Issue 38 - New Concepts in Global Tectonics

Transcription

NEWSLETTER
New Concepts In Global Tectonics
No. 38, March, 2006
ISSN: 1833-2560
Editorial Board
Editor: D. R. Choi
Peter JAMES, Australia (PO Box 95, Dunalley, Tasmania 7177); Leo MASLOV, USA ([email protected]);
Cliff OLLIER, Australia ([email protected]); Nina PAVLENKOVA, Russia ([email protected]);
David PRATT, Netherlands ([email protected]); Giancarlo SCALERA, Italy ([email protected]);
Karsten STORETVEDT, Norway ([email protected]); Yasumoto SUZUKI, Japan ([email protected]);
Boris I. VASSILIEV, Russia ([email protected])
**********************************************************************************************
All readers are urged to read David Pratt’s article which
appeared in the latest issue of Journal of Scientific
Exploration (v. 20, no. 1, p. 97-104; reproduced in this
e are flooded with good news these days. First,
issue, p. 27-32) which details our activities and
a liberal financial donation ($2000 Euros) has
achievements in the last ten years.
arrived just recently from the National Institute of
Geophysics and Volcanology (Instituto Nazionale di
In this number we have a very interesting article by
Geofisica e Vulcanologia, INGV), Rome, Italy. We
Leybourne, Gregori and Hoop. Applying Gregori’s
would like to offer our heartiest thanks to Prof. Enzo
“electrical hot-spot hypothesis”, they tried to explain the
Boschi, Director, and Dr. Scalera of INGV for their
El Nino climate and wildfire teleconnections with
great encouragement of and trust in our group and its
endogenous electrical energy which is interacting with
activities. We will use their funds wisely for
the solar energy. This paper involves very wide aspects
strengthening our publications and organization.
of geology and physics of the Earth and Sun. We would
like to see further development of this type of research.
Our publications are certainly penetrating the plate
tectonic monolith despite their continuing, concerted
The second paper is by Rezanov. It is the second part of
neglect. The editor of this Newsletter is hearing many
his paper “Earth’s evolution stages” which appeared in
voices even from plate tectonics supporters that they
NCGT Newsletter no. 36, 2005. He considers the first
have started to realize the incompatibility of plate
stage ended 4.0-3.9 Ga when the hydrogen atmosphere
tectonics with the real world. We are witnessing PT
was destroyed by thermal dissipation. The second stage
crumbling before our very eyes. Undoubtedly our
is characterized by degasification of hydrogen and other
Newsletter and other publications particularly the
fluids from the Earth’s core. Rezanov’s approach is
IGC32 proceedings have been sending shock waves
logical and meticulously supported by vast amounts of
through the world geoscientific communities.
hard data.
-continued on the next page-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE
FROM THE EDITOR
W
From the Editor, ……………….…………………………………………………………………….…………………………..1
Letter to the Editor…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…2
Articles
Gulf of California electrical hot-spot hypothesis: Climate and wildfire teleconnections, Bruce LEYBOURNE,
Giovanni GREGORI, and Cornelis de HOOP…………………………………………………………………………….3
Earth’s evolution stages, Part 2, Igor A. REZANOV…………………………………………………………………………...9
Wave structures in the Saturnian system, G.G. KOCHEMASOV…………………………………………………………….13
Origin of the primary tectonic structures of the Earth and planets, Alexander V. DOLITSKY……………………………….16
Short Note: Comments on recent papers on Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, Dong R. CHOI………………………………..17
Geopolitical Corner………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19
Publications………………………………………………………………………………………………....................................27
News……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..36
For contact, correspondence, or inclusion of material in the Newsletter please use the following methods in order of preference: NEW
CONCEPTS IN GLOBAL TECTONICS. 1. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] each file less than 5 megabytes; 2. Fax (small
amounts of material): +61-2-6254 4409; 3. Mail, Air Express, etc.: 6 Mann Place, Higgins, ACT 2615, Australia. (Disc in MS Word format, and
figures in jpg or pdf format); 4. Telephone: +61-2-6254 4409. The next issue is scheduled for late June, 2006. Please send your contributions
before early June, 2006 to any of the above Editorial Board members or directly to the Editor. DISCLAIMER The opinions, observations and
ideas published in this newsletter are the responsibility of the contributors and are not necessarily those of the Editor and Editorial Board.
2
New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 38
In addition, three short papers – two on planetary
structures by Russian scientists, and one by the editor
on the 2004 Indonesian earthquake - are included in
this issue. I hope we will have more detailed accounts
of both Russian papers in future issues. Choi noted
that the time-space distribution of the 2004-2005
earthquakes off Sumatra indicated in the Ammon
paper show block movement. The seismicity
distribution pattern implies the presence of a major
deep tectonic zone between the two blocks in the north
of Simuelue Island. This tectonic zone already has been singled out by
Blot and Choi, as being responsible for the devastating earthquake and
accompanying tsunami.
Thanks to Luis Hissink of Western Australia who has worked as an
auditor of our group’s budget, a formal financial summary in the last 10
years until March this year has been completed as seen below. Due to the
Australia’s fiscal year cycle (July to June of the following year), the next
financial report will appear in the September issue, 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCGT GOUP FINANCIAL REPORT; 1996 TO MARCH, 2006
(in Australian dollars)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor,
Re: Kashmir earthquake papers
M
any thanks for Blot and Choi paper in the latest
NCGT Newsletter. I keep forwarding your mails
to my colleagues, who, including me, believe in plate
tectonics and the conventional ways of thinking of
earthquake occurrence. I like all your papers and
consider that this is a new thinking. One has to explore
new and sometimes unconventional ways to understand
more about earthquake occurrence processes and to predict them. Thinking
beyond plate tectonics and conventional seismological way, may lead to
earthquake prediction, which is the ultimate goal of any study in seismology.
Vineet GAHALAUT, India
[email protected]
A
ccording to the ruling principle, “…if 50 million believe in a fallacy,
it is still a fallacy”. I am adding, “The truth stays independent of our
desires and can’t be chosen by voters”. Then I am expressing my desire
to join the NCGT group.
Vedat SHEHU, Albania
[email protected]
3
ARTICLES
GULF OF CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL HOT-SPOT HYPOTHESIS:
CLIMATE AND WILDFIRE TELECONNECTIONS
Bruce A. LEYBOURNE - [email protected]
(Geostream Consulting LLC, www.geostreamconsulting.com)
Bay St. Louis, MS, USA
Giovanni P. GREGORI - [email protected]
(Professor -Istituto di Acustica O. M. Corbino - Retired) Roma, Italy.
Cornelis F. de HOOP - [email protected]
(School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center)
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Introduction:
T
he prevailing view that radioactive decay is the
major thermal source for the interior of the planet
may create limitations in geophysical modeling efforts.
New theoretical insights (Gregori 2002) provide for an
electrical source from the core-mantle-boundary (CMB)
by a tide-driven (TD) geodynamo which is enhanced by
various solar induction processes. Joule heating at
density boundaries within the upper mantle and base of
the lithosphere from CMB electrical emanations may
provide some of the hotspot energy for upper mantle
melts and associated magmatism driving seafloor
spreading and lithospheric rupture. Estimates of the total
budget of the endogenous energy of the Earth
supporting the electrical hot-spot hypothesis are as
follows (Gregori, 2002):
1) The general scenario is that the TD geodynamo has
a very low performance in terms of magnetic energy
output (<<1%), while almost its entire energy output
supplies (via Joule’s heating) the endogenous energy
budget. Indeed it can be sufficient for justifying the
entire observed energy budget of the Earth, while other
sources, such as radioactivity, are just optional.
2) A different consideration is due to chemical and
phase transformation processes, occurring within deep
Earth. Observations are evident that the Earth operates
like a car battery, being recharged and discharged at
different times. This occurs by storing energy within the
deep Earth interior. Within a car battery, such storage
occurs via a reversible chemical reaction. In the case of
the Earth, such storage occurs via a conspicuous change
of liquid vs. solid phase. It should be stressed that such
inference is a matter of observational evidence, and of
strict implications. It is NOT a result of any kind of
speculation.
3) The timing of such recharging and discharging is
manifested, as the most evident effect, in terms of the
Earth’s electrocardiogram, displaying one heartbeat
every ∼27.4 Ma (with an error bar of, say, < ±0.05 Ma).
Every heartbeat elapses a few Ma, and during it some
large igneous province (LIP) is generated. At present,
we are close to the peak of one such heartbeat, and a
present LIP is Iceland.
4) The manifestation of such huge endogenous energy
budget, at least according to the observational evidence
referring to the last few million years, occurs in terms of
a ∼ 60% release as a gentle geothermal heat flow, while
the entire remaining 40% includes all other forms of
energy, such as volcanism, seismicity, continental drift
or sea floor spreading, geodynamics, and tidal
phenomena. Therefore, the planetary-integrated role of
heat flow cannot be neglected (such as it is being
generally assumed when dealing with climate models).
Tectonic theorist might consider electrical stimulation
from the interior of the planet as a plausible driving
mechanism of surge channel activity and plate motions.
This driver has remained elusive in modern theoretical
constructs.
Two recent lines of observational evidence linked to
electrical stimulation within a geologic hotspot
exemplify the importance of understanding this tectonic
driving mechanism and testing the validity of our
hypothesis. The Guaymas Basin Rift, (Fig. 1, and Fig. 2
– Area 2) a geologic hotspot within the Gulf of
California is considered a geothermal power source for
the region. In the first scenario gentle geothermal heat
flow from TD joule heating within the hotspot is
invigorated during bursts of regional seismic activity.
Solar induced and electrically stimulated seismic
activity provides additional thermal energy at the base
of the lithosphere. This heat may take up to 6 - 7 months
for transmigration and escape at the surface. This timing
is consistent with the observational data and rationally
explains the local sea surface thermal signatures over
the Guaymas Rift coincident with El Nino climate
teleconnections (Fig. 2 – Area 3 and 4). In the second
scenario Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) induce
powerful surges of electrical activity from the deep
4
interior of the planet. These powerful surges overcome
resistance in the lithosphere by traveling along more
conductive zones generally associated with basaltic fault
intrusions and their signature geomagnetic anomaly
trends. Ionized gases may be forced through the fracture
systems and wildfires may be sparked by electrical
arcing (lightning) or direct combustion from intense
joule heating near the surface. The unprecedented
wildfire storm in October 2003 occurred simultaneously
with a powerful CME. Geospatial wildfire patterns
suggests these wildfires followed fault and geomagnetic
anomaly trends associated with the extension of the East
Pacific Rise into the North American continent and
Pacific fracture zones traversing the west coast of
California. Details of each scenario are discussed below.
I. El Nino Climate Teleconnection
Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies over the Gulf
of California/Baja (Fig. 2 - Area 2) are teleconnected to
the peak El Nino SST anomaly patterns also seen in Fig.
2. Note the spurious SST anomaly over the Cocos Ridge
associated with El Nino (Fig. 2 – Area 3). Earthquakes
beginning in November 1996 at the beginning of a solar
sunspot cycle (Hale Cycle) signal the beginning of an
increased period of seismic activity associated with heat
inputs driving the 1997/98 El Nino (Fig. 3). Blot (1976)
and Blot et al. (2003) indicate thermal transmigration
rates of approximately 0.15 km/day accounting for the
approximately 7 month delay of sea surface thermal
signatures after high impact earthquake bursts which
even triggered a small tsunami in Hawaii (Walker, per.
com). Seismic precursors to El Nino by 6-7 months have
also been documented (Walker, 1988, 1995 and 1999)
over the last 7 recent El Nino events. The resulting
clustered seismic activity is hypothesized to be
electrical in nature and is associated with joule heating
at density boundaries near the base of the lithosphere
(Gregori, 2000 and 2002). Electrical stimulus of these
earthquakes is highly suspect, especially below the
lithosphere. This scenario provides a geophysical
mechanism for explaining the SST anomaly
teleconnections. These SST anomaly patterns overlying
earthquake events are hypothesized to be the result of
increased heat emission from seafloor volcanic
extrusions and/or associated hydrothermal venting. The
volcanism is triggered by electrical bursts from the coremantle-boundary induced by solar coupling to the
internal geodynamo. The larger implication is that El
Nino may be solar-tectonically modulated (Leybourne,
1997; Leybourne and Adams, 2001).
Cedros Trench
Salton Trough
Guaymas Basin Rift
Cedros Trench
Fig. 1. SST drape over bathymetry in the Gulf of California Salton Trough region exhibits thermal anomalies coincident with the adjacent
Cedros Trench. Thermal signatures in this area are often teleconnected to El Nino SST anomalies off the coast of South America. The
Guaymas Basin Rift is the likely energy source for this local thermal signature and is a known geologic hot-spot supplying Southern
California with geothermal power (Image by Haas 2002, NAVOCEANO-MSRC).
5
1- US. West Coast
2 – San Andreas/Guaymas
3 – Central America
4- South America
Fig. 2. Eastern Pacific SST anomalies peak in January of 1998 during 97/98 El Nino event in area 2 - San Andreas/Guaymas. This
corresponds to the viewing angle in Fig. 1 exhibiting teleconnection SST anomalies over Guaymas Rift and Cedros Trench. Area 3 Central
American exhibits the main intertropical convergence SST anomaly coincident with spurious teleconnection pattern over the Cocos Ridge
trend (NAVOCEANO-MSRC).
Fig. 3. (a) Two distinct clusters of earthquakes off the Coast of South America in Nov. 96 are apparent. (b) SST’s seem to emanate in a
similar pattern to the earthquake paired clusters. The northern SST anomaly is on the continental shelf as is the northern earthquake
cluster, while the southern SST anomaly is further offshore over the continental slope as is the southern earthquake cluster. These SST
anomalies appeared (June 1997) just north of earthquake positions possibly due to prevailing long shore currents, about 7 months after the
paired earthquake clusters. (c) Chart indicates earthquakes/day (frequency), magnitudes are added for simple power indicator
(magnitude add), along with an average (magnitude avg). A spike in earthquake activity begins Nov. 12th and tapers off Nov. 14th
revealing the intense episodic nature of these events. (d) SST Max. Anomaly/month indicating anomalies > 7° C by June 97 followed by a
year of elevated SST anomalies associated with the 97/98 El Nino. (e) Joule energy released during (f). Earthquake events Nov. 96.
6
II. Wildfire Teleconnection
Wildfire outbreaks during a period of geomagnetic
storms in October 2003 may be linked to electrical
emanations from within the earth (Leybourne et. al.,
2004). In late October 2003, a powerful Coronal Mass
Ejection (CME) directed straight at Earth erupted on the
Sun’s surface, when wildfires simultaneously broke out
along an arc shaped pattern of geomagnetic anomaly
trends extending from Mexico to north of Los Angeles
(Fig. 4). The wildfire ignitions slowed dramatically
when the CME period ended. The geomagnetic
anomalies are inter-splayed by fault systems connected
to the Gulf of California hotspot through the San
Andreas Fault complex and to the Hawaii hotspot
through the Murray Fracture Zone. These orthogonal
fault systems intersect in the San Gabriel Mountains
where a huge wildfire out break occurred near strong
geomagnetic signatures (Fig. 5). Strong electrical
impulses emitted from the CMB during CME may not
only joule heat local geologic hotspots, but unconverted
superfluous electrical energy and ionic plasmas could be
transmitted further along conductive igneous complexes
(generally associated with geomagnetic signatures) and
fault systems through the lithospheric fractions of the
earth, arcing to power lines and igniting tree lighter or
underbrush. In 1859 during the strongest CME on
record, telegraph wires in western United States and
Europe caught fire and were destroyed. Potential
voltage differences between hotspot locations may
create electrical ground shorts at geomagnetic
intersection areas (Fig. 6), starting fires near power line
circuits or from discharges directly to the ionosphere.
An electrical hot-spot hypothesis based on Gregori’s
theoretical construct is understood in terms of deep
earth electromagnetic induction coupled to solar
perturbations. The induction process creates anomalous
electric currents from the internal-geodynamo.
Fig. 4. Arc-shaped fire pattern appears linked to geomagnetic anomaly trends (insert).
http://activefiremaps.fs.fed.us/fire_imagery.php?firePick=southern_california; http://pubs.usgs.gov/sm/mag_map/ mag_s.pdf
7
Fig. 5. Geomagnetic anomalies in San Gabriel Mountains along intersecting faults and mylonite units.
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/gump/anderson/rialto/rialto.html
Fig. 6. Geophysical composite map: a) Basalt flow remnant magnetization signatures indicating global hotspot locations and indicated
Pacific links (Quinn, 1997). b) Southern California geomagnetic crustal anomalies have coincident links to the San Andreas orthogonal
fault complex associated with an intersection in the San Gabriel Mountains where a huge wildfire outbreak occurred near the strong
geomagnetic signatures during the October, 2003 CME (USGS 2002). c) Pacific Ocean Basin GEOSAT structural trends indicating
possible electrical conduits (red lines) between Murray (North) and Molokai (South) Fracture Zones which intersects at Hawaiian, Guaymas,
and Juan de Fuca hotspots (orange circles), geographical links (green lines) (Smoot and Leybourne, 2001). d) Southern view in Fig. 1 with
geographical links (Haas, 2002).
8
Conclusions:
Thus, Earth’s endogenous energy may stimulate ocean
basin heating associated with El Nino from episodes of
increased seismic stimulation and electrical wildfire
