Natural Philosophy Wiki - User contributions [en]

Module:Infobox/styles.css

2025-02-01T17:05:12Z

Admin: Created page with ".infobox { border: 1px solid #ccc; padding: 10px; width: 300px; background-color: #f9f9f9; } .infobox img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; }"

.infobox {
border: 1px solid #ccc;
padding: 10px;
width: 300px;
background-color: #f9f9f9;
}

.infobox img {
max-width: 100%;
height: auto;
}

Expansion tectonics

2017-03-16T00:03:05Z

Admin:

{{Wikipedia_dispute|Expanding earth}}

[[File:CrustalAgeMapNOAA.gif|thumbnail|500px|The Crustal Age map from NOAA is considered by expansion tectonics as the most important geological map in modern geology]]Expansion Tectonics is a geology-based tectonic theory that is used to describe, model, and reconstruct the large-scale evolution and assemblage of Earths tectonic plates on an Earth that has been slowly gaining in size and mass over billions of years. This theory, and associated modelling studies, extends in time from the early-Archaean–some 4,000 million years ago–through to the present day and is readily extrapolated to the future. Modelling studies demonstrate that changing configurations of the supercontinents, breakup of the Pangaean supercontinent, formation of the Earth’s modern continents, as well as sympathetic opening of each of the modern oceans is progressive, predictive, and evolutionary.

==Introduction==
Expansion Tectonic theory builds on the largely historical Expanding Earth theory which was initially developed during the 19th and first few decades of the 20th century. This historical theory was extensively promoted by the Emeritus Professor Samuel Warren Carey of the University of Tasmania during the 1950s, and was modeled by Klaus Vogel of East Germany and Jan Koziar of the Wroclaw University, Poland during the 1980s. The theory was unceremoniously rejected by science during the mid-1960s in favour of plate tectonics, based on limited and inconclusive palaeomagnetic studies of ancient Earth radius. Since that time there has been a considerable amount of modern global observational data collected from all fields of the Earth sciences which are now available to thoroughly test and evaluate all tectonic theories.

Apart from its implicit assumption of a constant radius Earth, there is very little data in conventional plate tectonics that is incompatible with the largely historical Expanding Earth theory, and vice versa. It is the same global data gathered about the same Earth—just interpreted differently. Rather than artificially constraining modern plate tectonic observational data and plate tectonic thinking to a constant-sized Earth—the current dogma—modern scientific methodology insists that this new global observational data be tested to see if the data, and hence the basis of plate tectonic theory, are not better suited to an increasing radius Earth scenario.

The historical terms Earth Expansion, Expanding Earth, and similarly Growing Earth, refer to changes to the shape and size of the Earth, as well as motions of the various crusts on an Earth whose surface area increases with time in sympathy with an increase in Earth mass and radius. These terms are synonymous but now largely unpopular. To avoid confusion with these redundant theories Expansion Tectonics is used to encompass each of these terms in relation to modern observational evidence. The term Expansion Tectonics was first introduced in 1995 by Australian geologist Dr [[James Maxlow]] and subsequent quantification of this new science is based on an extensive range of modern global tectonic data.

== Why Expansion Tectonics ==
It is unfortunate that science does not encourage research into this alternative proposal whereby the increase in surface areas of all ocean crusts and movement of the continents is a direct result of an increase in Earth mass and radius over time. Because of this lack of encouragement, rejection of the historical Expanding Earth theory in favor of plate tectonics should not be perceived as rejection because the theory was wrong, it is only the proffered historical mechanisms behind the theory that may have been lacking in credibility.
Investigating the extensive range of modern global observational data on anything other than a constant radius Earth model has never been done before. Because of this lack of inquiry, scientists and industry have been deprived of a valuable scientific basis to thoroughly test and independently evaluate the merits of this modern global data. The reason why this investigation and modelling has not been done before is simply because science has been stereotyped into firmly believing that Earth radius has always been the same size as it is today, based originally on very tenuous geophysical evidence. Because of this insistence, conventional plate tectonics then considers that continental and seafloor crustal development has been a random, non-predictive, and somewhat catastrophic process. It is unfortunate that science is firmly conditioned into accepting this belief and insistence, as well as accepting any shortfalls this insistence imposes on the global data, without further inquiry.

Many scientists have demonstrated that an Earth increasing its size over time is perfectly feasible and provides a better explanation for many geologic observations than does a fixed-radius Earth model. Researchers, such as Lindeman 1927, Hilgenberg 1933, Brösske 1962, Barnett 1962, Dearnley 1965, Owen 1976, Shields 1979, Schmidt and Embleton 1981, Vogel 1983, Luckett 1990s, Scalera 1988, Maxlow 1995, 2001, and Adams 2000s, have each constructed models of the ancient Earth and shown that all of the present-day continents can be neatly assembled together on a fully enclosed smaller radius Pangaean supercontinental Earth some 250 million years ago.

In contrast to conventional plate tectonic reconstructions of past supercontinental assemblages, modern global geological mapping of the oceans and continents is used exclusively in Expansion Tectonic studies to recreate and model the entire 4,000 million years of Earth’s known geological history. Spherical small Earth models constructed by Dr James Maxlow represent accurate models of precise continental and seafloor crustal plate assemblages extending from the early-Archaean to 5 million years into the future. This global geological mapping has only been available since 1990, well after conventional plate tectonics and palaeomagnetics were first established, and its use represents a unique means to accurately constrain and reconstruct past geological plate assemblages independently of conventional palaeomagnetic apparent-polar-wander constraints.

Dr Maxlow considers that the advantages and benefits of using modern global geological mapping to constrain plate assemblages for the entire history of the Earth are immeasurable. The application of geological crustal assemblages to the geosciences is further limited only by ongoing innovation and imagination. Furthermore, Expansion Tectonic small Earth reconstructions are uniquely relevant to science and industry by providing models that are accurate enough to know precisely where a particular research project, mineral discovery, climate change indicator, field project, fossil or mineral find was located on the ancient Earth at any moment in time.

== Evidence ==
When presenting Expansion Tectonics a number of very valid and pertinent questions invariably arise which must be addressed. In doing so, however, it must be remembered Expansion Tectonics is based solely on the best explanation of existing empirical geological evidence. It is not a theory seeking physical support. It is rather a concept proposed which best fits all existing physical geologic data in a much superior manner than does the Plate Tectonic approach. To some extent it’s like a laboratory experiment wherein an unexpected observation is made that is not explained using existing physics. It then begs for extended theoretical models to explain the newly discovered physical facts.

=== Gigantism ===

[[File:AnimalSizes.jpg|thumbnail|350px|The diminishing gigantism for land animals during the past 150 million years <ref>Hurrell, Stephen. "Dinosaurs on the Expanding Earth", 2011</ref>]]The presence of gigantic plants and animals in ancient history can be explained by a smaller earth. Dinosaur size grew to extremes but with time, the largest land animals have diminished in size over the millions of years. Mechanical engineer [[Stephen Hurrell]] has plotted the largest land animals since the age of the dinosaurs and there is a definite reduction in size that could be explained by a smaller, less massive earth.

=== Ancient Magnet Poles ===

The published ancient magnetic pole information (the location of ancient magnetic poles established from measuring the remnant magnetism in iron-rich rocks) in particular provides conclusive evidence in support of Expansion Tectonics. When this magnetic pole data is plotted on Expansion Tectonic models it demonstrates that all pole data plot as diametrically opposed north and south poles for each model.

These models show that the ancient North Pole was located in eastern Mongolia-China throughout the Precambrian and Paleozoic Eras. As the continents slowly migrated south, during subsequent increase in Earth radius, there was an apparent northward polar
wander through Siberia to its present location within the Arctic Ocean. Similarly, the ancient Precambrian and Paleozoic South Pole was located in west central Africa, and, as the continents slowly migrated north, there was an apparent southward polar wander along the South American and West African coastlines to its present location in Antarctica.

The locations of these magnetic poles, as well as the derived ancient equators, independently confirm the model reconstructions shown in Figure 3 and again suggest that Expansion Tectonics is indeed a viable process.

=== Ancient Geography ===

The ancient geography of the Earth forms the basis for defining the inter-relationships of exposed continents, intervening seaways, mountains and crustal movements, and enables the conventional Pangaea, Gondwana, Laurentia, Baltica, Laurussia and Rodinia supercontinents to be quantified on an Expansion Tectonic Earth. The ancient coastlines, when plotted on Expansion Tectonic models, show that large Panthallassa, Tethys and Iapetus Oceans are not required during reconstruction. This is because on an Expansion Tectonic Earth all modern oceans are removed and continents are assembled as a single continental crust. These inferred oceans are instead replaced by smaller Panthallassa, Tethys and Iapetus Seas located on or between the ancient continents.

The early Panthallassa and Iapetus Seas developed during the Early Permian to Early Jurassic periods (260 to 165 million years ago) and initiated as shallow sedimentary basins within the present north west Pacific and North Atlantic Ocean regions respectively. These then progressively opened and extended throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras as the modern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. In contrast, the Tethys Sea had its origins during the Early Precambrian Era as a continental sea located within what is
now Europe and Asia. This sea then progressively enlarged and extended in area during the Precambrian, Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras during crustal extension and subsequent opening of the modern oceans.

Changes in sea-level on an Expansion Tectonic Earth is then shown to occur in response to climatic change, as well as a shift in the distribution of continental seas, to crustal movements, mountain building, erosion, opening of the post-Permian modern oceans and production of new water at the mid-ocean-ridges. These changes all modified the ancient coastal outlines and resulted in a change in the exposed continental land areas. This is confirmed by the distribution of climate-dependant sedimentary rocks such as limestone reefs, and the distribution of climate-dependant marine and terrestrial fossil species. Reconstructions of the conventional Pangaea, Gondwana and Rodinia supercontinents and smaller sub-continents on an Expansion Tectonic Earth demonstrate that, instead of being the result of random dispersion-amalgamation or collisional events, each continental assemblage is progressive, and represents an evolutionary crustal-forming process. The distinguishing feature of continents constructed on each Expansion Tectonic model is the inter-relationship of continental sedimentary basins, the network of continental seas and network of crustal movements. The variation of each of these in time has resulted in changes to the distribution of exposed continental land. Supercontinent configuration is then defined by a progressive extension of continental sedimentary basins, by ongoing crustal movements, and changes in sea-levels as the modern oceans
opened and rapidly increased in area to the present-day.

=== Ancient Biogeography ===

On an Expansion Tectonic Earth the locations of fossilized fauna and flora can be used to illustrate their distribution in relation to the ancient lands and seas, and once again to confirm the established climatic zones as well as the poles and equator. The distribution of various marine fauna, such as the Cambrian and Ordovician trilobites for instance, on an Expansion Tectonic Earth demonstrates the ease and simplification of migration routes and their development during the Palaeozoic Era. Barriers to the migration of trilobites, as well as other related species on an Expansion Tectonic Earth are then simply seen as limited to deep marine restrictions and, to a limited extent, on latitude and climate extremes.

Triassic to Cretaceous dinosaurs, when plotted on Expansion Tectonic Earth models show dinosaur distributions are clustered within three distinct provinces, which coincide with the distribution of ancestral Permian reptiles; their ancient ancestors. These include distributions clustered in the European to Mediterranean region, distributions clustered in central and eastern North America and, distributions clustered in adjacent South Africa and southern South American regions, with links to India. Isolated related distributions also occur in east Australia, south China, and western South America.

The distribution of dinosaurs and ancestral Permian reptiles on an Expansion Tectonic Earth demonstrates the close links between Permian, Triassic and Jurassic species. This link was then disrupted during the early Permian during the initiation of continental break-up, and similarly during the Cretaceous as the various seas merged and sea levels began to rise. As the continents progressively broke up and dispersed there was a marked disruption of established climatic zones, as well as the feeding habitats and migration routes of each endemic species.

The extinction of the dinosaurs is a contentious issue. On an Expansion Tectonic Earth the Cretaceous period coincides with a period of enlargement of continental seas accompanied by a rise in sea-level, an increase in the size of the modern oceans and
progressive disruption to climate. Sea levels peaked on the continents during the Late Cretaceous followed by a rapid draining of continental seas as the modern oceans continued to open.

Expansion Tectonic Earth models suggest there may have been two or more separate oceans existing during the Mesozoic era, with the possibility of separate sea levels. Rifting and merging of these oceans coincides precisely with faunal and floral extinction
events at the end of both the Triassic and Cretaceous periods. This suggests the cause of the dinosaur extinction, which incidentally occurred over a period of 8 to 10 million years, may be linked with periods of relatively rapid sea level change some 65 million
years ago, rather than a speculated asteroidal impact event as currently proposed. The ancient Permian Glossopteris fern is a common fossil in coals throughout the southern hemisphere and has traditionally been used to define the ancient Gondwana supercontinent. The known distribution of Glossopteris ferns is centred on localities in South Africa and adjacent India. During the Permian period East Antarctica straddled the equator adjacent to South Africa, which was surrounded by occurrences of Glossopteris flora in Australia, West Antarctica and India, suggesting Glossopteris flora may have also been extensive beneath the present East Antarctica ice-cap.

The distribution of Permian Glossopteris ferns, when plotted on Expansion Tectonic models, straddles the ancient equator and ranges from high-northern to high-southern latitudes. This suggests Glossopteris ferns were tropical to cool temperate species, confirmed by the fossil evidence, which shows a Gondwana climate commencing with an ice-age and passing through a cold, but wet temperate to warm temperate climate during the Late Paleozoic Era.

These ancient biogeographic examples, while limited, briefly illustrate the ease and simplification of migration and development of all faunal and floral species on an Expansion Tectonic Earth. The inter-relationships of global and provincial distributions are then intimately maintained without the need for complex conventional continental assemblage-dispersal requirements.

During continental break-up and opening of the modern oceans on an Expansion Tectonic Earth, the distributions of species and migration routes were disrupted, forcing species endemic to the various regions to interact, extend their boundaries, fragment or simply become extinct with time. The timing of ocean development in many of these areas is also reflected in the changes in sea-level, facilitating marine faunal migration by extending and expanding immigration routes and moderating climatic differences.

=== Ancient Climate ===

The ancient climate on Expansion Tectonic Earth models can be investigated by plotting the distribution of selected climate-dependant rocks and comparing the distribution patterns with the location of established ancient poles and equators. Correlation of coal swamps, thick sandstone sequences and glacial rocks are excellent indicators of wet climates, while dry climates are indicated by evaporates, such as salt deposits, and equatorial regions by limestone reefs.

The glacial record shows four major glacial eras, including the Early Proterozoic Era, the Late Proterozoic Era, the Early and Late Paleozoic Era and the Late Cenozoic Era. The distribution of glacial deposits on an Expansion Tectonic Earth is also useful in checking
the location of established magnetic poles and equators plotted from magnetic data. The distribution of many of these Precambrian marine glacial deposits, many of which occur in conjunction with equatorial limestone and iron-rich rocks, is an enigma for Plate
Tectonic reconstructions. In contrast, on an Expansion Tectonic Earth the relatively short pole to equator distances existing during this time allowed sea-ice to readily float into equatorial regions, depositing glacial rock debris amongst the existing warm climatic rocks as it melted.

The distribution of Early and Late Paleozoic glacial deposits coincides with a South Pole located in west central Africa, with isolated mountainous ice-centres located in Europe, Australia and South America. A northward shift in climate zonation and an absence of a permanent north polar ice-cap is a prominent feature of glacial, carbonate and coal distributions at that time. This northward shift suggests an Earth rotational axis, inclined to the pole of the ecliptic, was well established by the beginning of the Paleozoic Era and has remained at a similar inclination to the present-day.

The distribution of Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic oil and gas resources coincides with the development of major continental and marginal basin settings. A broad zonation of deposits is evident from this distribution which straddles the established ancient equator and extends from low-southern to mid-northern latitudes. This distribution again suggests a northward shift in climatic zonation.

When viewed in context with global and local sea-level changes, oil and gas development coincides with periods of rising sea-levels and maximum surficial areas of continental seas. The Cretaceous in particular coincides with a period of post-Late Paleozoic glacial melting, a rapid opening of the modern oceans, generally warm climatic conditions and rapid biotic diversification.

The Early to Late Cretaceous distribution of coal shows two broad temperate belts located north and south of the ancient equator. On an Expansion Tectonic Earth a latitudinal shift in coal deposition through time is reflected in the rapid opening of each of the modern oceans, and similarly in the northward migration of continents during the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras. The predominance of coal deposits in the northern hemisphere is here attributed to the greater extent of landmass influencing rainfall and to the extent of remnant continental basins suitable for coal formation.

The distribution of all latitude dependent rocks on Expansion Tectonic Earth models is shown to coincide precisely with the ancient equators established from magnetic pole data. In each case a distinct latitudinal zonation paralleling the palaeoequator is evident,
and a distinct northward shift in climatic zonation consistently suggests that an inclined Earth rotational axis, inclined to the pole of the ecliptic, was well established during the Palaeozoic persisting to the Recent.

== History ==
[[File:HilgenbergModels.jpg|thumbnail|450px|Models by [[Ott Christoph Hilgenberg]], a German engineer and scientist who was a modern pioneer in expansion tectonics (1933)]]The first known hypothesis of expansion tectonics was made by [[Roberto Mantovani]] who in 1889 and 1909 talked of an expanding earth and continental drift.

=== Samuel Warren Carey ===

=== Crustal Age ===
In the 1960s, NOAA created the first crustal age map which revealed that no part of the ocean was older than 230 million years.

== Plate Tectonics Objections for Expansion Tectonics ==
When comparing expansion tectonics to plate tectonics, there are some logical questions that arise given their differences.

=== Subduction ===

Subduction of crusts beneath continents is an artifact of the basic Plate Tectonic requirement for a static radius Earth. To maintain a Plate Tectonic static radius Earth the new oceanic crusts accumulating along the mid-ocean-spreading ridges must then be continuously disposed of elsewhere, displacing and recycling preexisting crusts into the mantle by subduction. Modern planetary studies have shown this process to be unique to planet Earth, and hence without subduction Plate Tectonics cannot exist.

In Plate Tectonic theory, subduction zones mark sites of convective down welling of the Earths crust as well as part of the upper mantle. Subduction zones are postulated to exist at convergent plate boundaries around the margins of the Pacific Ocean, where oceanic and continental crustal plates converge with other plates and sink below to depths of approximately 100 kilometres, thereby recycling crust, sediment and trapped water into the deep mantle.

On an Expansion Tectonic Earth subduction of between 5,000 to 15,000 kilometres of Pacific oceanic crust beneath North America, for instance, is unnecessary. All subduction-related observational data simply record the crustal interaction between adjoining thick continental crusts, and relatively thin oceanic crusts during ongoing change in surface curvature. As Earth radius increases with time the surface curvature of the Earth flattens, giving rise to crustal interaction and jostling of plates along their margins as they stretch and distort during gravity-induced flattening.

=== Supercontinents ===

On an Expansion Tectonic Earth, prior to the Triassic period, about 200 million years ago, the modern deep oceans did not exist. All continental crust was united to form a single supercontinent called Pangaea, enclosing the entire ancient Earth at about 3,200 kilometres radius – approximately 52% of the present Earth radius. Geographical studies show oceans prior to the Triassic period were then represented by a network of continental seas, with sediments deposited within continental basins masking all evidence of sea floor spreading. Exposed lands and varying coastal outlines prior to this time were similarly represented by the ancient Gondwana, Laurentia, Baltica and Laurussia supercontinents, and prior to that again by the ancient Rodinia supercontinent and smaller sub-continents.

=== Mountain building ===

In Plate Tectonics it is generally assumed that mountain building results from collision between ancient plates as they randomly move over the Earths surface under the influence of mantle convection currents. Researchers elsewhere have therefore concluded because Earth expansion is a radial process, and hence extensional, the process cannot explain the compression required for mountain building.

While seemingly logical from a Plate Tectonic perspective, it is illogical from an Expansion Tectonic perspective. As the Earth radius increases the continental crust must distort, bend, twist and turn as it continuously flattens and adjusts during change in surface curvature. During this ongoing gravity-induced crustal flattening process compression causes folding of the soft sediments within sedimentary basins, as well as faulting, volcanic intrusion and metamorphism (heating and compression of the rocks). When the continents began to break-up and disperse 200 million years ago, the edges of the newly formed continents then flexed and rose vertically to form the great escarpments and mountain ranges as the interiors collapse during ongoing changing surface curvature. This process is cyclical during ongoing increase in Earth radius, resulting in multiple and overlapping phases of mountain building, planation, sedimentation, uplift and erosion. What about past measurements of Earth radius?

Palaeomagnetic measurements were first used during the 1960s to early 1970s to establish an ancient Earth radius. This information was then used in an attempt to resolve debate once and for all on whether the Earth radius is increasing or not. The outcome of this research was the conclusion that Earth radius is not increasing and this has of course since swayed popular opinion towards Plate Tectonics, without fully appreciating the implications of the outcome.

While the various researchers went to great lengths to present quality data and sound methodology, it should be realized at that time there was very little agreement as to what
a potential Earth expansion may or may not have been. What the researchers failed to comprehend was the significance of magnetic pole locations determined from conventional palaeomagnetic formulae. These are virtual pole locations, not actual locations. Because of this oversight they then made incorrect assumptions regarding application of the ancient latitude and colatitude to determine radius.

When the Expansion Tectonic magnetic pole locations for Africa are correctly used, the palaeomagnetic data, in contrast to published conclusions, conclusively quantify a Triassic Expansion Tectonic Earth radius. This, in conjunction with the diametrically opposed North and South Pole plots, represents definitive proof in support of an expanding Earth.

=== Geodetic measurements ===

Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to subcentimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year. This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact “expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr” and went on to recommend the vertical motion be “restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr”. This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.

These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading.

== Expansion Tectonics Today ==

== Possible Mechanisms for Expansion and Mass Increase ==

== References ==
<references />

Expansion tectonics

2017-03-16T00:02:17Z

Admin: /* Why Expansion Tectonics */

{{Wikipedia_dispute|Expanding earth}}

[[File:CrustalAgeMapNOAA.gif|thumbnail|500px|The Crustal Age map from NOAA is considered by expansion tectonics as the most important geological map in modern geology]]Expansion Tectonics is a geology-based tectonic theory that is used to describe, model, and reconstruct the large-scale evolution and assemblage of Earths tectonic plates on an Earth that has been slowly gaining in size and mass over billions of years. This theory, and associated modelling studies, extends in time from the early-Archaean–some 4,000 million years ago–through to the present day and is readily extrapolated to the future. Modelling studies demonstrate that changing configurations of the supercontinents, breakup of the Pangaean supercontinent, formation of the Earth’s modern continents, as well as sympathetic opening of each of the modern oceans is progressive, predictive, and evolutionary.

Expansion Tectonic theory builds on the largely historical Expanding Earth theory which was initially developed during the 19th and first few decades of the 20th century. This historical theory was extensively promoted by the Emeritus Professor Samuel Warren Carey of the University of Tasmania during the 1950s, and was modeled by Klaus Vogel of East Germany and Jan Koziar of the Wroclaw University, Poland during the 1980s. The theory was unceremoniously rejected by science during the mid-1960s in favour of plate tectonics, based on limited and inconclusive palaeomagnetic studies of ancient Earth radius. Since that time there has been a considerable amount of modern global observational data collected from all fields of the Earth sciences which are now available to thoroughly test and evaluate all tectonic theories.

Apart from its implicit assumption of a constant radius Earth, there is very little data in conventional plate tectonics that is incompatible with the largely historical Expanding Earth theory, and vice versa. It is the same global data gathered about the same Earth—just interpreted differently. Rather than artificially constraining modern plate tectonic observational data and plate tectonic thinking to a constant-sized Earth—the current dogma—modern scientific methodology insists that this new global observational data be tested to see if the data, and hence the basis of plate tectonic theory, are not better suited to an increasing radius Earth scenario.

The historical terms Earth Expansion, Expanding Earth, and similarly Growing Earth, refer to changes to the shape and size of the Earth, as well as motions of the various crusts on an Earth whose surface area increases with time in sympathy with an increase in Earth mass and radius. These terms are synonymous but now largely unpopular. To avoid confusion with these redundant theories Expansion Tectonics is used to encompass each of these terms in relation to modern observational evidence. The term Expansion Tectonics was first introduced in 1995 by Australian geologist Dr [[James Maxlow]] and subsequent quantification of this new science is based on an extensive range of modern global tectonic data.

