). Thus, bilaterally deformed foldbelts in surge-tectonics terminology are called kobergens.
 Surge tectonics involves three separate but interdependent and interacting processes. The first process is the contraction or cooling of the Earth. The second is the lateral flow of fluid, or semifluid, magma through a network of interconnected magma channels in the lithosphere. We call these surge channels for reasons that will become apparent. The third process is the Earth's rotation. This process involves differential lag between the lithosphere and the strictosphere (the hard mantle beneath the asthenosphere and lower crust), and its effects--- eastward shifts---already discussed (Table 2.3). Because lithosphere compression caused by cooling is the mechanism that propels the lateral flow of fluid, or semifluid, magma through surge channels, we discuss first the velocity structure of the Earth's lithosphere and underlying layers, then the contraction hypothesis (Earth cooling), and then the effects of contraction on the Earth's outer shells.

3.2 Velocity Structure of the Earth's Outer Shells
3.2.1 BASIC FRAMEWORK
The Earth's outer shells (Fig. 3.1) consist of a "hard" lithosphere above a "soft" asthenosphere (..., 1896-1940). The interpreted seismic structure of these two shells is given in Table 3.1, which is based on Press (1966) and Iyer and Hitchcock (1989). The asthenosphere overlies another hard shell that Bucher (1956, ...) named the strictosphere. Its seismic characteristics (at least near the upper surface of the strictosphere) also are given on Table 3.1. Of these shells, the lithosphere is especially important because visible tectonic effects provide the principal clues to the origin of tectogenesis. It has not been too long, since the seismic structure of the crust and upper mantle became sufficiently well imaged to permit more than just educated guesses about it.
 Before 1958, when Revelle (1958) discovered a layer of material with a velocity of 7.3 km/s on the southern part of the East Pacific Rise, the lithosphere was perceived as consisting of 6.6-km/s crust overlying directly the 8.1-km/s mantle. What Revelle (1958) discovered was a lens or high-velocity crust, or low-velocity mantle, with a P-wave velocity of 7.0-7.8 km/s separating the "normal" crust above from the "normal" crust below. Similar lenses were found almost everywhere beneath the midocean ridge system (..., 1959-1965). By 1982, a similar lens of 7.0-7.8-km/s material was found beneath most of the Earth's rifts (Figs. 2.9, 3.2-3.8). Mooney et al. (1983) suggested that such lenses are a characteristic of extensional tectonic belts.
 During the 1970s, refraction shooting in the northern Appalachians discovered a similar 7.0-km/s lens under the Acadian (Devonian) foldbelt (..., 1980-1989; and Fig. 3.13). It was not long before identical lenses beneath foldbelts were identified in many parts of the world (Figs. 2.13, 2.18, 2.21, 3.9-3.14). Good images of these lenses were recorded on reflection -seismic lines used for deep continental and oceanic tectonic studies (Figs. 2.10, 2.11, 2.14, 3.15; ..., 1988). Figures 2.10 and 2.11, from the English Channel and southwestern Queensland respectively, are particularly good images of two of these lenses near the base of the continental crust.
 Mooney and Braile (1989), summarizing the present state of knowledge of the structure of the Earth's crust, inserted a 7.0-7.9-km/s lower crustal layer between the 6.6-km/s sialic crust above, and the 8.1-km/s mantle below. They showed the layer to be absent in places. In general, it is present beneath cratons, platforms, foldbelts, rift systems, and wrench-fault zones. Under cratonic areas the layer is 7-15 km thick; under tectonic belts it is thicker, ranging from 10-25 km. In many places the 7.0-7.9-km/s velocity is gradational with mantle velocities (>7.9 km/s). In these places, the Moho- is not a true discontinuity but a transition zone several kilometers thick (..., 1989). Areas were found also beneath ancient platforms and shields where the 7.0-7.8-km/s layer is up to 30 km thick. Examples include the Baltic Shield (3.5; ..., 1989) and parts of the Canadian Shield (..., 1989).
 The preceding suggests that the 7.0-7.8-km/s layer is distributed rather randomly, and that its thickness in a given area is a result of random processes. These conclusions are almost unavoidable if one tries to explain the distribution and thickness with any of the Earth-dynamics hypotheses published during the last century. In surge tectonics this apparent randomness of distribution and thickness is in part predictable.
 The origin of the 7.0-7.8-km/s layer almost certainly is closely related to the high reflectivities of the lower crust as described and illustrated by Klemperer et al. (1986), Klemperer (1987), Goodwin and Thompson (1988), Thompson and McCarthy (1990), and others (see Figs. 2.10, 2.11, 2.14, 3.15). We emphasize the fact that a lens (or lenses) or 7.0-7.8-km/s material underlies all of the microearthquake bands that we studied, and therefore, all of the high heat-flow bands shown on Figure 2.26.

3.2.2 CONTINENTS HAVE DEEP ROOTS   
An important aspect of upper mantle and crustal structure is that continental cratons have deep crustal roots (..., 1963-1996). Contrary to general belief (..., 1987a), continental roots are fixed to the strictosphere (..., 1985-1986). This conclusion is supported by large and increasing volumes of data, including neodymium and strontium studies of crustal rocks (..., 1979). The absence, or near-absence, of a low-velocity asthenosphere beneath ancient cratons led Lowman (1985, 1986) to propose an Earth-dynamics hypothesis of sea-floor spreading between fixed continents. In this hypothesis, if sea-floor spreading takes place, it is restricted to suboceanic regions. Thus, the deep roots of continents are a major obstacle to any hypothesis requiring continental movements (..., 1985-1990).
 An example of deep continental roots is presented in Figure 1.1, a seismotomographic cross section of North America. The dark shading beneath the Canadian Shield shows a root extending to 400-450 km (..., 1987). Similar deep roots are seen beneath part of all of the Earth's ancient cratons. In places, however, lenses of 7.0-7.8-km/s material containing low-velocity zones (Fig. 3.5) are present (..., 1989). Such lenses containing low-velocity layers postdate the establishment of the deep cratonic roots, as we show in subsequent sections.

3.3 Contraction
3.3.1 GENERAL
A discussion of the history and concept of contraction have been presented in Chapter 1 of this book. It will not be repeated here, but the interested reader is encouraged to review that discussion.

3.3.2 Contraction Skepticism
Many workers today either doubt that contraction is taking place or fail to see why the possibility should even be considered. Bott (1971, p. 270), expressing a common opinion, wrote that because of the success of plate tectonics in producing foldbelts, contraction now "...is irrelevant to tectonic problems." Two reviewers of the paper by Meyerhoff et al. (1992b) also expressed doubts that contraction can be taking place. However, one of them, K.B. Krauskopf (pers. comm., 1990), conceded that "...too little is known about what goes on in the [Earth's] interior for any definite statement to be made." He noted that MacDonald's (1959-1965a) models could easily be as sound today as they were in 1965 because "...not much more is known today..." about the concentration of radioactive elements in the Earth's interior.

3.3.3 Evidence For a Differentiated, Cooled Earth
The evidence is straightforward. The most salient facts follow.
 1. The Earth includes several concentric shells, which are explicable only if the Earth differentiated efficiently and at a much higher temperature than today.
 2. The outermost of these shells may be the oceanic crust whose thickness ranges from about 4-7 km. This crust is characterized by relatively constant thickness and fairly uniform seismic properties. Both Worzel (1965) and Vogt et al. (1969) observed that if the plate-tectonic explanation of ocean-crust generation is correct, it is a truly remarkable process that produces such a uniform layer in all ocean basins regardless of the spreading rate---1.2 dm/yr or 60 cm/yr. This uniformity is explained, however, if the oceanic crust is the outermost of the Earth's concentric shells. There are other explanations, one of which is discussed later.
 3. Mehnert (1969), among several, noted that the further back one looks into the geological record, the greater is the abundance of mafic rocks. This is explained if the lithosphere has been thickening through time by cooling, as Mehnert (1969) suggested.
 4. Miyashiro et al. (1982), reporting on studies of the Earth's metamorphic rocks, noted that Precambrian rocks show the highest geothermal gradients and that geothermal gradients of younger rocks generally decrease to the present time.
 5. A convincing evidence that huge segments of the lithosphere have been and are being engulfed by tangential compression is the existence of the previously discussed Verschluckungszonen (swallowing or engulfment zones) of Ampferer (1906) and Ampferer and Hammer (1911). In places along such zones, whole metamorphic and igneous belts that are characteristic of parts of a given foldbelt simply disappear for hundreds of kilometers along strike (e.g., Alps: ..., 1983; K...-S... foldbelt ..., 1973; New Zealand Alps ..., 1974: ...; southern California Transverse Ranges: ..., 1984). Figures 2.23-2.24 and 3.16-3.17 illustrate the characteristics of typical Verschluckungszonen. Although Mueller (1983), Humphreys et al. (1984), and other workers considered these features to be former subduction zones, this interpretation is difficult to defend because all of these zones, regardless of age, are near-vertical bodies (1) reach only the top or middle of the asthenosphere (150 to 250 km deep) and (2) do not deviate more than 10° to 25° from the vertical (..., 1983-1984).
 6. The antipodal positions of the continents and ocean basins mean that Earth passed through a molten or near-molten phase (..., 1907-1968). Such antipodal relations are unlikely to be a matter of chance or coincidence (..., 1968).
 7. Theory (..., 1970) and laboratory experiment (..., 1956) showed that heated spheres cool by rupture along great circles. Remnants of two such great circles (as defined by hypocenters at the base of the asthenosphere) are active today: the Circum-Pacific and Tethys-Mediterranean fold systems. The importance of Bucher's (1956) experiment to contraction theory, in which he reproduced the great circles, is little appreciated.
 8. As Earth cooled, it solidified from the surface downward. Because stress states in cooled and uncooled parts are necessarily opposite one another, compression above and tension below, the two parts must be separated by a surface or zone that Davison (1887) called the level of no strain (Fig. 3.2). We, as did Wilson (1954), equate the cooled layer with the lithosphere (Fig. 3.1). The uncooled part below is what Bucher (1956) called the strictosphere. Thus, as originally proposed by Scheidegger and Wilson (1950), Davison's (1887) level of no strain must be the asthenosphere, or a zone of no strain across which the change in stress states is gradual (Fig. 3.1). Only in a cooling Earth, which approximates a closed thermal system, can an asthenosphere form.
 9. Continued cooling deepens the asthenosphere and the upper surface of the strictosphere. The stresses accumulated through cooling are relieved episodically by rupture along the great-circle fractures that are the Earth's cooling cracks or the Benioff zones of current literature. Because the lithosphere is being compressed and the strictosphere subjected to tension, the mechanics of rupture should follow the Navier-Coulomb maxiumum shear-stress theory (..., 1962). Accordingly, the lithosphere Benioff zone must dip less than 45° to a tangent to the Earth's surface (in actual fact, it dips 22° to 44°, Figs. 2.36, 3.1). In contrast, the strictosphere Benioff zone must dip more than 45° to a tangent to the Earth's surface (50° to 75°, Figs. 2.36, 3.1). Benioff (1949, 1954) discovered the change in Benioff-zone dip from lithosphere to strictosphere, but Scheidegger and Wilson (1950) recognized these dips as an expression of the Navier-Coulomb maximum shear-stress theory (Figs. 2.36, 3.1). The dip values of the lithosphere and strictosphere Benioff zones confirm that the Earth is a cooling body. (Ritsema [1957, 1960], working independently, also discovered the abrupt dip changes in the dip of the Benioff zone with increasing depth.)
 An important fact concerning the Benioff zone is that the two segments, one in the lithosphere and the other in the strictosphere, do not necessarily form a single, continuous zone as depicted in diagrams and cross sections (e.g., Figs. 2.36, 3.1). Benioff (1949, 1954) found that the two segments of the Benioff zone, instead of joining near the base of the asthenosphere, may be offset for distances of 100 to 200 km (Fig. 3.18). In some places such as the Lesser Antilles arc, a strictosphere Benioff zone may not even be present below the lithosphere Benioff zone (e.g., Lesser Antilles and Scotia volcanic arcs). These facts are explained in our surge- tectonics hypothesis but not by other hypotheses. In fact, all detailed modern studies of hypocenter distribution in Benioff zones show the same clear division into a shallow, gently dipping lithosphere benioff zone and a deeper, steeply dipping strictosphere Benioff zone (Fig. 2.36; ..., 1973; ..., 1977).
 Ritsema's (1957, 1960) focal-mechanism studies of shallow, intermediate, and deep earthquakes showed that the Benioff-zone dip in the lithosphere is only half of its dip in the strictosphere. An even more significant discovery made by Ritsema (1957, 1960), although he attached little importance to it, was the revelation that earthquake foci above 0.03R (approximately 180 km depth) show mainly compression, whereas those below 0.03R show mainly tension. Most earthquakes above and below 0.03R, as Scheidegger (1963) also noted, have a strike-slip component. Thus Ritsema's findings lend support to Scheidegger and Wilson's (1950) interpretation of the Benioff zone as a manifestation of the Navier-Coulomb maximum shear-stress theory.
 10. Computer simulations of possible Earth thermal histories (...,1959, 1963; ..., 1961; Reynolds et al., 1966), using a broad spectrum of assumed initial temperatures and chemical compositions, show that the Earth is cooling (..., 1959-1966). The fact that Earth's Benioff zones still are active earthquake-generating zones provides strong support for this conclusion. Perhaps the strongest support comes from the Basalt Volcanism Study Project (1981) report by 101 petrologists, mineralogists, and petrographers, who wrote that the repeated extrusion of basalt to the Earth's surface through its history is proof of the Earth's long history of cooling.
 11. Finally, the existence of Verschluckungszonen in the lithosphere and upper mantle also constitutes evidence that the Earth is actively cooling. Verschluckungszonen are interpreted by us to be large masses of lithosphere and upper mantle that were downbuckled into the upper mantle during tectogenesis as the lithosphere readjusted its shape to fit the underlying, cooling strictosphere (Figs. 2.24, 3.16-3.17). If this interpretation is correct, the existence of Verschluckungszonen may constitute proof that the Earth has been cooling to the present day. We discuss Verschluckungszonen in a subsequent section.