propagation during CME via geologic hotspot controls.
Atmospheric pressure teleconnections are also
suspected (Namias, 1989) in some cases. A distinction
is made between the control on the TD geodynamo
exerted by the e.m. induction within very deep Earth
(i.e. within the mantle, which occurs only for e.m.
signals of some very low frequency, say with a period T
> 22 years), and the e.m. solar induction within some
much shallower structures characterized by much higher
frequencies and much shorter periods. Such kinds of
phenomena also include the e.m. induction effects
within manmade systems, such as power lines (causing
blackouts), pipelines, and communication cables
(Meloni et al., 1983; Lanzerotti and Gregori, 1986).
Should we address these as distinct phenomena? The
relationships between the different e.m. signals within
such different frequency bands is not clearly defined but
these various affects at different time scales may to
some degree be physically driven by electrical
stimulation from the interior of the planet.
References:
Blot, C., 1976. Volcanisme et sismicite dans les arcs
insulaires. Prevision de ces phenomenes. Geophysique 13,
ORSTOM, Paris, 206p.
Leybourne, B.A., 1996. A tectonic forcing function for
climate modelling. Proceedings of 1996 Western Pacific
Geophysics Meeting, Brisbane, Australia. EOS Trans. AGU,
Paper # A42A-10. 77 (22): W8.
Leybourne, B.A., 1997. Earth-Ocean-Atmosphere coupled
model based on gravitational teleconnection. Proc. Ann.
Meet. NOAA Climate Monitoring Diag. Lab. Boulder, CO., p.
23, March 5-6, 1997. Also: Proc. Joint Assemb. IAMASIAPSO. Melbourne, Australia, JPM9-1, July 1-9.
Leybourne, B.A. and Adams, M.B., 2001. El Nino tectonic
modulation in the Pacific Basin. Marine Technology Society
Oceans ’01 Conference Proceedings, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Leybourne, B.A., Haas, A., Orr, B, Smoot, N.S., Bhat, I.,
Lewis, D., Gregori, G., and Reed, T., 2004. Electrical wildfire
propagation along geomagnetic anomalies. The 8th World
Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics,
Orlando, FL., p. 298-299 (July 18-24).
Meloni, A., Lanzerotti, L.J., and Gregori, G., 1983. Induction
of currents in long submarine cables by natural phenomena.
Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., v. 21, no. 4, p. 795-803.
Namias, J., 1989. Summer earthquakes in southern California
related to pressure patterns at sea level and aloft. Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San
Diego. Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 94, # B12, p.
17,671-17,679.
Blot, C., Choi, D.R. and Grover, J.C., 2003. Energy
transmigration from deep to shallow earthquakes: A
phenomenon applied to Japan –Toward scientific earthquake
prediction-. New Concepts in Global Tectonic Newsletter,
Eds. J.M. Dickens and D.R. Choi, no. 29, p. 3-16.
Quinn, J.M., 1997. Use of satellite geomagnetic data to
remotely sense the lithosphere, to detect shock-remnantmagnetization (SRM) due to meteorite impacts and to detect
magnetic induction related to hotspot upwelling. International
Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Upsala,
Sweden.
Gregori, G., 2002. Galaxy-Sun-Earth Relations: The origins
of the magnetic field and of the endogenous energy of the
Earth. Arbeitskreis Geschichte Geophysik, ISSN: 1615-2824,
Science Edition, Schroder, W., Germany.
Smoot, N.C. and Leybourne, B.A., 2001. The Central Pacific
Megatrend. International Geology Review, v. 43, no. 4, p.
341, 2001.
Gregori, G., 2000. Galaxy-Sun-Earth Relations: The dynamo
of the Earth, and the origin of the magnetic field of stars,
planets, satellites, and other planetary objects. In Wilson A.,
(ed.), 2000. The first solar and space weather conference. The
solar cycle and terrestrial climate. ESA SP-463, 680p.,
European Space Agency, ESTEC, Noordwijck, The
Netherlands, p. 329-332.
Gregori, G., 1993. Geo-electromagnetism and geodynamics:
“corona discharge” from volcanic and geothermal areas.
Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors, v. 77, p. 39-63.
Haas, A., 2002. Figs. 1, 2, and 3d. Produced by: Major
Shared Resource Center (MSRC) at Naval Oceanographic
Office (NAVOCEANO), Stennis Space Center, MS, 2002.
USGS –United States Geological Survey, 2002. Magnetic
anomaly map of North America. Dept. of the Interior.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sm/mag_map/ mag_s.pdf;
http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/docs/gump/anderson/rialto/rialto.
html
Walker, D.A., 1988. Seismicity of the East Pacific:
correlations with the Southern Oscillation Index? EOS Trans.
AGU. v. 69, p. 857.
Walker, D.A., 1995. More evidence indicates link between El
Ninos and seismicity. EOS Trans. AGU, v. 76, no. 33.
Walker, D.A., 1999. Seismic predictors of El Nino revisted.
EOS Trans. AGU, v. 80, no. 25.
9
EARTH'S EVOLUTION STAGES, PART 2
Igor A. REZANOV
Vavilov Institute for History of Natural Sciences and Technology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Staropanschkii pereulok, 1/5, 109012 Moscow, Russia
[email protected]
A
s stated in the preceding paper, Part 1, NCGT
Newsletter no. 36, p. 12-19, the author recognized
five evolution stages in the Earth's history, distinguished
by a series of specific features. The first two stages were
discussed already in Part 1 (1). The first stage was
marked by upper mantle melting and separation of a ~
10 km basaltic crustal layer, which was subsequently
metamorphosed in granulite facies under the superhigh
pressure of the primary hydrogen atmosphere. The first
stage ended at 4.0-3.9 Ga, when the hydrogen
atmosphere was destroyed by thermal dissipation.
The second stage is characterized by the degasification
of hydrogen and other fluids from the Earth's core
accompanied by water and methane formation (3Н2О +
СО → Н2О + СН4). Fluids transported silica and
noncoherent elements from the mantle to the crust; as a
result, the granulites were granitized giving birth to the
granite-gneiss crustal layer. A serpentinite layer
enriched in CH4 (methanosphere) started to develop
below it as a result of ultramafic rock hydration. The
two-layer crust, which was formed during the Archean,
existed over the rest of the Earth's evolution history.
Third State (Early–Middle Proterozoic)
During the interval of 2.8–2.6 Ga, the planet
experienced global crustal granitization, which
completed the formation of a granitic crustal layer
throughout the globe. This was followed by the next
evolution phase, which spanned a stratigraphic interval
of the Early (Lower) and the Middle Proterozoic.
The main event during the Earth's third evolution stage
was the inception and development of a system of deepseated faults for the first time in its history. Deep-seated
faults penetrating the upper mantle provided pathways
for the upward migration of fluids, which carried
thermal energy. Serpentinite layer heating led to its
degradation near faults and compaction, which resulted
in crustal subsidence. Extensive troughs were formed
along faults and were filled with sediments. Thus
geosynclines were formed on our planet starting from
the Early Proterozoic. Faults served as conduits for
magmatic products and elements, which penetrated the
crust and granitized the sediments.
Early–Middle Proterozoic geosynclinal belts were
irregularly distributed over the planet. Much of the
Siberian Craton was part of the Angara Craton, whereas
the African continent had a mosaic structural pattern
with granitic crust fragments separated by sedimentary
troughs. Clastic material at that time was shed off
uplifted granitized granulite massifs into the incipient
troughs. Worthy of notice are two specific features of
the sequences, (a) prevalence of clastic sediments and
(b) their exclusively shallow-water origin. There is not
even a grain of evidence to suggest the existence of
oceans, to say nothing about the "oceanic" crust, at the
time, because the Early and Middle Proterozoic deposits
rest ubiquitously upon the granite–gneiss basement.
The specific features of that time were two glaciation
events. Glacial tillites were discovered on all continents;
therefore, the glacials were global.
The thickness of Proterozoic deposits is varying. In
some sections – Karelia, Wyoming (US), South Africa,
and Australia – it exceeds 10 km and is sometimes as
thick as 15 km. Within geosynclinal belts,
miogeosynclinal zones (usually in marginal parts) and
inner eugeosynclinal zones have been recognized.
The Early Proterozoic sequence often begins with thin
cratonic deposits – quartz sandstones and
conglomerates. In many cases, the next stratigraphic
unit is omitted. This suggests that the Proterozoic
sedimentation cycle was preceded by platform-type
evolution (2), when vast areas on Earth were subject to
scour. These facts suggest again, that there was little
water on Earth at that time.
The lower (Dominion Reef) sedimentary complex,
composed of quartzite and conglomerate in the lower
part and basalt and andesite in the upper part, is of local
occurrence. Above it is the Witwatersrand System –
thick clastic rock (quartzite, conglomerate, shale)
sequences, attesting to the existence of dissected relief
with uplifted median masses and subsided geosynclinal
troughs. Its specific feature is the presence of gold and
uranium bearing conglomerates accumulated in a
reducing environment. Much of the Proterozoic
sequence is represented by the stratigraphically next
Lower Jatulian complex of quartzites, siltstones, and
shales with stratiform iron ore bodies, in some cases
enriched in phosphorus and manganese. The Upper
Jatulian (Animik) complex is characterized by
10
widespread carbonates and banded iron formation, in
some cases with up to 5% Р2О5. During this time, giant
iron deposits were formed (Lake Superior in US,
Labrador Trough in Canada, Hammersley iron ore basin
in Australia). The overlying Ladoga Sequence is
composed predominantly of clastic rocks with
subordinate dolomites and ultramafic to intermediate
volcanics. Also, sulfide-rich black shales are present.
The terminal Vepsian sequence occurs sporadically,
rests unconformably upon underlying rocks and is
interpreted by L.I. Salop as the early molasse.
In addition to deep-seated fault-bounded geosynclinal
troughs with thick (10-15 km) sedimentary fill, vast
roundish depressions were also formed during the
Early–Middle Proterozoic. An example is the Onega
Depression about 150 km in diameter in Karelia. The
Archean granite–greenstone basement dated 2.4-2.3 Ga
was overlain by conglomerates attesting to its
fragmentation. Above them is the Jatulian sequence
(2.3-2.1 Ga) of shallow-water clastic and carbonate
sediments, basalts, basaltic andesites, and andesites; the
overlying Zaonezhskaya Formation – clastic and
carbonate deposits with tuffites and basalts – contains
unique carbonaceous rocks (shungites). The upper part
of the sequence is composed of carbonates, clastic
sediments, and basic lava layers and sills. Later (19001650 Ma) the depocenter shifted southward – shallowwater and continental clastics were deposited.
Evolution of the Onega Depression as recorded in its
sequence provides a possibility to interpret the nature of
shungites. This is an example of a hydrogen plume that
penetrated the top of the mantle and induced its melting
and basalt propagation to the surface. This plume
existed for more than 600 Ma in the same location. The
heating of the lower crust by basalt melts led to the
partial dehydration of the serpentinite layer, its
compaction and subsidence, which created a roundish
depression. During Zaonezhskaya time, the destructed
methanosphere supplied hydrocarbons in vast volumes
to the surface, where they were transformed by
microbes into shungites, which contain 90% carbon.
From 2.6 Ga on, deep-seated faults in places started to
reach those mantle horizons, where carbon-rich magma
chambers had been formed in the Archean and
continued to evolve and where diamond crystallization
was under way. Their last evolution phase was
decompression as a result of fault penetration into the
chamber. The mantle zones weakened by faulting
started to deliver diamondiferous kimberlite magma on
the surface by way of local break-through events
(explosions). Likewise, carbonatite magmas were
injected on the surface since 2.6 Ga. Thus, it was at the
Archean–Proterozoic boundary that the character of
tectonic and magmatic processes, which became typical
of the Earth for the rest of its evolution, was established
– differentiation into geosynclinal troughs and stable
masses; kimberlite and alkaline magmatism; and
hydrocarbon and ore element supply into sedimentary
cover.
Fourth stage (Riphean–Paleozoic) – new structural
pattern of the planet
Subsidence in geosynclinal troughs stopped at
approximately 2000–1900 Ma. Karelian diastrophism
took place – folding, intense igneous activity, and
granitization of the Archean basement and sediments
accumulated during the Proterozoic. The crust was
consolidated again, but starting from 1750 Ma it was
broken by differently oriented and more extensive deepseated faults. Stille called this radical transformation of
the Earth's structural framework the Algonkian
revolution. The last megachron in the planet's history,
Phanerozoic, commenced after it. Formation of the new
structural pattern of the Earth extended over 200-300
Ma. Among the earliest breakups was the inception of
the more than 1200 km long Akitkan fault-bounded
trough along the southern margin of the Siberian Craton
(1750-1600 Ma). The sequence begins with sandstone,
conglomerate, and tuff, followed upward by quartz and
quartz-free porphyry, trachyandesite, and tuff. The
Upper Proterozoic sequence on other continents also
starts with acid volcanics. This attests to the uniformity
of interior conditions: the incipient extensive faults
provided migration pathways for hydrogen, which was
oxidized at the base of the crust producing acid magma
chambers.
By 1600-1500 Ma, deep-seated faults of new orientation
arose throughout the planet; along them, Riphean
geosynclinal troughs were formed and in most cases
continued to develop in the Paleozoic.
The incipient Ural–Mongolia, Mediterranean, Pacific,
and Atlantic geosynclinal foldbelts were separated by
large cratons, which remained mostly emergent, being
episodically covered by shallow seas. In the northern
hemisphere, these included the North American, East
European, and Siberian cratons, whose outlines
remained with insignificant changes till the present day.
The South American, Australian, African, and Antarctic
cratons have also existed since the Riphean. They are
fragments of a larger craton that encompassed the whole
southern hemisphere. A hundred years ago, Suess
proposed the hypothesis of the pre-existing continent of
Gondwana, which subsequently broke up and partially
subsided under the ocean level.
Another giant craton was located within the present-day
Pacific Ocean. It was surrounded by geosynclinal
foldbelts that evolved till the end of the Mesozoic. The
deep Pacific Ocean was formed after this craton only
during the Mesozoic–Cenozoic. We may safely say so,
because granitized granulites were dredged from the
Pacific Ocean floor.
Sedimentation during the Riphean and the Paleozoic
remained exclusively shallow-water both on cratons and
in geosynclinal troughs. During the Riphean, these were
predominantly clastics with subordinate carbonate rocks
and molassoid redbeds in the second half. During the
Paleozoic, most cratons were flooded by shallow seas
with predominantly carbonate sedimentation.
Geosynclinal troughs were filled by both carbonate and
clastic sediments.
Lithologic variability, alternation of erosion and
sedimentation areas, abundant evidence for the shallowwater depositional environment, rapid thickness
variations in sediments, whose accumulation rate was
ten times as high as in the present-day ocean,
demonstrate that deep oceans similar to the present-day
ones did not exist during the Paleozoic.
Fifth stage (Mesozoic–Cenozoic) – inception of deep
oceans
A number of geosynclinal foldbelts, which were formed
during the Riphean and continued to exist during the
Paleozoic, continued to develop during the Mesozoic
and Cenozoic. The geosynclinal regime remained within
foldbelts surrounding the Pacific Craton. The
Mediterranean–Himalayan geosynclinal foldbelt
actively developed during the Mesozoic–Cenozoic. In
some Paleozoic geosynclinal belts, subsidence stopped
during the Mesozoic.
But the Permian Period (especially its second half) gave
birth to a radically new stage in the Earth's history –
formation of extremely large crustal subsidence zones
over much of the planet and their filling by mineralized
water (inception of ocean basins).
Permo–Triassic time was marked by wide development
of two processes, which were never accentuated before:
crustal fragmentation by numerous faults (germanotype
tectonics) and areal basalt eruptions, especially on
cratons. Formation of a vast number of hydrothermal
ore deposits as well as salt accumulation also date to
this time period. There are grounds to believe that this
time period was characterized by a long-term outbreak
of deep degasification of the Earth, which radically
changed the structural pattern of the planet.
11
To define the nature of changes on Earth during the
Mesozoic–Cenozoic, it is necessary to briefly review the
structure and composition of the methanosphere
(serpentinite layer) underlying the granite-gneisses in
the crust of ancient cratons.
Seismic sounding of the crust of ancient cratons showed
a decrease in velocity beneath the granite-gneiss layer
down to 5.5-6.0 km/s, which can only be explained by
the presence of strongly hydrated serpentinite there.
Velocity increases with depth up to 7.0 km/s at the
Moho discontinuity indicating a decrease in the extent
of serpentinization. The Moho zone exhibits a series of
interbedded high-velocity and low-velocity horizons
and extremely high electric conductivity of rocks. The
author interprets this as a series of water-free
ultramafics interbedded with highly mineralized,
predominantly sodium chloride solutions in the Moho
zone. The sodium chloride horizon at the base of the
crust was formed of pure water incorporated by
serpentinites plus Cl, Br, and other halogen salts
supplied from the mantle, stopped at the base of the
serpentinite layer, and dissolved into brine with large
volumes of ore and trace elements.
Analysis of ore deposits, including both lode ore and
stratiform deposits as well as metalliferous black shales
provides a possibility to outline common features in
their genesis. During the multi-billion-year history of
the Earth, fluids (water, methane, halogens) delivered a
vast number of various metallic and rare-earth elements
from the whole mantle sequence into the crust. Most of
them settled at the base of the methanosphere (Moho
discontinuity), where a zone of highly concentrated
sodium chloride solutions was formed. Some elements
precipitated in the upper horizons of the methanosphere,
and a significant part reached the granite-gneiss layer
(uranium, gold).
The destruction of the methanosphere as a result of crust
fragmentation by faulting as well as temperature growth
triggered the mechanism of ore elements transportation
from the whole crustal sequence into its upper
sedimentary layer and on the surface. Destruction began
from below – highly concentrated sodium chloride
brines containing many ore and trace elements in a
