• Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
« on: September 02, 2017, 10:05:35 pm »
What's Best Theory of Geology? (& a Poll)
Saturday, September 2, 2017 3:37 PM
From:    "lloyd kinder"


Which of these geological theories do you think are most correct? And what may be wrong with any of the others?

ET, Expansion Tectonics, which says: Earth is expanding and its radius has doubled in the past 200 million years.1

PT, Plate Tectonics, which says: Mantle convection forms plate extensions at ocean ridges and subducts plate edges at subduction zones.2

ST, Surge Tectonics, which says: Earth has cooled and shrunk greatly and densification has caused continental lands to sink and magma surge channels have caused orogenesis etc.3

EU, Electric Universe, which says: Galactic electric currents formed the Earth and interplanetary discharges formed its features.4

ESU, Electrostatic Universe, which says: Stars and planets form by implosions of galactic electrostatic filaments, which produce current-free electric double layers within the bodies.5

SD, Shock Dynamics, which says: A large asteroid impact broke up the supercontinent, causing rapid continental drift, orogenesis, volcanism, glaciation, etc.6

3. +
4. +
6. +

I say ESU and SD are most correct.

Saturday, September 2, 2017 5:30 PM

lloyd, I do not normally have get involved in physics topics at this level but did find this link interesting.  I suspect most people intrested in this area of physics have already viewed it.
Cornelis Verhey
(from mobile)

Saturday, September 2, 2017 9:57 PM
Kola Borehole.
Hi Cornelis, thank you for the Kola borehole commentary link. It's interesting that seismometer readings at great depth correlate with higher metamorphic(?) temperatures, instead of a change in rock type from granite to basalt. So is the finding that rock density decreases and permeability increases with much water content at greatest depths. And so is the finding of microfossils in precambrian rock. However, Shock Dynamics finds that sedimentary rock strata are mere thousands of years old, deposited all in a short time, and the precambrian may not be much older, whereas the article said it's 2 billion years old. It has been found that radiometric dating is in error and that ionization greatly increases the rate of radioactive decay by up to billions of times or more. So, if ionization occurred during radioactive element formation, such elements could be very young.

Expansion Tectonics.
I asked James Maxlow: Do the shapes and contents (rock & fossil types) of opposite shores of all oceans (especially the Pacific) match very precisely? I told him: If you have the data to show that they do match all around (at least around the Pacific Ocean), that should just about clinch your arguments. His manuscript suggests that the data does show a match all around the Pacific, so, if he can provide the data, I think his theory will be nearly proven. However, it seems likely that the time and rate of expansion will need to be revised, because the sedimentary strata, which mark the time of the expansion, appear to have been deposited very recently. Also, it will likely need to be determined if the expansion of the Earth occurred due to increase in its mass, or change in its shape. - Good Day. Lloyd


Social Buttons