3.4 Contraction as an Explanation of Earth Dynamics
3.4.1 CONTRACTION ACTING ALONE
Despite the attraction of a cooling Earth, both Scheidegger (1963) and Bott (1971) concluded that contraction acting alone is inadequate to produce the crustal shortening measured in Earth's many tectonic belts. For both geological and seismological reasons, this conclusion appears to be well-founded. They gave several reasons; three of which and one of our own are crucial.
 1. The total amount of shortening measured across the Earth's foldbelts far exceeds what can be inferred on theoretical grounds, whether one uses the contraction model of MacDonald (1963) or of Jeffreys (1970). Even if one accepts Bucher's (1955...; 1956...) outstanding demonstration that apparent (measured) shortening can be and generally is four to five times true shortening, the contraction hypothesis cannot explain all true shortening in foldbelts. (Lyttelton's [1982] theoretical estimate of 2,000 km of shortening adequately explained the measured shortening, but his hypothesis requires cataclysmic geological events that need to be sought in the field.)
 2. Contraction alone is unable to explain the origins of all types of tectonic belts---compressional foldbelts, tensional rift zones (including midocean ridges), and strike-slip zones.
 3. Ritsema (1957, 1960) and Scheidegger (1963) observed that earthquake first- motion studies show that strike-slip motions are most common in Benioff zones, not just in strike-slip and rift zones. Contraction alone cannot explain the ubiquitous strike-slip component.
 4. Contraction theory requires that foldbelts are concentrated in and adjacent to oceanic trenches. This is not observed. More than 50% of the Earth's foldbelts lie at great distances from the surface trace of a Benioff zone, and all Jurassic- Cenozoic foldbelts lie within the high heat-flow bands illustrated on Figure 2.26. This cannot be explained by any Earth-dynamics hypothesis yet proposed. However, if contraction could lead to tectogenesis of large parts of the lithosphere far removed from Benioff zones, the preceding objections to the contraction hypothesis would be irrelevant.

3.4.2 CONTRACTION ACTING AS THE TRIGGER FOR TECTOGENESIS
Figure 2.26, as we have discussed, portrays the bands of high heat flow that crisscross the Earth's surface. We believe that this reticulate network of high heat-flow bands is underlain by a network of interconnected magma chambers. In our surge-tectonics hypothesis, these magma chambers are the mantle diapirs discussed in preceding sections and summarized in part in Table 2.1. Figure 2.26 indicates that these mantle diapirs, or magma chambers, are interconnected. The interconnected channels comprise the surge channels of surge tectonics. If the hot material in these channels is sufficiently mobile, lateral flow through them should be possible provided a pressure gradient is present. The compression already present in the lithosphere would provide the force needed to initiate and maintain flow. We emphasize that such flow would be temporally discontinuous (.i.e., episodic) and, when it did occur, would be extremely slow. Flow velocities are discussed later.
 We have pointed out that in a cooling Earth, the lithosphere by definition is everywhere and at all times in a state of compression (Fig. 3.1; ..., 1887-1982). The compression is concentrated in planes tangent to the Earth's surface, and is equal in all directions. James C. Meyerhoff (pers. comm., 1988) called this equiplanar tangential compression, and this compression in the lithosphere is what Bucher (1956) referred to (incorrectly) as all-sided compression.
 The only elements in the lithosphere that disturb this approximately equiplanar tangential stress state are the surge channels. Flow can take place in these channels wherever a pressure gradient develops. For example, the escape of lava from a channel lowers the pressure at that point, and equiplanar compression, acting at right angles to the surge-channel walls, mobilizes the fluid elements inside the channel until pressure equilibrium is restored. The presence above active channels of channel-parallel fault, fracture, and fissure systems indicates that (1) flow takes place along the full length of each tectonic belt and (2) the channels are in communication with the Earth's surface through the fault-fracture- fissure system.
 Surge channels and their fault-fracture-fissure systems constitute zones of weakness in the lithosphere. Because (1) the channels are the only bodies in the lithosphere that, owing to their potential to contain mobile fluids, they have the capacity to upset the state of equiplanar tangential compression, and because (2) they are constantly losing their contents to the surface lithosphere compression ultimately destroys them. Their deformation and ultimate destruction are the essence of tectogenesis. Thus the cooling process in the Earth's strictosphere effectively guarantees the presence within the lithosphere of a powerful mechanism for tectogenesis.

3.5 Review of Surge and Related Concepts in Earth-Dynamics Theory
Several workers proposed, on both theoretical and geological-geophysical grounds, the presence of bodies similar to surge channels in the lithosphere. Others developed concepts much like those that are the basis for surge tectonics.

3.5.1 SURGE CHANNELS
Our study of this topic was by no means exhaustive, we may have missed important references that deal with the concept of surge-channel-like edifices in the lithosphere and uppermost mantle. A particularly good example of a surge-channel- like feature was proposed by Vogt (1974) for the Iceland region, including the Kolbeindey, Reykjanes, and Faeroe-Greenland ridges. He wrote (...), "In the model I assume there is a pipe-like region below the spreading axis, extending subhorizontally away from a plume such as Iceland.... This mid-oceanic pipe extends from the base of the axial lithosphere, about 5 or 10 km deep, down to maximum depths (30 to 50 km?) from which basalt melts segregate and rise. Tholeiitic fluids would be released from the entire pipe; origin depths of 23 km for the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and 16 km for the East Pacific Rise ... Would approximate depth to the center ot the pipe. The ultrabasic mush in this pipe is assumed to be flowing away from the hot spot at a rate determined by pipe diameter, viscosity, and horizontal pressure gradient...." Vogt (1974) estimated that flow ranged laterally outward from Iceland from 500 to 600 km. A similar study by Gorshkov and Lukashevich (1989) suggested that channels are present beneath the full length of the midocean ridge system. According to them, flow beneath the Mid-Atlantic Ridge would be from hot spots located beneath Antarctica in the south and Iceland in the north, with the two flows converging near the equator.
 Other midocean ridges where some type of axis-parallel flow and/or rift propagation have been postulated include the Juan de Fuca Ridge (..., 1975) and the Galapagos Rift (..., 1977). After the discovery of systematic segmentation along the midocean ridges beginning with the East Pacific Rise (..., 1982), Lonsdale, MacDonald, Fos, and others commenced a series of investigations that led to a general postulate of ridge-parallel flow in the midocean ridges (..., 1988-1989). Macdonald et al. (1988) proposed that mantle diapirs rise beneath the centers of each ridge segment, thereby accounting for the greater elevations of the central parts of such segments. From the crest, ridge-parallel lateral flow commences. Such flow halts in the depressed areas between adjacent segments because of mutual impingement.
 Sonographs of the midocean ridges show that the Macdonald et al. (1988) hypothesis is not tenable. Where the diapirs rise in the centers of the ridge segments, radial and/or annular structures should be present. Where the flows from adjacent segments impinge, compressional structures should be present. Neither structural form is observed. Instead, linear fractures and faults extend for hundreds of kilometers along strike, with interruptions only at transform faults, we traced individual fault traces through the fault zone from one ridge segment to the next, which negates the Macdonald et al. (1988) hypothesis.
 Surge-channel, or interconnected mantle-diapir systems have been reported from small oceanic basins and continental areas. A well-known example of the former is the Tyrrhenian Sea west of Italy, where geophysical techniques and very high heat flow show the presence of a very large diapir-like body at shallow depths (..., 1988).
 Among continental examples, the Fergana Valley in Soviet Central Asia is the best documented Kuchay and Yeryemin (1990) discovered a very large pipelike body, or channel, below this large east-west-striking late Cenozoic structural depression nestled among the western ranges of the Tian Shan. In their summary (p. 45), Kuchay and Yeryemin concluded: "Interpretation and interpolation of geophysical data from the [Fergana Valley] lead to the conclusion that the base of the 'granitic' layer undergoes partial melting, as a consequence of which there forms a layer of lowered viscosity that has been identified seismically as a zone of reduced velocity above the Conrad discontinuity. It is possible to consider this zone as a 'granitic' asthenochannel, a subhorizontal layer that has a high strain rate and in which relative lateral displacement takes place between the contents of the asthenochannel and the surrounding rock layers. The absence of a gravity anomaly, which is an indication of variations in thickness and other properties within the zone of reduced velocity, suggests that the 'granitic' layer and the 'granitic' asthenochannel have the same density."

3.5.2 USE OF THE SURGE CONCEPT IN TECTONICS
We have found three parallel and presumably independent derivations of the surge- tectonics concept. The most recent of these originated with Hollister and Crawford (1986) who used "tectonic surge" to describe rapid vertical uplift in the structural core of a bilaterally deformed foldbelt (i.e., in the center of what we call a kobergen). Hollister and Crawford (1986, ...) opined that "Weakening of the crust [by] anatexis and accompanying development of melt-lubricated shear zones..." is essential to rapid vertical uplift. Paterson et al. (1989, ...) referred to this type of tectonics as surge tectonics. Tobisch and Paterson (1990) used this term in two or three areas of southeastern Australia. Their usage is close to our own.
 The third and, as far as we can determine, oldest use of the term in tectonics in recent literature was by Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff (1977). They proposed that asthenosphere surges (1) from beneath the Asian continent, (2) between North and South America, and (3) between South America and Antarctica produced the eastward- facing island arcs in the three regions. The idea was used subsequently to explain the complexities of Caribbean tectonics (..., 1990). Morris et al. (1990) used the term surge tectonics (coined by Bruce D. Martin). The paper was written during 1987-1988 and was submitted to and accepted by the Geological Society of America in 1988. Regardless, the Paterson et al. (1989) use of the term in print precedes by five months that by Meyerhoff et al. (1989). The term surge tectgonics is used in this book in the same sense that it was employed by Taner and Meyerhoff (1990).

3.6 Geotectonic Cycle of Surge Tectonics
The asthenosphere alternately expands (during times of tectonic quiescence) and contracts (during tectogenesis). Thus, when the asthenosphere is expanding, the surge channels above it, which are supplied from the asthenosphere, also are expanding; and when tectogenesis takes place, the magma in the surge channels is expelled. Tectogenesis is triggered by collapse of the lithosphere into the asthenosphere along the 30° -dipping lithosphere Benioff zones. The following is Meyerhoff et al.'s (1992b) interpretation of the approximate sequence of events during a geotectonic cycle (Fig. 3.19).
 1. The strictosphere is always contracting, presumably at a steady rate, because the Earth is cooling.
 2. The overlying lithosphere, because it is already cool, does not contract, but adjusts its basal circumference to the upper surface of the shrinking strictosphere by (1) large-scale thrusting along the lightosphere Benioff zones, and (2) normal- type faulting along the strictosphere Benioff zones. These two types of deformation, one compressive and the other tensile, are complementary and together constitute an example of the Navier-Coulomb maximum shear stress theory (..., 1962 -1979).
 3. The large-scale thrusting of the lithosphere is not a continuous process, but occurs only when the lithosphere's underlying dynamic support fails. That support is provided mainly by the softer asthenosphere and frictional resistance along the Benioff fractures. When the weight of the lithosphere overcomes the combined resistance offered by the asthenosphere and Benioff-zone friction, lithosphere collapse ensues. Because this process cannot be perfectly cyclic, it must be episodic; hence tectogenesis is episodic.
 4. During the anorogenic intervals between lithosphere collapses, the asthenosphere volume increases slowly as the strictosphere radius decreases (Fig. 3.19). The increase in asthenosphere volume is accompanied by decompression in the asthenosphere.
 5. Decompression is accompanied by rising temperature, increased magma generation, and lowered viscosity in the asthenosphere, which gradually weakens during the time intervals between collapses.
 6. Flow in the asthenosphere is predominantly eastward as a consequence of the Earth's rotation (Newton's Third Law of Motion; ..., 1977). Magma flow in the surge channels above the asthenosphere also tends to be eastward, although local barriers may divert flow in other directions for short distances. Coriolis force also must exert an important influence on asthenosphere and surge-channel flow, which by its nature is Poiseuille flow. Therefore, the flow at the channel walls is laminar and is accompanied by viscous, or backward drag. The viscous drag produces the swaths of faults, fractures, and fissures (streamlines) that are visible at the surface above all active tectonic belts. These bands or swaths are examples of Stoke's Law (one expression of Newton's Second Law of Motion).
 7. During lithosphere collapse into the asthenosphere, the continentward (hanging wall) sides of the lithosphere Benioff zones override (obduct) the ocean floor (..., 1906-1911). The entire lithosphere buckles, fractures, and founders. Enormous compressive stresses are created in the lithosphere.
 8. Both the lithosphere and the strictosphere fracture along great circles at the depth of the strictosphere's upper surface, as predicted by theory (..., 1959-1976) and demonstrated in the laboratory (..., 1956). Only two partial great circle fracture zones survive on the Earth today. These include the fairly extensive, highly active Circum-Pacific great circle and the almost defunct Tethys- Mediterranean great circle.
 9. When the lithosphere collapses into the asthenosphere, the asthenosphere- derived magma in the surge channels begins to surge intensely. Wherever the volume of the magma in the channels exceeds their volumetric capacity, and then compression in the lithosphere exceeds the strength of the lithosphere that directly overlies the surge channels, the surge-channel roofs rupture along the cracks that comprise the fault-fracture-fissure system generated in the channel by Poiseuille flow before the rupture. Rupture is bivergent, whether it forms continental rifts, foldbelts, strike-slip zones, or midocean rifts. The foldbelts develop into kobergens, some of them alpinotype and some them germanotype. The tectonic style of a tectonic belt depends mainly on the thickness and strength of the lithosphere overlying it (Fig. 3.19).
 10. Tectogenesis generally affects an entire tectonic belt and, in fact, may be worldwide; the worldwide early to late Eocene tectogenesis is an example (M-b, 1992b) This indicates that the lithosphere collapse that generates tectogenesis transmits stresses everywhere in a give belt at the same time. Thus Pascal's Law is at the core of tectogenesis. Sudden rupture and deformation of surge channels may therefore be likened to what happens when someone stamps a foot on a full tube of toothpaste. The speed or rapidity of tectogenesis, then, is related to the number of fractures participating in the event, as well as to the thickness of lithosphere involved, the size of the surge channel or surge-channel system, the volume and types of magma involved, and related factors.
 11. Once tectogenesis is completed, another geotectonic cycle or subcycle sets in, commonly within the same tectogenic belt.

3.7 Pascal's Law---the Core of Tectogenesis
Pascal's Law (or theorem) states that pressure applied to a confined liquid at any point is transmitted undiminished through the fluid in all directions and acts upon every part of the confining vessel at right angles to its interior surfaces and equally upon equal areas. This law applies in part to all fluids, but wholly to Newtonian fluids; it is the principle behind every hydraulic machine, notably the hydraulic press. A most important condition of Pascal's Law is that the pressure (force per unit area) acts equally upon equal areas. This condition lies at the very core of tectogenesis.

The Earth, according to our surge-tectonics hypothesis, is a very large hydraulic press. Such a press consists of three essential parts: a closed vessel, the liquid in the vessel, and a ram or piston. The collapse of the lithosphere into the asthenosphere is the activating ram or piston of tectogenesis. The asthenosphere and its overlying lithospheric surge channels---which are everywhere connected with the asthenosphere by vertical conduits---are the vessels that enclose the fluid. The fluid is magma generated in the asthenosphere. The magma fills the lithosphere channels. When the piston (lithosphere collapse) suddenly compresses the channels and the underlying asthenosphere, the pressure is transmitted rapidly and essentially simultaneously through the worldwide interconnected surge-channel network; the surge channels burst and the tectogenesis is in full swing. The compression everywhere of the asthenosphere compensates for the fact that the basaltic magma of the surge channels is non-Newtonian.

