|
|
SIX ERRONEOUS GEOLOGICAL
ASSERTIONS THAT ARGUE AGANST MY THEORY
By Ben Fischler
There are six
erroneous geological assertions which argue against my theory of how impacts
have shaped the Earth … three major and three minor assertions.
According to
these erroneous assertions, my theory could not possibly operate the way in
which I say it does. Therefore, my theory has to be wrong, according to
institutional geological reasoning.
No. These assertions are not
correct within the context of my arguments.
None of these erroneous
assertions are integral to general geological theory. Rather, these erroneous
assertions have been developed over the years as mechanisms to explain various
geological phenomena that exist. However, there are nuances and exceptions to
these assertions that need to be accounted for.
Just as Albert Einstein
corrected Sir Issac Newton's theories relating to the difference in the
perception of time at very high speeds (scientists have to allow for this in
getting the proper GPS readings from satellite bounce-back transmission waves),
I will correct these six geological assertions for situations of extreme
impacts. I will present evidence supporting the need for my corrections. All of
the references (seen below) to "chapters" are to my detailed book on an updated
antipodal focusing theory, found at www.solvingthemassextinctions.com.
THREE MAJOR GEOLOGICAL
ASSERTIONS
1. NOTHING CAN MOVE THROUGH
THE MANTLE AT MORE THAN ONE INCH PER YEAR — Certainly if this is always
true then there could not be a contemporaneous mantle plume reaching the
underside of the lithosphere as the consequence of a major impact. While I
would agree that this "one inch per year" seems to describe normal behavior, I
believe that things change in the event of a major impact and its resulting
extreme vibration that loosens the holding power of friction (which is the only
reason that movement is retarded in the mantle). Chapter 1.3 of
solvingthemassextinctions.com provides more detail on the temporary loosening
of friction under extreme vibration, while Chapter 1.4 provides specific
examples of antipodal volcanism in all six of the recognized major impacts of
the past 150 million years.
CONCLUSION: This geological assertion needs a notable exception
for major impacts. In the case of major impacts, a mantle plume can reach the
underside of the lithosphere in a very short time, even leading to
contemporaneous volcanism if the plume head is large enough to include the
crushed surface at the focused antipode of the impact (see Chapters 1.3 and
1.4).
2.
IMPACTS DO NOT PENETRATE THE EARTH'S SURFACE AND CONTINUE INTO THE MANTLE
— If major impacts do not penetrate the Earth's crust and travel into the
mantle, then there won't be the focused energy needed to create a mantle plume.
Certainly, smaller impacts don't have the power to penetrate the Earth's crust.
But major impacts are a different story. Chapter 1.3 of
solvingthemassextinctions.com details how the high speed of an asteroid impact
makes all the difference when dealing with a large impact object. Actual
military results of shaped charge explosions can be scaled up to prove that
impact penetration can occur. Furtermore, mascons (concentrations of mass from
much heavier mantle material filling a penetration hole) have been located in
Eastern Antarctica (Permian extinction) and southern Georgia (End-Cretaceous
extinction).
CONCLUSION: This geological assertion needs a notable exception
for major impacts. In the case of a major impact, the impact object can
penetrate the Earth's crust, thus delivering much of its energy to the mantle
and causing a focused mantle plume to shoot up to the underside of the Earth's
crust somewhere near the opposite side of the Earth (see Chapter 1.3).
3. INDIA WAS
LOCATED 4,000 MILES FROM THE ANTIPODE OF THE ASTEROID IMPACT 66 MYA — If
India were located 4,000 miles from the antipode (the exact opposite side of
the Earth) of the dinosaur-killing impact 66 MYA, then the Deccan traps (the
huge outpouring of lava) that occurred at virtually the same time, could not
have been an antipodal event.
This assertion is just plain wrong. The Deccan traps WERE
antipodal to the huge impact 66 MYA.
The common assertion that
India was 4,000 miles away from the antipode is based upon a convenient but
incorrect assumption about how India arrived in Asia. It is commonly assumed
that East Antarctica and Australia moved to the east from Africa 200+ MYA,
while India stayed in the same place until 70 MYA, when it started racing
(geologically speaking) to the northeast, passing over the Reunion Island
hotspot, thus creating the Deccan traps. There are two problems with this.
First, the area around the traps shows no planar doming, as is customary when a
hotspot melts its way to the surface. Second, the hotspot is located at 19°
south latitude. The volcanism of the Deccan traps was created at 30° south
latitude.
The
current theory handles these two problems by ignoring the lack of doming and
saying that there was 11° of polar wander involved. Furthermore, there is
the unresolved matter of the huge underlayment of volcanism on the whole
western side of the peninsula of India from 66 MYA to 60 MYA with no seamounts
or islands trailing after it, So, it looks like a hotspot and acts like a
hotspot but then it disappears. What kind of phenomenon behaves like this?
The new
theory has India traveling east with Australia and Eastern Antarctica starting
252 MYA, as one connected continent. Then the impact of 66 MYA fractures this
continent at the antipode of the impact and creates a new Indian continent from
the upper tail of the old continent and much of the surrounding seafloor. The
antipodal mantle plume creates a prodigious hotspot at the Deccan traps. Then
the hotspot continues down the western side of the Indian peninsula, creating
an underlayment of volcanism from 66 MYA to 60 MYA at the tip. The trail of the
hotspot continues, creating the Indonesian Islands and the western side of Java
and Sumatra. This is detailed in Chapter 1.6 of solvingthemassextinctions.com,
with further explanations and maps showing the movement of the tectonic plates
over 66 million years in Chapter 2.2.