dissolved state migrated from the Moho discontinuity
zone upward along fractures. As the serpentinite layer
continued to disintegrate, brines were gradually diluted
by expelled water, but enriched in methane and other
hydrocarbons. Simultaneous hydrogen degasification
produced extremely reducing environment and led to
the formation of metal-organic compounds, and both
processes facilitated the leaching of ore elements from
12
the whole crustal sequence. The same processes affected
the granite–gneiss layer overlying the methanosphere.
Temperature growth up to 600-700°C at its base led to
the partial melting of granitoids and upward migration
of granite melt, which led to the emplacement of
intrusive massifs, which contained ore elements in the
same proportions as in thermal waters, in the
sedimentary layer and at the top of the granite–gneiss
layer.
Reduced thermal waters oxidize in the upper part of the
sedimentary layer and on the surface of the planet, and
this is the main cause of sulfide ore emplacement.
Oxidation is caused by: (a) mixture with meteoric
surface waters and sulfate solutions; (b) bacterial
oxidation by thermophilic organisms, which, as was
recently established, begins at ~ 100°C and higher and
increases with decrease in temperature. As a result,
carbon and metal compounds precipitate in ore veins
and on the surface.
A vivid example of modern hydrothermal metallic
mineralization activity is the Uzon caldera in
Kamchatka. High-temperature alkaline sodium chloride
solutions with high antimony, arsenic, and hydrogen
sulfide concentrations discharge on the surface and
precipitate iron, copper, and arsenic sulfides. "The
presence of native sulfur in virtually all mineralized
zones suggests that the oxidation of abyssal alkaline
sulfide-bearing hydrotherms in the zone of mixture with
surface waters is the main process leading to the
inversion of the thermodynamic parameters of ore
forming system" (5, p. 70). The same author indicates
the paramount importance of thermophilic bacteria,
some of which reduce sulfate to sulfide sulfur, and the
others oxidize sulfide sulfur to native sulfur.
In some cases, the heating of the methanosphere was
caused by basalt magma intrusion, and then ore
mineralization was paragenetically related both with
magmatic dikes and hydrothermal veins. Often ore
emplacement is accompanied by oil, emphasizing the
relationship between ore mineralization and the
methanosphere. This is also supported by the presence
of lead, zinc, and other metals in mud volcano waters,
where predominant mineral resources are oil and
hydrocarbons.
Ore deposits and oil accumulations were formed during
the partial destruction of the methanosphere (on
continents). During the Mesozoic–Cenozoic, however,
the methanosphere was completely destroyed over more
than half of the globe due to heating from areal basalt
eruptions – the serpentinite layer was dehydrated, and
the crust increased in density, subsided under the effect
of isostasy, and gave birth to oceanic basins that were
filled with mineralized water expelled from destroyed
serpentinites. Methane, previously contained in
serpentinites, was partially lost into the atmosphere and
oxidized into CO2 and partially accumulated among
newly deposited oceanic sediments as a gas hydrate
layer. Dehydration only affected the crust of ancient
cratons (Gondwana, Pacific), where the serpentinite
layer was as thick as 20-25 km. Geosynclinal troughs,
whose crust is composed of sedimentary rocks and the
serpentinite layer is thin or absent, are preserved as
islands (Japan, New Zealand).
Conclusion
Our planet's history, reconstructed from the geologic
record, suggests that its evolution was guided by two
energy sources. During the initial period (as on the
Moon), the upper 250−300 km of the mantle melted,
and this led to the separation of the ~ 10 km basaltic
crust. As a result of melting, the upper mantle was
subdivided into three reservoirs: (1) the depleted
reservoir, which lacked neodymium and other
noncoherent elements; (2) basaltic melt, which
crystallized into eclogites; (3) the mantle depleted of
neodymium but enriched in alkali and radioactive
elements, expelled during eclogite crystallization. The
separated crust was metamorphosed in granulite facies
under the pressure of the high-density primary
atmosphere.
Another energy source arose at 4.0-3.9 Ga – oxidation
of hydrogen supplied from the core together with other
fluids. The newly formed water, methane, and halogens
leached alkaline and non-coherent elements from the
mantle and transported them to the crust, and this led to
its granitization. Carbon, which was supplied with
fluids, enabled carbonatite magma and diamond
formation at the top of the mantle. Synthetic water
accumulated at the base of the crust within a thick
serpentinite layer (methanosphere).
At 2.6 Ga, between the Archean and the Proterozoic, the
Earth was for the first time dissected by a system of
deep-seated faults rooted in the mantle. The faults
provided channels for carbonatite and kimberlite magma
to rise up into the crust. Fluids migrating to the base of
the crust along faults raised the temperature and thereby
induced serpentinite dehydration, compaction, and
subsidence, which led to the inception of fault-bounded
geosynclinal troughs.
The Riphean was preceded by a radical transformation
of structural framework, which gave birth to differently
oriented geosynclinal foldbelts, which developed during
the whole Phanerozoic.
In earliest Mesozoic, areal basaltic magmatism
destroyed the serpentinite layer over much of the planet,
and this led to the inception of deep oceans and the
transfer of ore elements and hydrocarbons, previously
accumulated in the serpentinite layer (methanosphere),
into the sedimentary layer.
Our planet's evolution was caused by two factors: (1)
irregular (in time and space) supply of hydrogen fluids
from the core, which led to the granitization of primary
basalt (granulite) crust; (2) two deep-seated fault
formation events: the faults served as conduits for
thermal energy and magma products supply to the crust.
This led to the formation of two structural patterns: (1)
in the Early–Middle Proterozoic and (2) in the
Phanerozoic.
Rapid increase in hydrogen degasification during the
Mesozoic–Cenozoic can be considered as the beginning
of the next megachron in the Earth's history, which
changed its structural pattern (oceanization of two-thirds
of its surface). There are grounds to believe that
oceanization is still under way, and that the planet Earth
13
will eventually turn into the planet Ocean, where small
islands alone will rise above the water surface.
References
1. Rezanov, I., 2005. Earth’s evolution stages. NCGT
Newsletter, no. 36
2. Salop, L., 1983. Geological evolution of the Earth
during the Precambrian. Springer Verl. Berlin.
3. Tabunov, S.M., Romanovskaya Yu.M., Staritsina,
G.N.,1989. Rock complexes of the Pacific Ocean floor
in Clarion–Clipperton zone, Tikhookeanskaya
Geologiya,, no. 4.
4. Timofeyev, P.P., Kholodov, V.N., and Khvorova,
I.V., 1983. Evolution of sedimentation processes on
continents and in oceans, "Litologiya i Poleznyye
Iskopayemyye," no. 5.
5. Karpov, G.A., 1988. Modern Hydrotherms and
Mercury–Antimony–Arsenic Mineralization (in
Russian), Moscow: Nauka.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAVE STRUCTURES IN THE SATURNIAN SYSTEM
G. G. KOCHEMASOV
IGEM of the Russian Academy of Sciences
35 Staromonetny, 119017 Moscow, Russia, Moscow
[email protected]
N
ot mentioning very pronounced wave structures in
the saturnian rings –both in radial and tangential
directions, one can state that every satellite –large and
small –demonstrates structure induced by warping
action of inertia-gravity waves. They appear in bodies
as standing waves as a result of their movement in
keplerian non-round orbits with alternating
accelerations. Rotation of bodies make these waves go
in 4 ortho- and diagonal directions; an interference of
cross-cutting standing waves produces uplifting (+),
subsiding (-) and neutral (0) tectonic blocks, the size of
which depends on wavelengths. So, one can state that
“orbits make structures”.
The longest fundamental wave 1 causes ubiquitous
tectonic dichotomy. The first overtone wave 2 causes
tectonic sectoring in such a way that a body tends to
acquire the shape of an octahedron: “perfect” diamonds
and their parts are normally seen in small bodies, the
larger ones demonstrate some octahedron vertices and
ubiquitous cross-cutting wavings with directions
parallel to three octahedron’s symmetry planes. These
two wave structures (wave1- 2πR-structure; wave2 –
πR-structure) are always supplemented by crossing
wave warpings (ridge-groove systems) producing
tectonic granules of roundish or polygonal (square,
hexagon) shapes. A ridge-groove spacing or a granule
size depends on an orbital frequency: higher frequency
– smaller granule and, vice versa, lower frequency –
larger granule. This strict dependence was for the first
time demonstrated for the inner planets: their granule
sizes (Mercury πR/16, Venus πR/6, Earth πR/4, Mars
πR/2, asteroids πR/1) inversely proportional to their
orbital frequencies. Then it was shown that this
dependence is also valid for the Galilean satellites and
the Moon. Now numerous icy satellites of Saturn
confirm this dependence [1]. A satellite peculiarity is in
its two orbits in the Solar system (planets are simpler
with their one orbit). So, there are two main orbital
frequencies (for example, around Saturn and the Sun)
and modulated side frequencies. Division and
multiplication of the higher frequency by the lower one
give two side frequencies. All four frequencies
correspond to their tectonic granules. That is why the
14
surfaces of satellites in addition to impacts are peppered
with wave induced, evenly sized craters, moulds, and
mounds, which are arranged in chains and grids, and
belong to a few size categories corresponding to the
main and modulated frequencies.
For the first time in the saturnian system these wave
considerations were applied to a pre-Cassini IR image
of Titan [2]. Its observed granulation of about 700 km in
diameter was calculated (confirmed) using two main
orbital frequencies of this satellite and modulated one.
A scale was Earth with its orbital frequency 1/1 year
and corresponding granule size πR/4. The first Cassini
images of Phoebe have shown tectonic dichotomy,
sectoring and granulation. Granule sizes πR/3 and πR/20
were detected and calculated [3]. Very impressive
“spongy” looking Hyperion have calculated and
observed granules of 5-8 km across. The highest
resolution Enceladus image (PIA06252) shows “chessboard” wave cross-cutting structure and protruding
“boulders” about 100 m across. The higher modulated
frequency and corresponding granule size is also about
100 m [1].
Titan’s grid of cross-cutting warpings with spacing of
about 1-2 km (Fig. 2) with corresponding granules is
tighter than was calculated (12 km) [1]. This
discrepancy possibly should be explained by two
reasons: 1) observed spacing corresponds to some
higher resonating overtone of the modulated frequency,
or 2) before losing much of its volatile stock and mass,
Titan had another shorter orbit and higher orb.
frequency: this grid is therefore a memory of the past.
Lost icy material as well as the Enceladus ice-vapor
plumes could contribute to Saturnian rings. A source of
heat for interiors producing outbursts is a friction of
periodically phase-changing standing waves (the same
mechanism was envisaged for Io). Small icy particles
aggregating and gaining mass lose orb. radius and join
rings.
Ubiquitous dichotomy is better seen in the convexoconcave bean shapes of small bodies (Figs. 3, 4 and 5).
Bended Calypso (Fig. 9) demonstrates a shape quite
comparable with another well studied small body –
asteroid Eros (Figs. 10 and 11). A saddle –a result of
cracking of the convex hemisphere is on both bodies.
Figs. 11and 12 show dichotomy of Europa and Iapetus:
darker and presumably denser halves (more precisely
1/3 of what follows from the wave theory) are
comparable to planetary lowlands of Earth and Mars.
“Spongy” Hyperion (Fig. 1) clearly demonstrates a wide
depression with abrupt bordering cliffs (compare to
Pacific basin of Earth and Vastitas Borealis of Mars).
Cliffs show that tectonic granules have deep roots. Figs.
6, 7 and 8 show polyhedral (octahedral) shapes of small
bodies.
Equal orb. frequencies – equal tectonic granulations.
Figs. 16 and 17 show similar granulations of the Moon
(17) and Sun (16) taking 1 month to orbit Earth and the
center of the Solar system. Iapetus (79 days) and
Mercury (88 days) have longer but near periods. That is
why their granulations are similar but coarser than the
lunar and solar ones.
References: [1] Kochemasov G.G. (2005). VernadskyBrown Microsymp.-42, Moscow, Oct. 2005, Abstr.
M42_31, CD-ROM. [2] Kochemasov G.G. (2000).
Titan: frequency modulation of warping waves //
Geophys. Res. Abstr., v.2, (CD-ROM). [3] Kochemasov
G.G. (2004). Vernadsky-Brown Microsymp. 40:
“Topics in comparative planetology”, Oct. 11-13, 2004,
Abstr., Vernadsky Inst., Moscow, Russia, CD-ROM; [4]
Slade M.A. et al. (1992). Science, v.258, 635-640; [5]
Konopliv A.S. et al. (1998). Science, v. 281, # 5382,
1476-1480.
Figure captions (see the next page):
Fig.1 Hyperion (PIA 07761; Credit: NASA/JPL/Space
Sci. Inst);
Fig.2 Titan’s surface, radar image, grid spacing 1-2 km,
PIA 03567;
Fig.3 Hyperion , PIA06608;
Fig.4 Hyperion, 06645;
Fig.5 Telesto, 07546;
Fig.6 Pandora, 07530;
Fig.7 Epimetheus, 07531;
Fig.8 Helene, 07547;
Fig.9 Calypso, 07633;
Fig.10 Eros, 03111;
Fig.11 Eros, 02955;
Fig.12 Europa, 00502;
Fig.13 Iapetus, 07766;
Fig.14 Mercury, radar image from Earth [4]
Fig.15 Iapetus, 00348;
Fig.16 Photosphere of Sun, supergranulation;
Fig.17 Lunar gravity [5].
For figure captions see the previous page
15
16
ORIGIN OF THE PRIMARY TECTONIC STRUCTURES OF THE
EARTH AND PLANETS
Alexander V. DOLITSKY
Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
[email protected]
I
n order to find regularities in the spatial distribution
of faults on the Earth's surface, the author transferred
them to a large-scale globe. As a result, it was found
that faults established on various, if extended toward
Central Europe, behave as radial directions and crossed
each other at various points within this region. The
author also noticed the absence of modern or ancient
tectonic structures oriented similarly to these faults in
Europe or outside it. It remained to propose that these
structures, as well as faults, arose at the initial
development stage of our planet during mantle
formation (4-4.3 Ga) and were mantle deformation and
crushing rather than crustal structures, considering that
the earth's crust did not exist yet at that time. These
primary tectonic structures have lost their initial habit
during numerous restructuring, erosion, and deposition
events. Perhaps subsequent petrological and
geochemical researches will provide a possibility to
restore the original positions and pattern of the primary
structure in Europe. Primary faults evolved differently.
Being linear weakness zones, most of them were
repeatedly activated under the effect of even small
forces, and this enabled many primary faults to retain
their initial positions. The author proposes that primary
faults were formed under the effect of global stress
fields that arose during mantle explosions. Such
explosions might be caused by radioactive decay
ongoing in the center of the planet, enriched in
radioactive elements (U, Th, K).
Modern views of the origin of terrestrial planets are
based on two groups of problems. The first problem is
whether the differently composed particles of the
protoplanetary cloud were deposited simultaneously
(homogeneous accretion) or in a certain succession
(heterogeneous accretion). At present, most researchers
gravitate to heterogeneous accretion (1). The second
problem is whether planetary accretion was
predominantly hot or cold. Now most researchers
gravitate to hot accretion- differentiation of substance
from melted particles or particles that composed a melt,
although the majority adhered to the concept of cold
accretion not so long ago (2).
Computer images of primary mantle structures of
planets, recently compiled by the author, suggest the
following sequence of accretion types during planet
formation.
1. Hot accretion – amalgamation of hot microscopic
iron and silicate particles in a protoplanetary disk and
their gravitational differentiation (3) - formation of an
iron protocore and its liquid silicate shell. The term
“protocore” means the primary core (from Greek
protos: first).
2. Cold accretion (2) - amalgamation of cold
protoplanetary cloud particles and clots of particles and
formation of an external shell of the protocore.
3. Protocore heating and pressure growth within it as a
result of radioactive decay (U, Th, K). Increase in
protocore pressure restricted within a shell induces
phase transition from protocore to the planet's core
proper surrounded by the mantle. Simultaneously,
differentiated (3) granitoid magma upwells from the
core/mantle interface to the top of the mantle, where it
gives birth to the fragments of continental granitic layer.
The author believes that lunar anorthosites are of similar
origin (4). Shrinking of the central part of the planet as a
result of protocore transition into the core would
inevitably entail a certain decrease in the diameter of the
planet and a sharp increase in its rotation velocity.
Significant reduction of the planet's diameter may lead
to the formation of mantle depressions oriented along
meridians.
The hypothesis of the origin of planetary core and
mantle and mantle structures discussed above was
confirmed by computerized analysis of faults
arrangement on the surface of Mercury, Venus, Earth,
Moon and Mars. The results of this analysis are
discussed below. The work was performed with
reference to publications, some of which are listed
below.
The problem of primary mantle structures discussed in
this work lies at the junction of tectonic problems and
the origin of terrestrial planets, but it gravitates mostly
to the origin of planets. It comprises the problems of hot
and cold accretion within protoplanetary cloud disks
and core formation. Researchers working in this field
might be interested in the author's idea of transition
from hot accretion during protocore formation to cold
accretion during the formation of a shell, which
subsequently transformed into the mantle. It was this
shell precisely that enabled continuous core heating and
pressure growth within it, which eventually led to the
phase transition from the protocore to the core
surrounded by the mantle and subsequent mantle
rotation over the core. The process was accompanied by
mantle explosions that led to the creation of the
fragments of the granitic layer on continents. Similar
processes on the Moon led to differently composed
magma eruptions.
But in both cases, oceans of lava were formed – they
were detected on the Moon during space imaging. They
induced many scientists to change their views of the
problem of accretion in protoplanetary clouds (or disks,
according to modern views). In the XIX century, the
Kant-Laplace planet formation hypothesis implied a
primary molten, liquid state of the Earth, and its cooling
was interpreted as the cause and driving force of all