A possible objection to this simple picture of tectogenesis is that the sudden application of pressure against the surge channels would consolidate the magma in the channels, and thereby prevent the bursting of the channel roof. This would be true if the channels had no communication with the surface at the onset of tectogenesis, but this is not the case. As Meyerhoff et al. (1992b) noted, the channels are connected to the surface by swaths of belt-parallel faults, fractures, and fissures.

A second possible ofjection is that the magma in surge channels is non-Newtonian; i.e., it is too viscous to transmit the added stress to all of the interconnected parts of the surge-channel system. This objection would be valid for a tectonic model in which the added stress is applied only at a single point in the system. In a contracting Earth, however, compression in the lithosphere is omnipresent. Hence, the added stress is applied everywhere along the interconnected lithosphere channels so that the viscosity argument is invalid; the added stress is being applied at an infinite number of points in the system. As shown in Figure 3.19, the thickness of the lithosphere overlying each channel is extremely important, because the thickness determines the resulting tectonic style of the channel during tectogenesis---rift valley, germanotype foldbelt, alpinotype foldbelt, midocean rift, and so forth.

Although Pascal's Law applies to all tectonic settings, it is especially important in midocean ridge systems. The law states that pressure applied to a confined liquid acts equally on equal areas of the walls of the confining vessel. The surge channels beneath midocean ridges can be thousands of kilometers wide. Hence, they are much larger than their continental-margin and continental counterparts. Morevoer, the lithosphere above midocean ridges is only 10 to 15 km thick, less than half of the thickness found in a continent-margin/continental setting. This means that the total force acting on the walls of a midocean-ridge surge channel is vastly greater than in any other setting. Thus, during tectogenesis, midocean ridges presumably rupture throughout their lengths and across widths far greater than those of continental surge channels, thereby producing veritable magma floods on the ocean floors. If one keeps in mind the fact that the most massive Phanerozoic continental flood volcanism took place from Late Permian through Middle Jurassic time (...), such magma flooding in the oceans during the same time interval would account for the fact that the oldest basalts thus far penetrated by deep sea dirlling beneath the abyssal plains are Middle Jurassic. On the midocean ridges themselves, however, basalts older than Middle Jurassic are common (Meyerhoff et al., 1992a).

3.8 Evidence for the Existence of Surge Channels
3.8.1 SEISMIC-REFLECTION DATA   
As noted above, reflection-seismic techniques (...) have shown that the continental crust of the upper lithosphere is divisible in a very general way into an upper moderately reflective zone and a lower highly reflective zone (...). Closer scrutiny of the newly-acquired data soon revealed the presence in the lower crust of numerous cross-cutting and dipping events. When many of these cross-cutting events were preceived to be parts of lens-like bodies, various names sprang up: .... Strictly nongenetic names include lenses, lenticles, lozenges, and pods (...). Finlayson et al. (1989) found that the lenses have P-wave velocities of 7.0-7.8 km/s, commonly with a low-velocity zone in their middle. Thus we equate the lenses with the pods of "anomalous lower crust" and "anomalous upper mantle" that we discussed in a preceding section. Klemperer (1987) noted that many of the lenses are belts of high heat flow. Hyndman and Klemperer (1989) observed that the lenses generally have very high electrical conductivity.

Meyerhoff et al. (1992b) discovered that there are two types of undeformed reflective lenses, and that many of these lenses have been severely tectonized. The first type of lens is transparent in the middle (Fig. 3.29); the second type is reflective throughout (Fig. 2.11). Tectonized lenses also may have transparent interiors, or parts of interiors; many, however, are reflective throughout (Fig. 3.21). Where transparent zones are present (Fig. 3.20), bands of high heat flow, bands of microearthquakes, belts of high conductivity, and bands of faults, fractures, and fissures are present. Where a transparent layer is not present, high heat flow and conductivity, however, are commonly still present. Meyerhoff et al. (1992b) also found that lenses with transparent interiors are younger than those without transparent interiors; moreover, there is a complete spectrum of lenses from those with wholly transparent interiors to those without.

The best explanations of thes observations are that (1) the lenses with transparent interiors are active surge channels with a low-velocity zone sandwiched between two levels of 7.0 to 7.8 km/s material; (2) the lenses with reflective interiors are former surge channels now cooled and consisting wholly of 7.0 to 7.8 km/s material; and (3) the tectonized lenses are either active or former surge channels since converted into kobergens by tectogenesis.

3.8.2 SEISMIC-REFRACTION DATA
After Revelle (1958) discovered the presence of a body of 7.0-7.8 km/s material on midocean ridges (the East Pacific Rise), a similar body was discovered on the Mid- Atlantic Ridge, and the general lens shape was reported for the first time (...). Subsequently Talwani et al. (1965) combined gravity and seismic data, and detailed the lens shape of the surge channel across the entire Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Fig. 2.27). Fuchs and Landismann (1966) found a similar but much smaller lens beneath the Upper Rhine graben with a P-wave velocity of 7.6 km/s. Now such a 7.0-7.8-km/s lens is known to underlie every well-sutdied tectonic belt, regardless of tectonic origin. Figure 3.6 shows a 7.0-7.8-km/s lens under the northern Appalachians (...). Meyerhoff et al. (1992a, 1992b) summarized the worldwide evidence for the presence of such lenses under every type of tectonic belt. These same authors showed that the lenses under older tectonic belts contain no low-velocity zone, but that lenses in younger tectonic belts contain low-velocity zones.

3.8.3 SEISMOTOMOGRAPHIC DATA
Seismotomographic data, wherever detialed studies have been made, indicate that the lenses seen in seismic-refraction and seismic-reflection studies form an interconnected, reticulate network in the lithosphere. Although only one highly detailed seismotomographic study has been made on a continental scale---this in China, it leaves no room for doubt that the 7.0-7.8-km/s lenses with transparent interiors and the seismotomographically detected low-velocity channels in the lithosphere are one and the same (...). Figure 2.31 shows the active surge channels at a depth of about 50 km in southwestern China. Figure 3.9 is a seismotomographic cross section to a depth of 300 km across the Yunnan surge channel shown in Figure 2.31. Figure 3.14 is a more detailed cross section (above a depth of 65 km) of the central part of Figure 3.9. Velocity data from refraction surveys have been added. The 7.6-7.9 km/s layer below 50 km is the Yunnan surge channel shown in Figure 2.31; the low-velocity layer between 22 and 44 km (5.4-6.0 km/s) is a part of the Yunnan surge-channel complex (...). Using seismotomographic techniques, it will be possible to map active surge channels over the world with comparative ease. The reader should note that Figure 3.22 shows a seismotomographic image of the active kobergen of the Hengduqn Shan-Shaluli Shan that overlies the Yunnan surge channel, a further demonstration of the validity of our tectonic interpretation.

3.8.4 SURFACE-GEOLOGICAL DATA
Direct evidence for the existence of surge channels comes from tectonic belts themselves, and from one type of magma flood province. The latter include rift igneous rocks that crop out nearly continuously for their full lengths. Examples include the rhyodactic Sierra Madre Occidental-Sierra Madre del Sur extrusive and intrusive belt of Mexico and Guatemala, some 2,400 km long; the 1,600-km-long Sierra Nevada-Baja California batholith belt; the 4,000-km+ batholith and andesite belt of the Andes south of the equator; the 4,000-km-long Okhotsk-Chukotka silicic volcanic belt; the 5,800-km-long Wrangellia linear basaltic province extending from eastern Alaska to Oregon, which erupted in less than 5 Ma; and many other similar continental magma belts. The ocean basins are equally replete with them, ranging from the 60,000-km-long midocean ridge system through the 5,800-km-long Hawaiian- Emperor island and seamount chain to many similar belts of shorter lengths. Geochemical studies also show that most of these belts are interconnected. Another linear flood-basalt belt, which has been studied only relatively recently, is the subsurface Mid-Continent province that extends 2,400 km from Kansas through the Great Lakes to Ohio (Figs. 3.23, 3.24).

3.8.5 OTHER DATA
Other data mentioned in the preceding sections corroborate the interconnection of active surge channels. One of these is the coincidence of the 7.0-7.8-km/s lenses of the active surge channels (Figs. 2.9, 2.31, 3.6, 3.9, 3.14, 3.20) with the belts of high heat flow (Fig. 2.26) and with belts of microseismicity. Both the presence of high heat flow and microseismicity indicate that magma is moving within active surge channels.

However, an even more dramatic example is the June 28, 1992, Landers, California, earthquake-related activity shown on Figure 3.25. This figure shows that the 7.5- magnitude earthquake was strong enough to affect areas up to 1,250 km from the epicenter (...) and provides an exampole of Pascal's Law in action. Given the importance of Pascal's Law in surge-channel systems, the fact should be noted that the viscosity of the magma in the surge channels affected by the Landers event is sufficiently low that, when the stress was applied at a single hypocentral point (Landers), the effects could still be transmitted for 1,250 km!

3.9 Geometry of Surge Channels
3.9.1 SURGE-CHANNEL CROSS SECTION
In cross sections, surge channels have a variety of shapes, and are of many sizes and depths within the lithosphere (M-a). Two models proposed for sill-and-laccolith complexes may be ideal representation of surge-channel complexes because, despite the differences in scale, the same physical principles apply. Corry (1988) published the "Christmas Tree" model shown in Figure 2.8; Bridgwater et al. (1974) published the more complex model shown in Figure 3.26. Either of these could be cross sections of surge channels. Both are multitiered with one or more magma chambers above the main chamber. Both are formed on the basis of Newton's Law of Gravity or, more specifically, the Peach-Kohler climb force (...).

Seismotomographic images are available from hundreds of surge channels in different parts of the world. They are complex structures as Figures 3.9 and 3.27 demonstrate. Figure 3.27 is a tracing of a seismotomographic image of the multitiered Yunnan surge channel (Fig. 2.31 ...). It is also quite large for a continental channel.

Figure 3.23 shows a partly deformed ("kobergenized") inactive Proterozoic surge channel that underlies the Midcontinent Rift of central North America (...). A surge-tectonic structural interpretation is shown on Figure 3.24. The figures show that the channel before deformation consisted of a large lower chamber at the Moho-, and a smaller, higher chamber at about 20 km. Kobergenic structure developed during tectogenesis (Fig. 3.24). The P-wave velocity in the channel is 7.0 to 7.2 km/s, and the top of the channel extends to within 10 km of the surface. The Midcontinent Rift was a major flood-basalt province of 1,100 Ma.

3.9.2 SURGE-CHANNEL SURFACE EXPRESSION
Study of Figures 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 2.31, 3.6, 3.9, 3.13, 3.14, 3.20, 3.23 and 3.24 might lead one to believe that surge channels are everywhere fairly simple structures expressed at the surface by a single belt of earthquake foci, high heat flow, bands of faults-fractures-fissures (streamlines), and related phenomena which, during tectogenesis, deform into a single kobergen. Although this simple picture is true of many kobergens, it is not true of all. Study of Figures 3.26 and 3.27 suggests that, during tectogenesis of the surge-channel complexes shown on these figures, two or more parallel kobergens may exist at the surface. Such a complex surface expression is in fact quite common. Well-documented examples are found in the Western Cordillera of North America, the Mediterranean-Tethys orogenic belt (including the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau), and the Andes, inter alia. Within the Western Cordillera, the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, and the Andes, we have found four or more parallel kobergens side by side at the surface as documented and illustrated by Meyerhoff et al. (1992b).

3.9.3 ROLE OF THE MOHOROVIC DISCONTINUITY
The principal forces acting on the lithosphere are compression, rotation, and gravity. We have discussed the first two briefly and now endeavor to describe gravity's role in lithosphere development.

Gravity controls the depths of all magma chambers which, because the Earth cools at the asthenosphere level, have to be in the upper asthenosphere and lithosphere. The mantle above the asthenosphere is believed to be peridotite from which basalt has already been extracted (Ringwood, 1979). It has a P-wave velocity just below the Moho- greater than 7.9-8.0 km/s. The oceaenic crust above the Moho- has been assumed until very recently to have a P-wave velocity of 6.8 km/s and less; the continental crust above the discontinuity has been assumed to have a P-wave velocity of about 6.5 km/s and less.

The liquid generated by the removal of basalt from the mantle cannot be ordinary basalt, but may be akin to tholeiitic picrite (Green et al, 1979). In any case, it is less dense than the peridotite above the asthenosphere and more dense than the basalt found in deep-sea drillholes. Therefore, while in the asthenosphere, it is gravitationally unstable. Consequently Newton's Law of Gravity works to bring the magma upward to a level where it is gravitationally stable. The mechanism for this is the Peach-Kohler climb force (Weertman and Weertman, 1964; Weertman, 1971). This force compels the magma to rise through available conduits to its level of neutral buoyancy, i.e., the level where the lithosphere density and the magma density are the same (...). At this level the magma can only move horizontally.

As we have stated repeatedly, the P-wave velocity of the walls of active surge channels is in the 7.0-7.8-km/s range; that of inactive channels is 7.0-7.8 km/s throughout. In the crustal models generally accepted until the late 1980s, there was no layer having a velocity in the 7.0-7.8-km/s range. In recent years, however, a lower crustal layer has been reported in large areas of North America and elsewhere with velocities in the 7.0-7.8-km/s range (...). Mooney and Meissner (1992) in fact state that the layer is omnipresent, is ca. 3.5 km thick, and is a transition zone between the mantle and the crust.

Thus, when the postulated tholeiitic picrite magma reachs the Moho- (i.e., the zone between 8.0-km/s mantle below and 6.6-km/s above), it has reached its level of neutral buoyancy and spreads laterally. Under the proper conditions---abundant magma supply and favorable crustal structure---a surge channel can form. We suggest the possibility that the entire 7.0-7.8-km/s layer may have formed in this way. In support of this suggestion, we note that the main channel of every surge channel studied, from the Archean to the Cenozoic, is located precisely at the surface of the Moho-. This indicates that the discontinuity is very ancient, perhaps as old as the Earth itself. This fact and the great difference in P-wave velicities above and below the Moho- surface suggest in turn that the discontinuity originated during the initial cooling of the Earth. Hence, Mooney and Meissner's (1992) "transition zone" was the level of neutral buoyancy at the time the 7.0-7.8-km/s material was emplaced.

The suboceanic Moho- is some 10-15 km below sea level; its subcontinental counterpart is deeper, at about 40 km below sea level. Hence the neutral buoyancy levels of the two regimes are separated vertically by 25 to 30 km. This fact probably is closely related to the fact that surge channels underlie all continental shelf-slope breaks. Thus these breaks are transition zones between continental and oceanic regimes. MacDonald (1963, 1964) long ago stated that this transition zone must be the site of vertical faulting. Writing of the differences in the vertical distribution of radioactive heat sources under continents and ocean basins, MacDonald (1963, p.589) stated that these differences ensure "...that the boundaries between them [continents and ocean basine] become discontinuities in subsurface vertical motion. The boundary regions are thus narrow regions where faults are formed and volcanic activity is concentrated." In summary, the ocean- continent boundary is a weakness zone due to differing crustal thicknesses and compositions on either side of that boundary, and the accompanying changes in temperature regimes, specific gravities, and velocities. This weakness zone is therefore a focus for faulting and ascending magma.