== Why Expansion Tectonics ==
It is unfortunate that science does not encourage research into this alternative proposal whereby the increase in surface areas of all ocean crusts and movement of the continents is a direct result of an increase in Earth mass and radius over time. Because of this lack of encouragement, rejection of the historical Expanding Earth theory in favor of plate tectonics should not be perceived as rejection because the theory was wrong, it is only the proffered historical mechanisms behind the theory that may have been lacking in credibility.
Investigating the extensive range of modern global observational data on anything other than a constant radius Earth model has never been done before. Because of this lack of inquiry, scientists and industry have been deprived of a valuable scientific basis to thoroughly test and independently evaluate the merits of this modern global data. The reason why this investigation and modelling has not been done before is simply because science has been stereotyped into firmly believing that Earth radius has always been the same size as it is today, based originally on very tenuous geophysical evidence. Because of this insistence, conventional plate tectonics then considers that continental and seafloor crustal development has been a random, non-predictive, and somewhat catastrophic process. It is unfortunate that science is firmly conditioned into accepting this belief and insistence, as well as accepting any shortfalls this insistence imposes on the global data, without further inquiry.

Many scientists have demonstrated that an Earth increasing its size over time is perfectly feasible and provides a better explanation for many geologic observations than does a fixed-radius Earth model. Researchers, such as Lindeman 1927, Hilgenberg 1933, Brösske 1962, Barnett 1962, Dearnley 1965, Owen 1976, Shields 1979, Schmidt and Embleton 1981, Vogel 1983, Luckett 1990s, Scalera 1988, Maxlow 1995, 2001, and Adams 2000s, have each constructed models of the ancient Earth and shown that all of the present-day continents can be neatly assembled together on a fully enclosed smaller radius Pangaean supercontinental Earth some 250 million years ago.

In contrast to conventional plate tectonic reconstructions of past supercontinental assemblages, modern global geological mapping of the oceans and continents is used exclusively in Expansion Tectonic studies to recreate and model the entire 4,000 million years of Earth’s known geological history. Spherical small Earth models constructed by Dr James Maxlow represent accurate models of precise continental and seafloor crustal plate assemblages extending from the early-Archaean to 5 million years into the future. This global geological mapping has only been available since 1990, well after conventional plate tectonics and palaeomagnetics were first established, and its use represents a unique means to accurately constrain and reconstruct past geological plate assemblages independently of conventional palaeomagnetic apparent-polar-wander constraints.

Dr Maxlow considers that the advantages and benefits of using modern global geological mapping to constrain plate assemblages for the entire history of the Earth are immeasurable. The application of geological crustal assemblages to the geosciences is further limited only by ongoing innovation and imagination. Furthermore, Expansion Tectonic small Earth reconstructions are uniquely relevant to science and industry by providing models that are accurate enough to know precisely where a particular research project, mineral discovery, climate change indicator, field project, fossil or mineral find was located on the ancient Earth at any moment in time.

== Evidence ==
When presenting Expansion Tectonics a number of very valid and pertinent questions invariably arise which must be addressed. In doing so, however, it must be remembered Expansion Tectonics is based solely on the best explanation of existing empirical geological evidence. It is not a theory seeking physical support. It is rather a concept proposed which best fits all existing physical geologic data in a much superior manner than does the Plate Tectonic approach. To some extent it’s like a laboratory experiment wherein an unexpected observation is made that is not explained using existing physics. It then begs for extended theoretical models to explain the newly discovered physical facts.

=== Gigantism ===

[[File:AnimalSizes.jpg|thumbnail|350px|The diminishing gigantism for land animals during the past 150 million years <ref>Hurrell, Stephen. "Dinosaurs on the Expanding Earth", 2011</ref>]]The presence of gigantic plants and animals in ancient history can be explained by a smaller earth. Dinosaur size grew to extremes but with time, the largest land animals have diminished in size over the millions of years. Mechanical engineer [[Stephen Hurrell]] has plotted the largest land animals since the age of the dinosaurs and there is a definite reduction in size that could be explained by a smaller, less massive earth.

=== Ancient Magnet Poles ===

The published ancient magnetic pole information (the location of ancient magnetic poles established from measuring the remnant magnetism in iron-rich rocks) in particular provides conclusive evidence in support of Expansion Tectonics. When this magnetic pole data is plotted on Expansion Tectonic models it demonstrates that all pole data plot as diametrically opposed north and south poles for each model.

These models show that the ancient North Pole was located in eastern Mongolia-China throughout the Precambrian and Paleozoic Eras. As the continents slowly migrated south, during subsequent increase in Earth radius, there was an apparent northward polar
wander through Siberia to its present location within the Arctic Ocean. Similarly, the ancient Precambrian and Paleozoic South Pole was located in west central Africa, and, as the continents slowly migrated north, there was an apparent southward polar wander along the South American and West African coastlines to its present location in Antarctica.

The locations of these magnetic poles, as well as the derived ancient equators, independently confirm the model reconstructions shown in Figure 3 and again suggest that Expansion Tectonics is indeed a viable process.

=== Ancient Geography ===

The ancient geography of the Earth forms the basis for defining the inter-relationships of exposed continents, intervening seaways, mountains and crustal movements, and enables the conventional Pangaea, Gondwana, Laurentia, Baltica, Laurussia and Rodinia supercontinents to be quantified on an Expansion Tectonic Earth. The ancient coastlines, when plotted on Expansion Tectonic models, show that large Panthallassa, Tethys and Iapetus Oceans are not required during reconstruction. This is because on an Expansion Tectonic Earth all modern oceans are removed and continents are assembled as a single continental crust. These inferred oceans are instead replaced by smaller Panthallassa, Tethys and Iapetus Seas located on or between the ancient continents.

The early Panthallassa and Iapetus Seas developed during the Early Permian to Early Jurassic periods (260 to 165 million years ago) and initiated as shallow sedimentary basins within the present north west Pacific and North Atlantic Ocean regions respectively. These then progressively opened and extended throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras as the modern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. In contrast, the Tethys Sea had its origins during the Early Precambrian Era as a continental sea located within what is
now Europe and Asia. This sea then progressively enlarged and extended in area during the Precambrian, Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras during crustal extension and subsequent opening of the modern oceans.

Changes in sea-level on an Expansion Tectonic Earth is then shown to occur in response to climatic change, as well as a shift in the distribution of continental seas, to crustal movements, mountain building, erosion, opening of the post-Permian modern oceans and production of new water at the mid-ocean-ridges. These changes all modified the ancient coastal outlines and resulted in a change in the exposed continental land areas. This is confirmed by the distribution of climate-dependant sedimentary rocks such as limestone reefs, and the distribution of climate-dependant marine and terrestrial fossil species. Reconstructions of the conventional Pangaea, Gondwana and Rodinia supercontinents and smaller sub-continents on an Expansion Tectonic Earth demonstrate that, instead of being the result of random dispersion-amalgamation or collisional events, each continental assemblage is progressive, and represents an evolutionary crustal-forming process. The distinguishing feature of continents constructed on each Expansion Tectonic model is the inter-relationship of continental sedimentary basins, the network of continental seas and network of crustal movements. The variation of each of these in time has resulted in changes to the distribution of exposed continental land. Supercontinent configuration is then defined by a progressive extension of continental sedimentary basins, by ongoing crustal movements, and changes in sea-levels as the modern oceans
opened and rapidly increased in area to the present-day.

=== Ancient Biogeography ===

On an Expansion Tectonic Earth the locations of fossilized fauna and flora can be used to illustrate their distribution in relation to the ancient lands and seas, and once again to confirm the established climatic zones as well as the poles and equator. The distribution of various marine fauna, such as the Cambrian and Ordovician trilobites for instance, on an Expansion Tectonic Earth demonstrates the ease and simplification of migration routes and their development during the Palaeozoic Era. Barriers to the migration of trilobites, as well as other related species on an Expansion Tectonic Earth are then simply seen as limited to deep marine restrictions and, to a limited extent, on latitude and climate extremes.

Triassic to Cretaceous dinosaurs, when plotted on Expansion Tectonic Earth models show dinosaur distributions are clustered within three distinct provinces, which coincide with the distribution of ancestral Permian reptiles; their ancient ancestors. These include distributions clustered in the European to Mediterranean region, distributions clustered in central and eastern North America and, distributions clustered in adjacent South Africa and southern South American regions, with links to India. Isolated related distributions also occur in east Australia, south China, and western South America.

The distribution of dinosaurs and ancestral Permian reptiles on an Expansion Tectonic Earth demonstrates the close links between Permian, Triassic and Jurassic species. This link was then disrupted during the early Permian during the initiation of continental break-up, and similarly during the Cretaceous as the various seas merged and sea levels began to rise. As the continents progressively broke up and dispersed there was a marked disruption of established climatic zones, as well as the feeding habitats and migration routes of each endemic species.

The extinction of the dinosaurs is a contentious issue. On an Expansion Tectonic Earth the Cretaceous period coincides with a period of enlargement of continental seas accompanied by a rise in sea-level, an increase in the size of the modern oceans and
progressive disruption to climate. Sea levels peaked on the continents during the Late Cretaceous followed by a rapid draining of continental seas as the modern oceans continued to open.

Expansion Tectonic Earth models suggest there may have been two or more separate oceans existing during the Mesozoic era, with the possibility of separate sea levels. Rifting and merging of these oceans coincides precisely with faunal and floral extinction
events at the end of both the Triassic and Cretaceous periods. This suggests the cause of the dinosaur extinction, which incidentally occurred over a period of 8 to 10 million years, may be linked with periods of relatively rapid sea level change some 65 million
years ago, rather than a speculated asteroidal impact event as currently proposed. The ancient Permian Glossopteris fern is a common fossil in coals throughout the southern hemisphere and has traditionally been used to define the ancient Gondwana supercontinent. The known distribution of Glossopteris ferns is centred on localities in South Africa and adjacent India. During the Permian period East Antarctica straddled the equator adjacent to South Africa, which was surrounded by occurrences of Glossopteris flora in Australia, West Antarctica and India, suggesting Glossopteris flora may have also been extensive beneath the present East Antarctica ice-cap.

The distribution of Permian Glossopteris ferns, when plotted on Expansion Tectonic models, straddles the ancient equator and ranges from high-northern to high-southern latitudes. This suggests Glossopteris ferns were tropical to cool temperate species, confirmed by the fossil evidence, which shows a Gondwana climate commencing with an ice-age and passing through a cold, but wet temperate to warm temperate climate during the Late Paleozoic Era.

These ancient biogeographic examples, while limited, briefly illustrate the ease and simplification of migration and development of all faunal and floral species on an Expansion Tectonic Earth. The inter-relationships of global and provincial distributions are then intimately maintained without the need for complex conventional continental assemblage-dispersal requirements.

During continental break-up and opening of the modern oceans on an Expansion Tectonic Earth, the distributions of species and migration routes were disrupted, forcing species endemic to the various regions to interact, extend their boundaries, fragment or simply become extinct with time. The timing of ocean development in many of these areas is also reflected in the changes in sea-level, facilitating marine faunal migration by extending and expanding immigration routes and moderating climatic differences.

=== Ancient Climate ===

The ancient climate on Expansion Tectonic Earth models can be investigated by plotting the distribution of selected climate-dependant rocks and comparing the distribution patterns with the location of established ancient poles and equators. Correlation of coal swamps, thick sandstone sequences and glacial rocks are excellent indicators of wet climates, while dry climates are indicated by evaporates, such as salt deposits, and equatorial regions by limestone reefs.

The glacial record shows four major glacial eras, including the Early Proterozoic Era, the Late Proterozoic Era, the Early and Late Paleozoic Era and the Late Cenozoic Era. The distribution of glacial deposits on an Expansion Tectonic Earth is also useful in checking
the location of established magnetic poles and equators plotted from magnetic data. The distribution of many of these Precambrian marine glacial deposits, many of which occur in conjunction with equatorial limestone and iron-rich rocks, is an enigma for Plate
Tectonic reconstructions. In contrast, on an Expansion Tectonic Earth the relatively short pole to equator distances existing during this time allowed sea-ice to readily float into equatorial regions, depositing glacial rock debris amongst the existing warm climatic rocks as it melted.

The distribution of Early and Late Paleozoic glacial deposits coincides with a South Pole located in west central Africa, with isolated mountainous ice-centres located in Europe, Australia and South America. A northward shift in climate zonation and an absence of a permanent north polar ice-cap is a prominent feature of glacial, carbonate and coal distributions at that time. This northward shift suggests an Earth rotational axis, inclined to the pole of the ecliptic, was well established by the beginning of the Paleozoic Era and has remained at a similar inclination to the present-day.

The distribution of Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic oil and gas resources coincides with the development of major continental and marginal basin settings. A broad zonation of deposits is evident from this distribution which straddles the established ancient equator and extends from low-southern to mid-northern latitudes. This distribution again suggests a northward shift in climatic zonation.

When viewed in context with global and local sea-level changes, oil and gas development coincides with periods of rising sea-levels and maximum surficial areas of continental seas. The Cretaceous in particular coincides with a period of post-Late Paleozoic glacial melting, a rapid opening of the modern oceans, generally warm climatic conditions and rapid biotic diversification.

The Early to Late Cretaceous distribution of coal shows two broad temperate belts located north and south of the ancient equator. On an Expansion Tectonic Earth a latitudinal shift in coal deposition through time is reflected in the rapid opening of each of the modern oceans, and similarly in the northward migration of continents during the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras. The predominance of coal deposits in the northern hemisphere is here attributed to the greater extent of landmass influencing rainfall and to the extent of remnant continental basins suitable for coal formation.

The distribution of all latitude dependent rocks on Expansion Tectonic Earth models is shown to coincide precisely with the ancient equators established from magnetic pole data. In each case a distinct latitudinal zonation paralleling the palaeoequator is evident,
and a distinct northward shift in climatic zonation consistently suggests that an inclined Earth rotational axis, inclined to the pole of the ecliptic, was well established during the Palaeozoic persisting to the Recent.

== History ==
[[File:HilgenbergModels.jpg|thumbnail|450px|Models by [[Ott Christoph Hilgenberg]], a German engineer and scientist who was a modern pioneer in expansion tectonics (1933)]]The first known hypothesis of expansion tectonics was made by [[Roberto Mantovani]] who in 1889 and 1909 talked of an expanding earth and continental drift.

=== Samuel Warren Carey ===

=== Crustal Age ===
In the 1960s, NOAA created the first crustal age map which revealed that no part of the ocean was older than 230 million years.

== Plate Tectonics Objections for Expansion Tectonics ==
When comparing expansion tectonics to plate tectonics, there are some logical questions that arise given their differences.

=== Subduction ===

Subduction of crusts beneath continents is an artifact of the basic Plate Tectonic requirement for a static radius Earth. To maintain a Plate Tectonic static radius Earth the new oceanic crusts accumulating along the mid-ocean-spreading ridges must then be continuously disposed of elsewhere, displacing and recycling preexisting crusts into the mantle by subduction. Modern planetary studies have shown this process to be unique to planet Earth, and hence without subduction Plate Tectonics cannot exist.

In Plate Tectonic theory, subduction zones mark sites of convective down welling of the Earths crust as well as part of the upper mantle. Subduction zones are postulated to exist at convergent plate boundaries around the margins of the Pacific Ocean, where oceanic and continental crustal plates converge with other plates and sink below to depths of approximately 100 kilometres, thereby recycling crust, sediment and trapped water into the deep mantle.

On an Expansion Tectonic Earth subduction of between 5,000 to 15,000 kilometres of Pacific oceanic crust beneath North America, for instance, is unnecessary. All subduction-related observational data simply record the crustal interaction between adjoining thick continental crusts, and relatively thin oceanic crusts during ongoing change in surface curvature. As Earth radius increases with time the surface curvature of the Earth flattens, giving rise to crustal interaction and jostling of plates along their margins as they stretch and distort during gravity-induced flattening.

=== Supercontinents ===

On an Expansion Tectonic Earth, prior to the Triassic period, about 200 million years ago, the modern deep oceans did not exist. All continental crust was united to form a single supercontinent called Pangaea, enclosing the entire ancient Earth at about 3,200 kilometres radius – approximately 52% of the present Earth radius. Geographical studies show oceans prior to the Triassic period were then represented by a network of continental seas, with sediments deposited within continental basins masking all evidence of sea floor spreading. Exposed lands and varying coastal outlines prior to this time were similarly represented by the ancient Gondwana, Laurentia, Baltica and Laurussia supercontinents, and prior to that again by the ancient Rodinia supercontinent and smaller sub-continents.

=== Mountain building ===

In Plate Tectonics it is generally assumed that mountain building results from collision between ancient plates as they randomly move over the Earths surface under the influence of mantle convection currents. Researchers elsewhere have therefore concluded because Earth expansion is a radial process, and hence extensional, the process cannot explain the compression required for mountain building.

While seemingly logical from a Plate Tectonic perspective, it is illogical from an Expansion Tectonic perspective. As the Earth radius increases the continental crust must distort, bend, twist and turn as it continuously flattens and adjusts during change in surface curvature. During this ongoing gravity-induced crustal flattening process compression causes folding of the soft sediments within sedimentary basins, as well as faulting, volcanic intrusion and metamorphism (heating and compression of the rocks). When the continents began to break-up and disperse 200 million years ago, the edges of the newly formed continents then flexed and rose vertically to form the great escarpments and mountain ranges as the interiors collapse during ongoing changing surface curvature. This process is cyclical during ongoing increase in Earth radius, resulting in multiple and overlapping phases of mountain building, planation, sedimentation, uplift and erosion. What about past measurements of Earth radius?

Palaeomagnetic measurements were first used during the 1960s to early 1970s to establish an ancient Earth radius. This information was then used in an attempt to resolve debate once and for all on whether the Earth radius is increasing or not. The outcome of this research was the conclusion that Earth radius is not increasing and this has of course since swayed popular opinion towards Plate Tectonics, without fully appreciating the implications of the outcome.

While the various researchers went to great lengths to present quality data and sound methodology, it should be realized at that time there was very little agreement as to what
a potential Earth expansion may or may not have been. What the researchers failed to comprehend was the significance of magnetic pole locations determined from conventional palaeomagnetic formulae. These are virtual pole locations, not actual locations. Because of this oversight they then made incorrect assumptions regarding application of the ancient latitude and colatitude to determine radius.

When the Expansion Tectonic magnetic pole locations for Africa are correctly used, the palaeomagnetic data, in contrast to published conclusions, conclusively quantify a Triassic Expansion Tectonic Earth radius. This, in conjunction with the diametrically opposed North and South Pole plots, represents definitive proof in support of an expanding Earth.

=== Geodetic measurements ===

Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to subcentimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year. This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact “expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr” and went on to recommend the vertical motion be “restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr”. This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.

These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading.

== Expansion Tectonics Today ==

== Possible Mechanisms for Expansion and Mass Increase ==

== References ==
<references />

Expansion tectonics

2017-03-16T00:01:15Z

Admin:

{{Wikipedia_dispute|Expanding earth}}

[[File:CrustalAgeMapNOAA.gif|thumbnail|500px|The Crustal Age map from NOAA is considered by expansion tectonics as the most important geological map in modern geology]]Expansion Tectonics is a geology-based tectonic theory that is used to describe, model, and reconstruct the large-scale evolution and assemblage of Earths tectonic plates on an Earth that has been slowly gaining in size and mass over billions of years. This theory, and associated modelling studies, extends in time from the early-Archaean–some 4,000 million years ago–through to the present day and is readily extrapolated to the future. Modelling studies demonstrate that changing configurations of the supercontinents, breakup of the Pangaean supercontinent, formation of the Earth’s modern continents, as well as sympathetic opening of each of the modern oceans is progressive, predictive, and evolutionary.

Expansion Tectonic theory builds on the largely historical Expanding Earth theory which was initially developed during the 19th and first few decades of the 20th century. This historical theory was extensively promoted by the Emeritus Professor Samuel Warren Carey of the University of Tasmania during the 1950s, and was modeled by Klaus Vogel of East Germany and Jan Koziar of the Wroclaw University, Poland during the 1980s. The theory was unceremoniously rejected by science during the mid-1960s in favour of plate tectonics, based on limited and inconclusive palaeomagnetic studies of ancient Earth radius. Since that time there has been a considerable amount of modern global observational data collected from all fields of the Earth sciences which are now available to thoroughly test and evaluate all tectonic theories.

Apart from its implicit assumption of a constant radius Earth, there is very little data in conventional plate tectonics that is incompatible with the largely historical Expanding Earth theory, and vice versa. It is the same global data gathered about the same Earth—just interpreted differently. Rather than artificially constraining modern plate tectonic observational data and plate tectonic thinking to a constant-sized Earth—the current dogma—modern scientific methodology insists that this new global observational data be tested to see if the data, and hence the basis of plate tectonic theory, are not better suited to an increasing radius Earth scenario.

The historical terms Earth Expansion, Expanding Earth, and similarly Growing Earth, refer to changes to the shape and size of the Earth, as well as motions of the various crusts on an Earth whose surface area increases with time in sympathy with an increase in Earth mass and radius. These terms are synonymous but now largely unpopular. To avoid confusion with these redundant theories Expansion Tectonics is used to encompass each of these terms in relation to modern observational evidence. The term Expansion Tectonics was first introduced in 1995 by Australian geologist Dr [[James Maxlow]] and subsequent quantification of this new science is based on an extensive range of modern global tectonic data.

== Why Expansion Tectonics ==
Dr. James Maxlow explains the problem with accepting expansion tectonics as the prevailing theory:

:''The problem with expansion tectonics being accepted as the principal theory in geology lies in the fact that only one solution is available (plate tectonics) to understand geological phenomena. All else is actively discouraged in the literature and hence is not available to compare and contrast. It is unfortunate that plate tectonics and expanding earth theories are portrayed as either/or theories, two ends of a spectrum of possibilities. They are not. As I have come to appreciate in my 25 years of research into expansion tectonics, all global data is the same regardless of which theory you follow. Theory must be able to explain the observational data. The research and modelling studies presented in each of my books is modern global tectonic data and the more I research this data the more I appreciate that expansion tectonics can just as easily be called plate tectonics on an increasing radius earth model. All of the evidence geologists examine and explain with plate tectonics can adequately be explained and quantified on an increasing radius earth model. The problem lies in the fact that geologists have not had access to my research because peer pressure does not allow me to publish in mainstream journals or high end publishers.''

== Evidence ==
When presenting Expansion Tectonics a number of very valid and pertinent questions invariably arise which must be addressed. In doing so, however, it must be remembered Expansion Tectonics is based solely on the best explanation of existing empirical geological evidence. It is not a theory seeking physical support. It is rather a concept proposed which best fits all existing physical geologic data in a much superior manner than does the Plate Tectonic approach. To some extent it’s like a laboratory experiment wherein an unexpected observation is made that is not explained using existing physics. It then begs for extended theoretical models to explain the newly discovered physical facts.

=== Gigantism ===

[[File:AnimalSizes.jpg|thumbnail|350px|The diminishing gigantism for land animals during the past 150 million years <ref>Hurrell, Stephen. "Dinosaurs on the Expanding Earth", 2011</ref>]]The presence of gigantic plants and animals in ancient history can be explained by a smaller earth. Dinosaur size grew to extremes but with time, the largest land animals have diminished in size over the millions of years. Mechanical engineer [[Stephen Hurrell]] has plotted the largest land animals since the age of the dinosaurs and there is a definite reduction in size that could be explained by a smaller, less massive earth.

=== Ancient Magnet Poles ===

The published ancient magnetic pole information (the location of ancient magnetic poles established from measuring the remnant magnetism in iron-rich rocks) in particular provides conclusive evidence in support of Expansion Tectonics. When this magnetic pole data is plotted on Expansion Tectonic models it demonstrates that all pole data plot as diametrically opposed north and south poles for each model.

These models show that the ancient North Pole was located in eastern Mongolia-China throughout the Precambrian and Paleozoic Eras. As the continents slowly migrated south, during subsequent increase in Earth radius, there was an apparent northward polar
wander through Siberia to its present location within the Arctic Ocean. Similarly, the ancient Precambrian and Paleozoic South Pole was located in west central Africa, and, as the continents slowly migrated north, there was an apparent southward polar wander along the South American and West African coastlines to its present location in Antarctica.

