Monday, June 3, 2013

Contra Plate Tectonics

Here is an alternate explanation of the cracks found on the Earth's surface:

It has been taught for many decades that the Earth is comprised of individual moving plates on top of a liquid mantle. This is unnecessary. The appearance of tectonic plates is simply caused by the mantle cooling and contracting, heating and expanding in various locations underneath the crust. This phenomenon is understood and dealt with in the civil engineering of large concrete structures such as bridges, and even sidewalks. This thermodynamic phenomenon is why concrete and steel bridges are designed with gaps in them to allow for contraction and expansion without cracking. If there were no small gaps designed in bridges then the bridge would become structurally unsound and collapse. Similarly, as the Earth’s mantle contracts and cools the top portion (crust) adjusts and splits along fault lines because there are no gaps to allow for structural stress dissipation. The location of the cracks (fault lines) therefore will be a continual source of earthquakes. This explains the incredible power of earthquakes and the appearance of fault lines. Plate tectonics is unnecessary, the continents have not moved any appreciable distance in as much as a concrete sidewalk or giant concrete bridge moves. As well there is not any specific mechanism to move plates in transverse orientations as the only direction that quadrillions of tons of rock would move is in the direction gravity provides, which is down. The Earth is cooling and shrinking, the distances of “plates” being measured to “move” is simply thermodynamic contraction, this rate will obviously be measured to be quite slow.
(From Wolynski, Plate Tectonics is Unnecessary, link)


Over the past century we have been given this plate tectonic theory. The problem with this theory is that it is ultimately rooted in an inference taken from the shapes on maps.  The seed was sown in the Renaissance when first maps showed that the coastlines of South America and Africa have shapes which could appear to fit together like two pieces in a puzzle. Some assumed that they were once together.  From this was derived a mythical supercontinent, a single landmass, i.e. Pangaea with the continental drift hypothesis.

Pangaea, continental drift and plate tectonics go hand in hand. If you can swallow Pangaea, you can eat plate tectonics for desert. Plate tectonics is built upon the fantastical concept that Pangaea existed in the past. There is no validation that Pangaea existed since no one has ever seen it.  A few fossils and coastline similarities is not a validation. No one in their sane mind can ever tell you that Pangaea is proven to be true.  Pangaea is not a fact of the Universal Movie.  It is not even a statement of facts.  It is a speculation with no validation.  The formation and fragmentation of Pangaea is not a consummated event. It is a speculated event.  Plate tectonics explains speculated events not consummated events. Thus it is a philosophy blanketed as science. Pangaea and plate tectonics is its own system of thought ultimately derived from the assumption that South America and Africa have shapes which appear to fit one into another. 

Once Pangaea and continental drift were proposed it was cast aside as absurd. But some scientists continued to forcefully argue in its favor. Its a beautiful idea right? They would not let go of it. They campaigned like politicians and subdued peers to the point where all their peers asked for was a mechanism. Later the sea floor was mapped out it was noted that there are faults in the sea bed with magma spilling through. And so they adopted this as their mechanism for continental drift and justified Pangaea's existence. Now Pangaea and the upgraded version of continental drift called plate tectonics is a scientific doctrine with different sects of interpretations.

And they did not stop with Pangaea. Soon there came to be supercontinent cycles with a total of nine proposed prehistorical supercontinents: Vaalbara, Ur, Kenorland, Columbia, Rodinia, Pannotia, Pangaea, Laurasia, Gondwana. Does this seem reasonable? To me these are myths.  This is science fiction.  

Fortunately, there are other possible ways of explaining the Earth's faults like the brief one presented above. And there are sound criticisms of plate tectonics out there. But these do not include the mythical Pangaea.

For my part I have my validation that the proposed Pangaea, the supercontinents and plate tectonics are false. My validation comes from my God through Sacred Scripture:


Have you no respect for me? Why don't you tremble in my presence? I, the LORD, define the ocean's sandy shoreline as an everlasting boundary that the waters cannot cross. The waves may toss and roar, but they can never pass the boundaries I set. (Jeremiah 5:22)


God did not define the shoreline nine times, just one time as a continual boundary with no substantial change. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.