It is a fact that volcanism does take place along continental mragins, not just in the "active" margins, but in the "passive" ones as well, as for example along the eastern seaboard of North America (...) and the Atlantic margin of Africa (...). In fact, a recent study of North America's eastern seaboard by Hollbrook and Kelemen (1993) shows the presence beneath the outer shelf of a linear pod of volcanic material at the Moho-. The pod has a P-wave velocity of 7.2-7.5 km/s and is at least 3,300 km long. It should be added that the above explanation does not mean that all surge channels form at ocean-continent boundaries, rather, surge channels are found in every tectonic setting, one of which is the ocean-continent boundary.

The formation of the Christmas-tree-like structures (Figs. 2.8, 3.26) at the Moho- is simply an extension of the larger scale process of magma transfer from the asthenosphere to the discontinuity. Once surge channels are established at the discontinuity, the same processes take over that brought the magma to the discontinuity in the first place, specifically, magma differentiation in the channels and the Peach-Kohler climb force (...). After lighter magmas have formed by differentiation and related processes, they rise to their own neutral buoyancy levels, forming channels above the main surge channel (Figs. 3.23, 3.27).

14
Mike Messages / NCGT PLAN
« on: March 16, 2017, 08:52:09 pm »
=MF: Sunday, February 26, 2017 9:37 PM
_dutchsinse on YouTube claims to predict earthquakes [with] controversy
_Apparently  he thinks energy waves spread slowly around the planet triggering faults:  youtube.com/watch?v=j4S2u1M0bTE
_Global Wrench Tectonics is just impossible.
_Submitting a discussion to NCGT journal sounds like a good idea.

=LK: Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:06 pm
_I think the thicker atmosphere before the Flood is highly probable.
_I don't think the icy canopy is necessary, since megatsunamis from an orbiting  asteroid etc should suffice to produce the Flood.

=MF: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:42 PM
_in SD, Siberia was forced far north in one day producing the sudden cold climate 
_"The woolly mammoths were buried in loess (wind-blown silt), commonly found up to  60 m (200 ft) thick in the lowlands of Siberia and Alaska."
_The SD event is an ideal generator of such a storm, and it is hard to imagine any  other source.
_at the 1994 conference Wycliffe Bible translator Bernard Northrup showed me his  biblical time line of events, and I found SD fit his post-Flood catastrophic  requirements.
_Regrettably, very few people know enough about geology to judge it fairly
<<So we should teach them.>>

=LK: 3/1/17; 2:41 PM
_The SD impact should have caused a lot of flooding, so is that how the Canyon  eroded?
_Do you know how to determine whether the upper strata at the Grand Canyon were  eroded during the Great Flood or during the SD event?
_Dong Choi PDF files show a map of Earth heat, mostly from the ocean ridge system,  which they say is responsible for Earth's temperature.
_http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m/msg150/#msg150
_The map shows  Antarctica and Greenland as rather warm too
<<I need to ask Mr. Choi about that.>>
<<figure out the likely cause of those two anticlines>>

=MF: Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017, 8:15 PM
_Uplift and block faulting of the Colorado Plateau would occur as North America  moved west during the SD event, eroding the Great Unconformity as tsunamis rushed  eastward from the coast, then depositing all the sedimentary layers above it.
_A large quantity of ocean water trapped inland of the new western mountain chain  eventually eroded the canyon either as runoff or as a consequence of the subsequent  ice age, such as dam breaching.
_You will have to rely on Dong Choi to explain his  reports.
_The anticlines map shows no apparent support for the position of the blue lines.

=LK: Date: Thu, March 02, 2017 12:14 am
_their New Madrid paper: https://larouchepac.com/sites/default/files/GCSR1- 2015NewMadridChoi%26Casey%20(8).pdf
_It references Choi 2013, so I'll check the 2013 issues

=MF: Thu, 3/2/17
_Figure 3 in the Choi and Casey paper (New Madrid earthquakes compared to solar  minimums or “solar hibernations”) is sobering if the data is accurate.

=LK: Thu 3/2/17 8:30PM
_papers from NCGT.org I posted at http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m-82 
_I also posted Tassos' paper there about 5 myths in geology.
_theories circulating in NCGT we can address their flaws while discussing your  model there.
_they've apparently been making a lot of progress at predicting earthquakes.
_Choi mentions surges in his papers
_I think it refers to surges of energy that are detectable and the surges migrate  along those geanticlines and it's predictable where and when they'll cause serious  quakes.
_I think the geanticlines are supposed to be in the bedrock precambrian granite  etc.
_Choi says heat is a major driver of geodynamics; the continents and oceans rise  and fall over millions of years.
_They call subsidence of land oceanization
_They say the ocean floors have a lot of evidence of being continental sedimentary  rock.
_They talk about plumes coming up from the outer core.
_They favor the theory of vertical mobility over horizontal mobility

=MF: Monday, March 6, 2017, 5:35 PM
_So Choi agrees with Plate Tectonics that heat is a major driver of geodynamics?
_Supposedly the greatest remaining concentration of heat is in the core, giving  rise to alleged mantle plumes, and most of the rest is from radioactive decay in  the mantle, distributed homogeneously.
_Calculations I have seen show Earth convects 44 terawatts of heat, but only half  would be produced by these sources, suggesting residual heat is also being vented.
_I agree with those who attribute slow lithospheric motion to tidal forces rather  than heat, due mainly to the Moon but to other bodies as well.
_Oceanic transgression and regression are essential mechanisms for producing  sequence stratigraphy in Plate Tectonics and stasis theories.
_That may be easy for their supporters to accept, yet I wish they would think about  what would have to happen at depth for all this repeated fluctuation of hundreds of  feet to occur globally.
_And I agree with Tassos that Plate Tectonics, Heat Engine Earth, and the Organic  Origin of Hydrocarbon Reserves are mistaken.
_Earthquakes are firing every second around the world, usually in well-defined  zones, and the two hemispheric geanticlines don't seem to be in those zones.

=LK: Wed, March 08, 2017 1:08 am
_Surge Tectonics folks think the seafloors also are covered with sedimentary strata  and granite, at least under the basalt.
_I think my best argument is that it wouldn't be possible for just one or two kinds  of sediments to be deposited for thousands of years followed by one or two other  kinds.
_NCGT article that seems to explain Surge Tectonics at  http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/m-82/msg156/#msg156
_It describes a worldwide network of surge channels and mentions some evidence for  that.

=MF: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 9:41 PM
_Surge Tectonics rotational lag of the lithosphere relative to the mantle is  correct
_the "strictosphere" (upper mantle), and consequently Earth's radius, has not been  found to be shrinking (nor expanding)  https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110816.html
_Without shrinking, lithosphere will not be compressed for "tectogenesis".
_The lithosphere is buoyant anyway, and would not "collapse" into denser  asthenosphere and mantle, even at Benioff zones   http://www.academia.edu/18543181/Continents_as_lithological_icebergs_the_importance _of_buoyant_lithospheric_roots
_Without shrinking, magma in channels, if they exist, will not be pumped to  "surge".
_near-surface mantle (at least) is not homogeneous but contains scattered hot or  wet pools.
_seismic tomographic images reveal a generous distribution of dense and less dense  anomalies.
_I have not seen any that support the surge channel concept.
<<If you have any such images at hand, I would like to see them.>>

=LK: Thu, March 16, 2017 2:23 pm
_Dong Choi said the best evidence for Surge Tectonics is Art Meyerhoff's book
_NCGT article around 2004 favors electrical battery model for Earth and Dr. Choi favors that model too; he said it helps explain the major earthquake correlation with sunspot minima.
_Our discussion with NCGT may need to argue against
- cold formation of Earth,
- transgressing/regressing oceans,
- major vertical uplift/subsidence and
- radiometric dating
_Since they seem to be able to predict earthquakes based on detection of some kind of surges that supposedly migrate north or south along the major geanticlines etc, there must be something to the surges, but I'll have to wait till I get the book soon to see if it explains evidence for surges etc meaningfully.
_I did some more reading on the Kola Borehole yesterday and found some interesting statements.
_I posted much of it at http://funday.createaforum.com/1-10/k/
_The pressure was found to be 92% to 29% of the expected value for most of the first 8800 m, with the exception of the ca. 3200 m mark, where it was over twice the expected amount.
_Fracturing of the rock was said to be the cause of the low pressures.
_Below 8800 m I guess the pressure was as expected.
_But the temperature at 12000 m was 180 C, instead of 100 as expected.
_The main scientist for the project seems to say that the rock below 7000 m was sedimentary rock from weathered granite that metamorphosed back to granite.
_Plankton fossils were found about 6400 m deep.

=MF: 3/16, 2017 7:28 PM
_metamorphosed granite is "granite gneiss", and metamorphosed sedimentary rock is just gneiss.
_this analysis from Stanford concerns the Sun's diameter (conclusion at bottom of page)  http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html
_electrical activity regarding Earth [is] all new to me.

=LK: 3/22, 2017 1:36 pm
_Surge Tectonics book copied at http://funday.createaforum.com/mike-messages/s/msg178/#msg178
_they have pretty good evidence for the surge channels, at least from the Moho level.
_I don't know if there's evidence of channels below that.
_Charles has figured out that vertical channels from the Moho likely produce volcanism and earthquakes, but lava doesn't come from the Moho. It comes from the crust around the channel.
_The Moho is ionized and provides a path for ionization through the vertical channels.
_The tides keep the electrical circuits charged, first in one direction (up), then in the other (down), each day.
_If the [surge] channels are real, it would be nice if you or we can determine if SD can explain them.
_They talk about Pascal's Law, which seems likely to be important for SD, although I don't know how well that law would apply to ionized matter within a planet.
_I haven't noticed any mention of the Earth having formed from cold matter.

=LK: 3/23, 2017 10:54 am
_Meyerhoff claimed that the shrinkage of the Earth is very gradual and episodic.
_I read [not in the book] that the Earth loses maybe twice as much mass every year via hydrogen as it gains via meteors.
_The shrinkage and cooling is plausible, but probably not by gravity causing surge channels.
_Instead, Charles' model has tidal forces constantly moving electric double layers in the Earth up and down about 1 meter every day, so electric forces seem to be the cause of surge channels, but probably not below the Moho.
_Tidal forces are electrical too, as Charles explains.
_And Dong Choi agrees with electrical forces in the Earth.
_Meyerhoff's book doesn't seem to mention electrical forces, so Choi seems to accept an Italian geologist's ideas about that, although NCGT papers and discussions don't seem to discuss electrical forces, other than the Italian geologist's paper from about 2004.
_I think the surge channels are explained by Charles' electrical model [& SD].
_The book seems to express doubt that catastrophism has had much influence on geological events or features, but I think we have plenty of evidence that it has had major influence.
_Charles and Gordon both accept the Shock Dynamics model in large part; they just don't think the continents would have moved apart at the speeds that you have determined.
_Gordon thinks it took months. Charles probably thinks at least months and maybe years.
_I on the other hand think it's obvious they had to move very quickly as you suggest.
_If they didn't move quickly enough, fluidization would have been overcome too soon by friction

=MF: 3/24, 2017, 9:42 PM
_The fluid, swirling interaction of the crustal pressure wave with moving landmasses during the Shock Dynamics event is clearest in Oceania (attached image), explained at  http://www.newgeology.us/presentation13.html
_Are Earth's electrical forces considered by Charles to be due to the piezoelectric effect?

=LK: 3/25/17 5:33PM
_No. The piezoelectric effect is [too] minor
_if piezoelectricity is involved in fluidization, that seems to be the only time it would be very significant ... impacts too.
_Here are the main topics in his Astrophysics & Geophysics papers at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5660-6031
_continental roots the Surge Tectonics book says prove continents have not moved.
_maybe the roots formed as the continents began to encounter significant friction toward the ends of the sliding.
_then Africa shouldn't have roots and Eurasia should have very little, unless the entire supercontinent had slid previously.
_[Maybe] melting often separates heavier material from lighter, so that could account for the roots.
_Do you have a better explanation for the NCGT discussion.

15
Mike Messages / MORE NCGT
« on: March 16, 2017, 07:20:18 pm »
664 New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal, V. 4, No. 4, December 2016. www.ncgt.org

