Corrected Assumptions

Being re-written to focus again on the fact that Newton’s ‘law’ of gravitation is wrong.

Little more needs writing than is on the Home Page of this website. All the leading expert geophysicists and geochemists are in a state of irrational denial that the Laws of Physics do not always apply, that landscape dynamics has never lifted mountain ranges outwards into the far far less dense atmosphere or fossils into the same atmosphere and mid-ocean ridges into the oceans, or that mantle penetrating impacts impacts did not deliver Earth’s wealth of water in a comet and three asteroids. In short, making assumptions is no way to do science when facts tell the incontestable truth.

And nor did the experts ever look for alternative explanations for their assumptions in the universe.

repeat and  stress key parts of the H0me Page, that Newton’s ‘law’ is wrong because no leading geophysicists, geochemists and the Director of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) could answer questions in defence of their consensus opinions. The reason is that the published mechanism driving plate tectonics has always been on the wrong road to the truth. No visible crust has been taken as doing what it is seen to do every moment of every day on the Earth – sink automatically until it reaches a level where its density equals the lowest one in what it is sinking through. Then it stops as dictated by a Natural Law, which never shows any sign of a force tending to attract the crust to anything at greater depth.

As a consequence, there are many more errors in the academic earth science written record than are corrected on this Page, and they are all attributable to unnecessary assumptions made by Isaac Newton and the leaders when they could not see what they liked to think they saw, including the following factual, repeat factual,  questions to which there were no answers in defence of the academic consensus 0pinions. 1. If the bulk of Earth’s water was not delivered by a comet what did deliver it? And 2. If the making of that water in the form of OH did not force relatively high density rock outwards into the air and into mid-ocean ridges what did? And 3. How does this not therefore invalidate Newton’s ‘law’ of gravitation? 

No academic peer reviewer, no professor, no other lecturer and no learned Institution has ever been called to public account for what was sold or taught to students. No failing theory in Earth Science has ever being formally declared as proved wrong. No public inquest has been called into whether anything published should never have passed peer review or whether anything still in print has revealed a lack of the sceptical testing demanded by the scientific method; and to stress this point again because it is so crucially important and proven conclusively to apply in this case, no leading earth scientists ever contemplated in writing whether or not they were on the wrong road to the truth.

It is furthermore highly apparent that no leading physical scientist has ever been called to account for making even glaring mistakes like those in Corrections 1A and 1B. They were made by Professor Dan McKenzie of Cambridge University.

When I, a socially responsible and recognised expert geologist in the cement industry (and with postgraduate insight into the mechanical properties of all rocks on the geological timescale), reported basic mistakes to several leading academics, all I received were (i) instructions to submit for the internal academic peer review what had proved that process to have failed in everything to do with gravity, (ii) rejections with no substantiation, (iii) others implying that I was wrong simply because my reports conflicted with the academic consensus or, (iv) most frequently, no response at all. (Twelve years of experience have confirmed that there was no hope of publication of what would condemn the entire global Institution of leading academic earth scientists.)

And when I persevered against this clear abuse of privilege and Royal Charter obligations my technical arguments were misrepresented, my character assassinated, and all further two-way conversation was blocked.

Nobody should be able to do such things without detailing how exhaustive scrutiny of every relevant earth science principle in my reports had been proved conclusively to be wrong. And until that is done I will assert with maximum strength that the presumption of insuperability of acknowledged expert opinion has led, for example, to avoidable loss of lives and livelihoods; extremely serious harm being done to humanity’s overall sense of well-being and faith in the future; perpetuation of fundamentally wrong science and its education; colossal wastage of taxpayers’ money; politicians being given unbalanced technical advice; an urgent need for a global announcement that extremely serious and far from inconsequential mistakes have been made by the Earth Science Institution; and, as a specific example, BP plc being judged wrongly as the main guilty party in the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

The self-declared right of our earth science leaders to be judge and jury about the accuracy or not of everything they believe surely must end, and regulation and public accountability must be the same for everyone whose advice restricts the public’s and industry’s freedom. There are many retired industrial experts who are not seeking funds to pursue vested interests available to safeguard students, taxpayers, industry, and policy makers by searching for and publishing mistakes in subjects shown to be placing needless, impracticable and otherwise inadmissible assumptions above facts of Nature born of ubiquitous observation.

I urge this website’s visitors to read all finalised Correspondence published on the Page with that name. They can have no idea how annoyed, distressed and frustrated I have long been on behalf of the public and, if they will forgive me, myself as a much-maligned person.

I claim the right to free speech of my firm opinion that at least all geophysicists and geochemists who held senior positions in the past or hold them now, and whose work has had anything to do with plate tectonics, associated volcanism and their interfaces with other branches of Earth Science, should make amends to every student they taught, person whose knowledge, safety, wealth or way of life has been unfairly adversely affected, and to everyone who has paid for books, papers or advice sold by them. I assert all these because their conclusively proved failings have been so serious and costly.

In 2014 I presented a formal Petition to two leading earth scientists, one of whom was Professor Ludden. Neither he nor its other recipient, Professor Dan McKenzie, responded to a single question or implied one in the scientific way requested. That is, to quote from the Petition, ‘We trust that you will be completely objective, impartial, and open-minded in meeting all the uncompromising demands of the scientific method. Of all these we ask you to have in mind especially that all scientists should look at all pros and cons (in other words try to prove themselves wrong as well as right) and not reject anything that could be true.

Surely both of you and the entire earth science community consider that all demands of the scientific method have therefore always been met by its leading members. So, would you please show that all basic principles related to the standing theory about a circulatory mechanism in the mantle were thoroughly tested to establish that there were definitely no flaws in it, or alternative mechanism?