tectonic events in Elie de Beaumont's contraction
hypothesis that existed until the middle of the XX
century. In second half of the XX century, the
hypothesis of cold accretion of particles in
protoplanetary clouds received wide acceptance; in the
English literature, it is associated with Urey. Detection
of lava oceans on the Moon returned the views of
researchers to Kant-Laplace's views, but at a higher
level with the recognition of hot accretion. This soon
gained support after the discovery of disks of gas-dust
clouds quickly rotating near supernovae similar to our
Sun. The author's data on mantle explosions on the
Earth and terrestrial planets are incontestable. However,
they attest not to the initially melted state of the core
(more precisely protocore) but rather to its subsequent
melting or increase in its temperature and pressure,
which could only be possible in the presence of thick
shells around the protocore. As a result of increase in
pressure prior to phase transition, this shell underwent
partial destruction and thereby enabled wide-scale
17
secondary lava eruptions, granitoid lavas inclusive,
which gave birth to the fragments of continental granitic
layer on the surface of the mantle. These processes
separate the initial planet evolution stage from the
subsequent geological evolution associated with mantle
rotation around the core, magnetic field generation, and
crust formation and deformation on the surface of the
mantle.
Earlier, the author plotted the Earth's polar wandering
path - imaginary trace of the motionless geographical
axis on the surface of the mantle rotating around of the
core. The work was based on the graphic analysis of the
arrangement of faults located on different continents but
activated in the same moments of the Phanerozoic
history. Later, additional correlation of this path with
geological and paleomagnetic data was undertaken.
Also, a correlation between magnetic field variations
and mantle rotation around the core was established.
Special software providing a possibility to establish the
ages of paleomagnetic poles from their positions. In this
connection it should be noted that plumes observable on
the Earth are possibly the fragments of the whirls
(vortexes) caused by mantle rotation around the core
and leading to the Earth's magnetic field formation. All
these problems are reflected in the author's Web site at
http://www.newpole.nm.ru.
References
1. Guyot, F., 1994. Earth’s innermost secrets, Nature, v. 36,
no. 6479, p. 350-361
2. Urey, H.C., 1962. Evidence regarding the origin of the
Earth, Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 26, p. 1-13.
3. Ringwood, A.F., 1977. Composition of the core and
implications for the origin of the Earth, Geochem. Jour.,
no. 11, p. 111-135.
4. Wood, J.A., Diskey, J.S., Marnin, V.B., and Powel, B.H.,
1970. Lunar anorthosites and geophysical model of Moon,
Proc. Apollo XI Lunar Sci. Conf. Houston, v. 1,
p. 965-989.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHORT NOTE
COMMENT ON THE RECENT GREAT 26 DECEMBER, 2004
SUMATRA-ANDAMAN EARTHQUAKE PAPERS
Dong R. CHOI
Raax Australia Pty Ltd
[email protected]
T
wo recent papers on the above earthquake came to
my attention; both appeared in Nature, v. 440, 2nd
March issue, one by Ammon, and another by Subarya
et al. The former showed an interesting figure of the
earthquake occurrence in time and space (Fig. 1, right).
Two groups of earthquakes are discerned: The northern
group which is related to the 26 December 2004
catastrophe and the southern group to the 28 March
18
2005 Nias-Simuelue event. The boundary is situated in
the north of Simuelue Island. In both cases the
mainshocks occurred at or near the boundary between
the northern and the southern blocks. This figure
indicates that the northern block moved first, and 90
days later the southern block moved. Subarya et al.
(2006) noted the trend in coral reef uplift: “the southern
limit of uplift of 2004 is approximately coincident with
the northern limit of uplift during the 28 March 2005,
Mw=8.7 Nias-Simeulue earthqauke”, implying the
presence of a major tectonic zone between these two
blocks.
Interestingly the boundary between the above two
mantle/crustal blocks coincides with the NE-SW
tectonic zone by Blot and Choi (2004) and Choi (2005)
along which the precursor shock (on 27 December,
2002) and mainshock of the catastrophic event on 26
December, 2004 took place (Fig. 1, left). Choi (2005)
also noted a large-scale submarine slide (considered the
cause of the tsunami) situated roughly on this tectonic
zone. The linear trend of this tectonic zone is clearly
traceable in the ocean floor in the south and is also
recognized in the north in Malaysia on satellite
imagery.
The Ammon paper clearly corroborates our earlier
assertion that the extraordinary stress accumulation
along this NE-SW deep tectonic zone which runs north
of Simuelue Island was the cause for the 2004 Boxing
Day earthquake and tsunami. The tectonic zone was
considered the conduit for the seismic energy to travel
from deep to shallow earth (Blot and Choi, 2004).
Similar tectonic and earthquake settings – deep tectonic
zones, earthquake occurrence and seismic energy
transmigration – have been recognized in Japan (Blot
et al., 2003; Blot and Choi, 2004) and Kashmir (Blot
and Choi, 2005).
Despite their claim of a subduction-related megathrust
whose movement allegedly caused the great
earthquakes in Indonesia in 2004 to 2005 in both
Ammon and Subarya et al. papers, they have not
presented evidence for its presence. The megathurst
was only shown in their schematic profiles with
earthquake loci in the Subarya et al. paper (their figure
3b) without any references to supporting hard data.
Actually a Shell seismic profile shows no megathrust
under the Indonesian arc offshore Bali, and seismic
tomography negates the subduction of the oceanic crust
in the region (Choi, 2005; see also Pratt, 2005). As
Ammon (2006) stated, “many issues require deeper
investigation”. Obviously he is aware of the fatal error
in their models. The Subasrya et al. paper is mainly
based on their GPS measurements which are still
controversial in terms of their resolution. The lack of
hard geological data in their paper is worthy of note.
References cited
Ammon, C.J., 2006. Megathrust investigations. Nature,
v. 440, 2 March, p. 31-32.
Blot, C., 2005. On the recent Sumatran earthquakes
and their forerunners. NCGT Newsletter, no.35,
p. 3-7.
Blot, C. and Choi, D.R., 2004. Recent devastating
earthquakes in Japan and Indonesia viewed from the
seismic energy transmigration concept. NCGT
Newsletter, no. 33, p. 3-12.
Blot, C., Choi, D.R. and Grover, J.C., 2003. Energy
transmigration from deep to shallow earthquakes:
a phenomenon applied to Japan. –toward scientific
earthquake prediction-. NCGT Newsletter, no. 29,
p. 3-19.
Blot, C. and Choi, D.R., 2005. Forerunners of the
catastrophic Kashmir earthquake (8 October, 2005)
and their geological significance. NCGT Newsletter,
no. 37, p. 4-16.
Choi, D.R., 2005. Plate subduction is not the cause for
the great Indonesia earthquake on December 26,
2004. NCGT Newsletter, no. 34, p. 21-26.
Pratt, D., 2005. Articles of interest. Jour. Sci. Expl., v. 19,
no. 3, p. 490-495
Subarya, C., Chlieh, M., Prawirodirdyo, L., Avouac, J.P., Bock, Y., Sieh, K., Meltzner, A.J., Natawidjaja,
D.H., and McCaffery, R., 2006. Plate-boundary
deformation associated with the great SumatraAndaman earthquake. Nature, v. 440, 2 March,
p. 46-51.
19
Figure 1. Left, tectonic map indicating the earthquake loci (precursor, main, and aftershocks) of the Sumatra-Andaman (26 Dec. 2004) and NiasSimeulue earthquakes (28 March). Right, seismic activity before, during and after the great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake (including events
beneath the Andaman Sea) by Ammon (2006) (citation permitted by Nature). Star indicates 26 December 2004 (day 0, left) mainshock and 28
March 2005 mainshock (day 90, right). Note a large gap at around 2.5 degrees north latitude, implying the presence of a major tectonic zone.
_________________________________________________________________
GEOPOLITICAL CORNER
STAMPING OUT DISSENT
Brian MARTIN
Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Wollongong
NSW, Australia
[email protected]
- Too often, unconventional or unpopular scientific views are simply suppressed –
(This paper originally appeared in Newsweek, 26 April, 1993, p. 49-50. Reproduced with permission of the author)
T
extbooks present science as a noble search for truth,
in which progress depends on questioning
established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel
myth.
They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with
the dominant view is dangerous -- especially when that
view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it
suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is
that someone does research or speaks out in a way that
threatens a powerful interest group, typically a
government, industry or professional body. As a result,
representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or
the critic personally--by censoring writing, blocking
publications, denying appointments or promotions,
withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions,
harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumours.
Dr. Melvin Reuber worked at the Frederick Cancer
Research Facility in Maryland studying links between
pesticides and cancer. A highly productive scientist, he
says he regularly earned glowing performance reports.
In 1981 he received a scathing report. The bulk of it
found its way into Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, a
trade magazine for the petrochemical industry. The item
was circulated around the world and used to discredit
Reuber wherever his findings were cited to question the
safety of pesticides.
The expression of dissenting views may not seem like
much of a threat to a powerful organization, yet
sometimes it triggers an amazingly hostile response.
The reason is that a single dissenter can puncture an
illusion of unanimity.
20
Perhaps nowhere is the facade of unanimity stronger
than in the debate over fluoridating public drinking
water to prevent dental caries. Proponents of the
practice roundly deny that there is any debate, much less
reason for one, at all.
Dr. John Colquhoun, a New Zealand dentist and dental
administrator, had long supported fluoridation. But in
1980 he took a world trip to study the issue and
subsequently changed his mind. After he was quoted in
a newspaper warning parents not to let their young
children swallow too much fluoridated toothpaste,
Colquhoun received a letter from the New Zealand
Health Department. It said that if he could not adhere to
official policy recommending the use of fluoride
toothpaste by young children, one option was to resign.
No further action was taken against him.
Those who launch the attacks explain everything from
censorship to dismissal on the ground of poor
performance by the person concerned. No one admits to
suppressing dissent. And indeed, there is no way to be
absolutely sure that suppression has occurred. But there
are some good indicators. One is the double-standard
test: is similar treatment given to other scientists who
have similar levels of performance? In typical
suppression cases, other scientists with equal or lesser
records are not attacked. They didn't rock the boat.
But dramatic cases of transfers and dismissals give a
misleading impression of patterns of suppression. The
most common tactics are probably to block publications
or appointments. These are incredibly difficult to
document.
How frequent is suppression? No one has done a
systematic survey. But having studied this issue for the
past decade and a half, it is my experience that the
problem is much more pervasive than most people
realize. There's a sustained pattern of suppression in
some areas, such as nuclear power, fluoridation,
pesticides and forestry.
Dr. Hugh DeWitt is a theoretical physicist at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, a nuclear-weapons lab.
DeWitt has long been a critic of aspects of U.S. nuclear
weapons policy. In 1979 he filed affidavits in support of
The Progressive, a magazine about to publish
information on the workings of the hydrogen bomb -obtained from public sources like encyclopaedias -when the federal government sought an injunction. The
lab placed a letter of warning in DeWitt's personnel file.
After scientific organizations came to his defence, De
Witt reached a settlement with the lab, and in 1980 the
letter was removed from his file.
One often-advocated solution to the problem of
suppression is whistle-blower legislation, which is said
to support those who speak out in the public interest.
The reality is not so wonderful. It covers only limited
forms of retaliation--not blocking publications or
spreading rumours, for instance.
Indeed, the focus on whistle-blowing gives the illusion
that most attacks on dissent take the form of attacks on
whistle-blowers. This is much too narrow a perspective.
Furthermore, experience shows that only a small
fraction of complaints are taken up and an even smaller
fraction are vindicated, due more to a lack of
enthusiasm for defending whistle-blowers than to a
shortage of worthy cases.
Dr. John Coulter was a medical researcher at the
Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science in Adelaide,
South Australia, from 1969 to 1980. An outspoken
environmentalist, he aroused the wrath of a number of
chemical companies owing to his comments, made in
his "private capacity," about their products. In 1980 he
tested a chemical used to sterilize equipment at the
institute and found that it could cause mutations in
bacteria. He released his report to the workers as well as
to the official committee. Soon after, Coulter was
dismissed from his post. He later became a prominent
Australian politician.
Suppression of intellectual dissent can inflict large costs
on society. Among those suppressed have been the
engineers who tried to point out problems with the
Challenger space shuttle that caused it to blow up. More
fundamentally, suppression is a denial of the open
dialogue and debate that are the foundation of a free
society. Even worse than the silencing of dissidents is
the chilling effect such practices have on others. For
every individual who speaks out, numerous others
decide to play it safe and keep quiet. More serious than
external censorship is the problem of self-censorship.
What can a scientist do to fight intellectual suppression?
Use official channels only if your case is cut and dried.
Otherwise they are likely to drain your energy without
yielding the desired result. For similar reasons, legal
channels are seldom fruitful: suppression is difficult to
prove in court. A publicity campaign, on the other hand,
can be effective. This might involve sympathizers
writing letters to an organization, circulating a petition
or getting stories into the media. Look for allies,
including other dissidents, civil libertarians and social
activists. The best chance of challenging suppression
lies in mobilizing support from those who believe that
your point of view deserves to be heard.
The existence of suppression of dissent as a pervasive
feature of science calls for a reconceptualization of the
enterprise. Rather than being solely a search for the
truth, science is closely bound up with the exercise of
power. This is normally acknowledged for totalitarian
regimes and for military dictatorships, where
intellectual suppression is overt. But the same sorts of
processes occur, usually in a more subtle fashion, in
liberal democracies. From Copernicus to Darwin to
Einstein, as well as countless others who have
challenged the conventional wisdom, it has been the
dissidents, the outsiders, the contrarians who have
spurred science on. We should protect and encourage
dissent, even when we disagree with the dissidents.
------------------------------------------------------------
REFEREED JOURNALS: DO THEY
INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE
ORTHODOXY?
Frank J. TIPLER
Professor of Mathematical Physics,
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA 70118 USA
[email protected]
21
and what it actually does accomplish in practice. Also of
importance is its history. The notion that a scientific
idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until
it has first appeared in a “peer” reviewed journal did not
become widespread until after World War II.
Copernicus’s heliocentric system, Galileo’s mechanics,
Newton’s grand synthesis—these ideas never appeared
first in journal articles. They appeared first in books,
reviewed prior to publication only by the authors or by
the authors’ friends. Even Darwin never submitted his
idea of evolution driven by natural selection to a journal
to be judged by “impartial” referees. Darwinism indeed
first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of
Darwin’s friends. And Darwin’s article was completely
ignored. Instead, Darwin made his ideas known to his
peers and to the world at large through a popular book:
On the Origin of Species.
I shall argue that prior to the Second World War the
refereeing process, even where it existed, had very little
effect on the publication of novel ideas, at least in the
field of physics. But in the last several decades, many
outstanding scientists have complained that their best
ideas— the very ideas that brought them fame—were
rejected by the refereed journals. Thus, prior to the
Second World War, the refereeing process worked
primarily to eliminate crackpot papers.
I
Today, the refereeing process works primarily to
enforce orthodoxy. I shall offer evidence that “peer”
review is not peer review: the referee is quite often not
as intellectually able as the author whose work he
judges. We have pygmies standing in judgment on
giants. I shall offer suggestions on ways to correct this
problem, which, if continued, may seriously impede, if
not stop, the advance of science.
To answer this question, we first need to understand
what the “peer review” process is. That is, we need to
understand how the process operates in theory, how it
operates in practice, what it is intended to accomplish,
The Peer Review Process
Since the 1950s, here is how the peer review process
has worked: A scholar wishing to publish a paper in a
journal would mail several copies of the paper to the
editor of the journal. The editor would not make the
decision himself whether to publish the paper in his
journal. Instead, the editor would mail the paper to one
or more scholars, whom he judges to be experts on the
subject matter of the paper, asking them for advice on
whether the paper is worthy of publication—their
advice constituting the “peer review.” Two or more
experts in the same field as the author of the paper—his
“peers”—are therefore to judge the worth of the paper.
The editor asks the reviewers, often called the
“referees,” to judge the paper on such criteria as (1)
validity of the claims made in the paper, (2) originality
of the work (has someone already done similar work),
and (3) whether the work, even if correct and original, is
(Excerpt, with permission of the author and Prof.
William Dembski of ISCID Archive)
Introduction
first became aware of the importance that many nonelite scientists place on “peer-reviewed” or “refereed”
journals when Howard Van Till, a theistic evolutionist,