The locations of these magnetic poles, as well as the derived ancient equators, independently confirm the model reconstructions shown in Figure 3 and again suggest that Expansion Tectonics is indeed a viable process.

=== Ancient Geography ===

The ancient geography of the Earth forms the basis for defining the inter-relationships of exposed continents, intervening seaways, mountains and crustal movements, and enables the conventional Pangaea, Gondwana, Laurentia, Baltica, Laurussia and Rodinia supercontinents to be quantified on an Expansion Tectonic Earth. The ancient coastlines, when plotted on Expansion Tectonic models, show that large Panthallassa, Tethys and Iapetus Oceans are not required during reconstruction. This is because on an Expansion Tectonic Earth all modern oceans are removed and continents are assembled as a single continental crust. These inferred oceans are instead replaced by smaller Panthallassa, Tethys and Iapetus Seas located on or between the ancient continents.

The early Panthallassa and Iapetus Seas developed during the Early Permian to Early Jurassic periods (260 to 165 million years ago) and initiated as shallow sedimentary basins within the present north west Pacific and North Atlantic Ocean regions respectively. These then progressively opened and extended throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras as the modern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. In contrast, the Tethys Sea had its origins during the Early Precambrian Era as a continental sea located within what is
now Europe and Asia. This sea then progressively enlarged and extended in area during the Precambrian, Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras during crustal extension and subsequent opening of the modern oceans.

Changes in sea-level on an Expansion Tectonic Earth is then shown to occur in response to climatic change, as well as a shift in the distribution of continental seas, to crustal movements, mountain building, erosion, opening of the post-Permian modern oceans and production of new water at the mid-ocean-ridges. These changes all modified the ancient coastal outlines and resulted in a change in the exposed continental land areas. This is confirmed by the distribution of climate-dependant sedimentary rocks such as limestone reefs, and the distribution of climate-dependant marine and terrestrial fossil species. Reconstructions of the conventional Pangaea, Gondwana and Rodinia supercontinents and smaller sub-continents on an Expansion Tectonic Earth demonstrate that, instead of being the result of random dispersion-amalgamation or collisional events, each continental assemblage is progressive, and represents an evolutionary crustal-forming process. The distinguishing feature of continents constructed on each Expansion Tectonic model is the inter-relationship of continental sedimentary basins, the network of continental seas and network of crustal movements. The variation of each of these in time has resulted in changes to the distribution of exposed continental land. Supercontinent configuration is then defined by a progressive extension of continental sedimentary basins, by ongoing crustal movements, and changes in sea-levels as the modern oceans
opened and rapidly increased in area to the present-day.

=== Ancient Biogeography ===

On an Expansion Tectonic Earth the locations of fossilized fauna and flora can be used to illustrate their distribution in relation to the ancient lands and seas, and once again to confirm the established climatic zones as well as the poles and equator. The distribution of various marine fauna, such as the Cambrian and Ordovician trilobites for instance, on an Expansion Tectonic Earth demonstrates the ease and simplification of migration routes and their development during the Palaeozoic Era. Barriers to the migration of trilobites, as well as other related species on an Expansion Tectonic Earth are then simply seen as limited to deep marine restrictions and, to a limited extent, on latitude and climate extremes.

Triassic to Cretaceous dinosaurs, when plotted on Expansion Tectonic Earth models show dinosaur distributions are clustered within three distinct provinces, which coincide with the distribution of ancestral Permian reptiles; their ancient ancestors. These include distributions clustered in the European to Mediterranean region, distributions clustered in central and eastern North America and, distributions clustered in adjacent South Africa and southern South American regions, with links to India. Isolated related distributions also occur in east Australia, south China, and western South America.

The distribution of dinosaurs and ancestral Permian reptiles on an Expansion Tectonic Earth demonstrates the close links between Permian, Triassic and Jurassic species. This link was then disrupted during the early Permian during the initiation of continental break-up, and similarly during the Cretaceous as the various seas merged and sea levels began to rise. As the continents progressively broke up and dispersed there was a marked disruption of established climatic zones, as well as the feeding habitats and migration routes of each endemic species.

The extinction of the dinosaurs is a contentious issue. On an Expansion Tectonic Earth the Cretaceous period coincides with a period of enlargement of continental seas accompanied by a rise in sea-level, an increase in the size of the modern oceans and
progressive disruption to climate. Sea levels peaked on the continents during the Late Cretaceous followed by a rapid draining of continental seas as the modern oceans continued to open.

Expansion Tectonic Earth models suggest there may have been two or more separate oceans existing during the Mesozoic era, with the possibility of separate sea levels. Rifting and merging of these oceans coincides precisely with faunal and floral extinction
events at the end of both the Triassic and Cretaceous periods. This suggests the cause of the dinosaur extinction, which incidentally occurred over a period of 8 to 10 million years, may be linked with periods of relatively rapid sea level change some 65 million
years ago, rather than a speculated asteroidal impact event as currently proposed. The ancient Permian Glossopteris fern is a common fossil in coals throughout the southern hemisphere and has traditionally been used to define the ancient Gondwana supercontinent. The known distribution of Glossopteris ferns is centred on localities in South Africa and adjacent India. During the Permian period East Antarctica straddled the equator adjacent to South Africa, which was surrounded by occurrences of Glossopteris flora in Australia, West Antarctica and India, suggesting Glossopteris flora may have also been extensive beneath the present East Antarctica ice-cap.

The distribution of Permian Glossopteris ferns, when plotted on Expansion Tectonic models, straddles the ancient equator and ranges from high-northern to high-southern latitudes. This suggests Glossopteris ferns were tropical to cool temperate species, confirmed by the fossil evidence, which shows a Gondwana climate commencing with an ice-age and passing through a cold, but wet temperate to warm temperate climate during the Late Paleozoic Era.

These ancient biogeographic examples, while limited, briefly illustrate the ease and simplification of migration and development of all faunal and floral species on an Expansion Tectonic Earth. The inter-relationships of global and provincial distributions are then intimately maintained without the need for complex conventional continental assemblage-dispersal requirements.

During continental break-up and opening of the modern oceans on an Expansion Tectonic Earth, the distributions of species and migration routes were disrupted, forcing species endemic to the various regions to interact, extend their boundaries, fragment or simply become extinct with time. The timing of ocean development in many of these areas is also reflected in the changes in sea-level, facilitating marine faunal migration by extending and expanding immigration routes and moderating climatic differences.

=== Ancient Climate ===

The ancient climate on Expansion Tectonic Earth models can be investigated by plotting the distribution of selected climate-dependant rocks and comparing the distribution patterns with the location of established ancient poles and equators. Correlation of coal swamps, thick sandstone sequences and glacial rocks are excellent indicators of wet climates, while dry climates are indicated by evaporates, such as salt deposits, and equatorial regions by limestone reefs.

The glacial record shows four major glacial eras, including the Early Proterozoic Era, the Late Proterozoic Era, the Early and Late Paleozoic Era and the Late Cenozoic Era. The distribution of glacial deposits on an Expansion Tectonic Earth is also useful in checking
the location of established magnetic poles and equators plotted from magnetic data. The distribution of many of these Precambrian marine glacial deposits, many of which occur in conjunction with equatorial limestone and iron-rich rocks, is an enigma for Plate
Tectonic reconstructions. In contrast, on an Expansion Tectonic Earth the relatively short pole to equator distances existing during this time allowed sea-ice to readily float into equatorial regions, depositing glacial rock debris amongst the existing warm climatic rocks as it melted.

The distribution of Early and Late Paleozoic glacial deposits coincides with a South Pole located in west central Africa, with isolated mountainous ice-centres located in Europe, Australia and South America. A northward shift in climate zonation and an absence of a permanent north polar ice-cap is a prominent feature of glacial, carbonate and coal distributions at that time. This northward shift suggests an Earth rotational axis, inclined to the pole of the ecliptic, was well established by the beginning of the Paleozoic Era and has remained at a similar inclination to the present-day.

The distribution of Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic oil and gas resources coincides with the development of major continental and marginal basin settings. A broad zonation of deposits is evident from this distribution which straddles the established ancient equator and extends from low-southern to mid-northern latitudes. This distribution again suggests a northward shift in climatic zonation.

When viewed in context with global and local sea-level changes, oil and gas development coincides with periods of rising sea-levels and maximum surficial areas of continental seas. The Cretaceous in particular coincides with a period of post-Late Paleozoic glacial melting, a rapid opening of the modern oceans, generally warm climatic conditions and rapid biotic diversification.

The Early to Late Cretaceous distribution of coal shows two broad temperate belts located north and south of the ancient equator. On an Expansion Tectonic Earth a latitudinal shift in coal deposition through time is reflected in the rapid opening of each of the modern oceans, and similarly in the northward migration of continents during the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras. The predominance of coal deposits in the northern hemisphere is here attributed to the greater extent of landmass influencing rainfall and to the extent of remnant continental basins suitable for coal formation.

The distribution of all latitude dependent rocks on Expansion Tectonic Earth models is shown to coincide precisely with the ancient equators established from magnetic pole data. In each case a distinct latitudinal zonation paralleling the palaeoequator is evident,
and a distinct northward shift in climatic zonation consistently suggests that an inclined Earth rotational axis, inclined to the pole of the ecliptic, was well established during the Palaeozoic persisting to the Recent.

== History ==
[[File:HilgenbergModels.jpg|thumbnail|450px|Models by [[Ott Christoph Hilgenberg]], a German engineer and scientist who was a modern pioneer in expansion tectonics (1933)]]The first known hypothesis of expansion tectonics was made by [[Roberto Mantovani]] who in 1889 and 1909 talked of an expanding earth and continental drift.

=== Samuel Warren Carey ===

=== Crustal Age ===
In the 1960s, NOAA created the first crustal age map which revealed that no part of the ocean was older than 230 million years.

== Plate Tectonics Objections for Expansion Tectonics ==
When comparing expansion tectonics to plate tectonics, there are some logical questions that arise given their differences.

=== Subduction ===

Subduction of crusts beneath continents is an artifact of the basic Plate Tectonic requirement for a static radius Earth. To maintain a Plate Tectonic static radius Earth the new oceanic crusts accumulating along the mid-ocean-spreading ridges must then be continuously disposed of elsewhere, displacing and recycling preexisting crusts into the mantle by subduction. Modern planetary studies have shown this process to be unique to planet Earth, and hence without subduction Plate Tectonics cannot exist.

In Plate Tectonic theory, subduction zones mark sites of convective down welling of the Earths crust as well as part of the upper mantle. Subduction zones are postulated to exist at convergent plate boundaries around the margins of the Pacific Ocean, where oceanic and continental crustal plates converge with other plates and sink below to depths of approximately 100 kilometres, thereby recycling crust, sediment and trapped water into the deep mantle.

On an Expansion Tectonic Earth subduction of between 5,000 to 15,000 kilometres of Pacific oceanic crust beneath North America, for instance, is unnecessary. All subduction-related observational data simply record the crustal interaction between adjoining thick continental crusts, and relatively thin oceanic crusts during ongoing change in surface curvature. As Earth radius increases with time the surface curvature of the Earth flattens, giving rise to crustal interaction and jostling of plates along their margins as they stretch and distort during gravity-induced flattening.

=== Supercontinents ===

On an Expansion Tectonic Earth, prior to the Triassic period, about 200 million years ago, the modern deep oceans did not exist. All continental crust was united to form a single supercontinent called Pangaea, enclosing the entire ancient Earth at about 3,200 kilometres radius – approximately 52% of the present Earth radius. Geographical studies show oceans prior to the Triassic period were then represented by a network of continental seas, with sediments deposited within continental basins masking all evidence of sea floor spreading. Exposed lands and varying coastal outlines prior to this time were similarly represented by the ancient Gondwana, Laurentia, Baltica and Laurussia supercontinents, and prior to that again by the ancient Rodinia supercontinent and smaller sub-continents.

=== Mountain building ===

In Plate Tectonics it is generally assumed that mountain building results from collision between ancient plates as they randomly move over the Earths surface under the influence of mantle convection currents. Researchers elsewhere have therefore concluded because Earth expansion is a radial process, and hence extensional, the process cannot explain the compression required for mountain building.

While seemingly logical from a Plate Tectonic perspective, it is illogical from an Expansion Tectonic perspective. As the Earth radius increases the continental crust must distort, bend, twist and turn as it continuously flattens and adjusts during change in surface curvature. During this ongoing gravity-induced crustal flattening process compression causes folding of the soft sediments within sedimentary basins, as well as faulting, volcanic intrusion and metamorphism (heating and compression of the rocks). When the continents began to break-up and disperse 200 million years ago, the edges of the newly formed continents then flexed and rose vertically to form the great escarpments and mountain ranges as the interiors collapse during ongoing changing surface curvature. This process is cyclical during ongoing increase in Earth radius, resulting in multiple and overlapping phases of mountain building, planation, sedimentation, uplift and erosion. What about past measurements of Earth radius?

Palaeomagnetic measurements were first used during the 1960s to early 1970s to establish an ancient Earth radius. This information was then used in an attempt to resolve debate once and for all on whether the Earth radius is increasing or not. The outcome of this research was the conclusion that Earth radius is not increasing and this has of course since swayed popular opinion towards Plate Tectonics, without fully appreciating the implications of the outcome.

While the various researchers went to great lengths to present quality data and sound methodology, it should be realized at that time there was very little agreement as to what
a potential Earth expansion may or may not have been. What the researchers failed to comprehend was the significance of magnetic pole locations determined from conventional palaeomagnetic formulae. These are virtual pole locations, not actual locations. Because of this oversight they then made incorrect assumptions regarding application of the ancient latitude and colatitude to determine radius.

When the Expansion Tectonic magnetic pole locations for Africa are correctly used, the palaeomagnetic data, in contrast to published conclusions, conclusively quantify a Triassic Expansion Tectonic Earth radius. This, in conjunction with the diametrically opposed North and South Pole plots, represents definitive proof in support of an expanding Earth.

=== Geodetic measurements ===

Space geodetics is modern technology that uses satellites and radio telescopes to routinely measure the dimensions of the Earth and plate motions of the continents to subcentimetre accuracy. During the early 1990s, when enough ground stations were established to form a global network, the global excess in radius was found to be 18 mm/year – i.e. the measurements showed that the Earth was expanding by 18 mm/year. This value was considered to be “extremely high” when compared to expected deglaciation rates during melting of the polar ice-caps, estimated at less than 10 mm/year. The researchers in fact “expected that most … stations will have up-down motions of only a few mm/yr” and went on to recommend the vertical motion be “restricted to zero, because this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/yr”. This recommendation is now reflected in current mathematical solutions to the global radius, where global solutions are effectively constrained to zero.

These recommendations are justified from a constant Earth radius Plate Tectonic perspective. The 18 mm/year excess was considered to be an error in atmospheric correction, so was simply zeroed out. What must be appreciated is that without an acknowledgment of a potential increase in Earth radius NASA had no option but to correct this value to zero, and hence adopt a static Earth radius premise. From an Expansion Tectonic Earth perspective, however, the 18 mm/year excess equates with a present day value of 22 mm/year increase in Earth radius, determined independently from measurements of areas of sea floor spreading.

== Expansion Tectonics Today ==

== Possible Mechanisms for Expansion and Mass Increase ==

== References ==
<references />

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2016-12-30T15:47:07Z

Admin:

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2016-12-30T15:44:14Z

Admin:

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2016-12-30T15:43:23Z

Admin:

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2016-12-30T15:39:26Z

Admin:

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2016-12-30T15:39:01Z

Admin:

* navigation
** mainpage|mainpage-description
** http://www.naturalphilosophy.org Our Organization
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges
** randompage-url|randompage
** helppage|help
* SEARCH
* TOOLBOX
* LANGUAGES

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2016-12-30T15:38:09Z

Admin: Created page with " * navigation ** mainpage|mainpage-description ** CNPS|http://www.naturalphilosophy.org Our Organization ** recentchanges-url|recentchanges ** randompage-url|randompage ** hel..."

Natural Philosophy Wiki:Copyrights

2016-12-30T15:32:04Z

Admin: Created page with "All information shared here is for public consumption and can be used, copied, or distributed for any type of use electronically, in print, or using other mediums."

All information shared here is for public consumption and can be used, copied, or distributed for any type of use electronically, in print, or using other mediums.

Main Page

2016-12-30T15:30:46Z

Admin:

{| class="wikitable"
|'''QUICK LINKS:'''
|[[:Category:Scientist|scientists]]
|[[:Category:Book|books]]
|[[:Category:Scientific Paper|scientific papers]]
|[[:Category:Scientific Organization|organizations]]
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|'''TOPICS:'''
|[[:Category:Aether|Aether]]
|[[:Category:Cosmology|Cosmology]]
|[[:Category:Electrodynamics|Electrodynamics]]
|[[:Category:Expansion Tectonics|Expansion Tectonics]]
|[[:Category:Gravity|Gravity]]
|[[:Category:Particle Physics|Particle Physics]]
|[[:Category:Philosophy|Philosophy]]
|[[:Category:New Energy|New Energy]]
|[[:Category:Relativity|Relativity]]
|[[:Category:Structures|Structures]]
|[[:Category:Tesla|Tesla]]
|-
|}
==Natural Philosophers Wikipedia==
'''''[[File:CNPSLogoSlogan.jpg|frame]]The purpose of this wikipedia is to provide a place where students and lovers of science can come and see a more "critical" view of mainstream science and viable alternatives to consensus-driven knowledge collection.'''''

This is in contrast to [http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia.org]'s whose scientific knowledge represents today's consensus with very little critical thought. In times of scientific revolution, consensus can end up perpetuating outdated and bad science and theory. The current "Standard Model" is broken beyond compare and new philosophies, theories, and models are being proposed. But these new ideas by professors, PHDs, scientists, engineers, and layman are being systematically repressed on wikipedia by "intellectuals" and not be critical thinkers.

This wiki provides a place where current physics and cosmology theory can be openingly challenged, and new and serious philosophies, theories, and models can be proposed without being labeled "pseudo science". Here you will find the [[:Category:Scientist|scientists]], [[:Category:Book|books]], [[:Category:Scientific Paper|scientific papers]], websites, and [[:Category:Scientific Organization|organizations]] that are on the forefront of fixing today's broken science.

We do not allow for everyone in the public to edit this wiki. Believe it or not, we do this because consensus censors are not working, often relegating new science, theories, and models into pseudo-science, not allowing for critical thinkers to pursue new directions that are vital for the advancement of science.

==Challenging Mainstream==

Some of the current theories being challenged:
* [[Big Bang]] (replaced by an [[Eternal Universe]])
* [[Plate Tectonics]] (replaced by [[Expansion Tectonics]])
* [[Relativity]] ([[Special relativity]], [[General relativity]])
* [[Standard Model]]

Here you will find those people who are unafraid to look at the obvious problems and propose new alternatives to current theory. This wiki is sponsored and maintained by the [[John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society]].

''NP Wiki Editor'',

[[David de Hilster]]

== Getting started ==
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]

Main Page

2016-12-30T15:26:59Z

Admin:

{| class="wikitable"
|'''QUICK LINKS:'''
|[[:Category:Scientist|scientists]]
|[[:Category:Book|books]]
|[[:Category:Scientific Paper|scientific papers]]
|[[:Category:Scientific Organization|organizations]]
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|'''TOPICS:'''
|[[:Category:Aether|Aether]]
|[[:Category:Cosmology|Cosmology]]
|[[:Category:Electrodynamics|Electrodynamics]]
|[[:Category:Expansion Tectonics|Expansion Tectonics]]
|[[:Category:Gravity|Gravity]]
|[[:Category:Particle Physics|Particle Physics]]
|[[:Category:Philosophy|Philosophy]]
|[[:Category:New Energy|New Energy]]
|[[:Category:Relativity|Relativity]]
|[[:Category:Structures|Structures]]
|[[:Category:Tesla|Tesla]]
|-
|}
==Natural Philosophers Wikipedia==
[[File:CNPSLogoSlogan.jpg|frame]]The purpose of this wikipedia is to provide a place where students and lovers of science can come and see a more "critical" view of mainstream science and viable alternatives to consensus-driven knowledge collection.

This is in contrast to "consensus" which is [http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia.org]'s overiding mechanism for creating a repository of human knowledge. In times of scientific revolution, consensus can end up perpetuating bad science and bad theory. The current "Standard Model" is broken beyond compare and new philosophies, theories, and models are being proposed. But these new ideas by professors, PHDs, scientists, engineers, and layman are being systematically repressed on wikipedia by "intellectuals" and not be critical thinkers.

This wiki provides a place where current physics and cosmology theory can be openingly challenged, and new and serious philosophies, theories, and models can be proposed without being labeled "pseudo science". Here you will find the [[:Category:Scientist|scientists]], [[:Category:Book|books]], [[:Category:Scientific Paper|scientific papers]], websites, and [[:Category:Scientific Organization|organizations]] that are on the forefront of fixing today's broken science.

We do not allow for everyone in the public to edit this wiki. Believe it or not, we do this because consensus censors are not working, often relegating new science, theories, and models into pseudo-science, not allowing for critical thinkers to pursue new directions that are vital for the advancement of science.

==Challenging Mainstream==

Some of the current theories being challenged:
* [[Big Bang]] (replaced by an [[Eternal Universe]])
* [[Plate Tectonics]] (replaced by [[Expansion Tectonics]])
* [[Relativity]] ([[Special relativity]], [[General relativity]])
* [[Standard Model]]

Here you will find those people who are unafraid to look at the obvious problems and propose new alternatives to current theory. This wiki is sponsored and maintained by the [[John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society]].

''NP Wiki Editor'',

[[David de Hilster]]

== Getting started ==
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]

Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion: Validation of Mach's Principle?

2016-12-30T05:46:09Z

Admin: /* Acknowledgements */

{{Infobox paper
| title = Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion: Validation of Mach\'s Principle?
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5977.pdf Link to paper]
| author = [[Stewart Ian Wells]]
| published = 2011
| journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]]
| volume = [[8]]
| num_pages = 4
| pages = 687-690
}}

'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5977.pdf here]

==Abstract==

A discussion of angular momentum conservation in the context of the long-standing controversy over Absolute vs. Relative space raises doubts on the consistency of an aspect of Newtonian mechanics in situations involving compound rotational dynamics. Historical review of such problems, those noted by Laithwaite in particular, introduces the issue: A paradox arises in situations in which precessing gyroscopes revolve at the respective ?poles' of a spherical gravitating body, or are mounted in the framework of an accelerating system. Difficulties in conformance to the classical law of angular momentum conservation are encountered. A resolution is presented, theoretically possible within Newtonian mechanics; but such resolution raises further questions regarding both the quantification of centrifugal force, and of gyroscopic torque, in the precessional motion of generalized rigid bodies. Meticulous analysis of the problem, with close attention to Centrifugal, Coriolis and Eulerian torques on mass elements, results in a dilemma for the mechanics of rotation: either the axis of rotation does not necessarily pass through the center of mass of a system but perambulates about it due to a deficit of centrifugal force, or classical angular momentum is not always conserved but is upset by wayward gyroscopic torque. A theoretical design is presented in which internal angular momentum may increase indefinitely. The phenomena suggest adoption of a Machian-style interaction to preserve the laws of motion; however, potential difficulties in conforming such a solution to the inertia tensor are presented. A curious correspondence with Meno's gyron theory is also described.