Following on from this, why therefore is nature’s undeniable density sorting and layering process (DSLP) definitely not a fundamental mechanism everywhere in the Earth? Would you please point out to us where in the written record this has been established in full accordance with the scientific method? We are conscious of how DSLP also rounds the Earth and saw how it could explain key ocean floor structures, the puzzling trans-ocean movements of ocean crust, and how and why this crust came to be diving down into the Earth. C H Eaton could go further to claim that DSLP definitely explained all the structures in a coherent way. You were told of this numerous times, backed up by scientific reasoning and yet you always disregarded him and everything he wrote. Would you please justify this?’

The lack of due response caused me, C H Eaton, to look for invalidities in Earth Science that could realistically have been avoided. Not only did I succeed, I found glaring elementary ones (eg those in 1A and 1B below); more violations of rules of the scientific method and Charter commitments; more demonstrably unnecessary so invalid assumptions; more obvious contrivances; more grossly overstretched Laws of Nature born of ubiquitous observation that invariably govern the behaviour of multi-density mixtures; and more prejudice against challenges to illogical ideas of the leading geophysicist concerned, especially from several of us as senior industrial scientists and engineers.

Corrections 1A and 1B. Of  the Prerequisite for the purely assumed thermally-powered convective Mechanism proposed by Professor Dan McKenzie (and believed unquestioningly by Professor Ludden) to be driving Plate Tectonics. This belief by Prof Ludden lasted at least from 2011 to 2014 before he switched indefensibly in later years to different ones.

The following is written in bold red to highlight how illogical the published theory was, an obvious fact now also ignored by the RAS Director.

In its most widely held form, a still standing plate tectonic theory, actually an obviously invalid hypothesis, assumed that radioactive mineral grains, and only them, clustered themselves from unspecified assumed distances away to form, again, purely assumed heat engines at various places in the Earth’s mantle. Magma between and around the grains was then yet again assumed to be heated by the minerals’ decay, assumedly eventually triggering and then continuing to drive the so-called Rayleigh Taylor Instability so strongly that it still yet again assumedly circulated mantle magma en masse, first up to the lithosphere’s underside, then circumferentially across oceans, then down to observed depths of about 670 km and partly more under the Sunda/Filipino plate before assumedly turning to counter flows reconnecting with the original or different heat engines.

This clustering notion was already totally impracticable in its conception but even worse was to come. All the imagined radioactive mineral grains then had to defy up to hundreds of millions of years of viscous magma’s efforts to move them as it flowed through/around the assumed clusters/heat engines to be heated!

All this proved incontrovertibly that at least one acknowledged leading expert in the intellectual elite, who is still teaching  students and advising governments, made mistakes at the elementary common-sense level. And yet it was believed widely to be an earth science principle discovered and developed by a reliable leading expert, all manifestly with no practical testing. It was also taught that heat was the form of energy powering all tectonics and volcanism, this impracticable idea assumed to be overturning multi-density solid/fluid magmatic mixtures without any of the density sorting accepted by almost everyone as ‘everything finds its own (density) level’.

Correction 2. Of a later wrong theory espoused by Professor Kissling in 2021-2 correspondence written after an executive industrial colleague, Dr Ian Ward, challenged him without needing any Soil Mechanics insight.

I took up the challenge more searchingly with Prof Kissling but never received a reply.

The theory, actually a deeply flawed assumption credited mainly I understand to Prof Molnar, is a classic example of forcing facts to fit with assumptions instead of adapting the latter to accommodate the facts. The truth is that no assumption was ever needed as later discussions proved in emails to someone who I am sure always abided by the self-evident rules of the scientific method.

The ‘theory’ tried to do away with the monstrous full circulation assumption but only reduced the scale of it, both in terms of depth range and only to what was still required by the, again, assumption of hotspots. It still retained the assumed principles of steep temperature gradients being able to trigger and then go on to drive a long linear concave-flanked mid-ocean ridge offsetting mechanism, and a ridge-push-slab-pull one assumedly helping to power subduction. (This was when, initially, there was no slab to pull anything.) And he added the unrealistic notion of rod-like hotspot plumes rising through the mantle’s full depth in an attempt to explain what exists in places like Hawaii. (Any realistic scientist would know that even an assumed deep-seated plume would splay out so that its edges coincided with Earth’s radii, and hence that these islands’ lavas had to be shallow-seated.)

In short, without mantle penetrating impacts injecting H2O into the Earth’s mantle, there could never be any experimental way to reproduce what has happened and is still happening inside the Earth. And yet this fact has been ignored for over twelve years with minds so fixed in belief of no deep impacts that directly observed Natural Laws were abandoned to suit contrived assumptions.

All the above solved many longstanding problems and provided for a perfectly coherent account of what formed the ocean floors and disintegrated Pangea. And, because such impacts were never interpreted, the invalidity of all assumptions in the Earth Science Institution’s written record was confirmed.

Basic Invalidity 5A. Re the Rayleigh-Taylor Instability Concept as used in Geology. This is published out of order because it is so important to illustrate how  experts in every relevant discipline should be consulted before proposing any new big theory. Like me, Peter Dover was ignored by geophysicists who must have known perfectly well that no laboratory test would confirm their most basic assumption, that all components of a multi-density solid-fluid mixture would rise together automatically through thousands of kilometres provided they got the heating right. It was hyper-imagination gone mad.

Unlike me, Mr Dover stayed moderate in his scientific language but his confident and cogent development of a refutation through to a conclusion had not been ignored anywhere near as long as my much greater number of equally scientifically incontestable or otherwise justifiable ones were in the public interest.