CONCLUSION: This geological
assertion is just plain wrong. There is ample evidence to place India at the
antipode of the dinosaur-killing impact 66 MYA (see Chapters 1.6 and
2.2).
THREE MINOR GEOLOGICAL
ASSERTIONS
1. HOTSPOTS DO NOT MOVE.
TECTONIC PLATES PASS OVER THEM BUT THE HOTSPOTS HAVE NO DIRECTED MOTION OF
THEIR OWN — Recently, geologists have begun to question this assertion. I
assert that hotspots created by impacts have directed motion based upon the
impact angle and the extent to which the impact was off-center (see Chapter
2.3).
Although one example of a hotspot trail moving contrary to
other hotspot trails on the same tectonic plate would be enough to refute this
minor geological assertion that hotspots have no directed motion, I can easily
offer up two definitively contrary examples:
a. TRINDADE HOTSPOT TRAIL
— Located between two hotspot trails that arc to the north, the Trindade
hotspot trail heads directly east. I attribute this movement to the slow
westerly motion of the hotspot, which is moving more slowly than the continent
of South America, so it appears to be moving east by comparison (see Chapter
2.4).
b.
EASTERN ANTARCTICA HOTSPOTS — There are two hotspots that are moving at
almost right angles to each other. One involves the antipode of the Kara impact
(see Chapter 1.4) and the other involves the antipode of the Manacouagan impact
(see Chapter 2.6). CONCLUSION: Hotspots may sometimes be stationary, but there
are definite instances when hotspots have their own directed motion.
2. I'VE NEVER
HEARD OF AN IMPACT LANDSLIDE. HOW CAN IT CREATE SOMETHING AS HUGE AS THE GULF
OF MEXICO? — I assert that the Gulf of Mexico was created by an impact
landslide that was caused by an angled asteroid impact 66 MYA.
A landslide is merely the
movement of earth in response to a directed force. Usually that force is
gravity. In this case, the force is the horizontal force of the angled impact
of the asteroid which contributes a percentage of the 2,000,000 H-bomb worth of
impact energy to the equation.
On a much smaller scale, the
Heart Mountain Landslide (see Chapter 2,5) shows how the movement of earth can
move large blocks of stone as a result of gravity, affecting a mere 2% slope.
It moved a large slab of Madison limestone about 1600 feet thick and over 400
square miles in area. Some of the resulting pieces of this slab were up to five
miles across. The force of gravity involved with this movement was peanuts when
compared to the horizontal component of the angled impact 66 MYA.
Also, the
intact nature of the surface of the sliding blocks indicates how the shape of
an impact crater could be preserved as it was pushed in directed motion.
CONCLUSION: The power of the impact 66 MYA had more than enough horizontal
power to move the limestone slabs involved with delaminating and opening up the
proto-Gulf-of-Mexico (see Chapter 2.5)
3. WE ALREADY HAVE A
PERFECTLY GOOD THEORY THAT HANDLES THE CHICXULUB IMPACT. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER
ONE — I have to say that I actually heard this from a credentialed
geologist!
First, you don't have a perfectly good theory. Second, even if
you did, you should be looking for the best theory, rather than just something
that seems to work okay. Let me address the second issue first.
In the 1600s,
Dutch optics allowed people to make telescopes, which some people, notably
Galileo Galilei, turned to the night sky. He saw the moons of Jupiter and
realized that this was evidence that the heavens weren't perfect and the Earth
was not at the center of the universe. Galileo championed the heliocentic model
proposed by Copernicus.
The scientists of the day (the
Catholic Church) declared that Galileo was guilty of heresy. He was confined to
house arrest for publishing his findings. But don't feel sad for Galileo. After
all, the Church did apologize 400 years later.
The Church said that they
didn't need a new theory that contradicted their teachings. They said that the
new theory would make no difference and should not be taught. Actually, the
Church was right about the new theory making no difference. In a pre-industrial
society, a geocentric model works as well as heliocentric model on a practical
basis.
But
that isn't the point of scientific inquiry. The purpose of scientific inquiry
is to find the best theory that fits the evidence, not merely a theory that
works well enough for every day consumption.
Thus, even in a pre-industrial
society, scientists persisted in establishing the heliocentric view of the
solar system, rather than merely accepting the old geocentric one. Thus, on the
face of it this type of objection is spurious. Science wants to look at
evidence and evaluate theories in light of the evidence. "We don't need another
theory" is a non-reason.
Next, we will look at the claim that "we already have a
perfectly good theory." WE DON'T. There are lots of holes in the current
theory. And there are many of Earth's features that can be better explained by
the new theory than by the current one. The holes in the current theory are
covered in item #3 of the three major geological assertions. The features of
the Earth that can be better explained by the new theory than by the current
theory are to numerous to list here. They will be dealt with in depth in a
separate section entitled "Why This New Theory Fits The Evidence Better Than
The Current Theory."
CONCLUSION: We DON"T have a perfectly good theory. Furthermore,
the current theory should not be afraid to be compared, on the basis of
evidence, to any new theory (see Chapters 1.6 and 2.2).
|
|