==Introduction==
One thing more: The ultimate paired and balanced angular momentum system is the angular momentum quantum h 2? , known to quantum physics as ? , where h is Planck’s constant, the quantum of action. The two masses involved in this angular momentum coupling, into which all angular momentum systems ultimately reduce, are those which have been conventionally called the ‘electron’ and ‘proton’. In the Angular Momentum Synthesis, however, the conventional ‘charge’ on these particles in coulombs is cashed-out in equivalent terms of spin kinetic energy in joules, where the spin is that ascribed to the ‘electron’ by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit. Due to the conservation of angular momentum, when one atom loses a quantum of angular momentum, another, somewhere else, has to gain that lost amount in a resonant interaction which begs no question of how and by what means that action, in units h, is conveyed. In Normal Realism, these quantum interactions, in statistical numbers, are what is called light. This present account is, perforce, somewhat sketchy and condensed, but is fully explained in the POAMS books and papers. For this complete paper see www.vivpope.org

Newtonian mechanics for compound rotational systems, though often a vexation for physics and engineering students, is nevertheless apt to be considered a ‘solved science’ among senior physicists. Difficulties with centrifugal forces, gyroscopic torque vectors, and overall angular momentum conservation for complex systems of rotation are theoretically eliminated by rigorous application of the laws of mechanics: there are no discrepancies in the generation of torques and forces with the Third Law of Motion. Angular momentum, despite initial appearances, is always conserved. Nevertheless, occasional objections to these conventions enter the literature of science: attendant to the controversy over whether the ‘centrifugal force’ is to be treated as a real force or a fictitious force, is the case of Dr. Robert Goddard, 20th century physicist and rocket scientist, whose youthful explorations included the following scheme:

“As I looked toward the fields in the east I imagined how wonderful it would be to make some device which had even the possibility of ascending to Mars, and how it would look on a small scale if sent up from the meadow at my feet. It seemed to me that a weight whirling around a horizontal shaft, moving more rapidly above than below, could furnish lift by virtue of the greater centrifugal force at the top of the path. I was a different boy when I descended the tree from when I ascended, for existence at last seemed very purposive.” [1]

A few years later, after some study, Goddard recognized the
fallacy in this conception:
“I began to realize that there might be something after all
to Newton's Laws.” [2]

Such events in the annals of science, while confirming nothing about possible selective direction of the centrifugal force, nevertheless demonstrate recurrent preoccupation with the subject. Another such episode concerns the so-called “Dean Drive”, developed in the 1950s, in which a device composed of various rotors, springs, and pendulums was supposed to demonstrate a local violation of the third law of motion. Its inventor proved to be rather secretive, however, and no independent laboratory confirmation has yet been documented [3]. Others have attempted to claim minute “Machian” effects from various devices, but again, no independent agreement has been forthcoming from the scientific community on the true causes of whatever effects might be obtained [4].

==The Case Laithwaite==
Finally, there is the notorious affair involving the British engineer, Eric Laithwaite, professor of heavy electrical engineering at London's Imperial College of Science and Technology, who claimed that simple gyroscopic motion produced marked effects not in agreement with Newton’s Laws. Without discussing the 2 Wells: Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion - Validation of Mach's Principle Vol. 8 research and demonstrations in technical detail, suffice it to say that Prof. Laithwaite asserted experimental findings that indicated apparent loss of weight, rotation not about center of mass, and most notably, deficiency of centrifugal force in various gyroscopic systems. His presentation before the Royal Institution of Great Britain [5] constitutes something of a scandal in British Science: he was summarily dismissed from further exposition of his ideas, and was granted the singular distinction of being the only presenter before that distinguished body whose demonstration notes were not included in the official record. The prejudice is understandable: claims of violations of Newton’s Laws in the very institution founded upon Newton’s accomplishments, in Newton’s native land, would be very hard to tolerate. But then at least a thorough refutation of Laithwaite’s claims should have been expected, in which all observations were properly reconciled with physical law.

The affair is particularly intriguing in that Laithwaite was no mere crank, outsider, or professional failure. A fully accomplished electrical engineer, who had done notable work on transportation systems for the British government, Laithwaite cannot so easily be dismissed. How could a fully qualified graduate of British scientific education, a full professor, distinguished inventor and engineer pass through the system with such a poor understanding of basic Newtonian mechanics? Physicists yet maintain interest in the ‘Laithwaite effects’ [6, 7]. These controversies aside for the time being, the general problem may be approached after a brief descriptive review, for the purpose of orientation, of gyroscopic phenomena.

==The Gyroscope and the Planet==

Fig. 1. Gyroscope and planet arrangement Let MP be the mass of large gravitating body (planet), mg the mass of a large spinning gyroscope, mounted to revolve in precessional fashion (at the ‘north’ pole) about vertical z -axis through the gravitating body; R is radius of MP (to point of support of spin axis of mg ) and sr is radius of revolving spin axis. If m is presumed to be concentrated in a thin ring, then its radius gr shall be the radius of gyration of the spin angular momentum of the gyroscope. For balance, let another such gyroscope, spin vector pointing inward, be mounted opposite the original gyroscope (at the ‘south’ pole), and revolve in precessional fashion also about the z -axis (Fig. 1).

For angular momentum (AM) to be conserved, all the various torques and change rates of AM which arise must at all times sum to zero. Let LS be the ‘spin’ AMof each gyroscope; let Lz be the AM about the vertical axis of the system; another AM quantity may be identified from the cross product of the instantaneous linear momentum of m (in the N direction, which is normal to both instantaneous S and z ), and the moment R . This latter is recognizable as a form of ‘off-diagonal’ component of an inertia tensor multiplied by an angular velocity, i.e., sz z I ? , and shall be identified as Lcin , meaning ‘cinematic’ AM, since its value depends upon the perspective of the viewer. (For an observer turning with the precessing frame of the gyroscope, this term appears to vanish.)
Torques are to be associated with the changes in these quantities.

In addition, torques arise from dynamical considerations: a ‘gyroscopic torque’ from the changing orientation of the spin axis, and a ‘centrifugal torque’ supposedly from crossing of the centrifugal force on the revolving M by the radius vector R . If motional ‘torques’ are identified as kin ? , ‘kinematic torque’ (change of angular orientation of spin AM about z ); cen ? , abovementioned ‘centrifugal torque’; gyr ? , ‘gyroscopic torque’ (tendency to pivot the spin axis about N ); and ‘cinematic torque’ cin ? , the rate of rotation revolution of Lcin ; then of necessity (claims of Laithwaite notwithstanding), the third law of motion will be satisfied when all such torques sum to zero 0 ttt t kin cen gyr cin ? ? ?? (2)

This condition holds true since the magnitudes of the cinematic
torque and the centrifugal torque are mathematically identical
and opposite (assuming, again, that there are no discrepancies in
quantifying the centrifugal forces), where the magnitude of the
gyroscopic torque is itself actually determined by the rate of
change of orientation of the spin AM as each gyroscope revolves
through its horizontal plane. The gravitational torque components,
acting respectively on MP and mg about axes parallel to
instantaneous N , must axiomatically cancel, since their resultants
comprise centrally acting forces which have no moment.

A type of paradox is discernible in all this, nonetheless, in
answering the question: What holds the gyroscope ‘up’? Because
a torque is experienced about the center of mass of the gyroscope
mg , its weight is transferred to its point of support at the ‘north’
pole of MP . This opposes the z component of gravitational force
on the planet, while the ‘lift’ on mg relieves the downward z-axis
gravitational component on it. This leaves the horizontal compo-
College Park, MD 2011 PROCEEDINGS of the NPA 3

nent of gravity on mg to cross RM , to produce a torque on MP in opposition to the centrifugal torque on it. Ordinarily, the centrifugal torque quantitatively opposes the cinematic torque, and the gyroscopic torque opposes the kinematic torque; but paradoxically, a sufficiently rapid spin rate and slow precession rate will render the centrifugal force exactly equal (and opposite) to the horizontal component of the gravitational force: the cinematic torque is now opposed exclusively by the kinematic torque. This assumes, again, that there is no defect in the centrifugal force, or additional centripetal force produced by the action—hence the need for experimental verification or falsification of Laithwaite’s claim.

==The Gyroscope and the Rocket==

Gyroscopes have well-known uses in rocket stability; however a problem is posed by the following arrangement: Let a standard spinning gyroscope be pivoted with one end of its spin axis on the front tip of an accelerating rocket, and precessing at a regular rate in the plane perpendicular to the direction of acceleration. Does the rocket body maintain a straight course, or does it describe a helix about an axis parallel to the acceleration direction? On one hand, the ‘weight’ of the gyroscope is transferred from its position at the extremity of the S -axis to the pivot point where it is ‘felt’ at the tip of the rocket, where the rocket might find it indistinguishable from an ordinary mass so situated. On the other hand, the third law of motion requires that a system rotate about its mass center, between the rocket and the gyroscope . Thus, a paradox arises for Newtonian mechanics, (and possibly for the Equivalence Principle of GRT). An experimental resolution of the issue is hereby necessitated: this could be accomplished in a zero-g environment, e.g. in an orbiting space station, or perhaps in the cabin of an aeroplane laboratory in parabolic ‘free-fall’ trajectory. A massive precessing gyroscope, driven by a small rocket motor, could be launched from a track fixed within the laboratory. The subsequent free pathway of the mass center of the entire projectile system would then be carefully monitored for any observable trajectory deviation.

==The Gyroscope and the Roundabout==

Let the end of the spin axis of a gyroscope be pivoted in a small framework mounted against the inside vertical wall of a massive, rotating, right circular cylindrical shell. How is angular momentum conserved? The situation poses additional problems concerning the quantification of rotational inertia; but as a solution would also pose a serious calculative challenge, no attempt will be undertaken to resolve it here—the example merely draws attention to the difficulties.

A closer investigation of the precise nature of the motions and forces involved in rotating systems is recommended, pursuant to the preceding examples. A precise understanding of the nature and origin of the various torques is to be sought. A foundation may be laid in which the necessary quantifications are reduced to examination of the behavior of individual ‘point-mass’ concentrations: essentially a ‘dumbbell’-shaped mass, variously mounted and spinning about a revolving shaft. Only a very simple construction will be analyzed at this point.

==A Revolving Ponderable Dipole==

Fig. 2. Revolving Ponderable Dipole System A common textbook example depicts a dumbbell-shaped object, secured at its mid-point to a rotating vertical shaft, at a fixed angle ? to the horizontal (Fig. 2). The system is customarily described to possess a constant angular velocity ?z , with a precessing AM vector L , which describes a right circular cone about the vertical axis. Though kinematically descriptive of the dipole itself, the physical reality of the whole situation is just the converse: the total AM vector cannot change, while the angular velocity vector must precess about a narrow cone: this is because the vertical shaft, anchored in a massive laboratory, must transmit a torque to the surrounding mass, which torque is produced by the centrifugal force on the dipole lobes crossing their respective vertical moments.

Thus, the total AM vector remains constant in both amplitude and direction, where the z axis is carried about by the slightly gyrating laboratory. The positions of the lobes form products of inertia, e.g., xz x z I mr R ? , which when multiplied by ?z , produce an instantaneous Lx which vectorially combines with Lz to yield the total L of the dipole. The change of orientation of this vector is accompanied by the changing AM of the laboratory: as before, the ‘cinematic’ torque is exactly opposed by a ‘centrifugal’ torque. Though this phenomenon is fully supported by Newtonian mechanics, the rotation of the product of inertia immediately poses a problem for any proposed Machian interaction. If the centrifugal force actually results from interaction with distant matter, rather than with ‘absolute space’, then the necessary response of the distant matter will itself answer the torque applied to the lab. The local ‘cinematic’ torques and angular momenta become redundant, and the total AM is no longer conserved. While on one hand, this might be regarded as prima facia evidence for Absolute Space, on the other hand it exposes a certain artificiality in the ‘cinematic’ quantities—they lack true dynamic expression (‘torque’ would not compress a torsion spring) and are in this sense merely a consequence of the observer’s perspective. The dilemma for Machian mechanics, then, is to find a rule for angular momentum conservation (AMC), which accommodates these phenomena; otherwise AM itself would have to be redimensioned.

Wells: Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion - Validation of Mach's Principle Vol. 8

==Conclusion==
The proximate purpose of the preceding exposition has been to elucidate certain aspects of the science of mechanics through the introduction of apparent paradoxes in gyroscopic behavior. The ultimate purpose has been to raise again the controversy of Absolute Space vs. Relative Space [8, 9]. Though several lines of reasoning suggest a possibility of discrepancy in AMC in a local system, no such departure from classical mechanics has yet been proven. This paper serves as but an introduction to a more rigorous analytical treatment in a sequel—Part 2—in which the quest to prove the Machian interaction will be resumed.

The need for basic experimentation cannot be over-stressed. The “gyroscope and rocket” experiment, proposed in section 4. could effectively settle the Laithwaite controversy: a confirmed observation of revolution of such a system about its center of mass would largely dispel any notion of lack of centrifugal force. Off-center revolution, would, however, herald a ‘revolution’ in the science of mechanics—and Laithwaite would in great measure be vindicated, even celebrated as discoverer of new relations in dynamics. Other, perhaps more elaborate, experimental arrangements ought well to be explored, in pursuit of this most elusive of physical phenomena. The weight of scientific consensus will probably remain against such a possibility, but detection of a local imbalance of torques would, needless to say, be of extraordinary significance, as it would virtually prove the need for a Machian interaction to balance AMC.

==Epilogue==
The hypothetical possibility of a quantitative defect in local rotational dynamics is not likely to be received with great enthusiasm among the physics community—any more than was Laithwaite’s claim of experimental anomalies with the conventional laws of motion. Nevertheless, such possibilities cannot simply be dismissed, and the quest to discover a measurable local anomaly in AMC should not prematurely be abandoned. Discreditation of such possibilities requires thorough experimental falsification, along with sound theoretical argument, particularly when attempting to assert Absolute Space over Relative Space. Negatives by nature tend to be unprovable, such as the impossibility of some subtle effect in rotational dynamics which might measurably conflict with local angular momentum conservation, and certainly the issue of other documented, [10] though sporadic, reports of experimental anomalies remains unresolved. A brief (and fanciful) ‘story’ may be told to illustrate a possibility:

==A Tale of Two Scientists==
Future scientists have grown up in a large, spherical interstellar space station (fully self-sufficient), after having been orphaned by some calamity, which sealed all ports to outer space, and erased all record of an outside universe. Having access to the basic laws of physics, however, (including the very weak gravitation between laboratory objects) one scientist makes a startling observation, and is eager to announce discovery of a new phenomenon: in the central zero-gravity lab, a long dumbbell-shaped mass is seen to turn unaccountably about a particular axis—in violation of local angular momentum conservation. Another scientist, certain of observational error, rejects the notion: no such violation of ancient Newtonian mechanics is permissible within the ‘known’ universe contained by the impenetrable wall of the space colony. (Talk of “beyond” the wall only raises eyebrows.) After much reflection, the one scientist finally postulates the existence of a massive external body, whose tidal gravity field is responsible for the torque on the dumbbell, whereby angular momentum is conserved in a minute reaction of the external mass.

==Acknowledgements==
The author would like to thank Greg Volk, for patience during the draft stages of this paper; Dennis Allen, for valuable critique of the content; and Mr. Stephen Harris, for assistance in preparation of this and other NPA papers.

==References==

* [.1.] Edna Yost, Modern Americans in Science and Technology, 2nd Ed., p. 145 (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1962).
* [ 2 ] Milton Lehman, This High Man: The Life of Robert H. Goddard, pp. 31-32 (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Co., 1963).
* [ 3 ] John W. Campbell, Jr., “Final Report on the Dean Device”, Analog (Dec 1960).
* [ 4 ] James F. Woodward, “Mach's Principle and Weight Reduction”, Foundations of Physics Letters 9: 247-293 (1996).
* [ 5 ] Eric Laithwaite, ”The Jabberwock: The Royal Institution’s 1974- 75 Christmas Lecture” (1974).
* [ 6 ] Harvey Fiala, ”Inertial Propulsion: The Holy Grail of Travel to the Stars”, ExtraOrdinary Technology 4 (3): 29-44 (2006).
* [ 7 ] Harold Aspden, “The Theory of Antigravity”, Physics Essays 4 (1): 13-19 (1991).
* [ 8 ] George Berkeley, “De Motu (On Motion) or The Principle and Nature of Motion and the Cause of the Communication of Motions” Essay (1721).
* [ 9 ] D. W. Sciama, The Physical Foundations of General Relativity (Doubleday, 1969).
* [ 10 ] M. F. C. Allais, M.F.C.: The Allais Effect and My Experiments with the Paraconical Pendulum, 1954-1960 (report prepared in French for NASA, 1999, unpublished). English translation at [http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf].

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion: Validation of Mach's Principle?

2016-12-30T05:45:04Z

Admin: /* Acknowledgements */

{{Infobox paper
| title = Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion: Validation of Mach\'s Principle?
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5977.pdf Link to paper]
| author = [[Stewart Ian Wells]]
| published = 2011
| journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]]
| volume = [[8]]
| num_pages = 4
| pages = 687-690
}}

'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5977.pdf here]

==Abstract==

A discussion of angular momentum conservation in the context of the long-standing controversy over Absolute vs. Relative space raises doubts on the consistency of an aspect of Newtonian mechanics in situations involving compound rotational dynamics. Historical review of such problems, those noted by Laithwaite in particular, introduces the issue: A paradox arises in situations in which precessing gyroscopes revolve at the respective ?poles' of a spherical gravitating body, or are mounted in the framework of an accelerating system. Difficulties in conformance to the classical law of angular momentum conservation are encountered. A resolution is presented, theoretically possible within Newtonian mechanics; but such resolution raises further questions regarding both the quantification of centrifugal force, and of gyroscopic torque, in the precessional motion of generalized rigid bodies. Meticulous analysis of the problem, with close attention to Centrifugal, Coriolis and Eulerian torques on mass elements, results in a dilemma for the mechanics of rotation: either the axis of rotation does not necessarily pass through the center of mass of a system but perambulates about it due to a deficit of centrifugal force, or classical angular momentum is not always conserved but is upset by wayward gyroscopic torque. A theoretical design is presented in which internal angular momentum may increase indefinitely. The phenomena suggest adoption of a Machian-style interaction to preserve the laws of motion; however, potential difficulties in conforming such a solution to the inertia tensor are presented. A curious correspondence with Meno's gyron theory is also described.

==Introduction==
One thing more: The ultimate paired and balanced angular momentum system is the angular momentum quantum h 2? , known to quantum physics as ? , where h is Planck’s constant, the quantum of action. The two masses involved in this angular momentum coupling, into which all angular momentum systems ultimately reduce, are those which have been conventionally called the ‘electron’ and ‘proton’. In the Angular Momentum Synthesis, however, the conventional ‘charge’ on these particles in coulombs is cashed-out in equivalent terms of spin kinetic energy in joules, where the spin is that ascribed to the ‘electron’ by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit. Due to the conservation of angular momentum, when one atom loses a quantum of angular momentum, another, somewhere else, has to gain that lost amount in a resonant interaction which begs no question of how and by what means that action, in units h, is conveyed. In Normal Realism, these quantum interactions, in statistical numbers, are what is called light. This present account is, perforce, somewhat sketchy and condensed, but is fully explained in the POAMS books and papers. For this complete paper see www.vivpope.org

Newtonian mechanics for compound rotational systems, though often a vexation for physics and engineering students, is nevertheless apt to be considered a ‘solved science’ among senior physicists. Difficulties with centrifugal forces, gyroscopic torque vectors, and overall angular momentum conservation for complex systems of rotation are theoretically eliminated by rigorous application of the laws of mechanics: there are no discrepancies in the generation of torques and forces with the Third Law of Motion. Angular momentum, despite initial appearances, is always conserved. Nevertheless, occasional objections to these conventions enter the literature of science: attendant to the controversy over whether the ‘centrifugal force’ is to be treated as a real force or a fictitious force, is the case of Dr. Robert Goddard, 20th century physicist and rocket scientist, whose youthful explorations included the following scheme:

“As I looked toward the fields in the east I imagined how wonderful it would be to make some device which had even the possibility of ascending to Mars, and how it would look on a small scale if sent up from the meadow at my feet. It seemed to me that a weight whirling around a horizontal shaft, moving more rapidly above than below, could furnish lift by virtue of the greater centrifugal force at the top of the path. I was a different boy when I descended the tree from when I ascended, for existence at last seemed very purposive.” [1]

A few years later, after some study, Goddard recognized the
fallacy in this conception:
“I began to realize that there might be something after all
to Newton's Laws.” [2]

Such events in the annals of science, while confirming nothing about possible selective direction of the centrifugal force, nevertheless demonstrate recurrent preoccupation with the subject. Another such episode concerns the so-called “Dean Drive”, developed in the 1950s, in which a device composed of various rotors, springs, and pendulums was supposed to demonstrate a local violation of the third law of motion. Its inventor proved to be rather secretive, however, and no independent laboratory confirmation has yet been documented [3]. Others have attempted to claim minute “Machian” effects from various devices, but again, no independent agreement has been forthcoming from the scientific community on the true causes of whatever effects might be obtained [4].

==The Case Laithwaite==
Finally, there is the notorious affair involving the British engineer, Eric Laithwaite, professor of heavy electrical engineering at London's Imperial College of Science and Technology, who claimed that simple gyroscopic motion produced marked effects not in agreement with Newton’s Laws. Without discussing the 2 Wells: Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion - Validation of Mach's Principle Vol. 8 research and demonstrations in technical detail, suffice it to say that Prof. Laithwaite asserted experimental findings that indicated apparent loss of weight, rotation not about center of mass, and most notably, deficiency of centrifugal force in various gyroscopic systems. His presentation before the Royal Institution of Great Britain [5] constitutes something of a scandal in British Science: he was summarily dismissed from further exposition of his ideas, and was granted the singular distinction of being the only presenter before that distinguished body whose demonstration notes were not included in the official record. The prejudice is understandable: claims of violations of Newton’s Laws in the very institution founded upon Newton’s accomplishments, in Newton’s native land, would be very hard to tolerate. But then at least a thorough refutation of Laithwaite’s claims should have been expected, in which all observations were properly reconciled with physical law.

The affair is particularly intriguing in that Laithwaite was no mere crank, outsider, or professional failure. A fully accomplished electrical engineer, who had done notable work on transportation systems for the British government, Laithwaite cannot so easily be dismissed. How could a fully qualified graduate of British scientific education, a full professor, distinguished inventor and engineer pass through the system with such a poor understanding of basic Newtonian mechanics? Physicists yet maintain interest in the ‘Laithwaite effects’ [6, 7]. These controversies aside for the time being, the general problem may be approached after a brief descriptive review, for the purpose of orientation, of gyroscopic phenomena.

==The Gyroscope and the Planet==

Fig. 1. Gyroscope and planet arrangement Let MP be the mass of large gravitating body (planet), mg the mass of a large spinning gyroscope, mounted to revolve in precessional fashion (at the ‘north’ pole) about vertical z -axis through the gravitating body; R is radius of MP (to point of support of spin axis of mg ) and sr is radius of revolving spin axis. If m is presumed to be concentrated in a thin ring, then its radius gr shall be the radius of gyration of the spin angular momentum of the gyroscope. For balance, let another such gyroscope, spin vector pointing inward, be mounted opposite the original gyroscope (at the ‘south’ pole), and revolve in precessional fashion also about the z -axis (Fig. 1).

For angular momentum (AM) to be conserved, all the various torques and change rates of AM which arise must at all times sum to zero. Let LS be the ‘spin’ AMof each gyroscope; let Lz be the AM about the vertical axis of the system; another AM quantity may be identified from the cross product of the instantaneous linear momentum of m (in the N direction, which is normal to both instantaneous S and z ), and the moment R . This latter is recognizable as a form of ‘off-diagonal’ component of an inertia tensor multiplied by an angular velocity, i.e., sz z I ? , and shall be identified as Lcin , meaning ‘cinematic’ AM, since its value depends upon the perspective of the viewer. (For an observer turning with the precessing frame of the gyroscope, this term appears to vanish.)
Torques are to be associated with the changes in these quantities.

In addition, torques arise from dynamical considerations: a ‘gyroscopic torque’ from the changing orientation of the spin axis, and a ‘centrifugal torque’ supposedly from crossing of the centrifugal force on the revolving M by the radius vector R . If motional ‘torques’ are identified as kin ? , ‘kinematic torque’ (change of angular orientation of spin AM about z ); cen ? , abovementioned ‘centrifugal torque’; gyr ? , ‘gyroscopic torque’ (tendency to pivot the spin axis about N ); and ‘cinematic torque’ cin ? , the rate of rotation revolution of Lcin ; then of necessity (claims of Laithwaite notwithstanding), the third law of motion will be satisfied when all such torques sum to zero 0 ttt t kin cen gyr cin ? ? ?? (2)

This condition holds true since the magnitudes of the cinematic
torque and the centrifugal torque are mathematically identical
and opposite (assuming, again, that there are no discrepancies in
quantifying the centrifugal forces), where the magnitude of the
gyroscopic torque is itself actually determined by the rate of
change of orientation of the spin AM as each gyroscope revolves
through its horizontal plane. The gravitational torque components,
acting respectively on MP and mg about axes parallel to
instantaneous N , must axiomatically cancel, since their resultants
comprise centrally acting forces which have no moment.