And of course there has never been one, and that is an example of why this Page as a whole is so damning in its criticism of all standing so-called theories about what instigated and since drove the mechanism moving all continents, lifting all mountain chains (and not incidentally countless billions plants) up into the extremely low-density atmosphere, powering all earthquakes and breaking every bit of rock where it’s faulted now.

And so to Mr Dover’s entirely accurate disproof of use of the Rayleigh Taylor Instability and so the

‘The role of the Rayleigh Number in the characterisation of heat transfer at earth’s core/mantle boundary and within the mantle is examined from a Chemical Engineering perspective. Although this is a field claimed by Geophysicists, mantle heat transfer is a large-scale heat transfer/fluid flow phenomenon (together with reaction kinetics) which fits clearly within the field of Chemical Engineering.

The Rayleigh Number is what is known as a Dimensionless Number. These Numbers consist of a group of variables which collectively have no dimensions when evaluated in any consistent system of units. They are used to describe observable phenomena such as friction in pipes, the behaviour of fluidized and packed beds, and heat transfer from surfaces.

These correlations come primarily from experimental data and are usually expressed as functions of dimensionless numbers in order to generalize them.

In Chemical Engineering they are useful in scaling up from laboratory demonstrations to industrial applications since certain heat, mass, and momentum transfer phenomena are independent of scale. The translation of a process design from the laboratory or experimental scale to the larger pilot plant scale, or commercial or industrial scale is an important part of commercializing a process in which it is accepted that theoretical design cannot be used alone to achieve this.

However, they must be used with caution and usually there are many pitfalls relating to their use as in the chemical process industries. Basically, this means that it is not possible to take a chemical process from the laboratory and build a full-size manufacturing plant by simply increasing the chemicals and equipment involved in a proportionate manner.

When a system is increased in size, surface area to mass change in proportion many other properties related to system size also change, such as laminar and turbulent flow regimes based on changes caused by the surface area to mass proportion. These physical changes cause reaction kinetics, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics to change in a non-linear fashion.

For these reasons and practical experience demonstrate that to construct a new industrial plant on the basis of a laboratory experiment is foolhardy and is almost inevitably doomed to failure.

The Rayleigh number (Ra)

The Rayleigh number (Ra) for a fluid is a dimensionless number named after Lord Rayleigh associated with buoyancy-driven flow, also known as free or natural convection. It characterises the fluid’s flow regime: a value in a certain lower range denotes laminar flow; a value in a higher range, turbulent flow. Below a certain critical value, there is no fluid motion and heat transfer is by conduction rather than convection.

The Rayleigh number is closely related to two other dimensionless numbers; the Grashof number which describes the relationship between buoyancy and viscosity within a fluid, and the Prandtl number, which describes the relationship between momentum diffusivity and thermal diffusivity.

It is relevant to examine Rayleigh’s work. His paper begins as follows:

‘The present is an attempt to examine how far the interesting results obtained by Benard in his careful and skilful experiments can be explained theoretically. Benard worked with very thin layers, only about 1mm deep, standing on a levelled metallic plate which was maintained at a uniform temperature. The upper surface was usually free, and being in contact with air was at a lower temperature.’

Based on the previous discussion on scale-up, it can be seen that to use a dimensionless number developed from a laboratory experiment in a closed vessel with 1 mm of fluid as a means of characterising heat transfer at the core/mantel boundary which is an unconstrained system with a bed depth of thousands of kilometres strains credibility.

Furthermore, it is important to examine the variables in the Rayleigh equation.

For free convection near a vertical wall, the Rayleigh number is defined as:

Rax = gβ/να (Ts – T∞)x^3 = Grx.Pr

where:
x is the characteristic length
Rax is the Rayleigh number for characteristic length x
g is acceleration due to gravity
β is the thermal expansion coefficient
ν is the kinematic viscosity
α is the thermal diffusivity
Ts is the surface temperature
T∞ is the quiescent temperature (fluid temperature far from the surface of the object)
Grx is the Grashof number for characteristic length x
Pr is the Prandtl number.

In the above, the fluid properties Pr, ν, α and β are evaluated at the film temperature, which is defined as:

Tf = (Ts + T∞)/2

There are modifications to this equation for different configurations, but which still have the same variables.

Although the coefficient of thermal expansion, the kinematic viscosity and the thermal diffusivity are important, for this discussion they are less relevant (although predicting their values at extreme pressure conditions within the mantle is problematic).

The characteristic length, x, in the original experiment, is the depth of the fluid. In other applications it can be the length of a tube in a heat exchanger, or the height of a vertical plate heat transfer surface.

In the context of a laboratory experiment or semi-industrial pilot plant, then x can be shown to be a relevant variable. To scale up to planetary scale, with a mantle depth of thousands of kilometres, how is it possible that increasing depth can aid the formation of a natural convection current? Any engineering consideration, and indeed plain common sense would suggest that to initiate any upward motion against a thousand km column of rock under extremely high pressure is not credible. Without any experimental data, it is difficult to estimate when the depth of fluid ceases to be a variable which promotes convective heat transfer, but it is hard to imagine it is even 10’s of kilometres rather than thousands. This change would reduce the calculated Rayleigh Number dramatically.

The other relevant key variable in the Rayleigh Number is the temperature difference between the heat source and the fluid as the rate of heat transfer is proportional to temperature difference. The question here is what is the definition of temperature difference? The original experiments assumed the bulk of the fluid to be at the same temperature, and the temperature difference in the equation is between the hot surface and the bulk temperature of the fluid not in contact with the hot surface.

For natural convection rather than conduction to occur, the temperature difference must be greater than a critical value. In the experiment, when the fluid is heated at the hot surface, and if convection begins, then the hot fluid will rise to be replaced by lower temperature fluid from the bulk of the remaining fluid, which in turn is heated.

