The international “New
Concepts in Global Tectonics Conference” was held in May of 2002 in La Junta,
First, presenting an essay and obtaining sincere feed-back certainly does count as one of these peak encounters. At this NCGT Conference it actually happened that some scientists asked me to explain my theory in detail. Thoughts shared during such intensive discussions tend to circulate beyond the confines of a single mind.
Left to right: Jacob, Luckert, Gottfried
While explaining my theory, it occurred to me that I could do better if I had suitable illustrations of the worldwide coherence pattern of the continents. In spite of “continental drift,” this pattern has persisted on our planet to this day. Such illustrations enable us to make inferences about past horizontal tensions in the Planet’s crust. They also indicate how continents tore apart or how some weak areas between them were being stretched (as has been the case in Middle America, Austral-Asia, the Arctic area, and the Mediterranean). Expansion pressure from the interior of the Planet translates into horizontal tension in the crust. I am therefore inserting, below, the images of five hemispheres that show the coherence pattern of the continents and their shelves.
Second, a renowned contributor and co-founder of the Plate Tectonics theory assured me, personally, that Plate Tectonics theory has nothing to say about the formation of the eastern Rocky Mountains where we were. These mountains are being uplifted far away from any ocean where “subduction” might occur. Inasmuch as these words were spoken in the course of informal conversation, I think I should not mention his name before I have obtained his consent, or, before I have found similar statements in his writings. But then, proof by appealing to an academic authority is of no use in basic science. Let us rather get into the habit of contemplating the data ourselves.
Third, on our field trip to the mountains I saw for the first time something that, in line with my theory of expansion tectonics and mountain formation, I always supposed it exists. I have earlier explained how the process of Earth expansion produces continental flanging. Because the Planet’s surface does flatten, continental mid-regions must sag and settle down as plains, thereby squeezing extra materials and magma sideways, underneath—thus from underneath the Great Plains toward the higher bulging plains to the west. To the extent that the crust is being cracked and mended from underneath, it also is hydraulically uplifted. Its brittle upper lithosphere is being deformed and faulted, and eroded from above. Igneous mountain ranges are uplifted by such processes, and washed bare.
For years I have been
suspecting igneous new mountain ranges underneath the eastern
“Earth Expansion and the Eocene Tectonic Event”
Karl W. Luckert—NCGT Conference 2002—summary of presentation revised for this website
An improvised preface to fit the occasion: Now that we have heard from Christian Smoot about how he sees the ocean floors, and about his doubts regarding magnetic stripes and ocean floor dating, we can no longer be sure whether we do or do not have a dependable ocean floor chronology. I must therefore alert you to the following proviso regarding my essay. If the magnetic ocean-floor stripes cannot be dated, I will simply “bracket” all my dates. My account regarding Earth expansion can be presented quite well without the benefit of an absolute chronology—as long as some kind of sequence of the magnetic stripes remains probable. I proceed under the assumption that this is still the case. Moreover, in 1979 I came to similar conclusions about Earth Expansion having had only continental contours and some topography to work with.
* * *
At the Tsukuba conference,
Then I showed a twenty-minute video animation, excerpted from my “Expansion Tectonics.” I looked at the audience and saw no evidence that I convinced anyone. Afterward James and I talked among ourselves, and it became obvious that neither of us was able to convince the other.
After returning from Tsukuba I wrote the booklet, Planet Earth Expanding and the Eocene Tectonic Event, which, in 1999, I placed on my website www.triplehood.com .
There are, of course, some general basic agreements between the two of us. (1) Both begin with the hypothesis, based on the new ocean floor chronology, that over the past 200 million years Planet Earth has expanded roughly by the size of its deep oceans. (2) Both agree that magnetic stripes on ocean floors are important data that supplement what we know about topography, continental contours, and data from ocean floor drilling. And (3) both agree on the simple sequence in which the Atlantic Ocean appears to have spread. These three points of agreement between Maxlow and Luckert are completely coincidental, inasmuch as neither of us was aware yet of the other’s existence when independently we concluded them.
In our present confrontation with the overly popular “steady-size-Earth version of Plate-Tectonics” theory, the third point is almost mute. Even some proponents of the steady-size-Earth version do see the Atlantic as having spread, amidst Pangaea, without the benefit of ocean floor subduction or convection currents in the mantle. These people have learned to live with a miraculous one-ocean exception to the uniformity of nature!