A type of paradox is discernible in all this, nonetheless, in
answering the question: What holds the gyroscope ‘up’? Because
a torque is experienced about the center of mass of the gyroscope
mg , its weight is transferred to its point of support at the ‘north’
pole of MP . This opposes the z component of gravitational force
on the planet, while the ‘lift’ on mg relieves the downward z-axis
gravitational component on it. This leaves the horizontal compo-
College Park, MD 2011 PROCEEDINGS of the NPA 3

nent of gravity on mg to cross RM , to produce a torque on MP in opposition to the centrifugal torque on it. Ordinarily, the centrifugal torque quantitatively opposes the cinematic torque, and the gyroscopic torque opposes the kinematic torque; but paradoxically, a sufficiently rapid spin rate and slow precession rate will render the centrifugal force exactly equal (and opposite) to the horizontal component of the gravitational force: the cinematic torque is now opposed exclusively by the kinematic torque. This assumes, again, that there is no defect in the centrifugal force, or additional centripetal force produced by the action—hence the need for experimental verification or falsification of Laithwaite’s claim.

==The Gyroscope and the Rocket==

Gyroscopes have well-known uses in rocket stability; however a problem is posed by the following arrangement: Let a standard spinning gyroscope be pivoted with one end of its spin axis on the front tip of an accelerating rocket, and precessing at a regular rate in the plane perpendicular to the direction of acceleration. Does the rocket body maintain a straight course, or does it describe a helix about an axis parallel to the acceleration direction? On one hand, the ‘weight’ of the gyroscope is transferred from its position at the extremity of the S -axis to the pivot point where it is ‘felt’ at the tip of the rocket, where the rocket might find it indistinguishable from an ordinary mass so situated. On the other hand, the third law of motion requires that a system rotate about its mass center, between the rocket and the gyroscope . Thus, a paradox arises for Newtonian mechanics, (and possibly for the Equivalence Principle of GRT). An experimental resolution of the issue is hereby necessitated: this could be accomplished in a zero-g environment, e.g. in an orbiting space station, or perhaps in the cabin of an aeroplane laboratory in parabolic ‘free-fall’ trajectory. A massive precessing gyroscope, driven by a small rocket motor, could be launched from a track fixed within the laboratory. The subsequent free pathway of the mass center of the entire projectile system would then be carefully monitored for any observable trajectory deviation.

==The Gyroscope and the Roundabout==

Let the end of the spin axis of a gyroscope be pivoted in a small framework mounted against the inside vertical wall of a massive, rotating, right circular cylindrical shell. How is angular momentum conserved? The situation poses additional problems concerning the quantification of rotational inertia; but as a solution would also pose a serious calculative challenge, no attempt will be undertaken to resolve it here—the example merely draws attention to the difficulties.

A closer investigation of the precise nature of the motions and forces involved in rotating systems is recommended, pursuant to the preceding examples. A precise understanding of the nature and origin of the various torques is to be sought. A foundation may be laid in which the necessary quantifications are reduced to examination of the behavior of individual ‘point-mass’ concentrations: essentially a ‘dumbbell’-shaped mass, variously mounted and spinning about a revolving shaft. Only a very simple construction will be analyzed at this point.

==A Revolving Ponderable Dipole==

Fig. 2. Revolving Ponderable Dipole System A common textbook example depicts a dumbbell-shaped object, secured at its mid-point to a rotating vertical shaft, at a fixed angle ? to the horizontal (Fig. 2). The system is customarily described to possess a constant angular velocity ?z , with a precessing AM vector L , which describes a right circular cone about the vertical axis. Though kinematically descriptive of the dipole itself, the physical reality of the whole situation is just the converse: the total AM vector cannot change, while the angular velocity vector must precess about a narrow cone: this is because the vertical shaft, anchored in a massive laboratory, must transmit a torque to the surrounding mass, which torque is produced by the centrifugal force on the dipole lobes crossing their respective vertical moments.

Thus, the total AM vector remains constant in both amplitude and direction, where the z axis is carried about by the slightly gyrating laboratory. The positions of the lobes form products of inertia, e.g., xz x z I mr R ? , which when multiplied by ?z , produce an instantaneous Lx which vectorially combines with Lz to yield the total L of the dipole. The change of orientation of this vector is accompanied by the changing AM of the laboratory: as before, the ‘cinematic’ torque is exactly opposed by a ‘centrifugal’ torque. Though this phenomenon is fully supported by Newtonian mechanics, the rotation of the product of inertia immediately poses a problem for any proposed Machian interaction. If the centrifugal force actually results from interaction with distant matter, rather than with ‘absolute space’, then the necessary response of the distant matter will itself answer the torque applied to the lab. The local ‘cinematic’ torques and angular momenta become redundant, and the total AM is no longer conserved. While on one hand, this might be regarded as prima facia evidence for Absolute Space, on the other hand it exposes a certain artificiality in the ‘cinematic’ quantities—they lack true dynamic expression (‘torque’ would not compress a torsion spring) and are in this sense merely a consequence of the observer’s perspective. The dilemma for Machian mechanics, then, is to find a rule for angular momentum conservation (AMC), which accommodates these phenomena; otherwise AM itself would have to be redimensioned.

Wells: Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion - Validation of Mach's Principle Vol. 8

==Conclusion==
The proximate purpose of the preceding exposition has been to elucidate certain aspects of the science of mechanics through the introduction of apparent paradoxes in gyroscopic behavior. The ultimate purpose has been to raise again the controversy of Absolute Space vs. Relative Space [8, 9]. Though several lines of reasoning suggest a possibility of discrepancy in AMC in a local system, no such departure from classical mechanics has yet been proven. This paper serves as but an introduction to a more rigorous analytical treatment in a sequel—Part 2—in which the quest to prove the Machian interaction will be resumed.

The need for basic experimentation cannot be over-stressed. The “gyroscope and rocket” experiment, proposed in section 4. could effectively settle the Laithwaite controversy: a confirmed observation of revolution of such a system about its center of mass would largely dispel any notion of lack of centrifugal force. Off-center revolution, would, however, herald a ‘revolution’ in the science of mechanics—and Laithwaite would in great measure be vindicated, even celebrated as discoverer of new relations in dynamics. Other, perhaps more elaborate, experimental arrangements ought well to be explored, in pursuit of this most elusive of physical phenomena. The weight of scientific consensus will probably remain against such a possibility, but detection of a local imbalance of torques would, needless to say, be of extraordinary significance, as it would virtually prove the need for a Machian interaction to balance AMC.

==Epilogue==
The hypothetical possibility of a quantitative defect in local rotational dynamics is not likely to be received with great enthusiasm among the physics community—any more than was Laithwaite’s claim of experimental anomalies with the conventional laws of motion. Nevertheless, such possibilities cannot simply be dismissed, and the quest to discover a measurable local anomaly in AMC should not prematurely be abandoned. Discreditation of such possibilities requires thorough experimental falsification, along with sound theoretical argument, particularly when attempting to assert Absolute Space over Relative Space. Negatives by nature tend to be unprovable, such as the impossibility of some subtle effect in rotational dynamics which might measurably conflict with local angular momentum conservation, and certainly the issue of other documented, [10] though sporadic, reports of experimental anomalies remains unresolved. A brief (and fanciful) ‘story’ may be told to illustrate a possibility:

==A Tale of Two Scientists==
Future scientists have grown up in a large, spherical interstellar space station (fully self-sufficient), after having been orphaned by some calamity, which sealed all ports to outer space, and erased all record of an outside universe. Having access to the basic laws of physics, however, (including the very weak gravitation between laboratory objects) one scientist makes a startling observation, and is eager to announce discovery of a new phenomenon: in the central zero-gravity lab, a long dumbbell-shaped mass is seen to turn unaccountably about a particular axis—in violation of local angular momentum conservation. Another scientist, certain of observational error, rejects the notion: no such violation of ancient Newtonian mechanics is permissible within the ‘known’ universe contained by the impenetrable wall of the space colony. (Talk of “beyond” the wall only raises eyebrows.) After much reflection, the one scientist finally postulates the existence of a massive external body, whose tidal gravity field is responsible for the torque on the dumbbell, whereby angular momentum is conserved in a minute reaction of the external mass.

==Acknowledgements==
The author would like to thank Greg Volk, for patience during
the draft stages of this paper; Dennis Allen, for valuable critique
of the content; and Mr. Stephen Harris, for assistance in
preparation of this and other NPA papers.
References
* [.1.] Edna Yost, Modern Americans in Science and Technology, 2nd
Ed., p. 145 (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1962).
* [ 2 ] Milton Lehman, This High Man: The Life of Robert H. Goddard,
pp. 31-32 (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Co., 1963).
* [ 3 ] John W. Campbell, Jr., “Final Report on the Dean Device”, Analog
(Dec 1960).
* [ 4 ] James F. Woodward, “Mach's Principle and Weight Reduction”,
Foundations of Physics Letters 9: 247-293 (1996).
* [ 5 ] Eric Laithwaite, ”The Jabberwock: The Royal Institution’s 1974- 75
Christmas Lecture” (1974).
* [ 6 ] Harvey Fiala, ”Inertial Propulsion: The Holy Grail of Travel to the
Stars”, ExtraOrdinary Technology 4 (3): 29-44 (2006).
* [ 7 ] Harold Aspden, “The Theory of Antigravity”, Physics Essays 4 (1):
13-19 (1991).
* [ 8 ] George Berkeley, “De Motu (On Motion) or The Principle and Nature
of Motion and the Cause of the Communication of Motions”
Essay (1721).
* [ 9 ] D. W. Sciama, The Physical Foundations of General Relativity
(Doubleday, 1969).
* [ 10 ] M. F. C. Allais, M.F.C.: The Allais Effect and My Experiments with the
Paraconical Pendulum, 1954-1960 (report prepared in French for NASA,
1999, unpublished). English translation at
http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion: Validation of Mach's Principle?

2016-12-30T05:35:52Z

Admin:

{{Infobox paper
| title = Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion: Validation of Mach\'s Principle?
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5977.pdf Link to paper]
| author = [[Stewart Ian Wells]]
| published = 2011
| journal = [[Proceedings of the NPA]]
| volume = [[8]]
| num_pages = 4
| pages = 687-690
}}

'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5977.pdf here]

==Abstract==

A discussion of angular momentum conservation in the context of the long-standing controversy over Absolute vs. Relative space raises doubts on the consistency of an aspect of Newtonian mechanics in situations involving compound rotational dynamics. Historical review of such problems, those noted by Laithwaite in particular, introduces the issue: A paradox arises in situations in which precessing gyroscopes revolve at the respective ?poles' of a spherical gravitating body, or are mounted in the framework of an accelerating system. Difficulties in conformance to the classical law of angular momentum conservation are encountered. A resolution is presented, theoretically possible within Newtonian mechanics; but such resolution raises further questions regarding both the quantification of centrifugal force, and of gyroscopic torque, in the precessional motion of generalized rigid bodies. Meticulous analysis of the problem, with close attention to Centrifugal, Coriolis and Eulerian torques on mass elements, results in a dilemma for the mechanics of rotation: either the axis of rotation does not necessarily pass through the center of mass of a system but perambulates about it due to a deficit of centrifugal force, or classical angular momentum is not always conserved but is upset by wayward gyroscopic torque. A theoretical design is presented in which internal angular momentum may increase indefinitely. The phenomena suggest adoption of a Machian-style interaction to preserve the laws of motion; however, potential difficulties in conforming such a solution to the inertia tensor are presented. A curious correspondence with Meno's gyron theory is also described.

==Introduction==
One thing more: The ultimate paired and balanced angular momentum system is the angular momentum quantum h 2? , known to quantum physics as ? , where h is Planck’s constant, the quantum of action. The two masses involved in this angular momentum coupling, into which all angular momentum systems ultimately reduce, are those which have been conventionally called the ‘electron’ and ‘proton’. In the Angular Momentum Synthesis, however, the conventional ‘charge’ on these particles in coulombs is cashed-out in equivalent terms of spin kinetic energy in joules, where the spin is that ascribed to the ‘electron’ by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit. Due to the conservation of angular momentum, when one atom loses a quantum of angular momentum, another, somewhere else, has to gain that lost amount in a resonant interaction which begs no question of how and by what means that action, in units h, is conveyed. In Normal Realism, these quantum interactions, in statistical numbers, are what is called light. This present account is, perforce, somewhat sketchy and condensed, but is fully explained in the POAMS books and papers. For this complete paper see www.vivpope.org

Newtonian mechanics for compound rotational systems, though often a vexation for physics and engineering students, is nevertheless apt to be considered a ‘solved science’ among senior physicists. Difficulties with centrifugal forces, gyroscopic torque vectors, and overall angular momentum conservation for complex systems of rotation are theoretically eliminated by rigorous application of the laws of mechanics: there are no discrepancies in the generation of torques and forces with the Third Law of Motion. Angular momentum, despite initial appearances, is always conserved. Nevertheless, occasional objections to these conventions enter the literature of science: attendant to the controversy over whether the ‘centrifugal force’ is to be treated as a real force or a fictitious force, is the case of Dr. Robert Goddard, 20th century physicist and rocket scientist, whose youthful explorations included the following scheme:

“As I looked toward the fields in the east I imagined how wonderful it would be to make some device which had even the possibility of ascending to Mars, and how it would look on a small scale if sent up from the meadow at my feet. It seemed to me that a weight whirling around a horizontal shaft, moving more rapidly above than below, could furnish lift by virtue of the greater centrifugal force at the top of the path. I was a different boy when I descended the tree from when I ascended, for existence at last seemed very purposive.” [1]

A few years later, after some study, Goddard recognized the
fallacy in this conception:
“I began to realize that there might be something after all
to Newton's Laws.” [2]

Such events in the annals of science, while confirming nothing about possible selective direction of the centrifugal force, nevertheless demonstrate recurrent preoccupation with the subject. Another such episode concerns the so-called “Dean Drive”, developed in the 1950s, in which a device composed of various rotors, springs, and pendulums was supposed to demonstrate a local violation of the third law of motion. Its inventor proved to be rather secretive, however, and no independent laboratory confirmation has yet been documented [3]. Others have attempted to claim minute “Machian” effects from various devices, but again, no independent agreement has been forthcoming from the scientific community on the true causes of whatever effects might be obtained [4].

==The Case Laithwaite==
Finally, there is the notorious affair involving the British engineer, Eric Laithwaite, professor of heavy electrical engineering at London's Imperial College of Science and Technology, who claimed that simple gyroscopic motion produced marked effects not in agreement with Newton’s Laws. Without discussing the 2 Wells: Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion - Validation of Mach's Principle Vol. 8 research and demonstrations in technical detail, suffice it to say that Prof. Laithwaite asserted experimental findings that indicated apparent loss of weight, rotation not about center of mass, and most notably, deficiency of centrifugal force in various gyroscopic systems. His presentation before the Royal Institution of Great Britain [5] constitutes something of a scandal in British Science: he was summarily dismissed from further exposition of his ideas, and was granted the singular distinction of being the only presenter before that distinguished body whose demonstration notes were not included in the official record. The prejudice is understandable: claims of violations of Newton’s Laws in the very institution founded upon Newton’s accomplishments, in Newton’s native land, would be very hard to tolerate. But then at least a thorough refutation of Laithwaite’s claims should have been expected, in which all observations were properly reconciled with physical law.

The affair is particularly intriguing in that Laithwaite was no mere crank, outsider, or professional failure. A fully accomplished electrical engineer, who had done notable work on transportation systems for the British government, Laithwaite cannot so easily be dismissed. How could a fully qualified graduate of British scientific education, a full professor, distinguished inventor and engineer pass through the system with such a poor understanding of basic Newtonian mechanics? Physicists yet maintain interest in the ‘Laithwaite effects’ [6, 7]. These controversies aside for the time being, the general problem may be approached after a brief descriptive review, for the purpose of orientation, of gyroscopic phenomena.

==The Gyroscope and the Planet==

Fig. 1. Gyroscope and planet arrangement Let MP be the mass of large gravitating body (planet), mg the mass of a large spinning gyroscope, mounted to revolve in precessional fashion (at the ‘north’ pole) about vertical z -axis through the gravitating body; R is radius of MP (to point of support of spin axis of mg ) and sr is radius of revolving spin axis. If m is presumed to be concentrated in a thin ring, then its radius gr shall be the radius of gyration of the spin angular momentum of the gyroscope. For balance, let another such gyroscope, spin vector pointing inward, be mounted opposite the original gyroscope (at the ‘south’ pole), and revolve in precessional fashion also about the z -axis (Fig. 1).

For angular momentum (AM) to be conserved, all the various torques and change rates of AM which arise must at all times sum to zero. Let LS be the ‘spin’ AMof each gyroscope; let Lz be the AM about the vertical axis of the system; another AM quantity may be identified from the cross product of the instantaneous linear momentum of m (in the N direction, which is normal to both instantaneous S and z ), and the moment R . This latter is recognizable as a form of ‘off-diagonal’ component of an inertia tensor multiplied by an angular velocity, i.e., sz z I ? , and shall be identified as Lcin , meaning ‘cinematic’ AM, since its value depends upon the perspective of the viewer. (For an observer turning with the precessing frame of the gyroscope, this term appears to vanish.)
Torques are to be associated with the changes in these quantities.

In addition, torques arise from dynamical considerations: a ‘gyroscopic torque’ from the changing orientation of the spin axis, and a ‘centrifugal torque’ supposedly from crossing of the centrifugal force on the revolving M by the radius vector R . If motional ‘torques’ are identified as kin ? , ‘kinematic torque’ (change of angular orientation of spin AM about z ); cen ? , abovementioned ‘centrifugal torque’; gyr ? , ‘gyroscopic torque’ (tendency to pivot the spin axis about N ); and ‘cinematic torque’ cin ? , the rate of rotation revolution of Lcin ; then of necessity (claims of Laithwaite notwithstanding), the third law of motion will be satisfied when all such torques sum to zero 0 ttt t kin cen gyr cin ? ? ?? (2)

This condition holds true since the magnitudes of the cinematic
torque and the centrifugal torque are mathematically identical
and opposite (assuming, again, that there are no discrepancies in
quantifying the centrifugal forces), where the magnitude of the
gyroscopic torque is itself actually determined by the rate of
change of orientation of the spin AM as each gyroscope revolves
through its horizontal plane. The gravitational torque components,
acting respectively on MP and mg about axes parallel to
instantaneous N , must axiomatically cancel, since their resultants
comprise centrally acting forces which have no moment.

A type of paradox is discernible in all this, nonetheless, in
answering the question: What holds the gyroscope ‘up’? Because
a torque is experienced about the center of mass of the gyroscope
mg , its weight is transferred to its point of support at the ‘north’
pole of MP . This opposes the z component of gravitational force
on the planet, while the ‘lift’ on mg relieves the downward z-axis
gravitational component on it. This leaves the horizontal compo-
College Park, MD 2011 PROCEEDINGS of the NPA 3

nent of gravity on mg to cross RM , to produce a torque on MP in opposition to the centrifugal torque on it. Ordinarily, the centrifugal torque quantitatively opposes the cinematic torque, and the gyroscopic torque opposes the kinematic torque; but paradoxically, a sufficiently rapid spin rate and slow precession rate will render the centrifugal force exactly equal (and opposite) to the horizontal component of the gravitational force: the cinematic torque is now opposed exclusively by the kinematic torque. This assumes, again, that there is no defect in the centrifugal force, or additional centripetal force produced by the action—hence the need for experimental verification or falsification of Laithwaite’s claim.

==The Gyroscope and the Rocket==

Gyroscopes have well-known uses in rocket stability; however a problem is posed by the following arrangement: Let a standard spinning gyroscope be pivoted with one end of its spin axis on the front tip of an accelerating rocket, and precessing at a regular rate in the plane perpendicular to the direction of acceleration. Does the rocket body maintain a straight course, or does it describe a helix about an axis parallel to the acceleration direction? On one hand, the ‘weight’ of the gyroscope is transferred from its position at the extremity of the S -axis to the pivot point where it is ‘felt’ at the tip of the rocket, where the rocket might find it indistinguishable from an ordinary mass so situated. On the other hand, the third law of motion requires that a system rotate about its mass center, between the rocket and the gyroscope . Thus, a paradox arises for Newtonian mechanics, (and possibly for the Equivalence Principle of GRT). An experimental resolution of the issue is hereby necessitated: this could be accomplished in a zero-g environment, e.g. in an orbiting space station, or perhaps in the cabin of an aeroplane laboratory in parabolic ‘free-fall’ trajectory. A massive precessing gyroscope, driven by a small rocket motor, could be launched from a track fixed within the laboratory. The subsequent free pathway of the mass center of the entire projectile system would then be carefully monitored for any observable trajectory deviation.

==The Gyroscope and the Roundabout==

Let the end of the spin axis of a gyroscope be pivoted in a small framework mounted against the inside vertical wall of a massive, rotating, right circular cylindrical shell. How is angular momentum conserved? The situation poses additional problems concerning the quantification of rotational inertia; but as a solution would also pose a serious calculative challenge, no attempt will be undertaken to resolve it here—the example merely draws attention to the difficulties.

A closer investigation of the precise nature of the motions and forces involved in rotating systems is recommended, pursuant to the preceding examples. A precise understanding of the nature and origin of the various torques is to be sought. A foundation may be laid in which the necessary quantifications are reduced to examination of the behavior of individual ‘point-mass’ concentrations: essentially a ‘dumbbell’-shaped mass, variously mounted and spinning about a revolving shaft. Only a very simple construction will be analyzed at this point.

==A Revolving Ponderable Dipole==

Fig. 2. Revolving Ponderable Dipole System A common textbook example depicts a dumbbell-shaped object, secured at its mid-point to a rotating vertical shaft, at a fixed angle ? to the horizontal (Fig. 2). The system is customarily described to possess a constant angular velocity ?z , with a precessing AM vector L , which describes a right circular cone about the vertical axis. Though kinematically descriptive of the dipole itself, the physical reality of the whole situation is just the converse: the total AM vector cannot change, while the angular velocity vector must precess about a narrow cone: this is because the vertical shaft, anchored in a massive laboratory, must transmit a torque to the surrounding mass, which torque is produced by the centrifugal force on the dipole lobes crossing their respective vertical moments.

Thus, the total AM vector remains constant in both amplitude and direction, where the z axis is carried about by the slightly gyrating laboratory. The positions of the lobes form products of inertia, e.g., xz x z I mr R ? , which when multiplied by ?z , produce an instantaneous Lx which vectorially combines with Lz to yield the total L of the dipole. The change of orientation of this vector is accompanied by the changing AM of the laboratory: as before, the ‘cinematic’ torque is exactly opposed by a ‘centrifugal’ torque. Though this phenomenon is fully supported by Newtonian mechanics, the rotation of the product of inertia immediately poses a problem for any proposed Machian interaction. If the centrifugal force actually results from interaction with distant matter, rather than with ‘absolute space’, then the necessary response of the distant matter will itself answer the torque applied to the lab. The local ‘cinematic’ torques and angular momenta become redundant, and the total AM is no longer conserved. While on one hand, this might be regarded as prima facia evidence for Absolute Space, on the other hand it exposes a certain artificiality in the ‘cinematic’ quantities—they lack true dynamic expression (‘torque’ would not compress a torsion spring) and are in this sense merely a consequence of the observer’s perspective. The dilemma for Machian mechanics, then, is to find a rule for angular momentum conservation (AMC), which accommodates these phenomena; otherwise AM itself would have to be redimensioned.

Wells: Gyroscopic Paradox of Motion - Validation of Mach's Principle Vol. 8

==Conclusion==
The proximate purpose of the preceding exposition has been to elucidate certain aspects of the science of mechanics through the introduction of apparent paradoxes in gyroscopic behavior. The ultimate purpose has been to raise again the controversy of Absolute Space vs. Relative Space [8, 9]. Though several lines of reasoning suggest a possibility of discrepancy in AMC in a local system, no such departure from classical mechanics has yet been proven. This paper serves as but an introduction to a more rigorous analytical treatment in a sequel—Part 2—in which the quest to prove the Machian interaction will be resumed.