A History of the Earth’s Seawater: Transgressions and Regressions
Karsten M. Storetvedt
Institute of Geophysics, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
karsten.storetvedt@uib.no
“We do not have a simple event A causally connected with a simple event B, but the whole background of the system in which the events occur is included in the concept, and is a vital part of it”
P.W. Bridgman, in: The Logic of Modern Physics, p. 83
Synopsis
The origin of sea water is viewed in the context of the model of a slowly degassing Earth – an Earth which is more than likely being far from having acquired thermo-chemical equilibrium. The internal reorganization of the Earth’s planetary mass has led to changes of its moment of inertia and thereby its rotation characteristics – giving rise to variations in spin rate as well as spatial redistribution of its mass (producing the dynamic phenomenon of true polar wander). These dynamical pulsations are seen as the engine behind the spasmodic behaviour of the principal global geological phenomena. In the continuing restructuring processes of the Earth’s interior, water has been added incessantly (but episodic) to the surface, while hydrous fluids have also played a central role in breaking down the original thick pan-global crust – progressively forming ever deeper ocean basins. Vertical uplifts and subsidence of the evolving deep sea crust, in association with continental transgression-regression cyclicity, are natural consequences of a slowly degassing Earth. Thus, the unceasing transformation of the felsic crust is intimately tied to the history of seawater – along with a multitude of first-order geological, geophysical, environmental and biological occurrences.
Keywords: Origin of seawater, sea-level changes, dynamic drivers, geological history
(Received on 6 December 2016. Accepted on 31 December 2016)
Problem outline
o a large extent, the history of the Earth’s dynamo-tectonic development is related to the origin of the oceanic water masses and their surface oscillations – characterized by the advances and retreats of epicontinental oceans. During major parts of post-Precambrian time, the present land surface was extensively covered by shallow seas, while today the continents are dryer than at any time during the last 570 million years (Phanerozoic). During the late Mesozoic, the continental flooding was nearly as widespread as that of the Lower-Middle Palaeozoic, though the highest sea-level may not have been higher than 200-400 metres above the present shore line (cf. Miller et al., 2005). “Today, a similar rise would inundate less than half the area that was flooded in the Cretaceous, because our continents stand high above the sea, whereas the Mesozoic lands were low and flat” (van Andel, 1985). The same low and flat continents were apparently the norm during the Palaeozoic as well as in Precambrian time; the elevation of our continents and continental mountain chains, as well as the mid-ocean ridges, seems to have a quite recent origin – having basically occurred during the last 5 million years of Earth history (cf. Storetvedt, 2015 for references and a compilation of evidence).
Fluctuations in global sea-level result either from changes of the volume of sea water on the planet’s surface or of deep sea basins. Today, the growth and decay of major continental ice fields are thought to be the most likely causal mechanism for sea-level changes, but vertical oscillations of the deep sea crust, caused by variable rates of hypothesized seafloor spreading, has also been proposed – but without real success. More recently, attempts have been made to relate sea-level changes to climatic control (Miller et al., 2005; Zhang, 2005), but none of these ideas seem to account satisfactorily for the large number of recorded sea-level changes – with time scales varying from long-term super-cycles over hundreds of millions of years to rapid changes in the order of tens of thousands of years or less. Modern compilations of Phanerozoic sea-level trends have been given by a number of authors (e.g., Haq et al., 1987; Hardenbol et al., 1998; Haq and Shutter, 2008), but the description the overall sea-level pattern has not changed significantly since the early work of Sloss (1963) and Vail et al. (1977).
It is natural to think that seawater is intimately associated with the Earth’s internal chemical reconstitution and degassing, but when did the bulk of surface water accumulate? During Precambrian times, there is no factual evidence for the existence of deep sea basins, and the volume of surface water was apparently modest – but there is ample evidence of deposition in shallow marine waters within greenstone belts (Figure 1) along with indications of fluvial activity (cf. Windley, 1977). Perhaps an appropriate description of the surface conditions in the late Precambrian can be unveiled by the Grand Canyon sedimentary system – as described by Dunbar (1949, p. 93-94):
“The Grand Canyon system is essentially unmetamorphosed, thus contrasting in the most striking manner with the underlying schists, which must be vastly older. The system begins with a basal conglomerate resting on a peneplaned surface of the Vishnu schists. Following this come limestone and then limy shale and sandy shale and quartzites. The limestones, and probably a larger part of the shales and quartzites, were deposited in shallow marine water, but parts of the sandy shale and sandstone are bright red and are so commonly mud **** as to suggest deposition on a broad floodplain. The region was probably part of a great delta plain in which submarine and subaerial deposition alternated. And since these strata were formed near sea-level, the region obviously subsided slowly [...] while deposition was in progress.”
The Archaean aeon, which was characterized by features such as the relative abundance of komatiite extrusions and a relative scarcity of redbeds and carbonates, was succeeded by the much more diversified geological record of the Proterozoic – progressively distinguished by large sedimentary basins with primitive living forms more abundantly recorded in surface carbonates. Contrasting strongly with the Proterozoic situation, the Cambrian experienced a general “transgression onto cratons, with a classic orthoquartzite-to-shale sequence resting unconformably on Precambrian and overlain by carbonates” (Hallam 1992). And suddenly, a diversity of complex life forms, dominated by trilobites and brachiopods, appear in abundance at the base of the Cambrian; this remarkable biological explosion was probably a direct consequence of the rapidly increasing volume of surface water. Thus began a major Lower-Middle Palaeozoic submergence of the apparently flat and low-lying continental masses that was accompanied by a rapid development of sea-living creatures. According to Dunbar (1949, p. 155), “the Early Cambrian oceans seem to have been somewhat openly connected, so that intermigration was easy and the leading types of life are much alike in various parts of the world”. Thus, the Cambrian eustatic transgression probably represents the first major supply of water to the Earth’s surface – degassed from the interior of the Earth; the explosive prevalence of marine fauna at that time is likely to have been a consequence.
Figure 1. Depiction of a transect across a block of late Archaean greenstone belts – subsiding rift basins developing along one of the pre-existing orthogonal fracture systems, with associated volcanism and shallow water sedimentation. Diagram is based on Cloos (1939).
For post-Precambrian time – ranging from 570 My to the Present, the stratigraphic record is generally well exposed due to the fact that epicontinental seas repeatedly covered substantial parts of the present land surface. Based on geological maps, depicting the distribution of shallow marine deposits, it is possible to
evaluate the fluctuations of sea level with time. However, compared with younger geological periods, Cambrian stratigraphy is poorly known so, for these early times, eustatic correlations of sea level are rarely possible (Hallam, 1992). Nevertheless, since the late 19th century, a cogent picture has emerged that suggests that during post-Precambrian time, significant regions of the present continents have repeatedly been engulfed by longer term shallow seas, despite the fact that the present volume of marine surface water seemingly is larger now than ever before (cf. Storetvedt, 2003).
Traditionally, it has been accepted that the major proportion of the Earth’s seawater is the product of an early stage internal differentiation and degassing while the planet was in a much hotter state than now – giving rise to the hypothesis that the Precambrian Earth was blanketed by a more or less pan-global ocean concealing a rather featureless granitic crust (Süss, 1893). However, Rubey (1951) argued that the greater part of the surface water is unlikely to have been exhaled through processes of primordial segregation, it being more likely to have accumulated through slow but progressive degassing via volcanic action. He argued that the widespread epicontinental seas of the past should not be confused with the aspect of seawater volume, because “if the ocean basins have been sinking relative to the continental blocks, then one must look largely to the ocean floor, rather than to the continents, for evidence of a growing volume of seawater”. In other words, Rubey was apparently adhering to the crustal oceanization model of Barrell (1927).
Following Rubey’s reasoning, the formation of the world’s ocean basins by internal mechanisms would be associated with a major release of juvenile water. The fact that to some extent the Earth continues to be volcanically active leads to the conclusion that, unless there is a mechanism by which water can recirculate back into the mantle – for which there is hardly any evidence, the volume of surface water is larger now than ever before despite the fact that the present continental landmasses are significantly dryer now than during earlier Phanerozoic history.
However, this long-term drying-up of the continents has been discontinuous. Thus, major eustatic inundations during the Lower-Middle Palaeozoic were followed by a sharp drop of the sea level in the late Permian, and then another major inundation resumed during the Mesozoic – culminating in the late Cretaceous. On top of this mega-scale sea-level trend, it was recognized early on that many shorter fluctuations of the shore line had been superimposed on the longer trends. This Pulse of the Earth – through its intimate association with the history of surface water and the record of oscillating sea-level changes – is the theme of this paper.
The level of the sea will be lowered when a substantial volume of surface water is being stored in major ice fields, as during the Quaternary ice age of the Northern Hemisphere. But during post-Precambrian time, such global cold spells seems to have been rare and of too short duration and the ice fields of too limited an extent, to have had an appreciable effect on the longer term trend of the global sea level. In this context, van Andel (1985, p. 155) wrote: “The rate of sea-level change for glaciations and deglaciations is measured in metres per 1,000 years, much too fast [for explaining Phanerozoic sea-level variations], and we are quite certain that there were no ice ages during the Mesozoic. Clearly, non-glacial eustatic changes cannot be explained by changing the volume of water”. The recorded inundations (transgressions) of the sea could be equated with either an increasing volume of seawater or sinking of the land, and sea-level retreats (regressions) with the reverse. However, the history of seawater and the pulsating eustatic sea-level stand seems to be closely associated with the rest of the Earth’s evolutionary pattern – including the episodicity of principal global tectonic events along with the associated diversity of geological and environmental phenomena. In other words, any sensible explanation of seawater and sea-level oscillations demands a realistic system understanding of Earth’s geological history.
Historical snapshots
Around the middle of the 19th century, it was commonly thought that the Earth had cooled and chemically differentiated from an original fluid magmatic state, and that seawater was a natural product of the planet’s primeval de-volatilization. In the view of the Austrian geologist Eduard Süss [1831-1914], the expelled water had originally spread across a fairly featureless crustal surface, but progressive cooling and planetary contraction had produced crustal warping and fracturing leading to redistribution of the surface water. Consistent with this view, Süss (1893) conceived of an early Precambrian Earth covered by a shallow pan-global ocean – an idea which Alfred Wegener later took for granted (Wegener, 1912 and 1924). In Süss’ opinion, continental and oceanic crust were compositionally similar and interchangeable; he opined that during the presumed planetary contraction, large areas of the surface had collapsed to become deep sea depressions into which water masses previously residing within the continental crust had drained. The volume of surface water was considered to be constant, but it was well known that the sea level relative to the continents had displayed rhythmic variations: the sea advancing over low-lying lands – transgressions, had alternated with sea-level retreats – regressions, forming a pulsating global shore line succession for which Eduard Süss coined the term eustatic. His dynamic driving force was the Earth’s cooling and contraction.
In the Süssian tectonic system, the oceans had been growing for a long time (i.e. an increasing part of the global crust had been down-warped by the forces of thermal contraction) at the expense of upstanding continents, thereby accounting for the geological fact that the land masses – with their extensive cover of ancient marine sediments – had been subjected to an overall progressive drying-up during post-Precambrian time. However, the common transgressive pulses were explained by a net reduction in storage capacity of the developing oceanic basins – attributed to the accumulation of transported terrigenous material from surrounding regions of the crust. Regressions, on the other hand, were ascribed to the increasing volume of the deep sea basins formed as a consequence of contraction. Thus, transgression and regressions were ascribed to different and seemingly independent causes – which therefore smacked of an ad hoc escape. Furthermore, the generally slow build-up of the transgressive phases, as compared to the much more rapid regressions, was an even greater problem for the Süssian theory.
The distribution of land and sea in the Upper Palaeozoic, according to Eduard Süss, is shown in Figure 2. Süss postulated the Gondwana palaeo-continent – an ancient mega-continent that in the late Palaeozoic had united all southern land masses. When a major part of Gondwana subsequently subsided (by the presumed forces arising from planetary contraction), previous biological migration routes had been broken. In this way, the Süssian theory – representing vertical contraction-enforced oscillations of the crust – could explain biological similarities between continents now widely separated by oceanic barriers, for which the competing American contraction model of James Dana (1873 and 1881) offered no solution. Dana’s contraction hypothesis was strongly discrepant with that of Eduard Süss. According to Dana the overall physical state of the Earth had not changed significantly during most of its history: its internal state and surface structures were assumed to be static, including the configuration of continents and deep sea basins.
The ultimate product of the American version of the contraction theory was a very slow- to-moderate episodic growth of the continents through accretion along their margins. A central theme in Dana’s model was the formation and episodic deformation of fold belts; in his view, incessant crustal contraction had produced recurrent down-warping, sedimentary accumulation, compression, and then uplift. But why were the Rocky Mountains located so far inland, and how had the intracontinental Alpine-Himalaya tectonic belt formed? With regard to the long-standing problems of the widespread marine deposits blanketing the continents, Dana suggested that the primeval oceans had been too shallow to accommodate the expelled primordial water masses, implying that the present lands, in their early history, had been submerged by epeiric seas which had then drained into the subsequently-formed deep sea basins. But this proposition did not readily fit such geological facts as that the Lower-Middle Palaeozoic marine deposits blanketed significant parts of North America, the extensive and long-lasting Tethyan Sea had been a characteristic feature across southern Eurasia for most of post-Precambrian time, and the late Cretaceous (‘Cenomanian’) transgression had apparently covered considerable parts of the continents (discussed later). It seemed, therefore, that the North American contraction-based evolutionary scheme was unable to account even for most prominent surface geological features.
GONDWANALAND
Figure 2. A sketch of the suggested distribution of land (white) and sea (light blue) in the Upper Palaeozoic – according to the palaeogeographic model of Eduard Süss; in this synthesis, Gondwana was an Upper Palaeozoic southern land mass which, during subsequent contraction and vertical crustal down-warping, had been turned into the present ocean-continent arrangement. Note also the extensive intracontinental seaway, running E-W across southern Eurasia and northern Africa, which Süss (1893) named Tethys.
It became evident that the contraction theories did not provide satisfactory explanations for the uneven distribution and global tectonic interrelationships of the various tectonic belts. Thus, even more than a century ago, the time was ripe for re-thinking the basic concepts. Essential aspects like the origin of the oceanic water masses, eustatic sea-level fluctuations, along with their natural link-ups with other prominent geological phenomena, such as tectonic belt formation – a necessity for a functional global geological theory, had no ready explanation. In many ways, geology was, and still basically is, a fact-gathering enterprise without a realistic and functional global mechanism. With respect to the state-of-the-art at the end of the 19th century, the following short-list of principal problems may suffice to explain the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the geological facts as seen at that time (Storetvedt, 2003):