said my book The Physics of Immortality was not worth
taking seriously because the ideas it presented had never
appeared in refereed journals. Actually, the ideas in that
book had already appeared in refereed journals. The
papers and the refereed journals wherein they appeared
were listed at the beginning of my book. My key
predictions of the top quark mass (confirmed) and the
Higgs boson mass (still unknown) even appeared in the
pages of Nature, the most prestigious refereed science
journal in the world. But suppose Van Till had been
correct and that my ideas had never been published in
referred journals. Would he have been correct in saying
that, in this case, the ideas need not be taken seriously?
22
sufficiently “important” to be worth publishing in the
journal. Generally, only if the referee or referees agree
that the paper has met all three criteria will the editor
accept the paper for publication in his journal.
Otherwise, he will return the paper to the author,
thereby rejecting it.
The peer review process was put in place after the
Second World War because of the huge growth in the
scientific community as well as the huge increase in
pressure on scholars to publish more and more papers.
Prior to the war, university professors (who have always
been the main writers of scholarly papers) were mainly
teachers, with teaching loads of five to six courses per
semester (as opposed to the one to two course load
today). Professors with this teaching load were not
expected to write papers. In fact, the Austrian/English
philosopher Karl Popper wrote in his autobiography that
the dean of the New Zealand university where Popper
taught during Second World War said that he regarded
Popper’s production of articles and books a theft of time
from the university!
But universities came to realize that their prestige
depended not on the teaching skill of their professors
but on the scholarly reputation of these professors. And
this reputation could come only via the production of
articles. So pressure began to be placed on the
professors to publish. Teaching loads were reduced so
that more time would be available to write papers (and
perhaps do the research that would be described in the
papers). Salaries began to depend on the numbers of
papers published and on the grant support which wellreceived papers could garner. Before the war, salaries of
professors of the same rank were the same (except
perhaps for an age differential). Now salaries of
professors in the same department of the same age and
rank can differ by more than a factor of two.
As a consequence, the production of scholarly articles
has increased by more than a factor of a thousand over
the past fifty years. Unfortunately, the average quality
of the papers also went down. Since earlier there was no
financial reward for writing a scholarly article, people
wrote the papers as a labor of love. They had ideas that
they wished to communicate with their peers, and they
wrote the papers to communicate those ideas. Now
papers were mainly written to further a career.
Einstein’s experience is illustrative. He published three
super breakthrough papers in 1905. One presented to the
world his theory of (special) relativity. A second paper
showed that light had to consist of particles that we now
call photons; using this fact, he explained the emission
of electrons from metals when illuminated by light.
Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for this
explanation. The third paper explained the vibration of
dust particles in air by attributing the motion to
molecules of air hitting the dust particles. Einstein’s
explanation of this “Brownian motion” allowed
properties of the molecules to be calculated, and it was
Einstein’s explanation that finally convinced physicists
that atoms actually existed. Not bad for one year! And
Einstein wrote these papers in his spare time, after he
returned home from his paying job as a patent clerk in
Bern, Switzerland.
All three papers were published in Annalen der Physik,
one of the major physics journals in Germany. But none
of the papers were sent to referees. Instead the editors—
either the editor in chief, Max Planck, or the editor for
theoretical physics, Wilhelm Wien—made the decision
to publish. It is unlikely that whoever made the decision
spent much time on whether to publish. Almost every
paper submitted was published. So few people wanted
to publish in any physics journal that editors rarely
rejected submitted papers. Only papers that were clearly
“crackpot” papers—papers that any professional
physicist could recognize as written by someone
completely unfamiliar with the elementary laws of
physics—were rejected.
And if Annalen der Physik rejected a paper, for
whatever reason, any professional German physicist had
an alternative: Zeitschrift für Physik. This journal would
publish any paper submitted by any member of the
German Physical Society. This journal published quite a
few worthless papers. But it also published quite a few
great papers, among them Heisenberg’s first paper on
the Uncertainty Principle, a central idea in quantum
mechanics. There was no way in which referees or
editors could stop an idea from appearing in the
professional journals. In illustration of this, the great
Danish physicist Niels Bohr said, according to Abraham
Pais (The Genius of Science, p. 307), that if a physicist
has an idea that seems crazy and he hesitates to publish
so that someone else publishes the idea first and gets the
credit, he has no one to blame but himself. In other
words, it never occurred to Bohr that referees or editors
could stop the publication of a new idea.
Peer Review Today
Bohr would not say that today. If one reads memoirs or
biographies of physicists who made their great
breakthroughs after, say, 1950, one is struck by how
often one reads that “the referees rejected for
publication the paper that later won me the Nobel
Prize.” One example is Rosalyn Yalow, who described
how her Nobel-prize-winning paper was received by the
journals. “In 1955 we submitted the paper to Science....
23
The paper was held there for eight months before it was
reviewed. It was finally rejected. We submitted it to the
Journal of Clinical Investigations, which also rejected
it.” (Quoted from The Joys of Research, edited by
Walter Shropshire, p. 109). Another example is Günter
Blobel, who in a news conference given just after he
was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, said that the
main problem one encounters in one’s research is “when
your grants and papers are rejected because some stupid
reviewer rejected them for dogmatic adherence to old
ideas.” According to the New York Times (October 12,
1999, p. A29), these comments “drew thunderous
applause from the hundreds of sympathetic colleagues
and younger scientists in the auditorium.”
Stephen W. Hawking is the world’s most famous
physicist. According to his first wife Jane (Music to
Move the Stars: A Life with Stephen Hawking, p. 239),
when Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally
regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black
hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected. I have
heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that
when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I
personally regard as his most important paper, his paper
showing that a most fundamental law of physics called
“unitarity” would be violated in black hole evaporation,
it, too, was initially rejected. (The word on the street is
that the initial referee was the Institute for Advanced
Study physicist Freeman Dyson.)
In an article for Twentieth Century Physics, a book
commissioned by the American Physical Society (the
professional organization for U.S. physicists) to
describe the great achievements of 20th century physics,
the inventor of chaos theory, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum,
described the reception that his revolutionary papers on
chaos theory received:
Today it is known that the Hawaiian Islands were
formed sequentially as the Pacific plate moved over a
hot spot deep inside the Earth. The theory was first
developed in the paper by an eminent Princeton
geophysicist, Tuzo Wilson: “I … sent [my paper] to the
Journal of Geophysical Research. They turned it
down…. They said my paper had no mathematics in it,
no new data, and that it didn’t agree with the current
views. Therefore, it must be no good. Apparently,
whether one gets turned down or not depends largely on
the reviewer. The editors, too, if they don’t see it your
way, or if they think it’s something unusual, may turn it
down. Well, this annoyed me, and instead of keeping
the rejection letter, I threw it into the wastepaper basket.
I sent the manuscript to the newly founded Canadian
Journal of Physics. That was not a very obvious place to
send it, but I was a Canadian physicist. I thought they
would publish almost anything I wrote, so I sent it there
and they published it!” (Quoted from The Joys of
Research, p. 130.)
Both papers were rejected, the first after a half-year delay.
By then, in 1977, over a thousand copies of the first
preprint had been shipped. This has been my full
experience. Papers on established subjects are immediately
accepted. Every novel paper of mine, without exception,
has been rejected by the refereeing process. The reader can
easily gather that I regard this entire process as a false
guardian and wastefully dishonest. (Volume III, p. 1850).
Earlier in the same volume on 20th century physics, in a
history of the development of optical physics, the
invention of the laser by Theodore Maiman was
described. The result was so important that it was
announced in the New York Times on July 7, 1960. But
the leading American physics journal, Physical Review
Letters, rejected Maiman’s paper on how to make a
laser (p. 1426).
Scientific eminence is no protection from a peer review
system gone wild. John Bardeen, the only man to ever
have won two Nobel Prizes in physics, had difficulty
publishing a theory in low-temperature solid state
physics (the area of one of his Prizes) that went against
the established view. But rank hath its privileges.
Bardeen appealed to his friend David Lazarus, who was
editor in chief for the American Physical Society.
Lazarus investigated and found that “the referee was
totally out of line. I couldn’t believe it. John really did
have a hard time with [his] last few papers and it was
not his fault at all. They were important papers, they did
get published, but they gave him a harder time than he
should have had.” (True Genius: The Life and Science
of John Bardeen, p. 300).
The most important development in cloning after the
original breakthrough of Dolly the Sheep was the
cloning of mice. The result was once again described on
the front page of the New York Times, where it was also
mentioned that the paper was rejected for publication by
the leading American science journal, Science.
On the Nobel Prize web page one can read the
autobiographies of recent laureates. Quite a few
complain that they had great difficulty publishing the
ideas that won them the Prize. One does not find similar
statements by Nobel Prize winners earlier in the
century. Why is there more resistance to new ideas
today? Why Does Peer Review Suppress New Ideas
Today?
Philip Anderson, a winner of the Nobel Prize for
Physics opines that “in the early part of the postwar
[post-WWII] period [a scientist’s] career was science-
24
driven, motivated mostly by absorption with the great
enterprise of discovery, and by genuine curiosity as to
how nature operates. By the last decade of the century
far too many, especially of the young people, were
seeing science as a competitive interpersonal game, in
which the winner was not the one who was objectively
right as [to] the nature of scientific reality, but the one
who was successful at getting grants, publishing in
Physical Review Letters, and being noticed in the news
pages of Nature, Science, or Physics Today.... [A]
general deterioration in quality, which came primarily
from excessive specialization and careerist sociology,
meant quite literally that more was worse.” (20th
Century Physics, pp. 2029).
But the interesting question is, what caused the
“excessive specialization and careerist sociology” that is
making it very difficult for new ideas to be published in
peer review journals? There are several possibilities.
One is a consequence of Anderson’s observation that,
paradoxically, more scientists can mean a slower rate of
scientific advance. The number of physicists, for
example, has increased by a factor of a thousand since
the year 1900, when ten percent of all physicists in the
world either won the Nobel Prize or were nominated for
it. If you submitted a paper to a refereed journal in
1900, you would have a far greater chance of having a
referee who was a Nobel Prize winner (or at least a
nominee) than now. In fact, a simple calculation shows
that one would have to submit three papers on the
average to have an even chance that at least one of your
papers would be “peer” reviewed by a Nobel Prize
winner. Today, to have an even chance of having a
Nobelist for a referee, you would have to submit several
hundred papers. Thus Albert Einstein had his
revolutionary 1905 papers truly peer reviewed: Max
Planck and Wilhelm Wien were both later to win the
Nobel Prize in physics.
Today, Einstein’s papers would be sent to some total
nonentity at Podunk U, who, being completely
incapable of understanding important new ideas, would
reject the papers for publication. “Peer” review is very
unlikely to be peer review for the Einsteins of the world.
We have a scientific social system in which intellectual
pygmies are standing in judgment of giants. (See P.
Stephan and S. Levin, Striking the Mother Lode in
Science, chapter 7 for a detailed discussion of the
Pygmy Effect.)
One could argue that because the number of Nobel
Prizes awarded is permanently fixed at one per year in
three scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, and
medicine), the relative decrease in Nobelists does not
mean a similar decrease in the number of giants to
pygmies. The data contradict this proposal. The
American Chemical Society made a list of the most
significant advances in chemistry made over the last 100
years. There has been no change in the rate at which
these breakthroughs in chemistry have been made in
spite of the thousand-fold increase in the number of
chemists. In the 1960s, U.S. citizens were awarded
about 50,000 chemical patents per year. By the 1980s,
the number had dropped to 40,000. Finally, although the
number of people awarded a Nobel Prize is fixed, the
number nominated is unlimited. Yet the data show that
the number of scientists nominated for the Prize has
increased by at most a factor of three in the past
century—despite the thousand-fold increase in the
number of scientists. (Robert Root-Bernstein,
Discovering, Harvard University Press, 1989, pp. 3940.) Unquestionably, there has been a huge drop in the
ratio of giants to pygmies over the last century.
Another possibility is that the increasing centralization
of scientific research has allowed powerful but
mediocre scientists to suppress any idea that would
diminish their prestige. All great advances in science
have by definition the effect of reducing the prestige of
the “experts” in the field in which the advance is made.
The expert’s expertise is necessarily invalidated by a
radical change in the underpinnings of a scientific
discipline. Laymen rarely appreciate how centralized
scientific research has become in the last fifty years.
Funding for my own area of physics, general relativity,
is located in one and only one division of one and only
one bureau of the federal government, the National
Science Foundation. If the referees for a grant proposal
submitted to this division of that bureau happen not to
like your work, your grant proposal will not be
funded—period. In the first part of the 20th century, a
grant rejection, like a paper rejection, would not stop an
idea from being presented or from being developed. In
this earlier period, a tenured professorship came with a
small amount of research funds. Since the universities
of the time were not dependent on government grant
money, tenure decisions were not dominated by whether
a scholar up for tenure obtained a grant.
Now most American universities, even the liberal arts
colleges, are desperately dependent on government
grants. A typical National Science Foundation grant, for
example, has an “overhead” charge, which can amount
to fifty percent of the grant. This “overhead” charge
goes directly to the university administration; the
scientist never sees a dime of this part of his grant. If the
total amount of the grant is $1,000,000, and the
overhead is fifty percent, the scientist who secures the
grant has $500,000 to do his research. The other
$500,000 goes to the university bottom line. A
university is strongly motivated to hire only those
scientists who can obtain large grants. Pushing an idea
that is contrary to current opinion is not a good way to
obtain large grants.
I have experienced this form of discrimination first
hand. When I came up for tenure at Tulane in 1983, I
was already controversial. At the time I had proposed
that general relativity might allow time travel, and I had
published a series of papers claiming that we might be
the only intelligent life form in the visible universe. At
the time, these claims were far outside the mainstream.
(They are standard claims now. Kip Thorne of Cal Tech
has argued for the possibility of time travel, using the
same mechanism I originally proposed. The scientific
community is now largely skeptical of extraterrestrial
intelligence, if for no other reason than the failure of the
SETI radio searches.) But my views made it very
difficult to get an NSF grant. One reviewer of one of my
grant proposals wrote that it would be inadvisable to
award me a grant because I might spend some of the
time working on my “crazy” ideas on ETI. I didn’t get
the grant.
It began to look as if I wouldn’t get tenure. I had a large
number of papers published in refereed journals—
including Physical Review Letters and Nature—but no
government grants. For this reason, and for this reason
alone (I was told later), the initial vote of the Tulane
Physics Department was to deny me tenure. But I had
another grant proposal under consideration by the NSF.
I called Rich Isaacson, the head of the Gravitation
Division of the NSF, and told him about my situation.
Rich called me a few weeks later, and told me that the
referee reports for my proposal were “all over the
map”—some reviewers said I was the most original
relativity physicist since Einstein, and others said I was
an incompetent crackpot. Rich said that in such a
circumstance, he could act as he saw fit. He saw fit to
fund my proposal. I had grant support! I also had tenure;
the physics department reversed its negative vote.
But even at the time I worried that this sequence of
events boded ill for science. Rich was the head of the
only government agency that supplied funds for
research in relativity physics. He knew that an
influential minority of physicists thought well of my
work (especially John Wheeler of Princeton, who is
really the father of most relativity research in the U.S.).
But what if I was engaged in a long-term project that