The need for basic experimentation cannot be over-stressed. The “gyroscope and rocket” experiment, proposed in section 4. could effectively settle the Laithwaite controversy: a confirmed observation of revolution of such a system about its center of mass would largely dispel any notion of lack of centrifugal force. Off-center revolution, would, however, herald a ‘revolution’ in the science of mechanics—and Laithwaite would in great measure be vindicated, even celebrated as discoverer of new relations in dynamics. Other, perhaps more elaborate, experimental arrangements ought well to be explored, in pursuit of this most elusive of physical phenomena. The weight of scientific consensus will probably remain against such a possibility, but detection of a local imbalance of torques would, needless to say, be of extraordinary significance, as it would virtually prove the need for a Machian interaction to balance AMC.

==Epilogue==
The hypothetical possibility of a quantitative defect in local rotational dynamics is not likely to be received with great enthusiasm among the physics community—any more than was Laithwaite’s claim of experimental anomalies with the conventional laws of motion. Nevertheless, such possibilities cannot simply be dismissed, and the quest to discover a measurable local anomaly in AMC should not prematurely be abandoned. Discreditation of such possibilities requires thorough experimental falsification, along with sound theoretical argument, particularly when attempting to assert Absolute Space over Relative Space. Negatives by nature tend to be unprovable, such as the impossibility of some subtle effect in rotational dynamics which might measurably conflict with local angular momentum conservation, and certainly the issue of other documented, [10] though sporadic, reports of experimental anomalies remains unresolved. A brief (and fanciful) ‘story’ may be told to illustrate a possibility:

==A Tale of Two Scientists==
Future scientists have grown up in a large, spherical interstellar space station (fully self-sufficient), after having been orphaned by some calamity, which sealed all ports to outer space, and erased all record of an outside universe. Having access to the basic laws of physics, however, (including the very weak gravitation between laboratory objects) one scientist makes a startling observation, and is eager to announce discovery of a new phenomenon: in the central zero-gravity lab, a long dumbbell-shaped mass is seen to turn unaccountably about a particular axis—in violation of local angular momentum conservation. Another scientist, certain of observational error, rejects the notion: no such violation of ancient Newtonian mechanics is permissible within the ‘known’ universe contained by the impenetrable wall of the space colony. (Talk of “beyond” the wall only raises eyebrows.) After much reflection, the one scientist finally postulates the existence of a massive external body, whose tidal gravity field is responsible for the torque on the dumbbell, whereby angular momentum is conserved in a minute reaction of the external mass.

==Acknowledgements==
The author would like to thank Greg Volk, for patience during
the draft stages of this paper; Dennis Allen, for valuable critique
of the content; and Mr. Stephen Harris, for assistance in
preparation of this and other NPA papers.
References
[.1.] Edna Yost, Modern Americans in Science and Technology, 2nd
Ed., p. 145 (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1962).
[ 2 ] Milton Lehman, This High Man: The Life of Robert H. Goddard,
pp. 31-32 (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Co., 1963).
[ 3 ] John W. Campbell, Jr., “Final Report on the Dean Device”, Analog
(Dec 1960).
[ 4 ] James F. Woodward, “Mach's Principle and Weight Reduction”,
Foundations of Physics Letters 9: 247-293 (1996).
[ 5 ] Eric Laithwaite, ”The Jabberwock: The Royal Institution’s 1974- 75
Christmas Lecture” (1974).
[ 6 ] Harvey Fiala, ”Inertial Propulsion: The Holy Grail of Travel to the
Stars”, ExtraOrdinary Technology 4 (3): 29-44 (2006).
[ 7 ] Harold Aspden, “The Theory of Antigravity”, Physics Essays 4 (1):
13-19 (1991).
[ 8 ] George Berkeley, “De Motu (On Motion) or The Principle and Nature
of Motion and the Cause of the Communication of Motions”
Essay (1721).
[ 9 ] D. W. Sciama, The Physical Foundations of General Relativity
(Doubleday, 1969).
[ 10 ] M. F. C. Allais, M.F.C.: The Allais Effect and My Experiments with the
Paraconical Pendulum, 1954-1960 (report prepared in French for NASA,
1999, unpublished). English translation at
http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
[[Category:Relativity]]

Tesla Tech

2016-12-30T05:24:30Z

Admin: Created page with "Tesla Tech is an organization dedicated to the study and implementation of tesla technology, magnetic motors, zero-point energy, energy waving devices, cosmic/radiant energy,..."

Tesla Tech is an organization dedicated to the study and implementation of tesla technology, magnetic motors, zero-point energy, energy waving devices, cosmic/radiant energy, brown's gas, low temperature plasma, GEET, electro gravitation, electro medicine, and magnetic healing.

==Yearly Conferences==

The mainstay of the organization are its yearly conferences organized by Steven. Most of the conferences have been held in Albuquerque New Mexico.

==Extraordinary Technology==

Extraordinary Technology is a periodic magazine that is published and maintained for the interest of Tesla Tech members and others interested in their subject matter. [http://www.teslatech.info/ttmagazine/tocframe.htm Back issues] of the magazine are available on their website.

==Links==
* [http://www.teslatech.info/ http://www.teslatech.info] - Official homepage
* [http://www.teslatech.info/ttmagazine/tocframe.htm Extraordinary Technology Back issues]

[[Category:Scientific Organization]]

Thunderbolts Project

2016-12-30T05:13:52Z

Admin:

(From their [https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/about/ homepage])

The Thunderbolts Project is the collaborative voice of the [[Electric Universe]] movement established in 2004. It is a trademark of the non-profit T-Bolts Group Inc. Its prime mission is to explore the Electric Universe paradigm. Historical and current discoveries in the sciences emphasize the dynamic role of the electromagnetic force in nature, from quantum worlds and biological systems to planetary, stellar, and galactic domains.

With the growing Internet presence of The Thunderbolts Project, it places a spotlight on interdisciplinary research, direct observation, and experimental work confirming the pervasive role of the electric force in nature. Founder and director is [[David Talbott]]. Chief science advisor is the Australian physicist [[Wallace Thornhill]].

Among its many activities, The Thunderbolts Project publishes educational books and videos, sponsors meetings and conferences, and produces a comprehensive website featuring the Thunderbolts [https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/ Picture of the Day] ([https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/ TPOD]), the [https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/eg-contents/ Essential Guide to the Electric Universe], a public forum and much more. In addition, it promotes ground breaking research, free from all ties to academic, corporate, or governmental institutions.

The Thunderbolts Project is primarily a volunteer-run organization, supported by private donations, large and small. For other donation options, visit our Patreon campaign.

==Links==
* [https://www.thunderbolts.info/ https://www.thunderbolts.info] - Official Homepage
* [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA Thunderbolts YouTube Channel]
* [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwOAYhBuU3UfvhvcT1lZA6KbSdh0K2EpH Free documentaries]
* [https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/ picture of the day]

[[Category:Scientific Organization]]

Thunderbolts Project

2016-12-30T05:11:56Z

Admin:

(From their [https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/about/ homepage])

The Thunderbolts Project is the collaborative voice of the [[Electric Universe]] movement established in 2004. It is a trademark of the non-profit T-Bolts Group Inc. Its prime mission is to explore the Electric Universe paradigm. Historical and current discoveries in the sciences emphasize the dynamic role of the electromagnetic force in nature, from quantum worlds and biological systems to planetary, stellar, and galactic domains.

With the growing Internet presence of The Thunderbolts Project, it places a spotlight on interdisciplinary research, direct observation, and experimental work confirming the pervasive role of the electric force in nature. Founder and director is [[David Talbott]]. Chief science advisor is the Australian physicist [[Wallace Thornhill]].

Among its many activities, The Thunderbolts Project publishes educational books and videos, sponsors meetings and conferences, and produces a comprehensive website featuring the Thunderbolts [https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/ Picture of the Day] ([https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/ TPOD]), the [https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/eg-contents/ Essential Guide to the Electric Universe], a public forum and much more. In addition, it promotes ground breaking research, free from all ties to academic, corporate, or governmental institutions.

The Thunderbolts Project is primarily a volunteer-run organization, supported by private donations, large and small. For other donation options, visit our Patreon campaign.

==Links==
* [https://www.thunderbolts.info/ https://www.thunderbolts.info] - Official Homepage
* [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA Thunderbolts YouTube Channel]
* [https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/ picture of the day]

[[Category:Scientific Organization]]

Thunderbolts Project

2016-12-30T05:09:43Z

Admin:

(From their [https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/about/ homepage])

The Thunderbolts Project is the collaborative voice of the Electric Universe movement established in 2004. It is a trademark of the non-profit T-Bolts Group Inc. Its prime mission is to explore the Electric Universe paradigm. Historical and current discoveries in the sciences emphasize the dynamic role of the electromagnetic force in nature, from quantum worlds and biological systems to planetary, stellar, and galactic domains.

With the growing Internet presence of The Thunderbolts Project, it places a spotlight on interdisciplinary research, direct observation, and experimental work confirming the pervasive role of the electric force in nature. Founder and director is David Talbott. Chief science advisor is the Australian physicist Wallace Thornhill.

Among its many activities, The Thunderbolts Project publishes educational books and videos, sponsors meetings and conferences, and produces a comprehensive website featuring the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day (TPOD), the Essential Guide to the Electric Universe, a public forum and much more. In addition, it promotes ground breaking research, free from all ties to academic, corporate, or governmental institutions.

The Thunderbolts Project is primarily a volunteer-run organization, supported by private donations, large and small. For other donation options, visit our Patreon campaign.

==Links==
* [https://www.thunderbolts.info/ https://www.thunderbolts.info] - Official Homepage
* [https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/ picture of the day]

[[Category:Scientific Organization]]

Template:Infobox paper

2016-12-30T05:06:27Z

Admin:

{{Infobox
| italic title = {{{italic title|}}}
| bodyclass = vcard
| bodystyle = {{#if:{{{infoboxwidth|{{{width|}}}}}} |width:{{{infoboxwidth|{{{width}}}}}} }}


| headerstyle = background:#D8BFD8;
| header1 = Scientific Paper

| label2 = Title
| data2 = {{{title|}}}

| label3 = Read in full
| data3 = {{{url|}}}

| label4 = Author{{#if:{{{authors|}}}|s}}
| data4 = {{{authors|{{{author|}}}}}}

| label5 = Keywords
| data5 = {{{keywords|}}}

| label6 = Year
| data6 = {{{year|}}}

| label7 = Published
| data7 = {{{published|}}}

| label8 = Journal
| data8 = {{{journal|}}}

| label9 = Volume
| data9 = {{{volume|}}}

| label10 = Number
| data10 = {{{number|}}}

| label11 = {{longitem|Publication date}}
| data11 = {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P577|{{{pub_date|{{{release_date|}}}}}}}}

| label12 = {{longitem|Published in English}}
| data12 = {{{english_pub_date|{{{english_release_date|}}}}}}

| label13 = No. of pages
| data13 = {{{num_pages|}}}

| label14 = Pages
| data14 = {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P1104|{{{pages|}}}}}

| label15 = Website
| data15 = {{{website|{{{homepage|{{{URL|{{#ifeq:{{{website|{{{homepage|{{{URL|}}}}}}}}}
| FETCH_WIKIDATA
| {{#if:{{#property:P856}}|{{Url|1={{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P856|FETCH_WIKIDATA}} }} }}
|}}}}}}}}}}}

| belowstyle = border-top:#aaa 1px solid;font-size:90%;
| below = {{{notes|{{{note|}}}}}}

}}{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown={{main other|[[Category:Pages using infobox paper with unknown parameters|_VALUE_{{PAGENAME}}]]}}|preview=Page using [[Template:Infobox paper]] with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| alt | audio_read_by | author | authors | award | awards | border | caption | congress | country | cover_artist | dewey | editor | editors | english_pub_date | english_release_date | exclude_cover | external_host | external_url | first | followed_by | followed_by_quotation_marks | genre | genres | homepage | keywords | num_pages | url | illustrator | illustrators | image | image_caption | image_size | infoboxwidth | isbn | ISBN | isbn_note | ISBN_note | italic title | language | last | location | media_type | name | native_external_host | native_external_url | native_wikisource | note | notes | oclc | orig_lang_code | pages | preceded_by | preceded_by_quotation_marks | pub_date | published | publisher | publisher2 | release_date | release_number | series | set_in | subject | subjects | title | title_orig | title_working | translator | translators | URL | year | website | width | wikisource }}<noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
</noinclude>

Thunderbolts Project

2016-12-30T05:03:55Z

Admin:

Thunderbolts Project

2016-12-30T05:03:01Z

Admin: Created page with "(From their [https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/about/ homepage]) The Thunderbolts Project is the collaborative voice of the Electric Universe movement established in 2004. It..."

Main Page

2016-12-30T05:00:35Z

Admin:

{| class="wikitable"
|'''QUICK LINKS:'''
|[[:Category:Scientist|scientists]]
|[[:Category:Book|books]]
|[[:Category:Scientific Paper|scientific papers]]
|[[:Category:Scientific Organization|organizations]]
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|'''TOPICS:'''
|[[:Category:Aether|Aether]]
|[[:Category:Cosmology|Cosmology]]
|[[:Category:Electrodynamics|Electrodynamics]]
|[[:Category:Expansion Tectonics|Expansion Tectonics]]
|[[:Category:Gravity|Gravity]]
|[[:Category:Particle Physics|Particle Physics]]
|[[:Category:Philosophy|Philosophy]]
|[[:Category:New Energy|New Energy]]
|[[:Category:Relativity|Relativity]]
|[[:Category:Structures|Structures]]
|[[:Category:Tesla|Tesla]]
|-
|}
==Natural Philosophers Wikipedia==

[[File:CNPSLogoSlogan.jpg|frame]]The purpose of this wiki is to provide a place where current physics and cosmology theory can be openingly challenged, and new and serious philosophies, theories, and models can be proposed without being labeled "pseudo science". Here you will find the [[:Category:Scientist|scientists]], [[:Category:Book|books]], [[:Category:Scientific Paper|scientific papers]], websites, and [[:Category:Scientific Organization|organizations]] that are on the forefront of fixing today's broken science.

[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia.org]'s mechanism for knowledge collection is consensus. In times of scientific revolution, consensus can end up perpetuating bad science and bad theory. The current "Standard Model" is broken beyond compare and new philosophies, theories, and models are being proposed. But these new ideas by professors, PHDs, scientists, engineers, and layman are being systematically repressed on wikipedia by "intellectuals" and not be critical thinkers.

We do not allow for everyone in the public to edit this wiki. Believe it or not, we do this because consensus censors are not working, often relegating new science, theories, and models into pseudo-science, not allowing for critical thinkers to pursue new directions that are vital for the advancement of science.

==Challenging Mainstream==

Some of the current theories being challenged:
* [[Big Bang]] (replaced by an [[Eternal Universe]])
* [[Plate Tectonics]] (replaced by [[Expansion Tectonics]])
* [[Relativity]] ([[Special relativity]], [[General relativity]])
* [[Standard Model]]

Here you will find those people who are unafraid to look at the obvious problems and propose new alternatives to current theory. This wiki is sponsored and maintained by the [[John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society]].

''NP Wiki Editor'',

[[David de Hilster]]

== Getting started ==
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]

Main Page

2016-12-30T02:36:13Z

Admin:

{| class="wikitable"
|'''QUICK LINKS:'''
|[[:Category:Scientist|scientists]]
|[[:Category:Book|books]]
|[[:Category:Scientific Paper|scientific papers]]
|[[:Category:Scientific Organization|organizations]]
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|'''TOPICS:'''
|[[:Category:Cosmology|Cosmology]]
|[[:Category:Expansion Tectonics|Expansion Tectonics]]
|[[:Category:Gravity|Gravity]]
|[[:Category:Relativity|Relativity]]
|-
|}
==Natural Philosophers Wikipedia==

[[File:CNPSLogoSlogan.jpg|frame]]The purpose of this wiki is to provide a place where current physics and cosmology theory can be openingly challenged, and new and serious philosophies, theories, and models can be proposed without being labeled "pseudo science". Here you will find the [[:Category:Scientist|scientists]], [[:Category:Book|books]], [[:Category:Scientific Paper|scientific papers]], websites, and [[:Category:Scientific Organization|organizations]] that are on the forefront of fixing today's broken science.

[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia.org]'s mechanism for knowledge collection is consensus. In times of scientific revolution, consensus can end up perpetuating bad science and bad theory. The current "Standard Model" is broken beyond compare and new philosophies, theories, and models are being proposed. But these new ideas by professors, PHDs, scientists, engineers, and layman are being systematically repressed on wikipedia by "intellectuals" and not be critical thinkers.

We do not allow for everyone in the public to edit this wiki. Believe it or not, we do this because consensus censors are not working, often relegating new science, theories, and models into pseudo-science, not allowing for critical thinkers to pursue new directions that are vital for the advancement of science.

==Challenging Mainstream==

Some of the current theories being challenged:
* [[Big Bang]] (replaced by an [[Eternal Universe]])
* [[Plate Tectonics]] (replaced by [[Expansion Tectonics]])
* [[Relativity]] ([[Special relativity]], [[General relativity]])
* [[Standard Model]]

Here you will find those people who are unafraid to look at the obvious problems and propose new alternatives to current theory. This wiki is sponsored and maintained by the [[John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society]].

''NP Wiki Editor'',

[[David de Hilster]]

== Getting started ==
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]

Main Page

2016-12-30T02:29:43Z

Admin:

==Natural Philosophers Wikipedia==

[[File:CNPSLogoSlogan.jpg|frame]]The purpose of this wiki is to provide a place where current physics and cosmology theory can be openingly challenged, and new and serious philosophies, theories, and models can be proposed without being labeled "pseudo science". Here you will find the [[:Category:Scientist|scientists]], [[:Category:Book|books]], [[:Category:Scientific Paper|scientific papers]], websites, and [[:Category:Scientific Organization|organizations]] that are on the forefront of fixing today's broken science.

[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia.org]'s mechanism for knowledge collection is consensus. In times of scientific revolution, consensus can end up perpetuating bad science and bad theory. The current "Standard Model" is broken beyond compare and new philosophies, theories, and models are being proposed. But these new ideas by professors, PHDs, scientists, engineers, and layman are being systematically repressed on wikipedia by "intellectuals" and not be critical thinkers.

We do not allow for everyone in the public to edit this wiki. Believe it or not, we do this because consensus censors are not working, often relegating new science, theories, and models into pseudo-science, not allowing for critical thinkers to pursue new directions that are vital for the advancement of science.

==Challenging Mainstream==

Some of the current theories being challenged:
* [[Big Bang]] (replaced by an [[Eternal Universe]])
* [[Plate Tectonics]] (replaced by [[Expansion Tectonics]])
* [[Relativity]] ([[Special relativity]], [[General relativity]])
* [[Standard Model]]

Here you will find those people who are unafraid to look at the obvious problems and propose new alternatives to current theory. This wiki is sponsored and maintained by the [[John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society]].

''NP Wiki Editor'',

[[David de Hilster]]

== Getting started ==
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]

Neil E Munch

2016-12-30T02:26:02Z

Admin:

{{Infobox scientist
| name = Neil E. Munch
| image = Neil E Munch 47.jpg
| alt = Neil E. Munch
| birth_date = {{birth date|1926|11|13|mf=y}}
| death_date = {{birth date|2014|07|02|mf=y}}
| fields = [[Mechanical Engineer]]
| residence = Gaithersburg, MD, United States
| nationality = USA
| known_for = [[Light]], [[Relativity]]
}}

Neil Munch was known as "Mr. Assumptions" preaching the necessity of stating one's assumptions in scientific papers.

==History==
Neil Munch has had a life-long interest in space, advanced physics, cosmology, and an insatiable curiosity about most everything.

* 1948-1956: advanced engineering projects in rocket propulsion, space travel, information systems, ordnance systems at several companies.
* 1956-1986: joined General Electric Space Division as scientific contributor and manager of space sciences groups up to 45 people.

Currently retired from GE. Some of the rocket engines he designed were successfully flown are now on display at Smithsonian Air & Space Museum in Wash. DC. President of Munch Engineering Corp. (Incorporated 1984) Published aver 100 papers questioning modern physics some of which are also in referred journals.

==Education==

* B.S.M.E. (Mechanical Engineering,) 1948 Cornell.
* Graduate Aero Engineering studies at Cornell.
* Graduate Engineering and Physics studies at Stevens Inst. of Technology.
* MS in Engineering, 1951 followed by PhD studies.
* Licensed Prof. Engineering in NY State 1956.
* Participated in numerous GE sponsored advanced education programs where I studied Modern Physics under Edwin Taylor of MIT.
* Founding director in 1995 of the [[Natural Philosophy Alliance]] ([[NPA]]), which now has over 200 members in USA and other countries around the world.

==Abstracts==

* 2010 - "[[Value of Assumption Controls in Advanced Physics]]" ([http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5656.pdf Read in full])
* 2009 - "[[Eight Evidences that Science has Quietly By-passed Special Relativity (SRT) in Thomas Kuhn's Predicted Fashion]]"
* 2009 - "[[A Few of the Possible Future Benefits from Correcting the Flaws in Special Relativity (SRT)]]"
* 2009 - "[[Simple but Critical Flaws in 20th Century "Modern Physics" and some Benefits of their Correction]]"
* 2008 - "[[Possible Nature of Light and other Emissions]]"
* 2008 - "[[How Radiation Wavelengths Can Vary by 16 Orders of Magnitude While Speeds of those Emissions Remain Constant]]"
* 2008 - "[[Simple Assumption Errors Invalidated Relativity]]" ([http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_80.pdf Read in full])
* 2007 - "[[Overlooked Implications of Galileo's Relative Motion Observations]]"
* 2007 - "[[Possible Experiments Simulating Optical Doppler Effects at All Speeds ]]"
* 2007 - "[[The Possible Nature of Light Emissions ]]"
* 2007 - "[[Universal Time Confirmation Using the Unique Aspects of Relative Motion in Galileo?s 400 Year-old Observations ]]"
* 2006 - "[[Flawed Assumptions in MMX Prevented Aether Detection]]"
* 2006 - "[[Some Questions Raised by the 'Three Reference Frames' ]]"
* 2006 - "[[Simple (but Critical) Flaws in Special Relativity Discussed in Everyday Language]]"
* 2006 - "[[Ten Reasons Why We Need to Continue Discussing Special Relativity?s Flaws]]"
* 2005 - "[[Consequences of Relativity?s Failure To Control Assumptions]]"
* 2005 - "[[Light Wave Discontinuities and their Solution]]"
* 2004 - "[[Early Results of NPA's Opinion Survey]]"
* 2004 - "[[Possible Doppler Results from Stellar Emitters Traveling at Super-Luminal Speeds]]"
* 2003 - "[[Continuity of Light Waves Over High-Speed Frames]]"
* 2003 - "[[Possible Doppler Experiments at Super-Luminal Source Speeds]]"
* 2002 - "[[Critical Flaws in Special Relativity and Its Possible Replacement by Doppler Concepts]]"
* 2000 - "[[Are Flaws Due to Shifting Assumptions in Relativity Too Simple to Grasp?]]"
* 2000 - "[[Five Sets of Experimental Evidence Which Contradict Special Relativity]]"
* 2000 - "[[Unwarranted Assumption Shifts in Relativity and Suggestions for Improved Controls ]]"
* 1999 - "[[Boundaries of Applicability of Special Relativity]]"
* 1999 - "[[Conflicts in Special Relativity Resulting from Assumption Shifts]]"
* 1999 - "[[What Exactly Are the Problems (If Any) with Special Relativity Theory and Tests?]]"
* 1999 - "[[Simultaneity of Clocks Need Not be a Concern in Special Relativity]]"
* 1998 - "[[Conflicting Relationships in Special Relativity and its Doppler Equations]]"
* 1998 - "[[Coping with Suppression of Innovative Thought]]"
* 1998 - "[[Inadequate Controls of Assumptions in Special Relativity]]"
* 1997 - "[[Clarified Relationships of Special Relativity and Doppler Equations]]"
* 1997 - "[[Discussion of Relativistic and Non-relativistic Theories of the Doppler Effect]]"
* 1997 - "[[What Exactly Are the Problems (If Any) with Special Relativity Theory and Tests]]"
* 1997 - "[[Examples of Conflicts in Special Relativity Resulting from Shifting Assumptions]]"
* 1996 - "[[Imprecise Recognition of Intervals in Relativity Derivations]]"
* 1996 - "[[Incompatibility of Lorentz Transformations with Michelson-Morley Data]]"
* 1996 - "[[Are Lorentz's and Einstein's Equations Incompatible with Michelson-Morley Results?]]"
* 1996 - "[[A Non-Lorentzian Aether]]"
* 1996 - "[[Recent Neo-Newtonianism in Russia; New Global Strategies]]"
* 1995 - "[[Alternative Special Relativity Transformations]]"
* 1995 - "[[The Derivations of the Einstein-Lorentz Transformation]]"
* 1995 - "[[Precision; Simultaneity]]"
* 1994 - "[[Is There a Math Error in Einstein's 1905 Derivation of SRT?]]"
* 1994 - "[[Are there Mathematical Errors in Einstein's 1905 Derivation of Special Relativity (SRT)?]]"