# The extensive periodic flooding and subsequent long-term draining of the land masses in post-Precambrian time, that left behind a blanket of shallow marine sediments, had no satisfactory explanation.
# Recurrent, but variable, sea-level fluctuations were well established, but the origin of the internal processes that produced these transgression-regression cycles, and how these sea-level pulses tied to the overall long-term draining of the present continents, remained unknown.
# Periods of transgression were much longer than the relatively short and distinct periods of regression. What was the cause of this discrepancy?
# A genetic relationship between oceanic depressions and high-standing continents was likely, but how was this connection to be understood and explained?
# The Earth’s hydrosphere had either formed during its early history or accumulated progressively, through internal degassing and volcanic action, since the birth of the planet. But if the Earth began as a red-hot molten body, as was commonly taken for granted, would it not be reasonable to think that degassed light hydrogen and hot water vapour would largely have escaped into space?
# In general, palaeo-biological problems were inexplicable within the context of the present-day continental configuration. Any functional global theory had to account for faunal and floral similarities between continents now separated by deep oceanic barriers, in addition to cases of endemism.
# It was gradually realized that major mountain chains had formed in very recent geological time, regardless of the ages of underlying tectonic disturbances. So were the deformation of pre-existing sedimentary troughs (geosynclines) and their fairly recent topographic uplift really closely connected phenomena – as had been commonly assumed?
# During post-Precambrian times, the climatic zones had had quite different orientations from those of today. In extreme cases, the present polar regions had been tropical and vice versa. What dynamic mechanism could have caused this profound shift of the global climate system?
# If the shifts of climate belts were of global extent, the old speculation of changes of the Earth’s body relative to the Sun (a notion now called True Polar Wandering), originally discussed by the famous German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder (in 1785: see Schwarzbach 1963), would gain strong evidence in its favour. Furthermore, if spatial changes of the Earth’s mass were a reality, how would its ellipsoidal shape affect sea-level oscillations across the globe?
# The Caledonian, Hercynian and Alpine tectonic belts running across Eurasia form a southward progression with decreasing age – probably defining globe-encircling great-circle structures. What was the cause of this dynamo-tectonic shift, and how was it connected with the rest of Earth history – including aspects such as (1) the relatively short-lived geological cataclysms characterizing the principal geological time boundaries and (2) the predominant sea-level super-cycles, with their superimposed shorter period transgression-regression cyclicity?
As a result of the multitude of unsolved problems, central European geophysicists began to explore new directions in global tectonics. By integrating palaeo-climatology and geophysics, the old notion of True Polar Wandering was substantiated – notably by Kreichgauer (1902), while arguments in favour of continental mobility were expounded. Thus, Damian Kreichgauer argued for a westward rotation of the whole crust without altering the relative continental positions, and Wettstein (1880) followed Eduard Süss by suggesting that deep sea basins were sunken parts of former land masses. Kreichgauer was apparently the first to suggest a close dynamic link between tectono-magmatic belts and the Earth’s rotation; later, Wegener (1912, 1915 and 1929) gave Kreichgauer the credit for having discovered the pole-fleeing force (later named the Eøtvøs force). Wegener followed Kreichgauer by postulating the tectonic effect from the tidal torques from the Sun and Moon – the pole-fleeing force (Pohlflucht) and the Coriolis Effect as possible driving mechanisms; these forces are indeed directed westward and towards the time-equivalent equator. However, the vast global-extent invasion of epicontinental seas during a major part of the Palaeozoic and then again during the Upper Mesozoic remained a puzzle for both Wegener and other central European geophysicists.
In his discussion of polar wandering and its possible consequences for sea-level changes, Wegener (1929, p. 159) wrote that “Many authors […] have already discussed the fact that internal axial shifts must be tied up with systematic transgression cycles; this is because the earth is ellipsoidal and because there is a time lag while it adjusts itself to the new position of the axis, whereas the sea follows at once. Since the ocean follows immediately any re-orientation of the equatorial bulge, but the earth does not, then in the quadrant in front of the wandering pole increasing regression or formation of dry land prevails; in the quadrant behind, increasing transgression or inundation [is the consequence]”.
Thus, Wegener interpreted sea-level changes as being intimately tied to resettings of the equatorial bulge; however, in his scheme, transgressions and regressions did not affect all continents simultaneously – they were quadrant-dependent. This view markedly contradicted the stratigraphic observations which Eduard Süss and later workers regarded as evidence for eustatic (global) sea-level changes.
During the following decades, a number of prominent geologists paid special attention to the chronological distribution of long-term changes of sea-level at variable scales (e.g., Barrell, 1917; Stille, 1924; Joly, 1925; Bucher, 1933; Umbgrove, 1939). Thus, Umbgrove (1942) wrote that “a great number of major transgressions took place each being separated by periods of widespread emersion [sic] of the continents. There was a rhythmic advance and retreat of the sea. We can therefore only conclude that the transgressions and regressions on the continents must be ascribed solely to a world-embracing cause. Stille expressed the synchronism of the great trans- and regressions in his law of epeirogenic synchronism, which Bucher formulated as follows: – “In a large way the major movements of the strandline, positive and negative, have affected all continents in the same sense at the same time”.
Though Umbgrove proposed that the eustatic movements were a major rhythmic phenomenon throughout post-Precambrian time, the cause of these oscillating motions were referred to unspecified vertical pulsation processes in the mantle. In addition to the global cyclicity and synchronicity, it had been known, since the time of Eduard Süss that superimposed on the ‘first order’ post-Precambrian eustatic changes there were regional-scale movements of the strandline. As we have seen above, Rubey (1951) took an unconventional look at this problem suggesting that the hydrosphere had been exhaled by episodic internal processes in connection with sub-crustal thinning of continental crust thus trending towards an oceanic
mode – an idea closely related to the oceanization model of Barrell (1927). However, sedimentation on the ocean floor has not been continuous; numerous Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) cores show that sedimentation and erosion are typically episodic phenomena. Thus, Rona (1973) described hiatuses of up to tens of millions of years in the late Mesozoic to Middle Tertiary stratigraphic record of every principal ocean basin – expressed by intervals of non-deposition and/or erosion, which he tentatively associated with the transgression-regression cyclicity on shallow continental crust. Nevertheless, the ultimate question remains: which dynamo-tectonic mechanism stands behind the eustatic sea-level changes and the associated multitude of episodic surface geological phenomena?
An intermittently degassing Earth
Against the prevailing view of the 19th century – of an initially hot and molten planet, there was indeed considerable surface evidence for the presence of an assortment of discharged internal gases – discussed by authors like Reyer (1877), Guenther (1897) and Chamberlin (1897). The enormous gas blowouts of the 19th century – Mt. Tambura in 1815 and Krakatoa in 1883 – may have been reminders in this respect. Chamberlin (1897) – struggling with the many unsolved problems in global geology – took a completely new starting point by proposing that the terrestrial planets had formed by aggregation of rocky dust particles. He suggested that the early Earth probably began as a very cold body (with temperatures near 0˚K) which subsequently, as a consequence of entrapped radioactive materials, gradually heated up. On this basis, the solid material of an initial cold Earth could well have maintained at least part of its primordial heterogeneity and, therefore, could still be in a state of internal differentiation with associated degassing. Adding to this untraditional view, Hixon (1920) suggested that tectonic processes were diapiric phenomena caused by the release of internal gases, and Ampferer (1944) discussed the possibility of subsurface gas pressure powering vertical tectonic processes. In addition, the closely related theory of Earth Pulsation (e.g., Stille, 1924; Bucher, 1933), implying distinct global and synchronous tectonic events alternating with much longer periods of tranquility, was reiterated by Umbgrove (1942 and 1947).
Cosmo-chemist and planetologist Harold Urey (Urey, 1952) – the 1934 Nobel laureate in chemistry for the discovery of deuterium – restated the old view of Pierre-Simon Laplace and Immanuel Kant (late 1700s) that the planetary system had formed by aggregation of material from a flattened nebular disk surrounding the Sun, comprising a cold mix of predominantly hydrogen gas and particulate matter. On this basis, Urey argued that differentiation of the Earth, into a metallic core and silicate shells, could well be incomplete and therefore still in progress. Consistent with this thinking, Turekian (1977) argued that the present volume of surface water is considerable less than what might be expected if all water had been driven off – that is, if the Earth at an early state had been a hot molten body. Karl Turekian pointed out that, if the chemical composition of the original mantle was like that of average carbonaceous chondrites (and the early Earth in a hot molten state) – as is generally believed, the surface should contain at least 20 times more water than is presently the case.
It can be envisaged that continuous planetary degassing and related reorganization of the Earth’s interior mass has modified both the internal and the outer regions of the Earth progressively since early Archaean time – transforming an initially thick proto-crust as well as progressively, and episodically, increasing the volume of surface water (cf. Storetvedt, 2003 and 2011). The gradual accumulation of fluids and gases in the upper mantle and lower crust must have led to a considerable increase in the confining pressure at these levels. At each depth level, rocks and fluids would naturally be subject to a common pressure – producing a kind of high pressure vessel situation – with fractures being kept open just like those in near-surface rocks at low pressures (Gold’s pore theory, see Hoyle, 1955; Gold, 1999). This principle is well demonstrated in the Kola and KTB (S. Germany) deep continental boreholes (which reached maximum depths of 12 and 9 km, respectively) where open fractures filled with hydrous fluids were found throughout the entire sections drilled (e.g., Möller et al., 1997; Smithson et al., 2000); brines were seen to coexist with crustal rocks and, in the KTB site, the salinity of the formation water turned out to be about twice that of present-day normal sea water (Möller et al., 2005). In both drill sites, a variety of dissolved gases and fluids was found; primitive helium was observed at different depth levels indicating that the fluids were of deep interior origin (Smithson et al., 2000). As there is no observational evidence that deep oceanic depressions existed prior to the middle-late Mesozoic (see below), the bulk of present-day surface water must, in fact, have been exhaled from the deep interior during later stages of the Earth’s history. Nevertheless, there are reasons for believing that most of the planet’s water is still residing in the deep interior.
In view of the extremely limited information on the physical state of rocks even at shallow depths, modern studies of the Earth’s internal constitution must rely on geophysical inversion techniques, based primarily on seismological and geodetic observations, supplemented by high-temperature, high-pressure mineral physics and chemistry experiments. Nonetheless, inversion techniques have no unique solutions so inferences about the planet’s inner state and chemical constitution must necessarily be strongly model-dependent – resting on hypothetical scenarios of primordial accretion, temperature development, and mass/energy transfer processes. Therefore, to a large extent, the picture of the Earth’s interior has changed according to the needs of whatever particular theories have been/are invoked to explain surface geological phenomena. Regrettably, purely speculative ideas from time to time have become immaculate facts in all the sciences, and so it has been with regard to the interior of the Earth. For example, in recent decades deep continental drilling (Kola and KTB, S. Germany) has demonstrated that the physico-chemical constitution and structural state at even near-surface levels differ markedly from long-held conventional views – albeit without having had any noticeable effect on currently ingrained and popular views (cf. Storetvedt, 2013). Or as expressed by Wilfred Trotter (Trotter, 1941): “a little self-examination tells us pretty easily how deeply rooted in the mind is the fear of the new”.
If we accept that the Earth formed by aggregation of cold gases and rocky dust particles, the early planet must have been left in a relatively undifferentiated state. It follows that chemical elements must have experienced differentiation as the body evolved toward some lower-energy state. Within the gas-filled proto-planet, incremental coalescence of ferromagnetic planetesimals can be expected to have led to heavier concretions for which the gravitational influence outbalanced the centrifugal effect. Thus, the heavier Fe-rich masses settled inwards through the relatively less dense (presumably) gaseous mass – gradually building up a high-density central core (see Tunyi et al., 2001). As lighter elements like sulphur, carbon, silicon, hydrogen and oxygen easily dissolve in high-pressure metallic mixes (cf. Stephenson, 1981; Hunt et al., 1992; Okuchi, 1997), such lighter constituents can be expected to have followed iron alloys into the core giving rise to the well-established density deficit of the central body. According to Gottfried (1990), the core must be the host of a significant amount of hydride-metal compounds while the present silicate-rich lower mantle must include an appreciable volume of silicides – notably, silicon carbide. According to Stevenson (1981) and many others, the core is not in equilibrium with the mantle, and the presence of an irregular ‘topography’ of the core-mantle boundary (CMB) region (cf. Morelli & Dziewonski, 1987) gives further evidence of a thermo-chemically active and heterogeneous zone. It follows that the CMB region may represent the fundamental trigger of endogenous energy – this eventually leading to the observed range of geodynamic and surface geological phenomena – including surface accumulation of water.
Lighter elements, originally entrapped in the relatively cold (but slowly heating up) deep interior must have begun their upward voyage at an early stage – necessarily taking part in a number of phase changes en route. With the many lighter elements now regarded as possible constituents of the deep Earth (cf. Storetvedt, 2003 for references and discussion), it is of paramount importance to consider the geodynamic and geological consequences of buoyant volatiles – including a range of hydrocarbon compounds which may provide the most important mechanisms for internal mass transfer (Gold, 1979 and 1999). For a planet undergoing irregularly-distributed degassing (both temporally and spatially), one would expect lateral variations of density arising from temperature differences, irregular fracture distribution, and compositional heterogeneities. It is significant that sub-oceanic and sub-continental mantle sections display a relatively clear seismic difference – notably in the outer few hundred kilometres (e.g., Dziewonski 1984; Dziewonski and Woodhouse, 1987; Forte et al., 1995).
An important observation in this respect is that, when projected onto the Earth’s surface, upstanding regions of the CMB correspond to deep oceanic basins. Figure 3 demonstrates this CMB-planetary surface relationship – suggesting that processes at the outer core release energy and buoyant masses that on the surface have led to the formation of deep sea basins (see Morelli and Dziewonski, 1987) as well as, apparently, the whole range of principal geodynamic and surface geological phenomena (Storetvedt, 2003). Ruditch (1990), studying the distribution of shallow water sediments in more than 400 deep sea drill holes in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans, submitted that, since the Jurassic, oceanic depressions have formed as a result of large-scale chemical transformation and subsidence of an initial thick continental crust; he argued that the world oceans had evolved from separate and initially isolated basins – like those currently observed on the continents.
Figure 3. The diagram illustrates the estimated topography of the core-mantle boundary region obtained by PcP and PKP residuals combined – simplified after Morelli & Dziewonski (1987). Note that when projected onto the Earth’s surface, the upstanding regions of the core-mantle interphase (cf. coloured scale) correspond to deep oceanic depressions.
The fact that deep oceanic depressions apparently did not exist prior to the late Mesozoic and that most seawater seems to have accumulated during late Phanerozoic time suggests that both planetary outgassing and the vertical transfer of internal mass have been extremely slow – albeit markedly accelerating during the Mesozoic. The irregular CMB topography, as outlined by Morelli and Dziewonski, suggests that the core-mantle boundary zone is a thermo-chemically active and heterogeneous region. Whatever buoyant phases arise from the CMB region, the implications of the broad regions of diapiric upwelling, aided by hydrocarbons and hydrous fluids, are crustal thinning – through eclogite formation and associated gravity-driven delamination of the crust from its base upward. Hence, isostatic subsidence and development of surface depressions would ensue. Eclogitization commonly propagates along fractures and shear zones, and the metasomatic front often defines bands of eclogite trending along fractures – showing an abrupt transition from granulite to eclogite facies. Granted the availability of sufficient hydrous fluid, and with pressure conditions being satisfied, the reaction to eclogite will predictably proceed rapidly (Austrheim et al., 1996).
