expansion.geologist-1011.netExpanding Earth vs. Plate Tectonics: The Late Twentieth Century Refutation of the Expanding Earth Th

eory eMail directory . Software . Web Design . Geologist Consulting Geologist | Home | About me | Contact me | Site Map | Privacy | Security | Standards | Legal | Timothy Casey B.Sc.(Hons.): Consulting Geologist . Not so Apologetic . Deforestation . Climate . Greenhouse Effect . Volcanic CO 2 . Volcanic CFCs . Expanding Earth . Palaeomagnetism . The Age of the Earth . Fossil Record. Science . Pseudoscience . Genesis . Interpretation . Movies and Books. Most Misquoted Expanding Earth vs. Plate Tectonics: The Late Twentieth Century Refutation of the Expanding Earth Theory Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.) Consulting Geologist Uploaded ISO:2009-Oct-13 Revised ISO:2010-May-16 Abstract Expanding earth theory, in both its mass accretion and mass conservation variants, calls plate tectonics into question. For the most part, the expanding earth theory relies heavily on the assumption that subduction does not occur. Verification of subduction by numerous cosmogenic isotope studies and common direct GPS measurements of subducting plate motion refuted the expanding earth model in the late Twentieth century. Introduction The Plate Tectonics model used to explain observed convergence of pieces of crust, known as "tectonic plates", at subduction zones, and divergence of these tectonic plates at rift zones, gains independent support from a variety of sources including palaeogeography and geochemical studies of unstable isotopes such as Beryllium 10. The concept of Plate Tectonics began with the idea of Continental Drift . Continental Drift was first proposed by Ortelius (1596) based on the fit of continental coastlines. Although loosely underpinned by the corresponding coastal geography, the idea lacked independent corroboration. The first empirical corroboration of Continental Drift was provided by Snider-Pellegrini (1858), a geographer who showed that the geographic distribution of fossil assemblages was continuous across continental boundaries as they first existed when the continents were together. Snider-Pellegrini (1858) lacked an empirical mechanism and when Wegener (1929) found that Continental Drift solved the apparent contradictions in palaeoclimatology between different regions, he was still unable to offer a verifiable mechanism. For this reason, the idea, although strongly underpinned by verifiable empirical evidence, remained largely incomplete. It is worth noting that many geologists ignored the evidence provided by Wegener on the grounds that he was a meteorologist with no formal training in geology - and therefore not an expert in the field. Ironically, during the same year, Arthur Holmes discovered that volcanic activity could not provide an adequate escape route for the amount of heat produced by the interior radioactivity of the earth. He thereby concluded that the heat in the interior of the earth must be redistributed by convection in the outer layers of the earth’s interior. Holmes (1929), provided the first empirical notion for any Continental Drift mechanism. From here, the mechanism of mantle convection remained to be corroborated by more direct evidence. Arnold (1956) discovered that Beryllium 10 is cosmogenic. However, it was not until the 1980s that 10 Be was used to track fluid motion in the upper mantle. Objections to the idea of Plate Tectonics, usually based on the assumption that subduction is still an unsubstantiated process (Vine, 1987), have a history spanning several years now. The major weakness being a lack of any credible driver, this theory has sought support in the convolutions of the more complex theories such as fluid dynamics and quantum mechanics. Personally, I’m intrigued by the implications in the emergence of theories such as expanding earth when used in a persistent campaign to question the validity of the Plate Tectonics model. What exactly is so wrong with Plate Tectonics, given that no-one appears to be offering a more comprehensive explanation of the evidence? As an intellectual campaign, expanding earth theory lacks the usual cognitive extortion that gets packaged with pseudo-sciences. There is no impending catastrophe to hammer us into intellectual submission, and the one potentially pseudo-scientific characteristic is the juxtaposition of expansion as an unverifiable driver against convection, which without evidence of subduction can also be considered equally dubious. Such a brave assertion made to the degree of speculation of the plate tectonic idea in its early days, is perhaps a credit to Prof. Carey, whose job it was to sound the alarm in the event that consensus supplanted scepticism. Expanding Planets in a Shrunken Nutshell Mass Accretion Mass accretion via condensation and collision are widely accepted processes by which mass is added to the planets by external deposition of extraterrestrial material in the case of planet earth. Thankfully, the rate of accretion is far too slow to account the rate of divergence measured at rift zones. Life would be interesting to say the least, if meteor showers were more common than rain storms! However, the idea that mass was accumulating in the interior of the earth via some unexplained process dates back to when Yarkovsky (1888) suggested the accumulation and transformation of "aether" into chemical elements inside the earth; forcing the earth to expand. Although "aether" is soundly refuted, the nearest analogue in modern scientific models is the gravitational field. Yarkovsky’s idea is perhaps the simplest and most natural depiction of a perpetual motion machine. Potential energy from matter in the pressure column is expended at the base of that column in the formation of new matter, which forces the column up and outward - effectively forcing the body to expand and increasing the potential energy of the system and forces acting at the core. The problem is that the expenditure of energy in this case dictates the acceleration of mass towards the base of the column instead of away. Yarkovsky’s Aether expansion machine thus requires twice the energy that is theoretically available and an additional missing process by which the energy may be expended without depleting the reserve. Hilgenburg (1933, 1974) interestingly enough, also goes on to support the aether transmutation idea some time after it had been soundly discredited by empirical science. Some 100 years after Yarkovsky, Professor Carey puts forward an expanding earth idea based on an unknown mass accretion process he speculates is connected with the expansion of the universe (Carey, 1988). According to Einstein’s most famous equation, an energy mechanism sufficient to produce matter on a scale that would explain the amount of tectonic rifting on this planet, requires an energy source more powerful than the sun. The short answer to mass accretion earth expansion after Yarkovsky, Hilgenburg, & Carey, is that an energy source of the magnitude that could produce the material expansion they propose without vaporising the planet in the process, such as a cold star, has never been observed - unlike the alternative mechanisms said to drive plate tectonics, such as convection. Mass Conservation A year after Yarkovsy’s publication, the idea of Continental Drift - usually attributed to Wegener - was proposed by Montovani (1889) using earth expansion as a possible mechanism. This was not the first time Continental Drift had been proposed. Continental Drift was proposed by Ortelius (1596), corroborated by Snider-Pellegrini (1858) who suggested the rather fanciful and unsubstantiated mechanism of continents driven apart by a massive volcanic eruption on the sixth day of creation, and later corroborated by Wegener (1912) who declined to argue a mechanism. Montovani (1889) presents us with the first attempt to explain the mechanism of Continental Drift without invoking any supernatural meddling. With Continental Drift the product of Yarkovsy’s Earth Expansion , it still remained to find a more plausible mechanism for Earth...