had not definitely established itself? Except for the lack
of a grant, I had impressed many of my colleagues as a
capable physicist. But in today’s science, this is not
enough. It is absolutely essential to obtain a government
grant. I got the grant—and tenure—only because a
25
single man thought well of my work. If he did not, then
I would not have gotten tenure. Nor would I have gotten
tenure at any other American university. I have always
had a high opinion of Rich Isaacson. But no man is
God. No man should have the effective power to deny
or award tenure for an entire field over the entire United
States. But the current grant support system has created
such research czars. These individuals are discouraged
from supporting radical ideas.
Suggestions to Make Science More Open to New
Ideas
I shall make two recommendations that, if adopted,
would make science more open to new ideas. One
concerns a way of opening up the refereed journals to
new ideas, and the other, a way of breaking the
centralization of research funding.
The problem with the referee system for papers is that in
the post-WWII period, the referees are almost never the
“peers” of the scientific genius. The size of the scientific
community makes true peer review impossible. Most
referees are “stupid” (to use Nobelist Blobel’s
adjective), at least relative to the authors whose
breakthrough work we would most like to see published
in the leading journals. But I will grant that these
“stupid” referees serve a useful purpose if the scientific
community remains as large as it is today. Most papers
written by most members of the scientific community
are worthless. (Most papers are never cited by other
scientists.) These trash papers are written because of the
“publish or perish” rule imposed by universities. A
referee, even a stupid one, can at least keep out the
worst of the trash papers from the journals. But we
don’t want to misidentify works of genius as trash,
which is exactly what the typical referee in fact does.
So I propose that the leading journals in all branches of
science establish a “two-tier” system. The first tier is the
usual referee system. The new tier will consist of
publishing a paper in the journal automatically if the
paper is submitted with letters from several leading
experts in the field saying, “this paper should be
published.” Crick and Watson followed this procedure
in the case of their famous paper on the double helix
structure of DNA. The paper was never sent to referees
(New York Times, February 25, 2003, p. D4). Instead the
paper was submitted to Nature with a “publish”
covering letter from Sir Lawrence Bragg, the head of
the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University, and
also a Nobel Prize winner (James Watson, The Double
Helix). Charles Darwin’s first paper on evolution was
published in the Journal of the Linnean Society upon the
recommendation of several leading members of that
society. A journal could list on the web the experts, and
26
would-be authors would be advised to contact them by
e-mail only. As long as the number of experts is
“large”—in physics, several hundred would be
sufficient—the chance of a “stupid” referee being able
to stop the publication of a breakthrough paper is small.
A genius could interact directly with another genius. I
would think a single letter of recommendation to
publish would be sufficient if the letter were from a
Nobelist or an NAS member.
What’s needed now is the “trust-busting” philosophy of
the late 19th century. If it was bad to have Standard Oil
control ninety percent of the oil refining capacity of the
U.S., it is equally bad for the federal government (or a
few universities like Harvard, Princeton, MIT and Cal
Tech, which disproportionately influence federal
support of science) to control the production of
scientific results. Monopoly is bad, both in the economy
and in science.
In all the cases mentioned above, the genius papers (as
we now regard them) would have been published
immediately. The chaos genius Feigenbaum, for
example, mentions by name a few of his pre-publication
supporters, and some of these are universally recognized
as geniuses themselves. Feigenbaum had the advantage
of being known to these men personally. The unknown
patent office clerk has a problem. For him the physics
community has the lanl database (http://xxx.lanl.gov),
which is the modern equivalent of the early 20th century
Zeitschrift für Physik. Anyone can place a paper on the
lanl database. There is no referee to stand in the author’s
way. Of course, a great deal of nonsense is placed on
the lanl database, but in my own field of general
relativity it seems no worse then the huge amount of
nonsense that appears in the leading refereed journals,
including Physical Review Letters. An unknown author
first has to put his paper on the lanl database and then
persuade a leading physicist to read it. If a leader can be
persuaded to read it, and take it seriously, my
recommendation would ensure that it would be
published in a leading journal.
But as I said, there are now too many special interests
involved in federal science funding to abolish the
system altogether. I would therefore recommend, as a
second-best alternative to abolishing the system
entirely, that “earmarked” funding be increased (“pork
barrel” funding in the language of the monopolists).
Individual senators and representatives would designate
these grants to go to particular universities in their own
states and districts. Such grants would bypass the
centralized referee system. The individual congressmen
can consult the referees they themselves regard as
“expert.” The funding decisions will indeed be based on
politics. But the important thing is that the politics will
be coming from outside a narrow, self-selected group of
“experts.” If my recommendation were followed,
science funding would be spread out among the states
and congressional districts more or less as it was in the
golden years of physics. It would be much more
difficult for a small group to control the generation of
new ideas in science.
The grant-funding problem is more difficult to solve.
The ideal solution would be to abolish federal support
of science altogether. In the “golden years” of physics in
Germany in the first 30 years of the 20th century, the
national German government provided very little
support for physics, or for science of any sort. Instead,
the regional German governments (the German
equivalent of states in the U.S.) provided the funds for
sciences through their funding of the universities. It was
impossible for one small group to control thought by
means of a stranglehold over a centralized funding
agency. All this changed when Adolf Hitler rose to
power in 1933. Hitler sought conformity of thought by
centralizing all areas of intellectual endeavor in
Germany. The universities were even compelled to
dismiss professors whose opinions were not to the liking
of the central authorities. Unfortunately, as a
consequence of the Second World War and the Cold
War, the United States is now enforcing a similar
conformity through its science policy.
My own state of Louisiana has a model program that I
hope could be emulated by the other states. A decade
ago, Louisiana had a billion-dollar windfall arising from
a settlement with the federal government on the division
of revenues from the sale of oil leases in the Gulf of
Mexico. The citizens of Louisiana voted to establish an
educational foundation with the money. The foundation
awards grants to Louisiana scientists and only to
Louisiana scientists. The foundation sometimes solicits
opinions about the worth of a Louisiana scientist’s work
from scientists outside Louisiana, but it is not required
to do so. In this way, a source of research funding not
centrally controlled by the federal government has been
established. If the federal government were to decrease
funding to the federal government labs, and use the
money saved to set up foundations analogous to
Louisiana’s in all states, we would see an increase in
scientific breakthroughs. The astronomer Martin Harwit
pointed out in his book Cosmic Discovery (pp. 260-261)
that in the period 1955 to 1980, national astronomy labs
absorbed seventy percent of the federal research funds
in astronomy but made none of the astronomy
breakthroughs of that period. Shutting down the labs
27
would not decrease the number of great scientific
http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html
advances.
Other website of general interest:
*****
www.sciprint.org
Other websites exposing suppression of scientific ideas:
http://archivefreedom.org/
• Suppression, Censorship and Dogmatism in
Science
http://www.suppressedscience.net/
• Closeminded Science
____________________________________________________________________________________________
PUBLICATIONS
ORGANIZED OPPOSITION TO PLATE TECTONICS:
THE NEW CONCEPTS IN GLOBAL TECTONICS GROUP
David PRATT
[email protected]
(First published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 97-104, Spring 2006)
Abstract – This essay describes the origins, aims, and activities of the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Group, and
outlines some of the main geological controversies covered by its quarterly newsletter.
Keywords: plate tectonics – alternative geological theories – surge tectonics – wrench tectonics – expansion tectonics –
sociology of science
NCGT Group: Origins and Activities
T
he New Concepts in Global Tectonics Group is an
informal association of earth scientists who are
critical of plate tectonics and want to explore
alternative theories. It arose after a symposium on
“Alternative theories to plate tectonics” held at the 30th
International Geological Congress (IGC) in Beijing in
August 1996. The name “New Concepts in Global
Tectonics” was taken from an earlier symposium held
in association with the 28th IGC in Washington, DC, in
1989 (see Chatterjee & Hotton, 1992).
The first issue of the New Concepts in Global
Tectonics Newsletter appeared in December 1996. In
their editorial, J. M. Dickins and D. R. Choi wrote:
Although enormous strides have been made in our
knowledge of the earth and much has been added to
Geology by Physics and Chemistry, we need to
acknowledge that we are only at the beginning of
tabulating and understanding what is at the surface of the
earth, let alone what is underneath....
In this context, in the 1950s and 60s the new theory of
Plate Tectonics was propounded by “Geophysicists”
(Physicists) and mainly young Geologists with little
experience, depth of understanding or respect for existing
geology. The theory, although admittedly simplistic and
with little factual basis but claiming to be all embracing,
was pursued by its proponents in an aggressive, intolerant,
dogmatic and sometimes unfortunately an unscrupulous
fashion. Most geologists with knowledge based locally or
regionally were not confident in dealing with a new global
theory which swept the world and was attractive in giving
Geology a prestige not equalled since the nineteenth
century.
The ideological influence and strength of the Plate
Tectonic Theory has swept aside much well-based data as
though it never existed, inhibited many fields of
investigation and resulted in the suppression or
manipulation of data which does not fit the theory. In the
course of time the method has become narrow,
monotonous and dull: a catechism repeated too often. As
new data has arisen there is a growing scepticism about
the theory.
The aims of the NCGT Newsletter are:
• to provide an organizational focus for creative ideas
not fitting readily within the scope of plate tectonics;
• to publicize such ideas and work, especially where
there has been censorship or discrimination;
• to provide a forum for discussion, which has been
inhibited in existing channels;
• to organize symposia, meetings, and conferences;
• to document cases of censorship, discrimination, or
victimization, and to provide support in such cases.
Although the newsletter was originally intended to
appear twice a year, the enthusiastic response has
28
enabled it to appear four times a year, averaging about
28 pages per issue. In the second issue, the editors
wrote:
From the response we have had, there is a considerable
demand for publication and the editors are aware from
their own experience how difficult it can be to obtain
publication, irrespective of their quality, for papers whose
interpretations do not fit current orthodoxy, or, for
example, do not excise data which might be construed by
editors or referees as a challenge to orthodox theory on
the basis that if the data does not fit the theory, it must be
wrong.
The main driving force behind the newsletter for most
of its existence was the chief editor, J. Mac Dickins,
former senior paleontologist at the Australian Bureau
of Mineral Resources, who passed away in June 2005.
Dong R. Choi, a geological consultant, has now
assumed the role of editor-in-chief, and an editorial
board was recently formed. The newsletter is financed
by subscriptions (US$30 a year for individuals and
US$50 a year for libraries) and voluntary donations. It
is produced in Higgins, Australia (NCGT Group, 6
Mann Place, Higgins, ACT 2615, Australia;
[email protected]), and is distributed either by mail
or, increasingly, by e-mail (as a pdf file), to more than
200 individuals, libraries, and organizations in over 30
countries. The mailing list is expanding rapidly,
particularly since the newsletter started to appear in pdf
format.
The NCGT Group has so far organized three
international symposia. The first was held in Tsukuba,
Japan, on November 22-23, 1998. It was attended by
54 Japanese scientists and 22 scientists from the USA,
Australia, Canada, India, China, Korea, Greece, Russia,
Mongolia, and Romania. Papers from the symposium
were published in a special issue of Himalayan
Geology (vol. 22, no. 1, 2001). The second symposium
was held at La Junta, Colorado, USA, on May 5-11,
2002 (see Maslov, 2002).
The third symposium comprised a meeting on August
25, 2004, as part of the 32nd IGC in Florence, Italy,
followed by a meeting on August 29-31, 2004, at the
University of Urbino, attended by 37 scientists from 14
countries. These two meetings marked the first official
recognition of the NCGT Group by international
authorities (IGC). The proceedings appeared in a
special issue of Bollettino della Società Geologica
Italiana in late 2005. The next symposium is scheduled
for the 33rd IGC in Oslo, Norway, in 2008.
Critics of plate tectonics have organized many
conferences and symposia over the years, but previous
attempts to organize a group and publish a newsletter
did not meet with lasting success. By contrast, the
NCGT Group will celebrate its tenth anniversary in
2006, and its newsletter is now well established
internationally. Discussions are currently being held on
the creation of more formal organizational structures,
including the group’s legal registration.
Newsletter: Diversity and Debate
The NCGT Group and Newsletter represent a very
wide range of views. While some contributors to the
newsletter are only mildly critical of plate tectonics,
many entirely reject its key tenets of seafloor
spreading, subduction, and continental drift, while
earth expansionists accept seafloor spreading but reject
drift and most (though not all) reject subduction.
Geological and geophysical data are generally open to
interpretation and can often be explained in different
ways. The newsletter’s editors have highlighted the key
importance of field geology:
We believe that workers in the geological sciences have to
set themselves consciously to develop the broadest
possible knowledge of the actual physical geology of the
earth and its time relationships. There is elitism from
physics and mathematics but in the end, the place where
theory must be tested, the actual experimental laboratory
for testing theory in the earth sciences, is the real earth.
(#6)
The editors send submitted manuscripts to one or two
reviewers among the group’s readers, before deciding
whether to accept them. The basic aim is to allow both
formal and informal contributions, in a spirit of free
and open communication, and to publicize a wide
variety of opinions, provided they are backed up with
data. In the course of time, the editors have become
more selective with regard to the articles they publish.
A major dispute among earth scientists concerns the
age, composition, and structure of the seafloor. Plate
tectonicists contend that ocean crust is continuously
being created at “spreading ridges” and consumed in
“subduction zones,” and can be no more than about
200 million years old. They have established a
chronology for the formation of the oceans by
correlating the alternating bands of high and low
magnetic intensity found in rocks on either side of
ocean ridges with dated magnetic-reversal events
recorded on land.
Earth expansionists tend to accept this chronology and
the relative youth of ocean crust. Many of them believe
that in the Early Mesozoic there were no oceans at all,
that the Pangea supercontinent covered the entire
surface of a smaller earth with about 55% of its current
radius, and that the oceans have formed since then by
seafloor spreading, caused by the earth expanding in a
very specific, asymmetric manner.
Critics argue that the magnetic-stripe chronology is
suspect because it is based on subjective, qualitative
correlations, and has not been ground-truthed by
radiometric dating, and that the stripe pattern is better
explained by fault-related bands of rocks of different
magnetic properties. They stress the need to drill all the
way through the ocean crust and into the mantle before
reaching definitive conclusions on the age and
composition of the seafloor. The newsletter has
presented a great deal of evidence from ocean drilling,
dredging, and seismic research suggesting that ocean
crust can be just as old as continental crust and that
large areas of it consist of continental-type rocks and
were once dry land. There have been some very lively
exchanges on this subject.
Some workers contend that the earth as a whole is
contracting slightly, rather than expanding, but that
there is evidence of phases of slight expansion in the
past. They also propose that continental, oceanic, and
back-arc rifts can be readily explained in terms of
tensional relief in a compressional stress field.
The classical plate-tectonic model of thin, rigid
lithospheric “plates” moving over a relatively plastic,
low-velocity asthenosphere is now known to be flawed.
Seismic studies reveal that the asthenosphere is not a
continuous, global layer, and that ancient continental
cratons have deep roots or keels extending to depths of
up to 300 km or more, with no low-velocity layer
beneath them. Furthermore, some plate boundaries
appear to be nonexistent.
The extent to which space-geodetic measurements have
confirmed the plate-tectonic model of plate movements
has been questioned by several contributors, who
highlight the ad-hoc fashion in which contradictory and
inconsistent data are explained away, and contend that
the present network of sites is not extensive enough to
determine to what extent the crustal movements
detected are local, regional, continent- or ocean-wide,
or “plate”-wide.
Paleomagnetic data have served as one of the main
supports of plate tectonics and also of earth expansion.
The data appear to show that either the geographic