[[Category:Scientist]]

Neil E Munch

2016-12-30T02:23:50Z

Admin:

{{Infobox scientist
| name = Neil E. Munch
| image = Neil E Munch 47.jpg
| alt = Neil E. Munch
| birth_date = {{birth date|1926|11|13|mf=y}}
| death_date = {{birth date|2014|07|02|mf=y}}
| fields = [[Mechanical Engineer]]
| residence = Gaithersburg, MD, United States
| nationality = USA
| known_for = [[Light]], [[Relativity]]
}}

Neil Munch has had a life-long interest in space, advanced physics, cosmology, and an insatiable curiosity about most everything. * 1948-1956: advanced engineering projects in rocket propulsion, space travel, information systems, ordnance systems at several companies.
* 1956-1986: joined General Electric Space Division as scientific contributor and manager of space sciences groups up to 45 people.

Currently retired from GE. Some of the rocket engines he designed were successfully flown are now on display at Smithsonian Air & Space Museum in Wash. DC. President of Munch Engineering Corp. (Incorporated 1984) Published aver 100 papers questioning modern physics some of which are also in referred journals.

<b>Education</b>

* B.S.M.E. (Mechanical Engineering,) 1948 Cornell.
* Graduate Aero Engineering studies at Cornell.
* Graduate Engineering and Physics studies at Stevens Inst. of Technology.
* MS in Engineering, 1951 followed by PhD studies.
* Licensed Prof. Engineering in NY State 1956.
* Participated in numerous GE sponsored advanced education programs where I studied Modern Physics under Edwin Taylor of MIT.
* Founding director in 1995 of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA), which now has over 200 members in USA and other countries around the world.

==Abstracts==

* 2010 - "[[Value of Assumption Controls in Advanced Physics]]" ([http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5656.pdf Read in full])
* 2009 - "[[Eight Evidences that Science has Quietly By-passed Special Relativity (SRT) in Thomas Kuhn's Predicted Fashion]]"
* 2009 - "[[A Few of the Possible Future Benefits from Correcting the Flaws in Special Relativity (SRT)]]"
* 2009 - "[[Simple but Critical Flaws in 20th Century "Modern Physics" and some Benefits of their Correction]]"
* 2008 - "[[Possible Nature of Light and other Emissions]]"
* 2008 - "[[How Radiation Wavelengths Can Vary by 16 Orders of Magnitude While Speeds of those Emissions Remain Constant]]"
* 2008 - "[[Simple Assumption Errors Invalidated Relativity]]" ([http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_80.pdf Read in full])
* 2007 - "[[Overlooked Implications of Galileo's Relative Motion Observations]]"
* 2007 - "[[Possible Experiments Simulating Optical Doppler Effects at All Speeds ]]"
* 2007 - "[[The Possible Nature of Light Emissions ]]"
* 2007 - "[[Universal Time Confirmation Using the Unique Aspects of Relative Motion in Galileo?s 400 Year-old Observations ]]"
* 2006 - "[[Flawed Assumptions in MMX Prevented Aether Detection]]"
* 2006 - "[[Some Questions Raised by the 'Three Reference Frames' ]]"
* 2006 - "[[Simple (but Critical) Flaws in Special Relativity Discussed in Everyday Language]]"
* 2006 - "[[Ten Reasons Why We Need to Continue Discussing Special Relativity?s Flaws]]"
* 2005 - "[[Consequences of Relativity?s Failure To Control Assumptions]]"
* 2005 - "[[Light Wave Discontinuities and their Solution]]"
* 2004 - "[[Early Results of NPA's Opinion Survey]]"
* 2004 - "[[Possible Doppler Results from Stellar Emitters Traveling at Super-Luminal Speeds]]"
* 2003 - "[[Continuity of Light Waves Over High-Speed Frames]]"
* 2003 - "[[Possible Doppler Experiments at Super-Luminal Source Speeds]]"
* 2002 - "[[Critical Flaws in Special Relativity and Its Possible Replacement by Doppler Concepts]]"
* 2000 - "[[Are Flaws Due to Shifting Assumptions in Relativity Too Simple to Grasp?]]"
* 2000 - "[[Five Sets of Experimental Evidence Which Contradict Special Relativity]]"
* 2000 - "[[Unwarranted Assumption Shifts in Relativity and Suggestions for Improved Controls ]]"
* 1999 - "[[Boundaries of Applicability of Special Relativity]]"
* 1999 - "[[Conflicts in Special Relativity Resulting from Assumption Shifts]]"
* 1999 - "[[What Exactly Are the Problems (If Any) with Special Relativity Theory and Tests?]]"
* 1999 - "[[Simultaneity of Clocks Need Not be a Concern in Special Relativity]]"
* 1998 - "[[Conflicting Relationships in Special Relativity and its Doppler Equations]]"
* 1998 - "[[Coping with Suppression of Innovative Thought]]"
* 1998 - "[[Inadequate Controls of Assumptions in Special Relativity]]"
* 1997 - "[[Clarified Relationships of Special Relativity and Doppler Equations]]"
* 1997 - "[[Discussion of Relativistic and Non-relativistic Theories of the Doppler Effect]]"
* 1997 - "[[What Exactly Are the Problems (If Any) with Special Relativity Theory and Tests]]"
* 1997 - "[[Examples of Conflicts in Special Relativity Resulting from Shifting Assumptions]]"
* 1996 - "[[Imprecise Recognition of Intervals in Relativity Derivations]]"
* 1996 - "[[Incompatibility of Lorentz Transformations with Michelson-Morley Data]]"
* 1996 - "[[Are Lorentz's and Einstein's Equations Incompatible with Michelson-Morley Results?]]"
* 1996 - "[[A Non-Lorentzian Aether]]"
* 1996 - "[[Recent Neo-Newtonianism in Russia; New Global Strategies]]"
* 1995 - "[[Alternative Special Relativity Transformations]]"
* 1995 - "[[The Derivations of the Einstein-Lorentz Transformation]]"
* 1995 - "[[Precision; Simultaneity]]"
* 1994 - "[[Is There a Math Error in Einstein's 1905 Derivation of SRT?]]"
* 1994 - "[[Are there Mathematical Errors in Einstein's 1905 Derivation of Special Relativity (SRT)?]]"

[[Category:Scientist]]

Sadanand S. Savarkar

2016-12-30T02:21:32Z

Admin: Redirected page to Sadanand S Savarkar

#REDIRECT [[Sadanand S Savarkar]]

Joseph J. Smulsky

2016-12-30T02:13:52Z

Admin: Redirected page to Joseph J Smulsky

#REDIRECT [[Joseph J Smulsky]]

James Keele

2016-12-30T02:12:55Z

Admin:

{{Infobox scientist
| name = James Keele
| image = James Keele 43.jpg
| alt = James Keele
| birth_date = {{birth date|1937|01|17|mf=y}}
| fields = [[Electrical Engineer]]
| residence = Santa Fe, NM, United States
| nationality = USA
| known_for = [[Special Relativity Electrodynamics]], [[Ampere's Law]], [[Coulomb's Law]], [[Electric Vehicles]]
}}

I was born in the Hill Country of Texas in a farm house. I grew up at various places in Texas including Archer City, Texas where the "Last Picture Show" was filmed. I spent some years in Oklahoma and eventually graduated in '59 from the University of Oklahoma with a B.S. in EE. From there attended the University of Texas where I was a teacher assistant in the EE Department. In '61 I graduated there with a M.S. EE degree. Subsequent education occurred at Southern Methodist University and at the University of Texas at Dallas. I got married and had three children. I got divorced in '79 and married again in '85. Then divorced again in '90. I been single ever since.

My working career was mostly in the R&D area of several companies. Most noticeable was the work with Texas Instruments with government products.

Currently, I am enjoying semi-retirement converting an old '84 VW Rabbit into an electric car. I am having sucess in that area. I have written several physics papers most of which can be found on my web site.

==Abstracts==

* 2010 - "[[Force and Rotation]]" ([http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5439.pdf Read in full])
* 2009 - "[[SR Theory of Electrodynamics for Relatively Moving Charges]]" ([http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_1977.pdf Read in full])
* 2006 - "[[A Different Approach on Elementary Particles]]" ([http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_604.pdf Read in full])
* 2006 - "[[Experiment with Ampere?s Law and the Current Element]]" ([http://cybermesa.com/~jkeele9/ Read in full])
* 2004 - "[[Mass Changes and Potential-Energy Changes Unified]]" ([http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_599.pdf Read in full])
* 2003 - "[[Energy Storage in Inductors and Ampere's Law]]" ([http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_598.pdf Read in full])
* 2003 - "[[Unified 'No Field' Theory and the Bohr Atom]]" ([http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_602.pdf Read in full])
* 2002 - "[[Theoretical Derivation of Ampere's Law]]" ([http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_594.pdf Read in full])

[[Category:Scientist]]

Energy Storage in Inductors and Amp?re's Law

2016-12-30T02:12:31Z

Admin: Admin moved page Energy Storage in Inductors and Amp?re's Law to Energy Storage in Inductors and Ampere's Law

#REDIRECT [[Energy Storage in Inductors and Ampere's Law]]

Energy Storage in Inductors and Ampere's Law

2016-12-30T02:12:29Z

Admin: Admin moved page Energy Storage in Inductors and Amp?re's Law to Energy Storage in Inductors and Ampere's Law

{{Infobox paper
| title = Energy Storage in Inductors and Amp?re\'s Law
| url = [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_598.pdf Link to paper]
| author = [[James Keele]]
| keywords = [[Ampere's Law]], [[Inductance]], [[SRT]]
| published = 2003
| journal = [[Galilean Electrodynamics]]
| volume = [[14]]
| number = [[4]]
| num_pages = 5
| pages = 78
}}

'''Read the full paper''' [http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_598.pdf here]

==Abstract==

This paper shows that the potential energy set up by the Amp?re force between current elements is the mechanism for energy storage in inductors. The use of Amp?re's Law , without reference to a 'magnetic field', explains energy storage in the simple inductors experimented tested and reported upon in this paper. The paper shows how to develop a computer model for a one-turn inductor and calculate the energy stored in the inductor.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:New Energy]]

Glen W. Deen

2016-12-30T02:09:15Z

Admin: Redirected page to Glen W Deen

#REDIRECT [[Glen W Deen]]

Alexander Scarborough

2016-12-30T01:28:04Z

Admin: Redirected page to Alexander A Scarborough

#REDIRECT [[Alexander A Scarborough]]

Alexander A. Scarborough

2016-12-30T01:27:07Z

Admin: Redirected page to Alexander A Scarborough

#REDIRECT [[Alexander A Scarborough]]

A Ballistic Path to Relativistic Mechanics

2016-12-30T01:23:51Z

Admin:

{{Infobox paper
| title = A Ballistic Path to Relativistic Mechanics
| author = [[Sadanand S Savarkar]]
| keywords = [[relativity]]
| published = 2009
| journal = [[None]]
}}

==Abstract==

Gulliveresque relativistic mechanics is constructed through the analysis of some simple ballistic experiments with an ideal spring-gun. The variation of mass with velocity, as well as the inertia of energy, follows in the context of Newton's law of the equality and opposition of action and reaction.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:Relativity]]

Synchronisation Sans Signals

2016-12-30T01:22:47Z

Admin:

{{Infobox paper
| title = Synchronisation Sans Signals
| author = [[Sadanand S Savarkar]]
| published = 2008
}}

==Abstract==

A method for calibrating frames of reference by means of revolving shells, wherein the synchronization of the separated clocks is effected without sending any signals or transporting any clocks. The method leads to the same correlations between the rest-frame and a moving frame as those given by the Lorentz-Transformations[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

Main Page

2016-12-30T01:12:37Z

Admin:

==Natural Philosophers Wikipedia==

[[File:CNPSLogoSlogan.jpg|frame]]The purpose of this wiki is to provide a place where current physics and cosmology theory can be openingly challenged, and new and serious philosophies, theories, and models can be proposed without being labeled "pseudo science". Here you will find the [[:Category:Scientist|scientists]], [[:Category:Book|books]], [[:Category:Scientific Paper|scientific papers]], websites, and [[:Category:Scientific Organization|organizations]] that are on the forefront of fixing today's broken science.

[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia.org]'s mechanism for knowledge collection is consensus. In times of scientific revolution, consensus can end up perpetuating bad science and bad theory. The current "Standard Model" is broken beyond compare and new philosophies, theories, and models are being proposed. But these new ideas by professors, PHDs, scientists, engineers, and layman are being systematically repressed on wikipedia by "intellectuals" and not be critical thinkers.

We do not allow for everyone in the public to edit this wiki. Believe it or not, we do this because consensus censors are not working, often relegating new science, theories, and models into pseudo-science, not allowing for critical thinkers to pursue new directions that are vital for the advancement of science.

Some of the current theories being challenged:
* [[Big Bang]] (replaced by an [[Eternal Universe]])
* [[Plate Tectonics]] (replaced by [[Expansion Tectonics]])
* [[Relativity]] ([[Special relativity]], [[General relativity]])
* [[Standard Model]]

Here you will find those people who are unafraid to look at the obvious problems and propose new alternatives to current theory. This wiki is sponsored and maintained by the [[John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society]].

''NP Wiki Editor'',

[[David de Hilster]]

== Getting started ==
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]

Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere

2016-12-29T17:49:32Z

Admin: /* Introduction */

{{Infobox paper
| title = Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere
| author = [[David de Hilster]], [[Robert M Berger]]
| keywords = [[expansion tectonics]], [[mass increase]], [[particle model]]
| journal = CNPS Proceedings
| published = 2016
| num_pages = 2
}}

==Abstract==
The two main objections to Expansion Tectonics by those in the scientific community are lack of a mechanism for expansion and mass increase, and the presence of subduction. This paper will show that these are now solved.

==Introduction==

[[File:Crustageposter.jpg|left|thumb|'''Figure 1''': The map that changed everything: The NOSC mapping of seafloor bed ages in bands of 10s of millions of years.]]In this author's mind, the evidence for and expanding and growing earth is overwhelming. The most compelling evidence being that when the seafloor bed (see figure 1) is removed by youngest to oldest, all the continents on the earth fit together with almost no modification (see figure \ref{fig:SmallerOrbSides}). The chances of that happening are described by Stephen Hurrell, author of "Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth" \cite{hurrell-dinosaurs}:

"My original estimate for the Expanding Earth forming by chance alone was massively conservative. It isn't less than one chance in a million, or billion, or even a trillion. It's less than one chance in an octillion: a number so large I needed to look up its name. Now consider that the real Earth has multiple coastlines which all need to fit together. The probability of this happening by chance is so small it is virtually impossible." \cite{hurrell-probability}

==Subduction==

[[File:Subduction.jpg|left|thumb|'''Figure 2''': Subduction is where tectonic plates dive underneath another plate]]One of the arguments we hear about why expansion tectonics is not the correct theory is that there is proof of subduction, and if the earth has been expanding, there could be no subduction. Subduction is where one tectonic plate does underneath another plate. Plate tectonics states that the radius of the earth stays the same, and that there is a conveyor belt that creates and destroys the seabed as see in figure \ref{fig:Subduction}.

[[File:KnownSubductionZones.jpg|thumb|200px|'''Figure 2''': The known subduction zones are not enough to keep the earth at a constant radius. This is a problem for mainstream plate tectonics]] In the "excitement" of a new wave of supporters who are discovering expansion tectonics, many proponents of expansion tectonics wrongfully claim that subduction does not exist. It in fact does exist. Here are the confirmed subduction areas on the globe \ref{fig:KnownSubductionZones}.

Expansion tectonics has some places where subduction will occur, although not like the plate tectonics would describe. The earth is not equally expanding. In fact, the bottom of the earth is expanding much more than the top, thus the reason for more land in the northern hemisphere (figure \ref{fig:NorthernHemisphere}) than the southern (figure \ref{fig:SouthernHemisphere}).

In figure \ref{fig:SubductionFromExpansion}, you can see where the earth is expanding starting on the west coast of Canada and the United States and works it way down the west coast of the Americas. The arrows represent the extent of the expansion with with being non-subducted expansion, and red arrows being subducted expansion. You can see that the expansion in north america to the east is going to have to subduct.

Without exhaustively looking at all the scenarios, it is easy to see that earth's expansion is not uniform and subduction not only can be a part of the expansion model, it can help predict those subductions perhaps even better than the plate tectonics model.

==Mechanisms for Expansion==

It is important to remember that although the term "Expansion Tectonics" in words only describes "size", the phrase itself is meant to include mass increase. Dr. James Maxlow, considered by many as the top expansion geologist in the world, coined the phrase but also includes mass increase as a part of that term as well. Maxlow has found geological evidence of mass increase. This is very important. It is not simply expansion.

There have been many mechanism that have been proposed for expansion including prime matter particles.

===New Solution to Mass Increase===
The author of this paper and his father, have come up with a solution to how mass increase happens \cite{dehilster-universe-hack-3}. The Particle Model of the Universe describes the universe as particles and the G1 or gravitron particle level 1 being the particle for light, gravity, the electron cloud, and electricity. Atomic structure is made up of nucleons (protons and neutrons), and G1 particles that are smaller and more numerous than the electron. Electrons don't exist in this model. Magnetic fields and charge are actually the results of clouds of moving G1 particles.

Mass increase happens when suns blow atoms apart and spew G1 particles and nucleons in all directions. The magnetic field of the earth are G1 particles that are circulating around the earth through the poles which then capture other G1 particles and nucleons that recreate atoms inside the earth.

==Conclusion==

The two major objections to expansion tectonics is the presence of known subduction and no mechanism for mass increase of the expansion. Given the fact that the earth does not expand uniformly, and with the new Particle Model of the universe able to explain mass increase, both of those objections have been answered.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
[[Category:Expansion Tectonics]]

Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere

2016-12-29T17:47:40Z

Admin: /* Subduction */

{{Infobox paper
| title = Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere
| author = [[David de Hilster]], [[Robert M Berger]]
| keywords = [[expansion tectonics]], [[mass increase]], [[particle model]]
| journal = CNPS Proceedings
| published = 2016
| num_pages = 2
}}

==Abstract==
The two main objections to Expansion Tectonics by those in the scientific community are lack of a mechanism for expansion and mass increase, and the presence of subduction. This paper will show that these are now solved.

==Introduction==

[[File:Crustageposter.jpg|thumb|'''Figure 1''': The map that changed everything: The NOSC mapping of seafloor bed ages in bands of 10s of millions of years.]]In this author's mind, the evidence for and expanding and growing earth is overwhelming. The most compelling evidence being that when the seafloor bed (see figure 1) is removed by youngest to oldest, all the continents on the earth fit together with almost no modification (see figure \ref{fig:SmallerOrbSides}). The chances of that happening are described by Stephen Hurrell, author of "Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth" \cite{hurrell-dinosaurs}:

"My original estimate for the Expanding Earth forming by chance alone was massively conservative. It isn't less than one chance in a million, or billion, or even a trillion. It's less than one chance in an octillion: a number so large I needed to look up its name. Now consider that the real Earth has multiple coastlines which all need to fit together. The probability of this happening by chance is so small it is virtually impossible." \cite{hurrell-probability}

==Subduction==

[[File:Subduction.jpg|left|thumb|'''Figure 2''': Subduction is where tectonic plates dive underneath another plate]]One of the arguments we hear about why expansion tectonics is not the correct theory is that there is proof of subduction, and if the earth has been expanding, there could be no subduction. Subduction is where one tectonic plate does underneath another plate. Plate tectonics states that the radius of the earth stays the same, and that there is a conveyor belt that creates and destroys the seabed as see in figure \ref{fig:Subduction}.

[[File:KnownSubductionZones.jpg|thumb|200px|'''Figure 2''': The known subduction zones are not enough to keep the earth at a constant radius. This is a problem for mainstream plate tectonics]] In the "excitement" of a new wave of supporters who are discovering expansion tectonics, many proponents of expansion tectonics wrongfully claim that subduction does not exist. It in fact does exist. Here are the confirmed subduction areas on the globe \ref{fig:KnownSubductionZones}.

Expansion tectonics has some places where subduction will occur, although not like the plate tectonics would describe. The earth is not equally expanding. In fact, the bottom of the earth is expanding much more than the top, thus the reason for more land in the northern hemisphere (figure \ref{fig:NorthernHemisphere}) than the southern (figure \ref{fig:SouthernHemisphere}).

In figure \ref{fig:SubductionFromExpansion}, you can see where the earth is expanding starting on the west coast of Canada and the United States and works it way down the west coast of the Americas. The arrows represent the extent of the expansion with with being non-subducted expansion, and red arrows being subducted expansion. You can see that the expansion in north america to the east is going to have to subduct.

Without exhaustively looking at all the scenarios, it is easy to see that earth's expansion is not uniform and subduction not only can be a part of the expansion model, it can help predict those subductions perhaps even better than the plate tectonics model.

==Mechanisms for Expansion==

It is important to remember that although the term "Expansion Tectonics" in words only describes "size", the phrase itself is meant to include mass increase. Dr. James Maxlow, considered by many as the top expansion geologist in the world, coined the phrase but also includes mass increase as a part of that term as well. Maxlow has found geological evidence of mass increase. This is very important. It is not simply expansion.

There have been many mechanism that have been proposed for expansion including prime matter particles.

===New Solution to Mass Increase===
The author of this paper and his father, have come up with a solution to how mass increase happens \cite{dehilster-universe-hack-3}. The Particle Model of the Universe describes the universe as particles and the G1 or gravitron particle level 1 being the particle for light, gravity, the electron cloud, and electricity. Atomic structure is made up of nucleons (protons and neutrons), and G1 particles that are smaller and more numerous than the electron. Electrons don't exist in this model. Magnetic fields and charge are actually the results of clouds of moving G1 particles.

Mass increase happens when suns blow atoms apart and spew G1 particles and nucleons in all directions. The magnetic field of the earth are G1 particles that are circulating around the earth through the poles which then capture other G1 particles and nucleons that recreate atoms inside the earth.

==Conclusion==

The two major objections to expansion tectonics is the presence of known subduction and no mechanism for mass increase of the expansion. Given the fact that the earth does not expand uniformly, and with the new Particle Model of the universe able to explain mass increase, both of those objections have been answered.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
[[Category:Expansion Tectonics]]

File:Subduction.jpg

2016-12-29T17:46:15Z

Admin:

Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere

2016-12-29T17:44:10Z

Admin: /* Subduction */

{{Infobox paper
| title = Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere
| author = [[David de Hilster]], [[Robert M Berger]]
| keywords = [[expansion tectonics]], [[mass increase]], [[particle model]]
| journal = CNPS Proceedings
| published = 2016
| num_pages = 2
}}

==Abstract==
The two main objections to Expansion Tectonics by those in the scientific community are lack of a mechanism for expansion and mass increase, and the presence of subduction. This paper will show that these are now solved.

==Introduction==

[[File:Crustageposter.jpg|thumb|'''Figure 1''': The map that changed everything: The NOSC mapping of seafloor bed ages in bands of 10s of millions of years.]]In this author's mind, the evidence for and expanding and growing earth is overwhelming. The most compelling evidence being that when the seafloor bed (see figure 1) is removed by youngest to oldest, all the continents on the earth fit together with almost no modification (see figure \ref{fig:SmallerOrbSides}). The chances of that happening are described by Stephen Hurrell, author of "Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth" \cite{hurrell-dinosaurs}:

"My original estimate for the Expanding Earth forming by chance alone was massively conservative. It isn't less than one chance in a million, or billion, or even a trillion. It's less than one chance in an octillion: a number so large I needed to look up its name. Now consider that the real Earth has multiple coastlines which all need to fit together. The probability of this happening by chance is so small it is virtually impossible." \cite{hurrell-probability}

==Subduction==

One of the arguments we hear about why expansion tectonics is not the correct theory is that there is proof of subduction, and if the earth has been expanding, there could be no subduction. Subduction is where one tectonic plate does underneath another plate. Plate tectonics states that the radius of the earth stays the same, and that there is a conveyor belt that creates and destroys the seabed as see in figure \ref{fig:Subduction}.