Mantle material cannot all be at the same temperature – there must be a temperature gradient due to the heat loss from the earth’s surface. This implies that the temperature difference in the Rayleigh Number cannot be between the core or internal hotspot and the mantle top surface temperatures. From estimates of the thermal gradient through the core, this means that the lower temperature material replacing any convected material at the core boundary must be at a similar temperature to the replaced material. For this reason alone, the Rayleigh Number at the core/mantle boundary would be much lower than the figures usually quoted.

It is stated that the estimated Rayleigh Numbers are indicative of vigorous convection; this may be in geological timeframes, but from an engineering perspective, velocities of the order of cm per year are anything but vigorous. This is a key omission from the theories around mantle convection because at these velocities, conductive heat transfer must play a role in dissipating the heat from any hotspot.

In conclusion, it can be stated that:

1. The Rayleigh Number cannot be used to estimate the potential for natural convection within the core because the conditions there are far removed from the original experiments.
2. If the Rayleigh number is to be calculated, then the length variable in the equation cannot be the depth of the mantle.
3. If the Rayleigh number is to be calculated, then the temperature difference in the equation cannot be between the core and the mantle upper surface temperature, or the mean value of the two temperatures.

Therefore, from an engineering perspective, to use the Rayleigh Number to justify the existence of mantle convection is wrong.

Peter Dover, Chartered Chemical Engineer’

 

 

I will now return to more moderate language myself having made my point about how inexcusable the attitude and conduct of leading geophysicists and geochemists have been. They should have known better but did not, so sure were they of their unaccountability.

Geology is admirably factual in informing the world about what Earth’s rocks are, where they occur now, and when they were originally formed. But when geophysical academia has tried to interpret things, such as why and how angled seamount chains were formed and came to be where they are, it has failed by being unnecessarily assumptive. After reading this Correction and entire Page Professor Dan McKenzie and those who believed him are insisted upon to acknowledge this and explain publicly exactly how and why think they are right when they were told how longstanding questions in Earth Science were answered by unambiguous proof of mantle-penetrating impacts striking the Earth, and their inevitable consequences.

To date, facts have been repeatedly forced into demonstrably wrong hypotheses instead of changing the latter  to accommodate the facts. For example, it was never realistic for any seamount chain to be created by anything happening upstream when Natural Laws and the scientific method both dictated that the first scientific explanation to explore was of seamounts being drawn downwards and then subducting into at least partly relatively low-density materials in tunnel craters.

By employing the skills of a field geologist and being guided by Natural Law, I determined that the ocean floor revealed where three huge asteroids impacted our planet about 65 million years ago and, much earlier, where a truly colossal disintegrating comet struck, all inevitably producing the tectonic plates we see today, dotted with volcanoes.

And the facts revealed that the unexpected wetness of rock encountered in the super-deep Kola borehole most logically represented a surfeit of H2O injected by the comet, and that the unexpected high temperatures there were most likely produced by heat of hydration. This was an additional source of heat bound to accelerate tectonics but one which Professors McKenzie and Ludden plus others obviously never thought of. The magma may well have been heated by hydration but first and foremost it was enriched in makings of volatiles, these produced compellingly by the comet that impacted the Earth more recently than was ever contemplated but still more than a billion years ago.

No amount of protestation against all this could justify Professors McKenzie’s, Ludden’s and others’ always unsubstantiated rejections of what they were told repeatedly was a perfectly coherent global explanation for what exists. If they think they can, they should surely want to counter-refute all the above objectively and in detail in the public interest, and for Prof Ludden to want to justify a sentence in his response to the 2014 petition sent to Mr C H Eaton before he signed off from any more of the two-way conversation to which he was committed by the NERC’s Royal Charter. To quote him, ‘…. there are scientific interpretations that you have that I fundamentally disagree with and I do not think you have a strong evidence base to support them – you certainly did not convince me that you have anything more than conjecture for creation of the holes in the mantle that drag down the tectonic plates.’

It should be made clear that to know what the younger of two patterns of movements of ocean crust was, one must open Google Earth and find the image below looking straight along the Hawaiian Seamount Chain. It was a huge circular area centred on or very near to Taiwan; that is, the Sunda/Filipino plates. Taiwan is the island at the destination end of the white arrow, which largely obscures this younger part of the Hawaiian-Emperor Chain.

 

 

 

Against the amply-evidenced colossal fragmenting comet impact making our planet the unusually watery one that it is.

KEY (requiring readers to leave Plate Tectonic Theory’s assumption-packed paradigm box and, instead, apply the factual Natural Law by which the Earth has constantly been compelled to improve concentric density layering around its centre. This compulsion (= Law of Nature) is discussed in the letters to the RAS etc.

Translucent Area = the approximate area within which there are numerous indications of a volatile-rich mantle penetrating impact. It inevitably left an overall kilometres-deep and largely dried-out depression over magma enriched both with comet volatiles and engulfed ocean water obviously converted into OH).

What else could conceivably have delivered Earth’s wealth of water into the mantle? 

Landlocked seas with abnormal chemistry were compellingly eventually formed by aqueous solutions escaping upwards by all possible means out of the vast inevitably damaged and low-lying area left after the initial backfill of most logically disintegrated comet craters. This was followed by a geologically extremely long lifting of land and sea floors by volatiles under crust exerting outward forces.

