Some Thoughts on Empirical Evidence Supporting Expansion Tectonics

Expansion Tectonics is the geological hypothesis that the Earth has undergone massive growth over geologic time. It competes with the Plate Tectonics hypothesis. Both concepts begin with a super continent called Pangaea that broke up over the last 200-300 million years to form the continents observed today. The primary difference between these concepts is that Plate Tectonics assumes that Earth's radius has remained relatively constant over time whereas Expansion Tectonics assumes the Earth's radius has increased over time. Although Plate Tectonics is the widely accepted paradigm today, many professional geologists who have closely studied the empirical evidence maintain that the Expansion Tectonics concept provides a superior model that better fits what is actually observed. They point to many technical problems with the Plate Tectonics model. Empirical evidence favors the Expansion Tectonics model which would be readily adopted if it wasn't for one major problemthe requirement of a viable mechanism to explain how the Earth gains the mass needed for expansion to have occurred. Part one of this book describes the origin of the Expansion Tectonics model and the empirical evidence in support of this model. Part two describes a new mass gain hypothesis based on a viable physical process that has an empirical basis in laboratory experiments. This book is quite thought provoking and will open your eyes to a new understanding of the Earth's geological history. It is directed to a non-technical audience which has an interest in science. The book contains an extensive index and detailed bibliography of technical references on every topic covered. In addition to the paperback version, the book is also available as an eBook at a lower price.

Dettagli