[[File:KnownSubductionZones.jpg|thumb|200px|'''Figure 2''': The known subduction zones are not enough to keep the earth at a constant radius. This is a problem for mainstream plate tectonics]] In the "excitement" of a new wave of supporters who are discovering expansion tectonics, many proponents of expansion tectonics wrongfully claim that subduction does not exist. It in fact does exist. Here are the confirmed subduction areas on the globe \ref{fig:KnownSubductionZones}.

Expansion tectonics has some places where subduction will occur, although not like the plate tectonics would describe. The earth is not equally expanding. In fact, the bottom of the earth is expanding much more than the top, thus the reason for more land in the northern hemisphere (figure \ref{fig:NorthernHemisphere}) than the southern (figure \ref{fig:SouthernHemisphere}).

In figure \ref{fig:SubductionFromExpansion}, you can see where the earth is expanding starting on the west coast of Canada and the United States and works it way down the west coast of the Americas. The arrows represent the extent of the expansion with with being non-subducted expansion, and red arrows being subducted expansion. You can see that the expansion in north america to the east is going to have to subduct.

Without exhaustively looking at all the scenarios, it is easy to see that earth's expansion is not uniform and subduction not only can be a part of the expansion model, it can help predict those subductions perhaps even better than the plate tectonics model.

==Mechanisms for Expansion==

It is important to remember that although the term "Expansion Tectonics" in words only describes "size", the phrase itself is meant to include mass increase. Dr. James Maxlow, considered by many as the top expansion geologist in the world, coined the phrase but also includes mass increase as a part of that term as well. Maxlow has found geological evidence of mass increase. This is very important. It is not simply expansion.

There have been many mechanism that have been proposed for expansion including prime matter particles.

===New Solution to Mass Increase===
The author of this paper and his father, have come up with a solution to how mass increase happens \cite{dehilster-universe-hack-3}. The Particle Model of the Universe describes the universe as particles and the G1 or gravitron particle level 1 being the particle for light, gravity, the electron cloud, and electricity. Atomic structure is made up of nucleons (protons and neutrons), and G1 particles that are smaller and more numerous than the electron. Electrons don't exist in this model. Magnetic fields and charge are actually the results of clouds of moving G1 particles.

Mass increase happens when suns blow atoms apart and spew G1 particles and nucleons in all directions. The magnetic field of the earth are G1 particles that are circulating around the earth through the poles which then capture other G1 particles and nucleons that recreate atoms inside the earth.

==Conclusion==

The two major objections to expansion tectonics is the presence of known subduction and no mechanism for mass increase of the expansion. Given the fact that the earth does not expand uniformly, and with the new Particle Model of the universe able to explain mass increase, both of those objections have been answered.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
[[Category:Expansion Tectonics]]

Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere

2016-12-29T17:43:57Z

Admin: /* Introduction */

{{Infobox paper
| title = Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere
| author = [[David de Hilster]], [[Robert M Berger]]
| keywords = [[expansion tectonics]], [[mass increase]], [[particle model]]
| journal = CNPS Proceedings
| published = 2016
| num_pages = 2
}}

==Abstract==
The two main objections to Expansion Tectonics by those in the scientific community are lack of a mechanism for expansion and mass increase, and the presence of subduction. This paper will show that these are now solved.

==Introduction==

[[File:Crustageposter.jpg|thumb|'''Figure 1''': The map that changed everything: The NOSC mapping of seafloor bed ages in bands of 10s of millions of years.]]In this author's mind, the evidence for and expanding and growing earth is overwhelming. The most compelling evidence being that when the seafloor bed (see figure 1) is removed by youngest to oldest, all the continents on the earth fit together with almost no modification (see figure \ref{fig:SmallerOrbSides}). The chances of that happening are described by Stephen Hurrell, author of "Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth" \cite{hurrell-dinosaurs}:

"My original estimate for the Expanding Earth forming by chance alone was massively conservative. It isn't less than one chance in a million, or billion, or even a trillion. It's less than one chance in an octillion: a number so large I needed to look up its name. Now consider that the real Earth has multiple coastlines which all need to fit together. The probability of this happening by chance is so small it is virtually impossible." \cite{hurrell-probability}

==Subduction==

One of the arguments we hear about why expansion tectonics is not the correct theory is that there is proof of subduction, and if the earth has been expanding, there could be no subduction. Subduction is where one tectonic plate does underneath another plate. Plate tectonics states that the radius of the earth stays the same, and that there is a conveyor belt that creates and destroys the seabed as see in figure \ref{fig:Subduction}.

[[File:KnownSubductionZones.jpg|frame|200px|'''Figure 2''': The known subduction zones are not enough to keep the earth at a constant radius. This is a problem for mainstream plate tectonics]] In the "excitement" of a new wave of supporters who are discovering expansion tectonics, many proponents of expansion tectonics wrongfully claim that subduction does not exist. It in fact does exist. Here are the confirmed subduction areas on the globe \ref{fig:KnownSubductionZones}.

Expansion tectonics has some places where subduction will occur, although not like the plate tectonics would describe. The earth is not equally expanding. In fact, the bottom of the earth is expanding much more than the top, thus the reason for more land in the northern hemisphere (figure \ref{fig:NorthernHemisphere}) than the southern (figure \ref{fig:SouthernHemisphere}).

In figure \ref{fig:SubductionFromExpansion}, you can see where the earth is expanding starting on the west coast of Canada and the United States and works it way down the west coast of the Americas. The arrows represent the extent of the expansion with with being non-subducted expansion, and red arrows being subducted expansion. You can see that the expansion in north america to the east is going to have to subduct.

Without exhaustively looking at all the scenarios, it is easy to see that earth's expansion is not uniform and subduction not only can be a part of the expansion model, it can help predict those subductions perhaps even better than the plate tectonics model.

==Mechanisms for Expansion==

It is important to remember that although the term "Expansion Tectonics" in words only describes "size", the phrase itself is meant to include mass increase. Dr. James Maxlow, considered by many as the top expansion geologist in the world, coined the phrase but also includes mass increase as a part of that term as well. Maxlow has found geological evidence of mass increase. This is very important. It is not simply expansion.

There have been many mechanism that have been proposed for expansion including prime matter particles.

===New Solution to Mass Increase===
The author of this paper and his father, have come up with a solution to how mass increase happens \cite{dehilster-universe-hack-3}. The Particle Model of the Universe describes the universe as particles and the G1 or gravitron particle level 1 being the particle for light, gravity, the electron cloud, and electricity. Atomic structure is made up of nucleons (protons and neutrons), and G1 particles that are smaller and more numerous than the electron. Electrons don't exist in this model. Magnetic fields and charge are actually the results of clouds of moving G1 particles.

Mass increase happens when suns blow atoms apart and spew G1 particles and nucleons in all directions. The magnetic field of the earth are G1 particles that are circulating around the earth through the poles which then capture other G1 particles and nucleons that recreate atoms inside the earth.

==Conclusion==

The two major objections to expansion tectonics is the presence of known subduction and no mechanism for mass increase of the expansion. Given the fact that the earth does not expand uniformly, and with the new Particle Model of the universe able to explain mass increase, both of those objections have been answered.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
[[Category:Expansion Tectonics]]

Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere

2016-12-29T17:42:59Z

Admin: /* Subduction */

{{Infobox paper
| title = Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere
| author = [[David de Hilster]], [[Robert M Berger]]
| keywords = [[expansion tectonics]], [[mass increase]], [[particle model]]
| journal = CNPS Proceedings
| published = 2016
| num_pages = 2
}}

==Abstract==
The two main objections to Expansion Tectonics by those in the scientific community are lack of a mechanism for expansion and mass increase, and the presence of subduction. This paper will show that these are now solved.

==Introduction==

[[File:Crustageposter.jpg|frame|'''Figure 1''': The map that changed everything: The NOSC mapping of seafloor bed ages in bands of 10s of millions of years.]]In this author's mind, the evidence for and expanding and growing earth is overwhelming. The most compelling evidence being that when the seafloor bed (see figure 1) is removed by youngest to oldest, all the continents on the earth fit together with almost no modification (see figure \ref{fig:SmallerOrbSides}). The chances of that happening are described by Stephen Hurrell, author of "Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth" \cite{hurrell-dinosaurs}:

"My original estimate for the Expanding Earth forming by chance alone was massively conservative. It isn't less than one chance in a million, or billion, or even a trillion. It's less than one chance in an octillion: a number so large I needed to look up its name. Now consider that the real Earth has multiple coastlines which all need to fit together. The probability of this happening by chance is so small it is virtually impossible." \cite{hurrell-probability}

==Subduction==

One of the arguments we hear about why expansion tectonics is not the correct theory is that there is proof of subduction, and if the earth has been expanding, there could be no subduction. Subduction is where one tectonic plate does underneath another plate. Plate tectonics states that the radius of the earth stays the same, and that there is a conveyor belt that creates and destroys the seabed as see in figure \ref{fig:Subduction}.

[[File:KnownSubductionZones.jpg|frame|200px|'''Figure 2''': The known subduction zones are not enough to keep the earth at a constant radius. This is a problem for mainstream plate tectonics]] In the "excitement" of a new wave of supporters who are discovering expansion tectonics, many proponents of expansion tectonics wrongfully claim that subduction does not exist. It in fact does exist. Here are the confirmed subduction areas on the globe \ref{fig:KnownSubductionZones}.

Expansion tectonics has some places where subduction will occur, although not like the plate tectonics would describe. The earth is not equally expanding. In fact, the bottom of the earth is expanding much more than the top, thus the reason for more land in the northern hemisphere (figure \ref{fig:NorthernHemisphere}) than the southern (figure \ref{fig:SouthernHemisphere}).

In figure \ref{fig:SubductionFromExpansion}, you can see where the earth is expanding starting on the west coast of Canada and the United States and works it way down the west coast of the Americas. The arrows represent the extent of the expansion with with being non-subducted expansion, and red arrows being subducted expansion. You can see that the expansion in north america to the east is going to have to subduct.

Without exhaustively looking at all the scenarios, it is easy to see that earth's expansion is not uniform and subduction not only can be a part of the expansion model, it can help predict those subductions perhaps even better than the plate tectonics model.

==Mechanisms for Expansion==

It is important to remember that although the term "Expansion Tectonics" in words only describes "size", the phrase itself is meant to include mass increase. Dr. James Maxlow, considered by many as the top expansion geologist in the world, coined the phrase but also includes mass increase as a part of that term as well. Maxlow has found geological evidence of mass increase. This is very important. It is not simply expansion.

There have been many mechanism that have been proposed for expansion including prime matter particles.

===New Solution to Mass Increase===
The author of this paper and his father, have come up with a solution to how mass increase happens \cite{dehilster-universe-hack-3}. The Particle Model of the Universe describes the universe as particles and the G1 or gravitron particle level 1 being the particle for light, gravity, the electron cloud, and electricity. Atomic structure is made up of nucleons (protons and neutrons), and G1 particles that are smaller and more numerous than the electron. Electrons don't exist in this model. Magnetic fields and charge are actually the results of clouds of moving G1 particles.

Mass increase happens when suns blow atoms apart and spew G1 particles and nucleons in all directions. The magnetic field of the earth are G1 particles that are circulating around the earth through the poles which then capture other G1 particles and nucleons that recreate atoms inside the earth.

==Conclusion==

The two major objections to expansion tectonics is the presence of known subduction and no mechanism for mass increase of the expansion. Given the fact that the earth does not expand uniformly, and with the new Particle Model of the universe able to explain mass increase, both of those objections have been answered.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
[[Category:Expansion Tectonics]]

File:KnownSubductionZones.jpg

2016-12-29T17:37:50Z

Admin:

Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere

2016-12-29T17:36:19Z

Admin: /* Introduction */

{{Infobox paper
| title = Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere
| author = [[David de Hilster]], [[Robert M Berger]]
| keywords = [[expansion tectonics]], [[mass increase]], [[particle model]]
| journal = CNPS Proceedings
| published = 2016
| num_pages = 2
}}

==Abstract==
The two main objections to Expansion Tectonics by those in the scientific community are lack of a mechanism for expansion and mass increase, and the presence of subduction. This paper will show that these are now solved.

==Introduction==

[[File:Crustageposter.jpg|frame|'''Figure 1''': The map that changed everything: The NOSC mapping of seafloor bed ages in bands of 10s of millions of years.]]In this author's mind, the evidence for and expanding and growing earth is overwhelming. The most compelling evidence being that when the seafloor bed (see figure 1) is removed by youngest to oldest, all the continents on the earth fit together with almost no modification (see figure \ref{fig:SmallerOrbSides}). The chances of that happening are described by Stephen Hurrell, author of "Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth" \cite{hurrell-dinosaurs}:

"My original estimate for the Expanding Earth forming by chance alone was massively conservative. It isn't less than one chance in a million, or billion, or even a trillion. It's less than one chance in an octillion: a number so large I needed to look up its name. Now consider that the real Earth has multiple coastlines which all need to fit together. The probability of this happening by chance is so small it is virtually impossible." \cite{hurrell-probability}

==Subduction==

One of the arguments we hear about why expansion tectonics is not the correct theory is that there is proof of subduction, and if the earth has been expanding, there could be no subduction. Subduction is where one tectonic plate does underneath another plate. Plate tectonics states that the radius of the earth stays the same, and that there is a conveyor belt that creates and destroys the seabed as see in figure \ref{fig:Subduction}.

In the "excitement" of a new wave of supporters who are discovering expansion tectonics, many proponents of expansion tectonics wrongfully claim that subduction does not exist. It in fact does exist. Here are the confirmed subduction areas on the globe \ref{fig:KnownSubductionZones}.

Expansion tectonics has some places where subduction will occur, although not like the plate tectonics would describe. The earth is not equally expanding. In fact, the bottom of the earth is expanding much more than the top, thus the reason for more land in the northern hemisphere (figure \ref{fig:NorthernHemisphere}) than the southern (figure \ref{fig:SouthernHemisphere}).

In figure \ref{fig:SubductionFromExpansion}, you can see where the earth is expanding starting on the west coast of Canada and the United States and works it way down the west coast of the Americas. The arrows represent the extent of the expansion with with being non-subducted expansion, and red arrows being subducted expansion. You can see that the expansion in north america to the east is going to have to subduct.

Without exhaustively looking at all the scenarios, it is easy to see that earth's expansion is not uniform and subduction not only can be a part of the expansion model, it can help predict those subductions perhaps even better than the plate tectonics model.

==Mechanisms for Expansion==

It is important to remember that although the term "Expansion Tectonics" in words only describes "size", the phrase itself is meant to include mass increase. Dr. James Maxlow, considered by many as the top expansion geologist in the world, coined the phrase but also includes mass increase as a part of that term as well. Maxlow has found geological evidence of mass increase. This is very important. It is not simply expansion.

There have been many mechanism that have been proposed for expansion including prime matter particles.

===New Solution to Mass Increase===
The author of this paper and his father, have come up with a solution to how mass increase happens \cite{dehilster-universe-hack-3}. The Particle Model of the Universe describes the universe as particles and the G1 or gravitron particle level 1 being the particle for light, gravity, the electron cloud, and electricity. Atomic structure is made up of nucleons (protons and neutrons), and G1 particles that are smaller and more numerous than the electron. Electrons don't exist in this model. Magnetic fields and charge are actually the results of clouds of moving G1 particles.

Mass increase happens when suns blow atoms apart and spew G1 particles and nucleons in all directions. The magnetic field of the earth are G1 particles that are circulating around the earth through the poles which then capture other G1 particles and nucleons that recreate atoms inside the earth.

==Conclusion==

The two major objections to expansion tectonics is the presence of known subduction and no mechanism for mass increase of the expansion. Given the fact that the earth does not expand uniformly, and with the new Particle Model of the universe able to explain mass increase, both of those objections have been answered.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
[[Category:Expansion Tectonics]]

File:Crustageposter.jpg

2016-12-29T17:34:27Z

Admin:

Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere

2016-12-29T17:31:41Z

Admin:

{{Infobox paper
| title = Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere
| author = [[David de Hilster]], [[Robert M Berger]]
| keywords = [[expansion tectonics]], [[mass increase]], [[particle model]]
| journal = CNPS Proceedings
| published = 2016
| num_pages = 2
}}

==Abstract==
The two main objections to Expansion Tectonics by those in the scientific community are lack of a mechanism for expansion and mass increase, and the presence of subduction. This paper will show that these are now solved.

==Introduction==

In this author's mind, the evidence for and expanding and growing earth is overwhelming. The most compelling evidence being that when the seafloor bed (see figure \ref{fig:crustageposter}) is removed by youngest to oldest, all the continents on the earth fit together with almost no modification (see figure \ref{fig:SmallerOrbSides}). The chances of that happening are described by Stephen Hurrell, author of "Dinasaurs and the Expanding Earth" \cite{hurrell-dinasaurs}:

"My original estimate for the Expanding Earth forming by chance alone was massively conservative. It isn't less than one chance in a million, or billion, or even a trillion. It's less than one chance in an octillion: a number so large I needed to look up its name. Now consider that the real Earth has multiple coastlines which all need to fit together. The probability of this happening by chance is so small it is virtually impossible." \cite{hurrell-probability}

==Subduction==

One of the arguments we hear about why expansion tectonics is not the correct theory is that there is proof of subduction, and if the earth has been expanding, there could be no subduction. Subduction is where one tectonic plate does underneath another plate. Plate tectonics states that the radius of the earth stays the same, and that there is a conveyor belt that creates and destroys the seabed as see in figure \ref{fig:Subduction}.

In the "excitement" of a new wave of supporters who are discovering expansion tectonics, many proponents of expansion tectonics wrongfully claim that subduction does not exist. It in fact does exist. Here are the confirmed subduction areas on the globe \ref{fig:KnownSubductionZones}.

Expansion tectonics has some places where subduction will occur, although not like the plate tectonics would describe. The earth is not equally expanding. In fact, the bottom of the earth is expanding much more than the top, thus the reason for more land in the northern hemisphere (figure \ref{fig:NorthernHemisphere}) than the southern (figure \ref{fig:SouthernHemisphere}).

In figure \ref{fig:SubductionFromExpansion}, you can see where the earth is expanding starting on the west coast of Canada and the United States and works it way down the west coast of the Americas. The arrows represent the extent of the expansion with with being non-subducted expansion, and red arrows being subducted expansion. You can see that the expansion in north america to the east is going to have to subduct.

Without exhaustively looking at all the scenarios, it is easy to see that earth's expansion is not uniform and subduction not only can be a part of the expansion model, it can help predict those subductions perhaps even better than the plate tectonics model.

==Mechanisms for Expansion==

It is important to remember that although the term "Expansion Tectonics" in words only describes "size", the phrase itself is meant to include mass increase. Dr. James Maxlow, considered by many as the top expansion geologist in the world, coined the phrase but also includes mass increase as a part of that term as well. Maxlow has found geological evidence of mass increase. This is very important. It is not simply expansion.

There have been many mechanism that have been proposed for expansion including prime matter particles.

===New Solution to Mass Increase===
The author of this paper and his father, have come up with a solution to how mass increase happens \cite{dehilster-universe-hack-3}. The Particle Model of the Universe describes the universe as particles and the G1 or gravitron particle level 1 being the particle for light, gravity, the electron cloud, and electricity. Atomic structure is made up of nucleons (protons and neutrons), and G1 particles that are smaller and more numerous than the electron. Electrons don't exist in this model. Magnetic fields and charge are actually the results of clouds of moving G1 particles.

Mass increase happens when suns blow atoms apart and spew G1 particles and nucleons in all directions. The magnetic field of the earth are G1 particles that are circulating around the earth through the poles which then capture other G1 particles and nucleons that recreate atoms inside the earth.

==Conclusion==

The two major objections to expansion tectonics is the presence of known subduction and no mechanism for mass increase of the expansion. Given the fact that the earth does not expand uniformly, and with the new Particle Model of the universe able to explain mass increase, both of those objections have been answered.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
[[Category:Expansion Tectonics]]

Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere

2016-12-29T17:31:04Z

Admin:

{{Infobox paper
| title = Physical Explanation for Greater Earth Expansion in the Southern Hemisphere
| author = [[David de Hilster]], [[Robert M Berger]]
| keywords = [[expansion tectonics]], [[mass increase]], [[particle model]]
| published = 2016
| num_pages = 2
}}

==Abstract==
The two main objections to Expansion Tectonics by those in the scientific community are lack of a mechanism for expansion and mass increase, and the presence of subduction. This paper will show that these are now solved.

==Introduction==

In this author's mind, the evidence for and expanding and growing earth is overwhelming. The most compelling evidence being that when the seafloor bed (see figure \ref{fig:crustageposter}) is removed by youngest to oldest, all the continents on the earth fit together with almost no modification (see figure \ref{fig:SmallerOrbSides}). The chances of that happening are described by Stephen Hurrell, author of "Dinasaurs and the Expanding Earth" \cite{hurrell-dinasaurs}:

"My original estimate for the Expanding Earth forming by chance alone was massively conservative. It isn't less than one chance in a million, or billion, or even a trillion. It's less than one chance in an octillion: a number so large I needed to look up its name. Now consider that the real Earth has multiple coastlines which all need to fit together. The probability of this happening by chance is so small it is virtually impossible." \cite{hurrell-probability}

==Subduction==

One of the arguments we hear about why expansion tectonics is not the correct theory is that there is proof of subduction, and if the earth has been expanding, there could be no subduction. Subduction is where one tectonic plate does underneath another plate. Plate tectonics states that the radius of the earth stays the same, and that there is a conveyor belt that creates and destroys the seabed as see in figure \ref{fig:Subduction}.

In the "excitement" of a new wave of supporters who are discovering expansion tectonics, many proponents of expansion tectonics wrongfully claim that subduction does not exist. It in fact does exist. Here are the confirmed subduction areas on the globe \ref{fig:KnownSubductionZones}.

Expansion tectonics has some places where subduction will occur, although not like the plate tectonics would describe. The earth is not equally expanding. In fact, the bottom of the earth is expanding much more than the top, thus the reason for more land in the northern hemisphere (figure \ref{fig:NorthernHemisphere}) than the southern (figure \ref{fig:SouthernHemisphere}).

In figure \ref{fig:SubductionFromExpansion}, you can see where the earth is expanding starting on the west coast of Canada and the United States and works it way down the west coast of the Americas. The arrows represent the extent of the expansion with with being non-subducted expansion, and red arrows being subducted expansion. You can see that the expansion in north america to the east is going to have to subduct.

Without exhaustively looking at all the scenarios, it is easy to see that earth's expansion is not uniform and subduction not only can be a part of the expansion model, it can help predict those subductions perhaps even better than the plate tectonics model.

==Mechanisms for Expansion==

It is important to remember that although the term "Expansion Tectonics" in words only describes "size", the phrase itself is meant to include mass increase. Dr. James Maxlow, considered by many as the top expansion geologist in the world, coined the phrase but also includes mass increase as a part of that term as well. Maxlow has found geological evidence of mass increase. This is very important. It is not simply expansion.

There have been many mechanism that have been proposed for expansion including prime matter particles.

===New Solution to Mass Increase===
The author of this paper and his father, have come up with a solution to how mass increase happens \cite{dehilster-universe-hack-3}. The Particle Model of the Universe describes the universe as particles and the G1 or gravitron particle level 1 being the particle for light, gravity, the electron cloud, and electricity. Atomic structure is made up of nucleons (protons and neutrons), and G1 particles that are smaller and more numerous than the electron. Electrons don't exist in this model. Magnetic fields and charge are actually the results of clouds of moving G1 particles.

Mass increase happens when suns blow atoms apart and spew G1 particles and nucleons in all directions. The magnetic field of the earth are G1 particles that are circulating around the earth through the poles which then capture other G1 particles and nucleons that recreate atoms inside the earth.

==Conclusion==

The two major objections to expansion tectonics is the presence of known subduction and no mechanism for mass increase of the expansion. Given the fact that the earth does not expand uniformly, and with the new Particle Model of the universe able to explain mass increase, both of those objections have been answered.

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
[[Category:Expansion Tectonics]]