|Since I have published the website
<kwluckert.com> in April 1997, I have noticed that not many of the respondents have
actually taken the time to examine ocean floor data for themselves. Few have seen my
"Expansion Tectonics" video program, and fewer still have found my essay,
"A Unified Theory of Earth Expansion...." Most respondents seem to think that
the problem of Earth expansion can be explained away with a few theories of traditional
physics (some use chemistry), and a few use mathematical equations.
To remedy this state of affairs I have recently added a page that features
the entire script for my 1996 video program. A serious browser can so at least avoid
guessing on what I might or might not have said in "Expansion Tectonics." To
provide still more background for dialogue, I am adding here also my reflections on the
Athens article. Until I have the time to publish a larger book on the subject, the Athens
publication and the video tapes with the script will have to serve as my mile posts.
My article, "A Unified Theory...," was written in 1994 after the California
earthquake. I suspected that my theory of Earth expansion, which had lain dormant since
1979, just might help seismologists take more meaningful measurements and, possibly, lead
to more meaningful predictions of continental seismic events. Magmatic movements are
creeping outward from under the middle of continental plates--they are not coming from the
ocean side by way of convection currents and subduction as many are claiming. The essay
was published in Theophrastus' Contributions to Advanced Studies in Geology,
pages 61-73, in Athens, Greece, Theophrastus Publications S.A., January 1996.
While searching for fresh data in support of Earth expansion, in 1994, I chanced upon the
1988 UNESCO Geological World Atlas, with its nearly complete evolutionary ocean floor
chronology. We owe this great step forward to an extensive drilling program that included
the Glomar Challenger ship and other such equipment. I then checked out a number of
expansion models that have appeared since my 1979 publication, including one by Klaus
Vogel which Professor Kempp has hailed as the most likely correct one. At that time I was
fully prepared to change my perspective and my conclusions. But to my own surprise, the
conclusion which I had independently reached in 1979--to the effect that the tip of South
America was torn from the bight of Australia, and that Antarctica was evacuated from the
eastern Pacific--worked better than any of the others. None of the others, in my opinion,
solve the puzzle of ocean floor chronology; and none, therefore, does satisfactorily
demonstrate the fact of Earth expansion.
Evacuating and rotating the full length of the Antarctic Plate out of the eastern Pacific,
including its triangular patch of old ocean floor that now points north into the Indian
Ocean, seemed like an impossibility at first. But repeated measurement of post-Paleocene
expansion, between the Ninety-East-Ridge and the Tongas, and from the Tongas to South
America and thence to a point in the South Atlantic to which South America temporarily was
pushed, did yield an opening large enough for Antarctica to have twisted through. The
evidence in 1994 appeared to be at least twelve-fold:
1) At various stages of expansion, and up to the present, the overall shape of the Pacific
(as it appears contoured by the Rim of Fire) reflects the figure "9" of the
continent of Antarctica.
2) I noted the south-eastward drift of older ocean floors, into the wake of the departing
Antarctic plate. To this observation I like to add the notion of Australia's initial
northward push after it had snapped loose from the tip of South America.
3) According to P. Isaacson, a million cubic kilometers of micaceous sand were deposited
during the Devonian Period in Bolivia, Peru, and northern Argentine, from a continental
source where we now find the deep Pacific Ocean. My source for this information was S.
Warren Carey. Rather ambiguously, Carey has filled the gap in the eastern Pacific with
"Antarctica and Australia." To this day some Earth expansionists, on their
reduced terrella models, have attempted to push Antarctica eastward across the Indian
Ocean, as close a possible toward South America; Australia was thereby pushed northward to
make room for Antarctica. This might have been a reasonable solution before we had ocean
floor chronology; but as it now stands, Australia would have had to drift from its
assigned northern position across the oldest patch of Jurassic ocean floor without ever
disturbing it. This requires more faith in creation-magic than I am willing to entertain.
4) West of Sumatra, along the Ninety-East-Ridge, there is evidence of longitudinal
stretching during the Paleocene--and then evidence of a break.
5) Australia, with the Indonesian subcontinent in tow, was twisted northeastward upon its
viscous magma stem, during the Eocene, into a lower density area that was left in the wake
of the southward drifting Antarctic Plate. I wrote about such hypothetical magma stems
long before I saw some of them on images generated by global seismic tomography. With the
new evidence in hand I am inclined to modify my "Australia was twisted" to
"Australia was twisted off."