It has been demonstrated that natural occurrences of the granulite-to-eclogite transition are strongly impeded when hydrous fluids are absent (e.g., Austrheim, 1987 and 1990; Walther, 1994; Leech, 2001; Austrheim et al., 1997). Thus, Austrheim (1998) argues that hydrous fluids are much more important than either temperature or pressure, and Leech (2001) concluded that gravity-driven sub-crustal delamination (through eclogite formation) is strongly controlled by the availability of water. According to Austrheim et al. (1997), the eclogitization process brings about material weakening which make eclogites deform more easily than their protoliths – the degree of deformability being further increased in the presence of water. Thus, the large density increase consequent upon eclogitization destabilizes the lower crust and makes it detach from the relatively unaffected crust above (Leech, 2001). Figure 4 gives an illustration of this sub-crustal thinning process – advancing upward and eventually forming deep sea basins.
Figure 4. Geological interpretation of a N-S seismic profile across the North Pyrenean Fault Zone of the inner Bay of Biscay. Gravity-driven eclogitized lower crust delaminates from the lower crust and sinks into the upper mantle giving rise to the Parentis Basin. Illustration is a simplified version after Pinet et al. (1987). It is suggested that during Earth history a presumed thick proto-crust has been progressively thinned and chemically transformed – gradually implanting the present Moho interface.
Throughout its history, the Earth must have lacked thermochemical equilibrium, so in the process of reaching internal stability, mass reorganization – aided by buoyant volatiles – seems to have been at work to produce a progressively evolutionary course of crustal thinning and intermittent geological activity along with episodic accumulation of the present volume of seawater (cf. Storetvedt, 2003). The discharge rate of juvenile water seems to have accelerated greatly in Cretaceous and Tertiary times. Though shallow seas may have existed in the Precambrian, Truswell and Eriksson (1975) have argued that their tidal amplitudes were only modest.
As a consequence of the Earth’s degassing and associated internal mass reorganization, changes of its moment of inertia would be a natural consequence – producing secular changes of the globe’s rate of rotation as well as episodic, but generally progressive, changes of its spatial orientation (true polar wander). A method for studying the Earth’s spin rate (length of day, L.O.D.) for the geological past was introduced by Wells (1963 and 1970): by counting presumed growth increments in recent and fossil corals, he estimated the number of days per year back to the Lower Palaeozoic. A famous result from this study was that Middle Devonian corals gave some 400 daily growth lines per year – suggesting a pronounced slowing of the Earth’s spin rate over the past 380 million years. Subsequent studies of skeletal increments in marine fossils back to the Ordovician were generally consistent with a higher rotation rate also in the Lower Palaeozoic (Pannella et al., 1968). Creer (1975) and Whyte (1977) summarized the palaeontological length of day data available by the mid-1970. Figure 5 shows the graph of presumed number of days during post-Precambrian time given by Creer. A subsequent compilatory L.O.D. study by Williams (1989) gave closely similar results – in addition to presenting fossil clock data for the Mesozoic. More recently, a study by Rosenberg (1997) concluded that at Grenville time (some 900 million years ago) the year had 440 days.
From the zig-zag appearance of Figure 5, it is remarkable how closely the established break-points of the L.O.D. curve (numbered 1-4) – separating periods of deceleration from periods of acceleration – correspond to times of global tectonic events. These tectonic revolutions are: 1, the Alpine climax at around the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary; 2, the Appalachian-Palatinian event near the Permian-Triassic boundary; 3, the late Devonian Acadian disturbance; and 4, the late Ordovician Taconian event. As will be outlined below, the inferred close relationship between changes in the Earth’s rotation and global tectonics is additionally associated intimately with prominent regressive sea-level events and biotic mass extinctions.
Phanerozoic sea-level changes
The volume of sea water in the late Precambrian has remained speculative, and relatively little is known about marine stratigraphy and eustasy in the early Cambrian. Nevertheless, a general Cambrian transgression onto progressively drowned cratons (Matthews and Cowie, 1979) begins with a classic orthoquartzite-to-shale succession followed by carbonites (cf. Hallam, 1992 and references therein). From the modest sea water incursion in the early Cambrian, the late Cambrian epicontinental coverage of North America had increased by some 75 %, while in the late Ordovician to Middle Silurian the shallow sea had enlarged to around 90 % or more (Dott and Batten, 1976; Dott and Prothero, 1994). Thereafter, sea level fell gradually to even below its present level at around the Permian-Triassic boundary. Figure 6 shows the global distribution of the Lower Silurian epicontinental seas.
Figure 5. Compilation of presumed days per month during the Phanerozoic – based on growth rings in fossil shells – simplified after Creer (1975). Numbers refer to break-points which in turn represent prominent tectonic events corresponding to the principal geological time boundaries.
Figure 6. A sketch map of the overall distribution of Lower Silurian epicontinental seas (blue) superposed on the current land masses. Note the relatively modest areal extent of dry land (green). Due to the low and fairly flat global surface, the overall shallow-water cosmopolitan faunas were widespread. The diagram is simplified after Boucot and Johnson (1973). At that time, the present oceanic domains are likely to have had thick continental crust so these regions too are likely to have been dominated by shallow epicontinental seas (cf. Storetvedt, 2003).
Cambrian stratigraphy is poorly known, and so are eustatic sea-level variations during that era (cf. Hallam, 1992), though a widely accepted transgression onto cratons is demonstrated by the Exxon sea level curve (see below, and Figure 7). Illuminating studies in North America (Bond et al., 1988) show consistent sea-level changes for certain specific regions: in North America, an overall eustatic rise in the Cambrian-early Ordovician is followed by a marked sea-level fall in Ordovician-Silurian time. The progressive Cambrian flooding of the cratons probably represents the first major influx of water to the Earth’s surface (as a result of degassing from the interior) – the principal factor behind the explosion of marine life at that time. In addition, world maps of the maximum degree of shallow marine inundation (Strakhov, 1948; Termier and Termier, 1952) demonstrated a similar eustatic high sea-level during the Lower-Middle Palaeozoic.
The more detailed sea-level curve of the Exxon group (Vail et al., 1977), based on onshore North American data, gave five asymmetric sea-level cycles – each representing a relatively slow transgression followed by a sharp basin deepening and a related regressive event. Figure 7, showing the Exxon sea-level curve for the Palaeozoic based on North American sequence stratigraphy, demonstrates an obvious oblique saw-tooth-shaped sea-level variation from the Silurian onwards, and an overall regression culminates in a marked Permian low-stand. In an attempt to eliminate any regional tectonic effects, Hallam (1992) proposed a generalized eustatic sea-level curve as depicted in Figure 8. For the time range concerned, the two curves are remarkably similar.
Figure 7. The Palaeozoic section of the Exxon sea-level curve – after Vail et al. (1977). Note the sharp regressive events compared with the preceding and slower transgressive periods, and the overall progressive continental draining after Silurian time.
Figure 8. Generalized eustatic sea-level variations for the Phanerozoic – after Hallam (1992). Star symbols mark the six principal events of marine extinctions; note that these biotic catastrophes correspond to times of sea-level minima (distinct regressive events).
On the basis of a progressively degassing Earth, the inferred reorganization of the internal mass would have dynamic implications – periodically altering the planet’s moment of inertia producing events of polar wander and variations in spin rate (Storetvedt, 1997, 2003 and 2011).
These intermittent changes of planetary dynamics would naturally affect the inventory of gasses and volatiles accumulated at the outer levels of the Earth and trigger a range of tectono-magmatic and surface environmental processes – including crustal transformation and variations in the mass distribution of seawater. This interlinking of geological phenomena, influencing the Earth’s progressive, variegated and episodic history, is the cornerstone of my Global Wrench Tectonics theory. By postulating the proto-Earth as a relatively cold and, hence, rather undifferentiated planetary body (cf. Storetvedt, 2011), its early history could be expected to have encompassed slow volatilization that progressively would have added gases and fluids to the developing upper mantle and crust, as well as the hydrosphere and atmosphere – besides continuously changing the planet’s internal constitution. In this way, geological evolution as well as the Earth’s seawater history became intimately associated with intermittent changes in planetary rotation which, in the surface record, is expressed by stratigraphic upheavals seen between the major geological time boundaries.
Volatiles have a high vapour pressure so, if they are incorporated into solid or liquid material during their transport outwards, they will have a tendency to escape, atom by atom, from their host compounds thereby increasing the local gas pressure: at near-surface levels, the gases contributing to the enhanced pressure may include methane and other alkanes, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide, hydrogen, nitrogen, helium, and water – as vapour (see summaries by Gold, 1987 and 1999). Thus, the continuing build-up of pressure from volatiles in the outer levels of the Earth can be predicted to have triggered eclogitization and associated gravity-driven sub-crustal attenuation, giving rise to isostatic subsidence and basin formation. This process naturally began as continental depocentres, but progressive delamination of the lower crust (accelerating during the Phanerozoic), along with degassing-related magmatic processes, eventually led to a thin and basaltic deep sea crust as well as accumulating surface water (cf. Storetvedt, 1997 and 2003). Thus, the slow build-up of hydrostatic pressure beneath the evolving deep sea basins would naturally provide a lifting power for the attenuated and mechanically-weakened oceanic crust; this, in turn, would lead to accumulated seawater that would gradually transgress low-lying continental regions. Subsequently, associated sub-crustal eclogitization and delamination would lead to basin subsidence and eustatic regression – in addition to new supply of pristine water from the interior. As demonstrated by Figures 7 & 8, the long-term eustatic sea-level changes, caused by vertical motions of the evolving and progressively thinned oceanic crust, has been an ongoing process notably since Cambrian time. The important question is what dynamic mechanism led to the relatively rapid influx of surface water during the Palaeozoic?
The long-term build-up of fluids and gases in the upper mantle and lower crust can be inferred to have led to a considerable increase in the confining pressure at these levels setting off a chain of related dynamo-tectonic and environmental processes. Those parts of the upper mantle that received the greater amount of degassing volatiles – the oceanic regions to be – underwent long-term uplift, whereby the remaining continental blocks were affected by transgressive super-cycles along with superimposed events of higher frequency sea-level changes. In response, sub-crustal eclogitization and associated delamination caused broad regions to undergo overall progressive subsidence, while corresponding regressive events affected less attenuated (higher standing) crustal blocks. Dynamically, the episodic widespread inward loss of heavier eclogitized sub-crustal sections led to periodic planetary acceleration which, in turn, gave rise to events of inertia-driven torsion of the increasingly fragmented brittle shell. Hence, wrench tectonics processes were set in action.
According to present geological and palaeomagnetic evidence, the late Proterozoic-early Cambrian equator is only exposed in two continental regions: (1) the Adelaide Geosyncline and Warburton-Georgina-Bonaparte basins of Central Australia (Brown et al., 1969) – with the continent in its pre-late Cretaceous/early Tertiary orientation (see Storetvedt & Longhinos, 2014a& b; Storetvedt 2015b) and (2) the Arctic Canada-Baffin Bay-Davis Strait-Labrador Sea sector. The remaining part of the topmost Precambrian palaeoequator cuts across present-day oceanic regions (see Storetvedt, 2003 for discussion). Consistent with this palaeo-equatorial orientation, the Lower Cambrian Bradore Sandstone of northern Newfoundland and Labrador shows near-horizontal remanence inclinations – suggesting a palaeo-equatorial location (Rao & Deutsch, 1976). From a more extensive palaeomagnetic and geological database, it has been inferred that the North American craton resided at low palaeolatitudes throughout the Upper Proterozoic (e.g., Link et al., 1992; Storetvedt, 2003). Furthermore, palaeomagnetic data indicate a palaeo-equatorial setting for the late Precambrian of Australia (Embleton & Williams, 1986). The occurrence of redbeds at various horizons of the Adelaide Geosyncline and the widespread accumulation of carbonates, including stromatolitic reef sequences, provide further evidence that Australia, during the greater part of late Precambrian and Lower Palaeozoic times, experienced tropical to sub-tropical conditions.
Palaeomagnetic data show that the Northern Appalachian foldbelt – of late early Lower-Middle Palaeozoic age, strikes across Newfoundland in a NE-SW direction and follows along the corresponding palaeo-equatorial zone. Thus, in the Labrador Sea region, the two palaeo-equatorial zones (late Precambrian and Lower Palaeozoic, respectively) intersect each other at a fairly steep angle, signifying an important spatial resetting of the globe (an event of polar wander) in the early Palaeozoic. In the wrench tectonic system, the equivalent anti-podal palaeo-equatorial crossing corresponds to the Tasman-Adelaidean junction in the Australia region; in the pre-late Cretaceous setting of the continents, the Caledonian-Appalachian foldbelt formed a great-circle girdling the globe along which the Tasman-New England tectonic zone was located (see Storetvedt, 2003). Inferentially, the major event of polar wander in the early-middle Cambrian – resetting the palaeo-equatorial bulge and the corresponding polar flattening – must have caused a significant hydrostatic pressure increase affecting the gas- and fluid-rich upper mantle thereby triggering a number of geological processes – such as sub-crustal eclogitization and associated gravity-driven crustal loss to the upper mantle, as well as ‘beginning’ isostatic basin subsidence, surface volcanism driven by high-pressured volatiles, expulsion of a significant volume of endogenous hydrous fluids to the surface – along with gases including methane, hydrogen, helium, hydrogen sulphide, hydrogen, etc. (cf. Gold, 1999; McLaughlin-West et al., 1999; Lupton et al., 1999, and many others).
According to Figure 8, marked eustatic regressions characterize principal geological time boundaries – which are thought to correspond to times of sub-crustal attenuation and isostatic basin subsidence, each event resulting in a distinct tectono-magmatic upheaval caused by changes in the Earth’s moment of inertia and thereby its rotation characteristics (Storetvedt, 1997 and 2003). The late Cambrian transgressive-regressive event was followed by subsequent sea-level rises during the Palaeozoic – culminating in regressive occurrences at the Ordovician-Silurian, Silurian-Devonian, Devonian-Carboniferous and Permian-Triassic boundaries. Thus, during the Palaeozoic, the rudimentary sea basins of the late Cambrian were deepened and laterally extended; although juvenile water from the interior was periodically added to the surface, the overall global sea-level fell ending in a marked low-stand at around the Permian-Triassic boundary. Thus, during the Palaeozoic, due to dynamo-tectonic processes, a substantial volume of seawater was added, but at the same time the capacity of the developing oceanic basins had grown so that the much less affected continental block was significantly drained. In fact, the deep regression at the Permian-Triassic boundary left more dry lands than existed prior to the major influx of seawater during the Cambrian; a rudimentary outline of the modern continents had thereby been established.
A number of studies have demonstrated that during Phanerozoic time, there was a strong correlation between distinct regressive episodes and events of mass extinction – particularly of marine faunas (e.g., Bayer & McGhee, 1985; Jablonski, 1986; Raup and Sepkoski, 1982; Hallam, 1989; Hallam and Wignall, 1999). Thus, Hallam and Wignall (1999) concluded that “Rapid high amplitude regressive-transgressive couplets are the most frequently observed eustatic changes at times of mass extinction, with the majority of extinctions occurring during the transgressive pulse when anoxic bottom waters often became extensive”.