poles and/or the continents have changed position over
the course of the earth’s history. Plate tectonicists
argue that it is mainly the continents that have
29
wandered, by being carried along on moving
lithospheric plates. Earth expansionists, on the other
hand, argue that continents’ apparent drift is caused by
earth expansion.
Plate tectonicists believe that, in addition to continental
drift, a small amount of true polar wander may have
taken place; this involves the earth’s entire outer shell
gliding over the inner shell, thereby altering the
location of the geographic poles to a greater or lesser
extent. Wrench tectonics, on the other hand, asserts that
paleomagnetic data can be explained in terms of largescale polar wander without any drift, but with in-situ
continental rotations. Opponents of mobilism in its
various guises argue that entire continents can neither
drift nor rotate, and emphasize the unreliability of
paleomagnetic data and the dubious assumptions about
geomagnetism on which the interpretation of such data
is based.
Many articles in the newsletter have presented detailed
geological and geophysical evidence against the twin
doctrines of seafloor spreading and subduction. The
volume of crust generated at ocean ridges is supposed
to be equaled by the volume subducted, yet the total
length of ocean trenches and “collision zones” is only
about a third of the length of the “spreading ridges.”
Sediments in the trenches are generally not present in
the enormous volumes that subduction was expected to
produce, and are typically undisturbed and horizontally
bedded.
The notion that the inclined seismofocal plane, or
Wadati-Benioff zone, landward of deep ocean troughs,
represents a “subducting slab” is further undermined by
the very low level of seismicity within about 50 km of
the trench axis, and the fact that the angle of dip of the
seismofocal plane tends to change from low in the
upper section, to steep in the intermediate to deep
section, to gentle at the bottom, with relatively little
seismic activity between the former two (around 300km depth). Seismic profiles appear to show that the
Precambrian lower crust is present under both the
ocean floor and continental slope and passes across the
trench without any subduction. An alternative view of
Wadati-Benioff zones is that they originated as cooling
cracks in the primeval earth, and are thrust/reverse
faults marking the interface between the uplifting
island arc/continental region and the subsiding ocean
crust and mantle.
In trying to show how the present continents used to fit
neatly together to form supercontinents, drifters have
taken many liberties, and all reconstructions have
problems. They fit the continents along different depth
30
contours, ignore serious overlaps and geological
dissimilarities, include or exclude ocean plateaus and
ridges on an ad-hoc basis, and entirely ignore the
existence of former landmasses in the present oceans.
Earth expansionists, too, place great emphasis on
continental reconstructions, and argue that all the
present continents fit together much better on a smaller
earth. Further investigation of the ocean crust will
provide a definitive answer as to whether continental
reassemblies based on plate tectonics or expansion
tectonics are genuine possibilities or illusions.
A great deal of evidence has been presented in the
newsletter to show that the entire earth is covered with
a system of lineaments or major structural trends,
which formed early in the earth’s history but have been
subsequently rejuvenated and modified. These
fractures have had a significant influence on tectonic
events up to the present. Deep earthquakes have been
shown to be associated with surface and crustal
structures that continue deep into the mantle. Plate
tectonicists tend to ignore the pattern of orthogonal
lineaments in the oceans. These lineaments appear to
date back to the Precambrian and some continue into
adjacent continents – contradicting seafloor spreading
and large-scale continental drift.
Most plate tectonicists believe that chains of volcanic
islands and seamounts are the result of plates moving
over “hotspots” of upwelling magma. This should give
rise to a systematic age progression along hotspot
trails, but a large majority show little or no age
progression. Hotspots are commonly attributed to
“mantle plumes” rising from the core-mantle boundary.
But critics, some of whom are otherwise sympathetic to
plate tectonics, have shown that plume explanations are
ad hoc, artificial, and inadequate, and that plumes are
not required by any geological evidence. Some
opponents of plate tectonics invoke equally
controversial “superplumes” to explain the
elevation/subsidence of large areas of the ocean floor.
Another important theme in the newsletter is that the
earth’s relief has been increasing since the midCretaceous: plateaus and mountains are growing
higher, and oceans deeper. This is inexplicable in terms
of simple plate tectonics. Drilling and dredging data
and the location of former sediment sources indicate
that substantial areas of the present oceans were once
land or shallow sea. The foundering of many of these
areas began in the Late Jurassic, accompanied by
widespread basalt eruptions or magma floods, leading
to the formation of the deep oceans we know today.
The evolution of the earth’s crust has been
characterized by considerable uplifts and subsidences
of up to 10 km or more – as seen in mountain building,
epeirogenic movements connected with marine
transgressions and regressions on the present
continents, the formation of deep sedimentary basins,
the deepening of the oceans, and the submergence of
paleolands. To explain such phenomena, geologists
commonly invoke the vertical and/or horizontal
movement of hot magma through faults and channels,
and associated density and phase changes, and some
workers also invoke the basification/oceanization of
continental crust. Surge tectonics emphasizes the
abundant evidence for the existence of shallow magma
chambers and channels beneath all active tectonic
belts.
Several examples of geological authorities suppressing
information unfavorable to plate tectonics have been
detailed in the newsletter. For instance, Vladim
Anfiloff reported on the suppression by the Australian
Geological Survey Organization and the Australian
National University of information from a gravity
survey of the Australian continent, which showed a
bifurcating network of basement ridges (#1, 1996).
James Murdock, who accepts key elements of plate
tectonics, turned to the NCGT Newsletter after failing
to find a mainstream publication willing to publish an
article highlighting seismic studies by the former US
Coast and Geodetic Survey – which showed an absence
of earthquakes at the base of the Aleutian Trench – and
challenging the official subduction model (#4, 1997).
Chris Smoot has documented how mainstream journals
have refused to publish articles presenting US Navy
bathymetry data pointing to a network of orthogonal
megatrends, or “leaky fracture zones,” in the oceans
(#8, 1998). The newsletter’s editors have remarked that
nowhere in the history of geology has such a deliberate
suppression of factual information taken place. There
are plans to tabulate more cases of censorship and
suppression by mainstream journals and organizations.
Conclusion
Since its formation in 1996, the New Concepts in
Global Tectonics Group and its newsletter have
become the main focus of organized opposition to the
reigning paradigm of plate tectonics. The NCGT
Newsletter provides a vital forum where critics and
opponents of plate tectonics can present and discuss
anomalous data and alternative interpretations and
theories. The group is now firmly established, and its
activities will remain necessary until it once again
becomes possible for a variety of competing
hypotheses and theories, and the data underpinning
them, to be openly aired and debated in mainstream
publications.
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank Dong Choi for his assistance in
putting together this article.
Bibliography
Books in English presenting the views of scientists
associated with the NCGT Group:
Barto-Kyriakidis, A. (Ed.). (1990). Critical Aspects of
the Plate Tectonics Theory. Athens, Greece:
Theophrastus Publications.
Bridges, L. W. D. (2002). Our Expanding Earth: The
Ultimate Cause. Denver, CO: Oran V. Silver.
Chatterjee, S., & Hotton, N., III. (Eds.). (1992). New
Concepts in Global Tectonics. Lubbock, TX: Texas
Tech University Press.
Chen, G. (2000). Diwa Theory: Activated Tectonics
and Metallogeny. Changsa, China: Central South
University Press.
Grover, J. C. (1998). Volcanic Eruptions and Great
Earthquakes. Brisbane, Australia: Copyright
Publishing.
Hunt, C. W. (Ed.). (1992). Expanding Geospheres:
Energy and Mass Transfers from Earth’s Interior.
Calgary, Alberta: Polar Publishing.
James, P. (1994). The Tectonics of Geoid Changes.
Larin, V. N. (1993). Hydridic Earth: The New Geology
of Our Primordially Hydrogen-Rich Planet.
Maslov, L. (Ed.). (2002). Proceedings International
Symposium on New Concepts in Global Tectonics,
held in May 2002 in La Junta, Colorado. La Junta,
CO: Otero Junior College Press.
Meyerhoff, A. A., Boucot, A. J., Meyerhoff Hull, D., &
Dickins, J. M. (1996). Phanerozoic Faunal &
Floral Realms of the Earth (Memoir 189). Boulder,
CO: Geological Society of America.
Meyerhoff, A. A., Taner, I., Morris, A. E. L., Agocs,
W. B., Kaymen-Kaye, M., Bhat, M. I., Smoot, N.
C., & Choi, D. R. (1996). Surge Tectonics: A New
Hypothesis of Global Geodynamics. D. Meyerhoff
Hull, Ed. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ollier, C., & Pain, C. (2000). The Origin of Mountains.
London: Routledge.
Orlenok, V. V. (1998). History of the Earth
Oceanization. Kaliningrad, Russia: Jantarny skaz.
(In Russian with English abstract.)
Orlenok, V. V. (Ed.). (2004). Oceanization of the
Earth. Kaliningrad, Russia: Kaliningrad University
Press. (In Russian with English abstracts.)
31
Sánchez Cela, V. (1999). Formation of MaficUltramafic Rocks in the Crust: Need for a New
Upper Mantle. Zaragoza, Spain: Universidad de
Zaragoza.
Sánchez Cela, V. (2000). Densialite: A New Upper
Mantle. Zaragoza, Spain: University of Zaragoza.
Sánchez Cela, V. (2004). Granitic Rocks: A New
Geological Meaning. Zaragoza, Spain: University
of Zaragoza.
Scalera, G., & Jacob, K.-H. (Eds.). (2003). Why
Expanding Earth? – A Book in Honour of Ott
Christoph Hilgenberg. Proceedings of the 3rd
Lautenthaler Montanistisches Colloquium,
Lautenthal (Germany), May 26, 2001. Rome:
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia.
Smoot, N. C. (2004). Tectonic Globaloney.
Philadelphia: Xlibris.
Smoot, N. C., Choi, D. R., & Bhat, M. I. (2001). Active
Margin Geomorphology. Philadelphia: Xlibris.
Smoot, N. C., Choi, D. R., & Bhat, M. I. (2001).
Marine Geomorphology. Philadelphia: Xlibris.
Storetvedt, K. M. (1997). Our Evolving Planet: Earth
History in New Perspective. Bergen, Norway:
Alma Mater.
Storetvedt, K. M. (2003). Global Wrench Tectonics:
Theory of Earth Evolution. Bergen, Norway:
Fagbokforlaget.
Vassiliev, B. I. (Ed.). (2005). Geological Structure and
Origin of the Pacific Ocean. Vladivostok, Russia:
V. I. Il’ichev Pacific Oceanological Institute,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch.
(In Russian with English abstract.)
Vassiliev, B. I., & Choi, D. R. (2001). Geology of the
Deep-Water Trenches and Island Arcs of the
Pacific. Vladivostok, Russia: Dalnauka. (In
Russian with English abstract.)
*****
Comments by editor-in-chief Henry Bauer, Jour.
Sci. Exploration, v. 20, no. 1, 2006, p. 2
I
learned of the existence of the New Concepts in
Global Tectonics (NCGT) group some years ago,
when we received a manuscript [JSE 14:3] questioning
aspects of the theory of plate tectonics. Until then, I
had thought that plate tectonics (formerly described as
continental drift) had become as well established as the
theory of biological evolution: that while there might
remain important questions about “How?”, no one
doubted that it had happened and was continuing to
happen. Now I recognize this as just another instance
of what is routine in the mainstream of science: The
very existence of unorthodox views is a “hidden event”
(Westrum, 1982), irrespective, whether or not those
32
views have intellectual merit. So it is with anti-Big
Bang cosmology, anti-HIV/AIDS claims, and more.
The popular media are in the thrall of Big Science and
there is a lack of investigative science reporting.
Knowledge monopolies and research cartels (Bauer,
2004) describe the circumstances of 21st-century
science.
appalling point is that mainstream organizations not
only suppress unorthodox interpretations, they censor
factual material. A general feature that characterizes
dissents from established scientific dogmas is also
illustrated: While the received view is monolithic, the
critiques are anything but. That makes very challenging
the task of creating non-mainstream organizations and
publications, for those with unorthodox views may
disagree among themselves as much as they disagree
with the governing paradigm.
When David Pratt recently offered a lengthy “Article
of Interest” [JSE 19:3] extract from the newsletter of
the NCGT group, I asked for a piece about that group,
and I’m very pleased that in this issue we have a highly
(Reproduction of the above article and editorial were
informative essay that details the formation of the
permitted by the authors))
group and also makes clear what the chief points of
substantive geological contention are. The most
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRA NON FIRMA EARTH: PLATE TECTONICS IS A MYTH
James MAXLOW
Terrella Consultants
29 Cecil Street, Glen Forrest, Western Australia 6071, Australia
[email protected]
W
hen studying the history of the creation and
formulation of plate tectonics one can come to
the conclusion that it is, and was at best only a
hypothesis. A hypothesis which uses an assumption as
its basis. This is the assumption that the Earth has
retained a constant size during its geological evolution.
This assumption however is not supported by facts.
When Carey (1958) and Heezen (1960) formulated the
concept of lithospheric plates and the spreading of
oceanic lithosphere, for instance, they pointed out that
oceanic spreading is a manifestation of an expansion of
the Earth. Plate tectonics, presented as a “new global
tectonics” rejected this conclusion, based on the
assumption of a constant size of the Earth. So plate
tectonics is in fact the concept of a “non-expanding
Earth”.
acceptance of plate tectonics – the first, in the history
of geology, a global theory trying to explain almost all
geologic processes.
Simultaneously plate tectonics refers to the deeply
rooted belief, held by many geologists, in the idea of
geological actualism and so it satisfied them. It was
much easier to accept a theory which assumed a
constant Earth dimension during its geological
evolution and a repeatability of contemporary
processes, rather than look at it from the point of view
of Earth expansion. Acceptance of Earth expansion
would require acceptance of geological evolution,
where the physical parameters of the Earth change and
hence would influence such processes as
sedimentation, tectonic deformation, metamorphism
and magmatism.
As a generation of geologists active in the sixties and
seventies of last century still remember, discussion
amongst different geotectonic ideas was very active.
This generation was witness to the formulation of plate
tectonics and was of course conscious of its basic
assumptions. Subsequent generations have since lost
this consciousness. Now the picture of the dynamics
and palaeodynamics of our planet, shaped during
university studies and professional work, leaves no
place for questions or doubts.
These and other reasons have created a unique situation
in the history of the Earth sciences. The big discussions
between geotectonists have ceased. The competition of
scientific programs has died. Plate tectonics has
become a unification of the notional apparatus of
geotectonics. The qualitative development has been
replaced by quantitative incrementation of information.
The competition of ideas - the basis of any progress in
science - has now ceased.
The dominating paradigm of plate tectonics and its ad
hoc models now makes it easy to interpret more and
more data and account for this data according to simple
ideas. Undoubtedly this is one of the reasons for the
Taking up the challenge of an expanding Earth theory
requires the toil of digging through fundamental facts,
a rejection of inherited opinion and formulating one’s
own opinion. But it is a profitable toil. Since, instead of
a hypothesis which changed the Earth sciences into one
of endless competition for the next microcontinent,
displaced terrane, palaeoocean, subduction zone, or
collision or accretion configuration, in places where it
is difficult to agree, we obtain a simple and elegant
theory, based on observable facts readily obtained from
the oceans and continents – the theory of an expanding
Earth.
33
to a random Plate Tectonic process, the formation and
break-up of each of the continents, as well as a
sympathetic opening of all the oceans is instead shown
to be simple, progressive and evolutionary. All ancient
magnetic poles are precisely located on reconstructions
of the ancient Earth, and all established poles and
equators are shown to coincide with observed climate
zones and biotic evidence. Similarly, faunal and floral
species evolution is shown to be intimately related to
this progressive continental break-up and oceanic
crustal development. Global extinction events coincide
with wholesale climate and sea-level changes, and the
distribution of metallic ores and petroleum occurrences
are readily comprehended.
In this book “Terra non Firm Earth” an extensive array
of modern geological, geophysical, and geographical
evidence is used to recreate the entire 4,600 million
years of our Earth’s geological history; the first time
this has ever been achieved. This evidence is then used
to challenge the misconception that Plate Tectonics is
the key to understanding our Earth sciences. In contrast
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE GROWING AND DEVELOPING EARTH
Author: Vedut SHEHU, 2005. BookSurgeLLC.
[email protected]
Book review by Cliff OLLIER:
V
edat Shehu has produced a remarkable book that I
commend to all Earth scientists. He presents an
unusual viewpoint, often illustrated by unfamiliar
examples, which should provide a breath of fresh air in
many geological debates.
Fifty years ago Earth scientists had very different ideas
from those of today. It is extremely probable that fifty
years from now ideas will be different again. Anybody
who holds all the orthodox ideas of today will almost
certainly be proved wrong in the future. The problem
for any seeker after truth is to know which current
concepts will remain valid and which will change
fundamentally. Shehu’s concept of an expanding Earth
is not new - the concept has been around for over a
century - but it will be new to many readers. I suggest
that you give it a fair hearing. Of course I am probably
already talking to the converted or the open-minded:
the dinosaurs amongst geologists tend to read nothing
that does not fit their existing beliefs, their articles of
faith. At a conference on the expanding Earth in