Many more distinct kinds of mutually corroborating evidence exist within and outside the very approximately drawn translucent area. But generally –

Red Area = approximately that occupied now by the Siberian Traps, these most logically formed by volatiles forcing lavas and ejecta out of volcanoes above the deepest impact zone. Continental crust had been drawn over and down into the immense overall impacted region extending over much of the northern hemisphere. The backfill was inevitably rich in makings of volatiles, mainly water. Other volcanic centres were also logically formed under such as parts of China, the Deccan, and the North Atlantic, most notably under Iceland.

White Arcs mark existing water-filled trenches into which denser ocean crust slabs have long been drawn down (= subducted).

Green Arrows = very approximate directions of movement of continents transported by magma drawn down into the overall deeply damaged area.

Against an almost direct mantle-penetrating asteroid impact ca.65mya. It formed the Sunda/Filipino plates and a down-faulted density-reduced offshoot to the east-south-east and extending as far as New Zealand (This is not shown but clearly it diverted Australia’s movement towards a target far to the south-east of Taiwan).

KEY. White Outline = identifiable as substantially water-filled trenches into which denser ocean crust slabs inevitably sank slowly under Natural Law into relatively low-density magma below the impact zone.

White Arrows = examples of subduction instigated by the impact. This solves the enigma of how subduction got going because nothing but contrivance would explain it otherwise. And both Laws of Physics and Nature dictate that nothing at all would cause natural flow down into a closed cell.

Green Arrows = approximate directions of movement of continental crust carried by drawn-down magma.

Other compelling Impact Evidence = all the shapes and lithological and structural characteristics of the islands within the impact zone, their sediments, metamorphism, intrusions, calderas, back-arc volcanoes etc. The last-mentioned make sense only without the contrived notion of recycling of subducted water, this idea derived from demonstrably non-representative laboratory tests. Of course, the making of H2O (OH) can be and is retained inside short-lived so effectively sealed samples in laboratories but not by Nature in the exceedingly slow-moving but nonetheless metamorphically differentiating mantle. That is, there would be an overwhelming compulsion for any H2O/OH to rise out of subducted slabs at very earliest opportunities, and not take part in any advanced metamorphic stage like chlorite to hydrous amphibole.

Against another well evidenced mantle-penetrating asteroid impact ca.65mya, this time inclined and from the west-north-west. It formed the Scotia Plate and deformed the southern end of South America and northern Antarctica precisely as would be expected.

KEY. Large Red Arrow = inclined impact (schematic).

Solid White Line =  actual hole filled with water (= trench) into which ocean crust would inevitably subduct under Natural Law. It would then go on sinking slowly into all relatively low-density material in the upper mantle, presumably including remaining parts of the bolide plus combined OH and maybe some continental crust forced into the mantle by the bolide.

Dotted White Line = indicative entry point of the bolide and part of the length of the inclined tunnel crater. Please note that the actual impact location could have been further to the west-north-west.

Small White Arrows = examples of directions of subduction.

Green Arrow = approximate movement of continental crust, excluding some mass movements of Antarctica, South America and ocean crust caused by the much larger impact that produced the Sunda-Filipino Plates.

Other Evidence = The faulting at the southern end of South America and the pattern of subduction of ocean crust towards this same end of South America, including a length of older plate boundary in the SE Pacific. And, again, the pattern of flow of surrounding magma into what is a compelling representation only of what could be an impact.

Against another amply evidenced mantle-penetrating asteroid impact ca.65mya, again inclined from the west-north-west. It formed the Caribbean Plate and eventually the islands strewn above and along the margin of the tunnel crater, as makes full sense.

KEY. Solid White Line = actual hole filled with water (= trench) into which ocean crust would inevitably eventually subduct after being dragged by magma, and then sink naturally into low-density material in the upper mantle, presumably including remaining light fractions of the bolide plus combined OH and maybe some continental crust forced into the mantle by the bolide.

Dotted White Line = confidently inferred gouge of the bolide and the main length of the tunnel crater it formed. Of course, the actual impact location could well again have been further to the west-north-west.

Small White Arrow = example of direction of subduction.

Green Arrows = approximate movement of continental crust partly excluding mass movements of North and South America instigated by the impact that produced the Sunda-Filipino – and in the case of North America, some ongoing drawdown (not fall back) towards the comet impact zone, this now estimated to have struck something over a billion years ago.

Other Evidence = again, the pattern of flow of surrounding magma into what was compellingly a tunnel crater. The facts of what exists now could not conceivably have been produced by it being anything else. Plus, again, all the shapes and lithological make-ups of the islands within and bordering the impact zone, their metamorphism, basic intrusions and sediments as they are, melanges and generally chaotic tectonism, the distribution of cenotes, back-arc volcanoes etc. Plus, the known existence of salt in highly disturbed red beds at great depths under the Gulf of Mexico. The last-mentioned makes so much more sense without relying on the contrived notion that they sank into material denser than themselves. This was another scientifically inadmissible assumption, that Natural Law was overwhelmed out of sight in the Earth but this time not even having anything to do with the (invalidated) Rayleigh Taylor Instability notion. One could go on criticising (i) the stock demand that one must find iridium and/or strained quartz to identify the site and scale of an impact and (ii) the statistically ill-based conclusion that mantle-penetrating impacts evidence long long ago.