The six main events of marine mass extinction, corresponding to marked regressive events at principal geological time boundaries, are shown in Figure 8. The sea-level high during most of the Palaeozoic – reaching its maximum in late Ordovician and Silurian times – was punctuated by a number of regressive events. The most distinct sea-level falls occur at principal geological time boundaries corresponding in turn to events of crustal loss to the upper mantle, progressive isostatic subsidence and cumulative development of oceanic basins, as well as a range of environmental events. In this way, eustatic sea-level variations are intimately tied to the range of first-order events in the Earth’s history. By the end of the Permian, the accumulated high volatile pressures in the upper mantle had eventually been ‘exhausted’. During the Palaeozoic, the flooded land masses had been subjected to a number of distinct regressive events, each supposedly related to stages of the progressively evolving deep sea basins, but the deep late Permian regression exposed more dry land than since the Precambrian. By now the evolving oceanic basins were in a rather unfinished state, but the increasing eustatic transgression during the Mesozoic, reaching its peak in the Upper Cretaceous (Figure 9) and followed by a sharp regression at around the K/T boundary, eventually gave rise to the modern deep sea basins. During the predicted long-lasting crustal oceanization – that gradually and episodically turned the once global-extent thick continental crust into the present land-deep sea mosaic – the volume of surface water must have increased exponentially, but the capacity of the deep sea containers had clearly expanded even more so that, today, we have more dry land than since the early Cambrian.
At times of major volcano-tectonic upheavals, including mass extinctions of marine fauna, the anoxic conditions discussed by Hallam and Wignall (1999), may easily have entered the seawater column. For example, some authors have suggested that the combination of massive gas-driven volcanism, associated ocean anoxic events and bursts of methane release may be responsible for three major biological catastrophes – at 250, 200, and 65 million years respectively, while Max et al. (1999) considered methane gas blow-outs as the actual source of fuel for the global firestorm recorded by soot layers at the K/T boundary. For the end of the Permian mass extinction – corresponding to a deep regression and the loss of as much as 95 % of all species on Earth, Erwin (1994) and Benton and Twitchett (2003) considered widespread volcanic activity to be the most likely cause. They concluded: “The extinction model involves global warming by 6˚C and [a] huge input of light carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system from the eruptions, but especially from gas hydrates, leading to an ever-worsening positive-feedback loop, the ‘runaway greenhouse’”. A global carbon isotope excursion behind the catastrophic die-off of terrestrial vegetation at the Permian-Triassic boundary was noted and discussed by Ward et al. (2000), and Michaelsen (2002) - studying the peat-forming plants across the northern Bowin Basin, Australia - concluded that about 95% of the plants disappeared rapidly at that time.
Figure 9. Part of the world map depicting the distribution of shallow seas across the present-day continents in the Upper Cretaceous. Diagram is based on Umbgrove (1942).
Hesselbo et al. (2000) presented evidence that, in the early Jurassic, isotopically-light carbon dominated all the upper oceanic, biospheric and atmospheric carbon reservoirs. They suggested that the observed patterns were produced by voluminous release of methane from marine deposits of gas hydrates, which would be a natural consequence of the Earth’s internal degassing (cf. Gold, 1999; Storetvedt, 2003). A similar dissociation of oceanic methane hydrate has been suggested for the isotope excursion at the Palaeocene-Eocene boundary (Dickins et al., 1995; Katz et al., 1999). Thus, throughout the post-Precambrian at least, the emission of major amounts of mantle-derived methane is liable to have raised global atmospheric temperature, notably at times of rapid eustatic excursions. The occurrence of soot in and immediately above the K/T boundary and extinction zone has been associated with a global firestorm (Wohlbach et al., 1988), an observation that Gilmour and Guenther (1988) referred to as “an incomplete combustion of methane” – a conclusion with which Max et al. (1999) also concurred.
The Upper Cretaceous transgressive peak was interrupted by a number of shorter-period sea level oscillations – presumably interlinked with progressive sub-crustal attenuation, changes in planetary rotation rate, and gas-driven volcanic activity in many regions of the world. However, since then the seas have gradually retreated from the continents. In oceanic regions, this ‘multifarious’ global pulsation – often referred to as the Alpine tectonic revolution – is well imprinted into the geological record, either as horizons of erosion or non-deposition (formed by stages of uplift of the developing oceanic crust), and/or events of volcanic activity (cf. Storetvedt, 1985). During the Upper Cretaceous, widespread distribution of thinly-crusted deep oceans appeared for the first time in Earth history. The deep sea basins that had existed during the early-mid Mesozoic were only of limited extent, consisting of circular to oval-shaped depressions surrounded by a mosaic of sub-aerially exposed continental masses less affected by sub-crustal attenuation. Within the deep oceans, many fragments of former land can still be recognized by a multitude of submerged aseismic ridges and plateaus with anomalously thick crust. Thus, throughout most of the Mesozoic, there existed land connections between the remaining continental blocks, providing relatively free exchange of biota, though – due to the accelerated loss of eclogitized crust (to the upper mantle) by the end of the Cretaceous – the developing ‘asthenosphere’ had reached a more ‘mature’ stage: the irregular brittle crust had become mechanically weakened as well as more easily detachable from the underlying soft asthenosphere.
A dynamical consequence of heavier (eclogitized) crust sinking into the deformable upper mantle was an increase in planetary spin rate and/or events of polar wander – triggering latitude-dependent wrench deformation of the inhomogeneous crust (Storetvedt, 2003). Thus, for the first time, the modern continental masses were separated by thin and deformable oceanic crust and, due to an increasing planetary rotation, the land masses became subjected to relative motions in situ. For the larger continental blocks, these inertial rotations were only minor. Figure 10 gives a sketch of the suggested overall Upper Cretaceous palaeogeography – immediately before the onset of the global wrench tectonic revolution at around the K/T boundary which moderately changed the azimuthal orientations of the major continents.
An overall regressive sea-level trend prevailed during the Lower Tertiary, but by the beginning of the Miocene this tendency was put in reverse. It may be argued that the second eustatic sea-level super-cycle of the Phanerozoic, having been initiated in the early Triassic, eventually came to a close in the late Oligocene (cf. Figure 8); it had lasted for some 220 million years and had included many minor eustatic rises and falls in combination with tectono-magmatic pulses, some of them accompanied by pronounced biological and environmental consequences. Thus, a sharp event of polar wander took place at around the Eocene-Oligocene boundary (ca. 35 million years ago), amounting to an angular shift of 35˚ of the equatorial bulge, bringing the Earth to approximately its present spatial orientation. Thus, for the first time in Phanerozoic history, the North Pole became positioned in the land-locked present-day Arctic Basin, and the South Pole was displaced a corresponding distance from its early Tertiary position in the South Atlantic, onto the Antarctic continent. This polar wander event marks the beginning of the well-established onset of the present Antarctica ice cap; in Europe, the major latitudinal shift is well demonstrated by palaeontological and palaeoclimatological evidence (cf. Pomerol, 1982) – associated with a drastic cooling (e.g. Buchardt, 1978).
Figure 10. Sketch map of the suggested palaeogeography of the Earth by the end of the Cretaceous, prior to the subsequent wrench tectonic continental rotations which disrupted former trans-oceanic land ‘bridges’. In comparison with present-day geography, it may be noted that the wrench rotations of the Atlantic continents (their separation as well as their azimuthal orientation) were only minor. Dark blue colour indicates deep sea basins, while light blue represent ‘Cenomanian’ transgressive seas. Diagram is based on Storetvedt (2003).
In continental settings, the Eocene/Oligocene dynamic transition triggered the eruption of the Ethiopian flood basalts (36.9 ±0.9 My), and a number of volcanic gas blow-outs took place at that time – e. g., the Mistastin and Wanapitei Lake craters in Canada, and the Popigai crater in Russia. In an Ar/40-Ar/39 age study of the 100 km diameter Popigai structure, Bottomley et al. (1997) noted the close match between the obtained age (36.9 ±0.2 My) and that of the North American tektites which had been associated with the 85 km diameter Chesapeake Bay crater off the eastern U.S. coast, with an age of 35.3 ±0.2 My (Poag et al., 1994; Poag and Aubry, 1995). Adding to the diversity of global geological phenomena occurring at this time, can be cited by the volcanic ashes in the Massignano stratigraphic section of Italy, dated at 35 ±0.4 My, which contain a distinct Ir peak – in association with shocked quartz (Montanari et al., 1993).
The significant spatial shift of the Earth some 35 million years ago must have led to considerable hydrostatic pressure increases in regions of the volatile-rich and irregular asthenosphere. In addition to events of continued crustal delamination, the overpressure within the topmost mantle would create tectonically fractured crustal ‘chimneys’ that served as a form of pressure valves which on the surface would give rise to volcanism and high-pressure blow-outs forming craters. In many ways, the major shift of the equatorial bulge at around the Eocene/Oligocene boundary may be seen as the terminal spasm of the Alpine tectonic revolution which can be related to the widespread tectono-magmatic activity at that time – notably in the oceans. In the Exxon eustatic curve, a regressive event characterizes the Eocene/Oligocene boundary, and the Lower Oligocene transgression terminates in a deep regression in the Middle Oligocene – serving as a marker horizon between the Rupelian and the Chattian epochs (Haq et al., 1987).
In a study of the global distribution of late Lower Tertiary stratigraphic hiatuses in the sea floor record, Keller et al. (1987) found erosion events to have occurred at the Eocene/Oligocene and Oligocene/Miocene boundaries; this is consistent with the general observation of a close link between tectonics and distinct regressive-transgressive couplets linked with geological time boundaries. However, Keller et al. did not find an erosional horizon corresponding to the relatively sharp mid-Oligocene sea-level change in the Exxon curve which is well demonstrated by a DSDP drilling transect of the South Atlantic (see below). On the other hand, they found ‘corresponding’ erosional discordances in both the early and the late Oligocene. In this context, it should be remembered that any major shift of the equatorial bulge and polar flattening (such as that occurring around 35 million years ago) would have been liable to cause regional variations in asthenospheric volatile pressures and related crustal effects, notably at low-to-intermediate palaeolatitudes, thereby masking the true eustatic sea-level variation in some regions.
Overall, the Oligocene showed a regressive tendency indicating ongoing crustal loss to the mantle and related development of deep sea basins. This late stage reconstitution of the crust inevitably led to changes in the Earth’s moment of inertia, increasing the confining pressure within the lithospheric lenses as well as in the melt pockets at higher levels – paving the way for a new round of more forceful tectono-magmatic events. Thus, starting at around the Oligocene/Miocene boundary, ca. 22 million years ago and the sea encroached once more on the land, culminating in an overall high stand in the Lower-Middle Miocene. The Exxon proposal of the post-Oligocene (Neogene) sea-level variations (Haq et al., 1987) is shown in Figure 11. According to this scheme, for the Lower and Middle Miocene – spanning a period of about 15 million years – the global shore-line was raised by some 150 metres. This long-standing transgression was punctured by two short-lived regressive events, around 15 My ago, ending with a major sea-level drop some 8 My years ago – the latter defining the Miocene sea-level minimum. The Miocene Era was terminated by a distinct regressive phase at ca. 5 My ago (end of the Messinian). These sea-level low stands are most likely associated with events of planetary acceleration – being a dynamic response to inward loss of widespread eclogitized lower crustal segments.
In the Atlantic region, the oscillating mid-Miocene regressions, with their related high-pressured volatile-rich asthenosphere, is time-equivalent with the origin of the Columbia River basalts (dated at 16.2 ±1 My) and with the Steinheim and Ries craters in Germany (dated at ca. 15 My) – see Figure 11. Miocene and younger elevations of the deep sea crust, giving rise to continental transgression, affected broader crustal regions of the world oceans. For example, in the islands of the Central Atlantic (Cape Verde Islands, Ascension Island, Madeira and the Azores), Lower-Middle Miocene and younger marine sedimentary horizons are found at heights ranging between 400 and 500 metres above present sea level (Mitchell-Thomé,1976), while Miocene and younger volcanic activity shows widespread distribution in this part of the Atlantic (see Storetvedt, 1985). The Neogene phases of regression are inferred to be related intimately to the youngest phases of oceanization – having transformed particular regions of continental crust into oceanic-type structures. For example, in the Mediterranean a number of isolated circular-to-oval shaped depressions formed during the Messinian – in association with a very thick succession of salt of variable chemistry degassed from the mantle. Wezel (1985), for example, argued that, in the late Miocene, the Tyrrhenian region was the site of an upstanding intra-Alpine continental crust that in Plio-Quaternary time underwent variable sub-crustal thinning and vertical collapse activated by upper mantle processes.
Figure 11. Diagram shows the Exxon eustatic sea-level curve for post-Oligocene (Neogene) time – after Haq et al. (1987).
As we have argued above, periodic vertical motions of the sea floor – reflecting build-up and subsequent release of upper mantle volatile pressures – with related sedimentary discordances and magmatic activity, are likely to have been a persistent global feature and the ultimate cause of the principal events of eustatic sea-level changes. Thus, Figure 12a delineates the significant Miocene depositional break across the South Atlantic, at latitude 30˚S, which inferentially corresponds to the Lower-Middle Miocene transgressive phase shown in Figure 11. The associated flooding of low-lying regions of South America is outlined in Figure 12b. In an extended sedimentary section at DSDP site 355 on the North Brazilian margin, sedimentary hiatuses were recorded in the topmost Cretaceous (Maastrichtian), at around the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, and in the Middle Miocene – supporting the thesis of a close connection between major phases of oceanic crustal uplift and erosion with corresponding events of sea-level rise on low-lying continental regions. Compilation of cored Mesozoic sediments in sites of the western and eastern margins of the Central Atlantic (Arthur, 1979; Storetvedt, 1985) again shows a significant stratigraphic hiatus consistent with the major Upper Mesozoic eustatic transgression.
Figure 12. Diagram (a) shows the ‘Middle’ Miocene sedimentary break of the Deep Sea Drilling Project Leg 3 sites across the South Atlantic at 30˚S (simplified after Maxwell et al., 1970). This trans-oceanic depositional hiatus is regarded here as a segment of a widespread deep sea crustal uplift having produced the Lower-Middle Miocene eustatic sea-level rise. Diagram (b) exemplifies the resulting mid-Miocene sea-level (light blue) of South America (Webb, 1995).
Concluding summary
In this paper, the focus has been on the origin of Earth’s surface water and the cause of sea-level changes for which the crustal product is a continuing, albeit jerky, loss of eclogitized gravity-driven continental material to the mantle – eventually leading to formation of the present-day thin oceanic crust and deep sea basins. As a result of the actual degassing Earth model, today’s continents have, during the Phanerozoic, been repeatedly flooded by slowly rising seas which after sea-level high stands have subsequently retreated to form distinct sea-level lows. It is an observation of paramount importance, long noted by many authors, that the most marked regressive events occur at times of principal geological time boundaries – representing revolutionary episodes in Earth history – in terms of tectonic, magmatic, biological and environmental happenings. In this way, sea-level changes became intimately linked to the rest of the planet’s first-order geological manifestations.
Central in this discussion is that recurrent sea-level low-stands eventually gave rise to ever-growing deep sea basins, and the transgressive-regressive couplets continuously added fresh surface water from the mantle. The first transgressive super-cycle commenced in the early Palaeozoic – being closely linked to the marine biological boom at that time, lasting till the late Palaeozoic. However, a deep sea-level regression at the Permian/Triassic boundary, adding a multitude of toxic gases and fluids to the sea and the atmosphere, led to mass extinction and the most severe crisis in the history of life (Raup, 1979). At this time, the evolving deep sea basins had evolved into a sizeable volume thus draining the continents – leaving more dry land than ever before in post-Precambrian history. But internal gases and fluids continued their upper mantle accumulation and accompanying pressure increase – giving rise to a Mesozoic uplift of the evolving oceanic basement, with an associated overall major sea-level rise that culminated in the Upper Cretaceous. The following regression and upper mantle gas exhaustion led to another major biotic and environmental crisis – at around the K/T boundary. By now the world oceans were nearing their present state and extent, but continued to demonstrate alternating cycles of sea-level changes, with stratigraphic control, suggesting that the deep sea basins are still under development. In addition, it is highly probable that the volume of sea water has increased continuously to this day, and the major part of the planet’s water may probably still be residing in the interior.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6