Sydney in 1981 Peter Smith did a test survey of people
attending: sixty people interviewed expressed disbelief
in the hypothesis, but none of them had read Carey’s
book on the topic and few had read even minor articles.
Hugh Owen wrote that for many conventional
geologists the expanding Earth concept engenders
emotions ranging from mild amusement tinged with
pity, to positive hostility. For those of us old enough to
remember the battles that used to range over
continental drift it is all familiar, but now, in the guise
of plate tectonics it has become the ruling theory. What
happened to the highly vocal opponents? Some went
quiet, some died, and a few are still with us. My advice
is to be very tolerant of the oddball, for this year’s
fantasy might be the next generation’s gospel truth. I
met Vedat Shehu at a wonderful meeting in Urbino,
organised by Professor Forese Wezel, on New
Concepts in Global Tectonics. People with very
different hypotheses and backgrounds came together to
exchange information and ideas rather than to deride
opposing views: this is the way to make progress.
All Earth scientists tend to be strongly affected by their
home region in developing their concepts of Earth
science. Stratigraphic geology could not have
originated in Finland, where geology goes from
Precambrian to Quaternary with nothing much in
between. I once taught a course in geology at the
University of the South Pacific. After a few weeks a
student from Tuvalu came to me and said “You know,
sir, this is all wasted on me. My island is made of
sand.” Beyond our personal experience, we gain our
knowledge of the Earth from textbooks, and since
American texts far outnumber the rest, most people are
familiar with the data and arguments about American
icons, like the Appalachians, the Basin and Range
Province, and the Grand Canyon. One of the
remarkable things about Shehu’s book is that he takes a
region that is very unfamiliar to most people as his
foundation and testing ground. The geology of Albania
is little known to the rest of the world, so the reader
will have the unusual experience of learning a new set
34
of facts as well as new tectonic concepts. The idea that
the Palaeozoic basement could be split and moved
apart by ophiolites in the same way that seafloor
spreading moves continents apart is a typical novelty.
learned as you go is hard work, but I believe it will
prove worth-while for all those scientists who are bold
enough to venture into new areas of learning.
Cliff OLLIER
University of Western Australia
Reading about new ideas in a place where the geology
is not familiar and even the place names have to be
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALAXY-SUN-EARTH RELATIONS: THE ORIGIN OF THE MAGNETIC FIELD AND OF THE
ENDOGENOUS ENERGY OF THE EARTH
- with implications for volcanism, geodynamics and climate control and related items of concern for stars, planets,
satellites, and other planetary objectsAuthor: Giovanni P. GREGORI
Published by Science Edition, Arbeitskreis Geschichte Geophysik, W. Schroder, Germany, 2002. 467p.
“The sage finds his own way by himself, the fool follows common opinion” (Chinese proverb)
Summary
is to be given elsewhere.
T
As far as item III) is concerned, it is the dominant
viewpoint adopted by the previous literature. Excellent
reviews are available in its different and complex
perspectives. It is not here explicitly reviewed, though
it is extensively and critically discussed within Part I
from the viewpoint of item I).
he understanding of a physical system is based on
a three-fold approach: I) - search for general
properties deriving from the intrinsic constitutional
symmetry of the system, combined with the
fundamental laws of nature; II) - the inductive
approach, i.e. starting from observational evidence and
inferring the laws that appear to govern the system; III)
- the deductive approach, i.e. starting from axioms and
assessed fundamental laws, and, whenever needed also
by suitable assumptions on the structure and
composition of the system, and attempting at
computing in detail its behaviour e.g. by means of a
numerical model, by applying a few boundary
conditions, etc., while the entire result is to be later
checked by observations.
The Prologue defines such methodological items.
The Parts I and II address items I) and II), respectively.
Part II, however, only deals with a concise presentation
of several key observational facts, though with no
details. Reference is made either to already published
papers or to others in preparation. Every more detailed
treatment, of size comparable with standard
literature’s, ought to require a much larger room, due
both to the intrinsic content of the topics, and to the
need for giving justice to the contributions by coworkers.
The focus of the present treatment is only on the prime,
conceptual, critical, logical basis, which is the leading
ingredient of every ultimate understanding, while
detailed formal account of observational data handling
The Epilogue is a flash on some future general
perspective.
Three Appendices contain items that are relevant for
both Part I and Part II. Appendix A contains a concise
critical analysis of the energetics of the standard MHD
homogeneous dynamos (hence, its reading is crucial for
readers interested in Part I), plus a compilation of
estimates, borrowed from the literature, of the electrical
conductivity σ and of the viscosity of the Earth’s core
and mantle. Appendix B is a compilation of estimated
energies related to all endogenous processes according
to several different sources. Appendix C deals with a
discussion of a possible laboratory simulation of the
geodynamo that is here proposed. Such experiment
should provide an unprecedented analogue model for
justifying some observed and presently unexplained
(i)
features of the geomagnetic field B .
The two Parts of the present study are almost
independent of each other, except having a common
reference list. The reader who is interested in the
conclusions and in the most innovative interpretation
here given (rather than in a critical reconsideration and
discussion of the previous literature), may directly refer
to Part II. Whenever needed, cross-reference between
figures, tables, or formulas of the two Parts is made by
adding to their respective number either I- or II- (or Pfor the Prologue, H- for The Historical Frame, E- for
the Epilogue, and A-, B-, and C- for the three
Appendices), respectively.
The main conclusions, though much oversimplified,
can be highlighted as follows.
As far as endogenous dynamos are concerned, a basic
distinction is required between systems dominated by
kinetic energy (which apply to stars) and others
dominated by Joule’s heating and supplied by tides
(which may apply to the Earth, planets, and satellites,
appearing a likely ubiquitous feature in the universe).
The ionospheric dynamo is in between such two
extremes. In the previous literature it became
customary to apply formally stellar dynamos also to the
Earth and planets. Sometimes this implies, however,
some logical inconsistency, mostly concerned with the
fact that, when adapted to planets, such dynamos
appear declaredly dominated by magnetic energy,
which unavoidably leads to a blocking of the system
(or “saturation”, or it is stated that there is need for
“self-limitation”, or need for “quenching”, etc., a
drawback that is normally tackled by some analytical
artifice in order to get a solution).
In the ultimate analysis, the Earth’s interior, like the
interior of every planetary object, is a black box, and
different kinds of dynamo can be envisaged for
explaining the magnetic field B that is observed outside
their respective body. Therefore, in principle, different
models can be proposed and computed, the concern
being eventually about finding some observational
proof either supporting or denying every such
possibility. The inductive approach seems to favour a
dynamo dominated by Joule’s heating and with a lowperformance (≤ 1%).
Concerning the endogenous energy of the Earth (and of
other planetary objects), the Joule’s loss deriving from
such tide driven dynamo is adequate as a prime source,
thus achieving an unprecedented explanation of one of
the least understood aspect of the Earth’s and planetary
interiors.
Concerning geodynamics and the entire history of the
planet Earth, such an energy source gives a realistic
and unprecedented perspective. In particular, the
understanding is substantially improved of the
geothermal heat flow (g.h.f.), including its temporal
variation, and of volcanism that appears a sum of
several substantially different phenomena, although
manifested in apparently similar ways.
35
An additional support derives from chemical
geodynamics (specifically from the isotopic chemistry
of ocean floor basalt) that can be explained, and
provides interesting hints for the general understanding
of deep Earth’s phenomena.
The variations of climate during the entire history of
the Earth, and its prime natural control by gas
exhalation from soil, also result from such a general
scenario, leading to an unprecedented frame for Galaxy
– Sun – Earth relations.
The features and/or palaeohistories of other planets or
satellites (such as the Moon, Mars, Io, Ganymede, and
other Jupiter’s satellites, etc.) apparently do fit into
such a general scheme, the unique remaining concern
dealing, maybe, only with Venus.
As far as asteroids, meteorites, and comets are
concerned, they have no dynamo, rather at most either
a permanent magnetisation, or a magnetic field B
caused by electric currents j temporarily originated by
e.m. induction into their outermost conducting layer.
The observational investigation of their B appears
difficult, although, maybe, a tentative optical study of
cometary features, as a function of their distance either
from the Sun or from other planetary objects that have
their own B, can eventually provide a check of such
speculation, in such case resulting to be unprecedented
natural probes of the interplanetary environment.
A warning - Dynamo theory is over 80 years old, and it
is almost impossible to scan the entire literature and to
track back the birth of ideas in any exhaustive detail.
The major difficulties are concerned with the limited
availability of old papers or books, and mostly with the
complexity, variety, and intrinsic difficulty of the
algorithms involved. Excellent reviews are available
concerned with different syntheses and authoritative
viewpoints, almost like different facets of ultimately
the same computations, arguments, numerical
handling, etc. The more one reads, the wider becomes
the logical perspective, in an apparently endless rush
for understanding, which appears often more controlled
by fashions than by a rational criterion. This means
that, at present, it appears almost impossible to
recognize who is comparatively closer to truth, or what
viewpoint or model seems to be more akin to reality, or
worthy of greater consideration, etc. Historical facts
can be judged only by later generations, never by
contemporaries. The author simply attempted to scan
some large amount of literature, while searching for
understanding:
36
- The prime and sometimes even unconscious
assumptions and axioms about the constitution of the
system, e.g. about a homogenous MHD dynamo or not,
or about the different internal structure of the Sun
compared to the Earth;
- The controversial interpretations of the
different numerical results concerned with
different computational procedures;
- The consequent eventual apparent and
yet unsolved paradoxes;
- The claimed difficulties while checking
computations with observations (dealing
with the entire history of the Earth, i.e.
not only with present time), etc.
framing his inductive approach (discussed in Part II)
within the pre-existing theoretical scenario. It should
be clearly stressed, however, that there is no
presumption for expressing any judgment or criticism
about previous clever modeling or proposals, either in
terms of physical correctness or not, or of consistency
or not with the fundamental laws of nature, etc. No
simple-minded criticism can be directly formulated.
The present study wants to raise no controversy, rather
only to give a personal contribution to some objective
assessment of what is actually supported by
observational evidence, and what is rather only an
(often unconscious) result of some common agreement
that grew up among specialists during the last several
decades.
The author has no presumption for having given any
The present study arrives at a conclusion, because a
complete synthesis of the entire state of the art, which,
conclusion must always be given, although, as it
in fact, is maybe much beyond the reach of one author
alone. The author apologizes to those readers who
always happened during the entire history of science,
every conclusion can always be changed and improved
eventually find inadequately emphasized (or even not
whenever additional observations, and more acute
mentioned at all) some relevant contributions of their
critical analyses, become available.
own. There is no deliberate intention in forgetting
about any result. Rather, the author searched for
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
NEWS
ASIA OCEANIA GEOSCIENCES SOCIETY (AOGS)
P
resents 3rd Annual Meeting (AOGS 2006) from 1014 July, 2006 at the Singapore International
Convention Exhibition Centre. The AOGS mission is to
promote geophysical science for the benefit of humanity
in Asia and Oceania.
AOGS will once again bring together geoscientists from
all over Asia, Oceania and the rest of world to present
their works and ideas. AOGS invites all geoscientists to
convene their own sessions and present their findings at
AOGS 2006 in Singapore.
The session SE33 Structure and Dynamics of the Pacific
Tectonic Belt is devoted to discussion of structure and
tectonic (geodynamic) processes in the Pacific Tectonic
Belt (Rim). Special attention should be paid to the
regularities in structure and activity of this wonderful
tectonic structure. This topic can include also problems
of metallogeny, energetic resources, and humanitarian
problems of the PTB countries.
Conveners of the session:
Dr. Leo A Maslov
[email protected]
Dr. Stavros Tassos
[email protected]
Presentations submitted:
SE33
Paper ID
Paper Title
Pacific Tectonic Belt – the Unique Tectonic
59-SE-A0164
Structure of the Earth
Presentation Mode
59-SE-A0211
Oral
(Contributed)
59-SE-A0238
Corresponding Author
Lev Maslov
Otero Community College
Gulshat Zabirovna Gilmanova
GRAVITY MODEL OF THE
Pacific Oceanological Institute, 43,
LITHOSPHERE OF TAIWAN
Baltiiskaya Street, Vladivostok
690068, Russia
Stavros Tassos
In the Context of EMST Vertical Displacement Institute of Geodynamics, National
is the Common Generating Mechanism for
Observatory of Athens, 118 10
Earthquakes and Tsunamis
Athens Greece, e-mail:
[email protected]
Oral
Oral
(Invited)
59-SE-A0256
59-SE-A0606
59-SE-A0642
59-SE-A1296
In the Pacific and Any Other Tectonic Belt
Seismic and Volcanic Activity Relate to
Positive Gravity, Geoidal, and Heat Flow
Anomalies, i.e., Excess Mass, and Do Not
Relate to Faults.
The geodynamic meaning of the great
Sumatran earthquake: What are the
‘subduction’ earthquakes?
Circum Pacific Tectonic Belt as a Result of
Explosive Origin of the Double Planet Earth–
Moon
37
Stavros Tassos
Institute of Geodynamics, National
Observatory of Athens, P.O. Box
200 48, 118 10 Athens, Greece, email: [email protected]
Oral
(Invited)
Giancarlo SCALERA
INGV, Rome, Italy
Oral
A. M. Zhirnov
Oral
Institute of Complex Analysis of
(Contributed)
Regional Problems. FEB RAS
Ge Lin
Key Laboratory of Marginal Sea
Theoretical Analysis and Thermal Structure of
Geology, Guangzhou Institute of
Oral
Lithospheric Mantle-Crust Heat Transfer
Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of
Problems
Sciences, Guangzhou 510640,
China.
Information about the Conference you can find on the site:
http://www.asiaoceania-conference.org/
Information about sessions you can find:
http://www.asiaoceania-conference.org/aogs2006/viewIndex.asp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IGC32 PROCEEDINGS VOLUME DOWNLOAD
The link to the ftp server to download the whole Special Volume no. 5 of
the Bollettino della Società Geologica Italiana (Ed. F.C. Wezel):
http://www.uniurb.it/ISDA/guestdata/Volume_Speciale_5.zip
Forese WEZEL
[email protected]
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
FINANCIAL SUPPORT:
-New subscription fee structure-
W
e are asking for financial support to the extent of
US$30 (A$45) or more or the equivalent from
individuals who are able and US$50 (A$75) or the
equivalent for libraries for online subscribers (same as
before). However, for hard-copy subscribers there is a
new fee structure: Libraries – U$70 (A$95), and
individuals – U$50 (A$75). As only small sums of
money are involved, in order to avoid bank charges
(which are not small), we ask you to make out bank
drafts or personal cheques to “New Concepts in
Global Tectonics” and mail them to; 6 Mann Place,
Higgins, ACT 2615, Australia. Bank account details
for those who send money through banks: Name of
the bank – Commonwealth Bank, Belconnen Mall
ACT Branch (BSB 06 2913). Account no. 06 2913
10524718. Name of the account holder: New
Concepts in Global Tectonics. Where the currency is
internationally negotiable, personal cheques should be
made out in the currency of the country of origin, e.g. if
from Canada in Canadian Dollars because if made out
in US$ these cost $40 or more in Australian Dollars in
bank charges. Bank Drafts should be made out in
Australian Dollars. If they are in US$ similarly they cost
A$40 or more for bank charges. If you require a receipt,
would you please let us know when sending your
contribution?
38
ABOUT THE NEWSLETTER
This newsletter was initiated on the basis of discussion after the symposium “Alternative Theories to Plate Tectonics”
held at the 30th International Geological Congress in Beijing in August 1996. The name is taken from an earlier
symposium held in association with 28th International Geological Congress in Washington, D. C. in 1989.
Aims include:
1. Forming an organizational focus for creative ideas not fitting readily within the scope of Plate Tectonics.
2. Forming the basis for the reproduction and publication of such work, especially where there has been censorship or
discrimination.
3. Forum for discussion of such ideas and work which has been inhibited in existing channels. This should cover a very
wide scope from such aspects as the effect of the rotation of the earth and planetary and galactic effects, major
theories of development of the earth, lineaments, interpretation of earthquake data, major times of tectonic and
biological change, and so on.
4. Organization of symposia, meetings and conferences.
5. Tabulation and support in case of censorship, discrimination or victimization.

Issue 38 - New Concepts in Global Tectonics

Transcription

Similar documents

la teoria della deriva dei continenti e della tettonica a zolle

STEM and Project-Based Learning: What`s All the Excitement About?

HOP #27 - House of Prose

BMGA Blooming News October 2014 - Bluebonnet Master Gardener

Alfred Wegener`s Theory of Continental Drift Became Modern Plate

Custom Fireplace Mantles

TERRATEC Q1 newsletter 2016

Term 1 2016 - Green Square School

Jan 2016 newsletter

1006June (Recovered)