More on the missed evidence for an impact origin of the Caribbean plate.  A paper by Maria Antonieta Lorente in Geoscientist 19.9 September 2009, discussed the Pacific origin of the Caribbean Plate. It was valid but did not explain what exists within and around the Plate. The authors rightly used common sense to reject an ‘impossible (tectonic) bending’ of a ‘… linear arc … into an extreme curve’, but they clearly did not consider anything moving at impact speed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. It made no scientific sense to postulate natural flow down into the substantially closed Caribbean cell.
2. The Puerto Rico trench’s extreme curve at its eastern end could not be related realistically to any (assumed) notion of cooling so close to a mid-ocean ridge.
3. Nor could assuming that cooling of ocean crust could rationally cause it to fracture there. And if the entire Caribbean plate had overthrust rocks to its east there would surely have been some folding in front of the thrust.
4. Mexican volcanism is most logically associated with the visibly well-evidenced anticlockwise rotation of ocean crust towards the Caribbean. It compellingly means that underlying magma was drawn down i nto a still incompletely back-filled tunnel crater – plus that volatile enriched magma is still moving continental crust towards Siberia.
5. The extraordinary geology of the (relatively low-density) continental crust under the Gulf of Mexico is most logically due to its collapse into a space produced suddenly and explosively by the deep impact. From there, the logically progressively fracturing/flattening asteroid bolide went on to form a tunnel crater reaching as far as the Caribbean Island Arc (= the extreme curve mentioned in 1 and 3 above). Other re-stabilising processes under Natural Law, such as salt diapir formation and the rise of oil, were also inevitably prompted by the impact.
6. Magmatic flow indicated by the rotational accretion features mentioned in 5 also makes full sense of impact-instigated subduction under Mexico and central America as well as under the extreme curve at the Plate’s eastern end.
7. The extraordinary Sigsbee escarpment is consistent with a massive sudden and violent removal of rock from well below those now outcropping in the scarp, so including older salt-bearing Mesozoic sediments. Hence, it is compelling that the aftermath of the (hitherto grossly underestimated) Chicxulub impact is still causing  unrecognised instability below the Gulf of Mexico’s oil-bearing sediments, and even much more danger for reasons derived from the objectively incontestable fact of an impact.
8. The pattern of cenotes associated with the (misunderstood) Chicxulub impact marks an easterly continuation of effects of solution of limestones by fluids rising out of the tunnel crater. They are consistent with the asteroid being more like 150km in diameter and so careering through continental crust like a bullet. Any other proposal should therefore have been discounted.
9. The imbrication/melanges/olistoliths and chaotic mixtures of metamorphosed sediments and igneous rocks in islands bordering the northern and southern walls of the logically widened tunnel crater now have clear impact and ensuing tectonic significance.
10. Of particular interest, the Scotland District of Barbados explains the apparent absence of subduction beyond part of the eastern limit of the tunnel crater. The entire Barbados Ridge was clearly due to soft sediments being banked up there by westward subduction, and then to them slumping. The lightness of the sediments meant that they would be lifted quickly in geological terms with relatively little seismicity.
11. Formation of the Bahamas’ dolomite was a logical result of magnesia-rich fluids escaping upwards into what became a relatively shallow water environment after water first seeped further and further down into the impact gouge and then forced itself upwards after being heated, converted to OH and dissolving salts. It is also entirely logical that the clearly visible feature south of the Mitchell Escarpment marks a now drowned river course flowing westwards into a likely very warm Gulf of Mexico.
12. This raises another point of fundamental importance outside the Caribbean Plate. Meanders across the Demerara plain could only have been formed practicably as sub-aerial rivers coursing across a dry to shallow-water-covered plain draining into the Puerto Rico trench and thence down into the tunnel crater. This debunks the hypothesis that countless such features were scoured out by deep-water turbidity currents. That notion across such a wide plain was surely never replicated in any practical test.
13. In particular, a drainage profile through the Vidal Sea Channel and into the Puerto Rico trench (see the Figure below) confirms that early mainly shallow Atlantic waters were circulating long after the impact. To even contemplate that the Channel was formed by, and/or served as access for water heavily laden with churning sediment was, frankly, contrivance beyond the extreme. And yet this postulate, of turbidity-current delivery of sediments from the south to the Barracuda Plain, combined with backward erosion of the Channel, passed peer review. This was while no case for the Caribbean and other plates’ impact origins was ever discussed in any publication despite no other origin being mentioned beyond it being an enigma.

15. A compelling reason is therefore provided by several unambiguous facts and independent lines of evidence for the K-Pg mass extinction and the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

There is no doubt that re-inspection of existing data will confirm and add to this list but, due to the need for urgency in attending to safety matters, suffice it to say here that there could be no scientific argument against deep impacts taking a leading place in a much-revised academic written record.

In conclusion, any continued refusal by anyone in academia to discuss impact plate origins would be unthinkable. And Professor Ludden and Dr Summerhayes in particular must therefore be made to answer a key question, publicly, with no bias, and with complete honesty. Why exactly did mantle penetrating impacts definitely not trigger dangerous global changes in Earth’s tectonism and volcanism, and a further disintegration of Pangea, as asserted long ago was amply-evidenced?

8A. Of the Hydrothermal Circulation Assumption. In the illustration below, upward flow of superheated aqueous fluid is shown as issuing at 350 ̊ C out of a black smoker. It shows irrationally that seawater permeated down into the ocean floor, curved round and then rose without any H₂O or makings of it doing the same up out of the underlying magma.

No geophysicist would postulate that water permeates down into saturated sediments below a water table in continental crust. They know it raises the water table and runs down its sloping surface to feed eventually into open water, the table being the water’s surface.

The water table above the black smoker in the illustration is therefore at sea level, perhaps kilometres above the saturated ocean floor. So, the illustration could not conceivably be right.

Inevitably pressurised fluid in the vent up which permeated seawater is imagined to return to the ocean would have had to be connected to the magma for accretion to take place. So, none of the illustrated circulation makes sense.

Therefore the black smoker water must be reaching the surface for the first time since the makings of it were combined into the mantle as a consequence of a deep impact.

An inescapable consequence of the technical mistake in Geophysics is that the hydrosphere’s development has always been misinterpreted. And when questioned the entire academic Institution will have to acknowledge making this and many other grave errors in interpretations based on unnecessary and impracticable assumptions.