6) The Antarctic Plate, consisting of Antarctica and an angular patch of
Jurassic/Cretaceous ocean floor, twisted counter-clockwise, down past the New
Zealand/Australian crust. General Earth expansion and quick softening of the mantle, in
the southern hemisphere, appear to have suctioned the Antarctic Plate southward.
7) The tip of the Antarctic Plate, now extending beyond the Kerguelen and Crozet islands,
shows evidence of having been torn during the Paleocene and the Eocene. This may have
happened during its breakaway from the Gulf of Alaska, and then during its scrape past the
Australian/New Zealand plate. While it is interesting to contemplate, this point carries
now less weight for me than some of the others--unless it inspires someone to do
comparative geology on these islands and along the coast of Alaska. That would be
8) Approaching from the southwest, the Antarctic Plate has dozed into existence the Scotia
Ridge, out of the tip of South America. When later it retreated, it left behind the
Sandwich Islands. In the process it jarred open the south Sandwich Trench. Based primarily
on the logic of ocean floor chronology, I wrote these words in 1994, and I animated this
process in the spring of 1996 for video. Only at the October GSA convention, in Denver,
did I find the US Geological Survey map which vindicates my interpretation. At the tip of
South America is the only place on Earth where a continental collision seems to have taken
place--and no mountain range was formed as a result of this collision.
9) The entire angular plate of the Jurassic/Cretaceous ocean floor --perhaps I should have
been more careful and also mention "Paleocene" as I initially intended--which
reaches from Antarctica beyond the Kerguelen and Crozet islands, corresponds precisely to
the patch of young ocean floor which, by my method of globe reduction, has taken shape
west of North America during the Cretaceous. This solution occurred to me while
contemplating one of my terrella models. The Antarctic Plate nicely fits into the
Eocene-to-Present eastern Pacific--that is, after the expansion factor for this period is
subtracted. Here lies the key to Pacific evacuation. But there is more.
10) Jurassic remnants that once were joined with the northeastern edge of the Jurassic
Pacific are still trapped between Cretaceous ocean floor and the continent of Antarctica.
This arrangement, I think, is the clincher to my argument. All three pairs of Jurassic
deep ocean floor can thereby be reunited on a reduced terrella model. All Jurassic patches
of ocean floor fit too well into the chronology to where they could have originated by
sheer accident in the various oceans.
11) However, along the back of Antarctica one does find a significant patch of Upper
Cretaceous and Paleocene floor. It cannot have formed there if my theory is to be valid.
Fortunately, its original association with contours northwest on the other side of the
present spreading rift, is obvious. The later spreading rift, apparently, has cut off this
patch from similar older floors that are on the other side.
12) I have explained deep coastal trenches everywhere as tensile features--and by this
assertion I reject their association with ocean floor subduction; I reject the process of
ocean floor subduction itself, along with the implied hypothetical convection currents in
13) An additional piece of evidence, of which I was aware when I wrote but which I forgot
to mention, is a small patch of detached Paleocene ocean floor in the Atlantic, east of
the West Indies ridge. This is the only irregularity in the chronological symmetry of the
Atlantic. Surrounded on all sides by Eocene floor, this Paleocene patch clearly has been
pinched off during the Eocene when, as a result of Antarctica's partition from the East
Pacific, South America was pushed eastward for a while. This event also appears to have
bent the West Indies ridge northward.
My "Three Perspectives on Mountain Formation," in the Athens essay, essentially
are those that are given in the video script. I have never taken the time to check what
other expansionists and makers of terrella models have written on that subject. The
general process of mountain formation, which I have described within the framework of
Expansion Tectonics, seems to me to be common sense. I would indeed be very surprised if
it turned out that I was the first to say these things.
My primary innovation pertains to identifying some of the sequences in which the deep
oceans were formed. The process of their formation, evident from ocean floor chronology,
does in the final analysis demonstrate Earth expansion. The main differences between the
expansion sequence that I present, and the solutions presented by others, appear to have
resulted from the fact that these others are still laboring under the influence of the
Wegenerian Atlantic-centered Pangaea model. This and subsequent models were constructed
essentially on the basis of continental contours. Like everyone else, I too have
constructed my first terrella model primarily based on continental contours, in 1979. But
I did so free of Wegenerian influence. Therefore, even back then, my end result looked
different than the conclusions of other expansionists. Today the new ocean floor
chronology supports my 1979 placement of Antarctica and Australia upon a reduced globe, as
well as my theory of Pacific Evacuation.