James Maxlow and I disagree on the Jurassic positioning of Australia and Antarctica. As most Earth-expansionists have done so far, he places Australia in the north of the Pacific space, and he attaches Antarctica just south of it. By contrast, I return the round Antarctica smack into the Pacific and let Earth expansion account for the extra space. I return the Bight of Australia to the tip of South America.
Unfortunately, James Maxlow cannot be here with us today, and so it would be somewhat unfair of me to expect you to accept my theory in his absence. Inasmuch as he and I have not been able to convince each other, perhaps we both can enlist your help and ask for your involvement. You can tell me what I might be doing wrong. And you will also be able to tip off Maxlow about what it will take to convince me.
Maxlow pulls out Austral-Asia from the hide of Jurassic East Asia. You should be able to find his animations at his website
But for me the problem is larger than the Pacific. I must begin in the eastern Indian Ocean. The Paleocene and Eocene floors there suggest that Austral-Asia was bent in the opposite direction than Maxlow proposes, away for the Ninety-east Ridge. The Eocene triangle in the northeastern corner of the Indian Ocean leaves no alternative. Austral-Asia was bent north-eastward. Jonathan Dehn has established, tephro-chronologically, that a major tectonic event has occurred along the Ninety-East Ridge, approximately 42.7 million years ago.
In the Philippine Sea a Paleocene stretch was split into two halves by Eocene rifting. The Marianas oval was squeezed from the south—while the rest of East Asia experienced circumferential slippage. The East Asian marginal seas are Eocene as well. They were pulled open mostly by that same Eocene event of “continental slippage” (more about this “slippage” can be found in my antecedent 1999 booklet, at this website).
America is longer than it needs to be in order to match Africa. The two continents separated
during the Lower Cretaceous. Since the time of that separation
Continents are not somehow born apart to drift freely; they are torn from the original planet’s shell. And to achieve a tearing, two obstinate sides were needed. There is not only a budget of lithosphere areas to be concerned about, but there also is a budget of global tensions that must have been present for severing the continents. I postulate the presence of a circumferential belt of continents—including the Americas, Asia, and Australia—that spanned the globe until the Eocene. The tip of South America was lodged in the Bight of Australia. Thus, until the Middle Eocene it was global circumferential tension, caused by Earth expansion, which stretched open Middle America, the Arctic area, Austral-Asia, and which elongated South America. Then an event of global circumferential slippage occurred.
While we do have the problem of intercontinental
tearing and tensions already on our minds, lets us digress for a moment to the
most popular Expansionist proposition—of having Jurassic Australia located
ocean floors alongside
With the exception of
With the exception of
Where could a round continent on Planet Earth have come from—in a manner that satisfies all the requirements for a Jurassic area budget as well as for subsequent severance-tension budgets? Indeed, we do have a round cavity shaped like the 9 of Antarctica, right next to this loose continent. Moreover, my expanding balloon experiments have shown that it is quite natural, initially, for a round patch of crust to be broken out of a spherical shell as a result of expansion pressure that is being converted into horizontal surface tension. Then, let us look at the “Ring of Fire” and at magnetic stripes in the Pacific. They continue to give us the 9-shape of Antarctica, expanding all the way up to our present day. And the Ring of Fire, though considerably expanded over time, still outlines the initial scar from along which
While at the north of this planet all the continents
still are together, they have broken open in the south like the blossom of a
flower. So, during the Eocene a major tectonic jolt set off the birth pangs by
which the Antarctic Plate began to slip from the Pacific womb. How was this
possible in relation to everything else?
First, Australia snapped away from the tip of South America and created
there a soft bottom. Eventually it widened to become the
A CLOSING THOUGHT
I have been told that my theory could not be valid because back in 1979, already, I have placed the tip of South America into the Bight of Australia—based at the time merely on estimating continental contours. Yes, indeed, I did not consult magnetic stripes until after the California earthquake of 1994. But so what! One cannot disprove a contemporary theory by the incomplete data and hypotheses that lie in its prehistory. The arrangements achieved by others—including those that have Australia in the North Pacific—also were at their inception mere projections based on continental contours—lubricated here and there by a scientist’s creative imagination.
Surely, all scientific theories, including mine, suffer from a variety of growing pains and contain a variety of weaknesses. Some of these I already know, and I continue weighing them against those that so far have rendered alternate theories unacceptable. And if there are weaknesses that I do not yet know about, I hope I will know these soon. Perhaps with your help I can be converted to a “majority” Expansionist view. It is no fun to stand alone as a minority of one—upon this ever-expanding planet. A human being craves company and should be able to enjoy dialogue, now and then. Life is short.