8B and 8C. Of Assumptions about Thermal Subsidence and Thermally Powered Upwelling en Masse. Both these basically assume that heat has generated and driven all motion in the Earth. This grossly overestimated what heat could do. Correction 1 proved this for the upward stage but observation-based Natural Law went further to disprove all notions of mass upwellings of the mantle’s magmatic mixtures.

Because of untested faith in peer review, lifting of dense cohesive bodies of ultrabasic magma by more powerful lighter fluids derived from bolides escaped detection by both geophysicists and geochemists. Instead, they resorted to unnecessary so inadmissible assumptions and contrivances that forced facts to fit into postulates that could never explain what fell into place effortlessly when guided by factual Laws of Nature.

The contrivances included those of ocean crust sliding over a static or nearly static asthenosphere, it assumedly cooling critically so that it fractured itself, subducted into arcuately-outlined closed cells, densified in a purely assumed manner, and supposedly stayed cool as it sank through increasingly dense mantle to an imagined temporary resting place – all for no stated reason excluding any role for what made the Earth – impacts.

8D. Of Sedimentary Basins. Plate Tectonics assumes that rifting of lithosphere was due to magma spreading in two directions underneath it. But what set so-called sedimentary basins apart from new ocean creation elsewhere was that the already unnecessarily assumed two-way divergence stopped so that the supposedly separating magma cooled and so densified. The assumed-to-be cooled magma then assumedly sank, with the whole process essentially excluding any significant chemical or density differentiation. Despite the magma’s coefficient of contraction having to be hopelessly unrealistically high the magma was thus assumed to reverse its upward journey by assumed thermal subsidence.

The imagined thermal contraction and subsidence supposedly often involved the formation of grabens. But somehow horsts could also be thought of as inferred objectively wherever marine sediments rose above present sea level.

Assumption in standing Earth Science is being repeatedly exposed as not standing up to basic scrutiny. In the case of sedimentary basins, at some depth in the Earth their formation required lighter material to sink impossibly into denser material. And in other respects too, the sequence of events is hereby charged with being contradictory when one takes account of the several different plate moving mechanisms all claiming to be the one moving the magma.

That is, the purely assumed thermal subsidence process is half of another wrong assumption termed yo-yo tectonics, not discussed here in detail to save space. It is however being kept on file.

Under fact-based Natural Law, it was inevitable for red beds and salt layers under the Caribbean plate to end up occupying volumes of the Earth at extraordinarily low absolute elevations under the Gulf of Mexico. As previously stated, this could only have resulted realistically from them both collapsing into what was left low in density by a huge mantle penetrating impact after an initial ‘emergency’ repair of its tunnel crater.

And other sedimentary continental crust in the northern hemisphere was deposited both laterally far from where it occurs today when, compellingly, sea levels dropped to far below those of today due to the disintegrating comet impact.

The only Natural Law-based explanation accommodating all the facts coherently, and so the one that must be favoured over any assumption and under uncompromising rules of the scientific method, is that under for instance the North Sea there are only horsts with different uplifts out of an expanding sphere. Briefly, actualities had nothing to do with impossible-to-reproduce two-way spreading but everything to do with drawdown of magma out of which makings of volatiles, especially water, were compelled to rise in search of stability.

This compulsion is agreed globally to be what drives the rise of salt and oil out of their source materials, so why not also makings of volatiles? This was the rationale that constituted the core of a new Geology answering all questions posed by the Earth.

So, we are sure that on being asked a few key questions in the public domain leading Physical Science advisers to governments worldwide will at last have to admit to making fundamental errors in their science as it is still being taught.

————————————————

The following purposely repeated corrections are selected from an old draft document in a file named Notes for Academia. The Notes were drafted to disprove mutually irreconcilable plate tectonic postulates at different times in the past.

Note 3. On the Origin of the Caribbean Plate

This is one of several Notes providing solutions to longstanding geological enigmas for which no alternatives exist in the written record. Therefore, nobody could justifiably deny anything on this website without disproving it comprehensively. Unfortunately, it must be said that earlier reasoning for deep impacts was rejected thus several times and this could only have signified blind prejudice. Even worse, it would be difficult to justify that the rejections were not attempts to perpetuate wrong beliefs in which interests in common were vested.

A paper by Keith James and Maria Antonieta Lorente, representing the Geological Society of London (GSL) in Geoscientist 19.9 September 2009, discussed the Pacific origin of this plate. Although convincing, the paper failed to present any other explanation for what exists within and around it.

The GSL had accepted the authors’ principal line of reasoning. It was common sense, rejecting an ‘impossible (tectonic) bending’ of an original ‘…. linear arc …. into an extreme curve’.

Fact-based Geology supports this use of common sense to conclusively refute an assumptive postulate and so can argue similarly that the GSL must accept that its inability to provide a replacement explanation was attributable to Plate Tectonics’ impossible mechanism.

No-one has or ever could produce a definitive scientific argument for the Caribbean plate being of tectonic origin. Nor could it for the Scotia plate, nor the Sunda/Filipino plate and nor for what is now deeply submerged under most of the northern hemisphere. These facts are again of immense significance and should be at the forefront of all this site’s informed readers’ minds.

These statements are facts, not theories, because not only did Nature require rock not to do what any of its Laws would allow in the visible world, but the Caribbean plate in particular exhibits rock structures and movements in such variety and yet coherency that there can be no alternative to it being the still lethally dangerous product of a mantle-penetrating impact.

A full discussion of what the Geoscientist paper correctly refuted will lead to a much-needed revolution in Geology. And the full set of 20 Notes will, we trust, be accepted as a perfectly coherent account of the history of the Earth provided by all tectonics and volcanism being instigated by deep impacts.

Because learned Institutions are fully capable of recognising that this website contains more than ample proof of tragic errors, it suffices here to simply list the following as an incontestable summary of all that exists in and around the Caribbean being the outcome of an oblique deep impact from the west. But the paper did not and could not explain how the region’s features formed in any other way.

1. For instance, any other formation would require convective downflow of magma into a closed cell against every rule of Physics and common sense.
2. The Puerto Rico trench and its extreme curve at its eastern end simply cannot be related at all realistically to any assumed two-way spreading ridge.
3. Mexican volcanism is most logically attributed to visibly well-evidenced anticlockwise rotation of crust carried by magma as it was drawn down into the tunnel crater and, when other factual evidence is taken into account, tension separating this drawdown from another older but still continuing north-westerly one.
4. The extraordinary geology of the relatively low density continental crust under the Gulf of Mexico is compellingly due to its collapse into a space produced explosively by the impact. From there the logically disintegrating asteroid bolide went on to form a tunnel crater extending as far as the Caribbean island arc (the extreme curve mentioned in the above paper). Other re-stabilising processes under Natural Law were also triggered (e.g, salt diapir formation).
5. Magmatic flow indicated by the rotational accretion features preserved in ocean crust west of Mexico also makes full sense of impact-instigated subduction under that country and central America when combined with the above-mentioned older north-westward flow and the extreme curve at the plate’s eastern end,
6. The extraordinary Sigsbee Escarpment is consistent with a massive sudden and violent removal of rock from well below that now exposed in the scarp, so including older salt bearing Mesozoic formations. So it is compelling that the tremendous explosion generated by the (hitherto grossly underestimated) Chicxulub impact created the proven to be extremely dangerous instability below the Gulf’s oil-bearing formations.
7. The pattern of cenotes above the mapped Chicxulub impact site, and notably the easterly continuation of effects of solution of limestones by rising fluids, are entirely consistent with the bolide being more like 150km in diameter and careering through continental crust like a bullet.
8. The imbrication/melanges/olistoliths and chaotic mixtures of metamorphosed sediments and igneous rocks in islands bordering the northern and southern sides of a logically widened tunnel crater now have clear significance.
9. Of particular interest the Scotland District of Barbados most logically explains the only apparent absence of subduction beyond the eastern limit of the crater. It was clearly due to soft young sediments being banked up there by westward subduction and then slumping. The soft nature of sediments on top of ocean crust being carried by magma were logically squeezed and lifted quickly in geological terms with relatively little seismicity.
10. Formation of the Bahamas’ Palaeogene dolomite was the logical result of magnesia-rich fluids escaping upwards into what became a longstanding and fast-moving shallow water environment as water first seeped further and further down into open spaces before bursting upwards again after being heated. It is also entirely logical that the clearly visible feature south of the Mitchell Escarpment was a now drowned perhaps later river course, flowing westwards into a likely very warm Gulf of Mexico.
11. This raises another point of fundamental importance outside the Caribbean plate. Meanders across the Demerara plain could only have been formed practicably as sub-aerial rivers coursing across a substantially dry plain due to drainage into the tunnel crater. This debunks the hypothesis that became a popular theory, that such features were scoured out by turbidity currents, phenomena here and elsewhere that all defy reason and are incapable of replication in any practical test.
12. That is, a drainage profile through the Vidal channel and into the Puerto Rico trench further confirms the logic of early shallow Atlantic waters being circulated rapidly due to elevated temperatures long following the impact.
13. And, very briefly, a compelling reason is provided by several unambiguous facts and independent lines of evidence for the K-Pg mass extinction and the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

There is no doubt that re-inspection of existing data will confirm and add to this list but, due to the need for urgency in attending to safety considerations, suffice it to say again that there could be no scientific argument against the impact origin of the Caribbean plate now taking a leading place in the academic written record. And one would add risk of exceptionally high fluid (technically pore) pressures to the GSL paper’s content. I quote, ‘1) many projects are premised (and funded) upon it (a Pacific origin for the Caribbean plate), and 2) all data are interpreted in an oceanic context. There is strong resistance to alternative models that could provide important possibilities for new resource exploration and improved seismic risk control.’

So in summary any continued rejection of an impact origin for the Caribbean and other plates by leading Institutions, with no scientific substantiation, would clearly be unprecedentedly unprofessional and indefensible.

Note 19. On indefensible Omissions in Risk and Benefit Assessments in Physical Science.

This Note focused again on the Caribbean Plate, especially where deep drilling is taking place in the Gulf of Mexico where mistakes are most indefensible. This is because peer-reviewed papers have not considered alternatives to standing assumptions breaking the rules of the scientific method and codes of practice of all leading physical scientists. They all demanded assessment of every alternative, not just the one that grabbed their attention in peer-reviewed papers.

Before introducing the alternative that was clearly never considered, the following question must be answered comprehensively and with utter honesty by all those named on the Cc list in letters to published soon under Correspondence.

WHAT DID YOU DO TO TRY TO PROVE ANY STANDING THEORY WRONG?  

If more lives are not to be lost in vain, and if more catastrophes are to be avoided potentially far worse than the one that took 11 human lives, wreaked untold damage on the natural environment, and all but destroyed the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform in 2010 are to be investigated as they should be, it is absolutely imperative for the public to be made aware that injustices have been committed regarding tragic consequences of academic Physical Science’s failings when researching the basic reasons for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other major natural geohazards that are threatening lives and safety in projects involving drilling deep boreholes in parts of the world destabilised by mantle penetrating impacts.