All,
Yes, this is at the heart of what I sent out many weeks ago about the wired article. Please read as I think it gives a whole new spin to HET.
Eric
···
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Matthew Taylor" <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 14:01:09 +1000
Re: Re Mike: Mr TLONH aka Matthew TaylorDick Fojut,
The drifting continents evidence has given rise to two theories, Plate Techtonics and Earth Expansion.
Plate Tectonics is based around the idea that the Earth has remained a constant diameter and it trys to explain continental movement by the use of spreading (or growing) areas and countering subduction (reducing) areas of crust. The combination of both spreading and subduction always keeping the surface area of the Earth constant and thus the Earth's diamter constant.
This is the original theory but many scientists have found that while spreading areas of crust are easily seen and proved, the opposite side of subduction is a different story. There is very little evidence for this concept. It appears that the surface area of the Earth is expanding as new crust is being formed and not destoryed elsewhere. Because of this, several scientists have taken the most evidential direction and began to investigate the possibilities of Earth Expansion.
The Earth Expansion theory has been around for a long time and there are several key scientists which are pushing the idea. The most notible is S. Warren Carey - a geologist from Tasmania Australia. He first wrote on the subject with his book "The Expanding Earth" in 1976. This book may be hard to find now but since then he has written several more. His latest book is called 'Theories of the Earth and Universe : A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences' (1988) It is available from amazon.com here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0804713642/thelandofnoho-20/107-5567759-2358144 (I hope you don't mind but I have added my amazon affiliate link to that) > >On our website I have added a links page where you can find a lot of very interesting links relating to our book, There are 6 expanding Earth links and they are all worth checking out. The address of our links page is: http://www.tlonh.com/links.html
In our book we go into the theories of Plate Techtonics and Earth Expansion in great detail.
You mention mountain building in your email. This is a very interesting subject, Plate Techtonics does have some mechinisms which could atribute to mountain building but on large this common phenomenon is not propperly explained. However an expanding Earth model has very strong mountain building properties.
On an expanding Earth, as it grows, the continents slowly flatten out due to the reducing surface curviture. this causes horizontal compression in the surface of the crust, it is this compression which is responsible for pushing up mountains. On a constant diameter Earth this horizontal compression is missing and so the formation of mountains becomes a mystery.
Continental drift and Earth expansion began 200 million years ago, this is when mountain building also began.
Again all of these concepts are talked about in great detail in our book.
Matthew Taylor,
http://www.tlonh.comI'll have to get your book AND Mike's to fully understand the premises of both you guys. (I did download Hurrell's book for later reading).
Will I have to go to your book for specific evidence about the Earth EXPANDING? That theory is brand new to me, especially since orthodox geologists have long thought the Earth was now some 20 miles LESS in diameter than it was when the first crust solidified. Gravity is LESS today? That one I need proof of.
Col. James Churchward asserted that in the ancient past (including during the LONG period when Dinosaurs roamed), while the atmosphere was super tropical in temperature (certainly nothing like the present) most of Earth's surface was covered with dense, dull Ferns and other growth. It was nearly an endless SWAMP.
One of the proofs he provided was that in that ancient past, no evidence has been brought forth finding MOUNTAIN life and MOUNTAIN vegetation, ONLY SWAMP growth and SWAMP "animal" life (including lizards). Also, he claimed, Dinosaur life began small (in the swamps) and over an immensely long time, grew to the giant sizes that roamed and ruled most of the world's swamps.
In fact he went went much further, writing that during Earth's long geological history, it wasn't until the period between 20,000 (uplifting beginning as low hills) and 10,000 years back, that ANY mountains or mountain ranges were uplifted. (Archaen rocks from earth's primary granite crust were volcanically shoved upward THROUGH the upper rocks and Gneisses. Orthodox scientists have mistakenly ASSUMED that the primary granite rocks found on mountain tops have been there for millions of years. They have only the fuzziest theories HOW mountains came to be, so they bury the cause in a theoretical past. Was Churchward mistaken about any of the preceding paragraphs? Appreciate comments by yourself or anyone else who has contrary evidence.
Fundamental to Churchward's beliefs about the geological past, is his assertion that the Earth's crust (the center is Hollow, he agreed) cooled by fusion from the highest possible temperature.... slowly cooling over the millions of years without a backstep. And no sudden mythical "ice age" freezes! And then an "unfreeze." About an "ice age," did the Sun temporarily abandon PART of Earth for thousands of years? I say "PART" because Churchward, also a world explorer, was with an expedition to northern Asia in the 1800s. They found NO evidence of a glacier having existed anywhere in Asia almost to the poles. Yet most of the north polar area was supposed to be under thousands of feet - no, miles - of ice which lasted for thousands of years. But not a trace on the Asian side. (Like a movie set with an outdoor scene on the facing side only wooden struts holding the illusion up). At the same latitudes as the "ice cap" on our side, there was temperate weather. It is no wonder university "professors" of his time, refused to debate him and have his proof. reported. (Isn't that also happening today with Lamprecht, Cater and others?)
A MAGNETIC CATACLYSM ABOUT 17,000 YEARS BACK?
What Churchward and the expedition did find was abundant evidence that when the glacier was supposed to have existed, great waves of WATER WITHOUT ICE, poured north from the Pacific, drowning all the land in their path, generally following the Lena Valley depression (and creating LLAKOFF'S island just off shore of the Lena river.)
As Churchward explained it, the Earth's super-magnetized north polar area had LURCHED free of the Sun's magnetic grip which had pulled it out of mean. The pole (and rest of the globe) whipped away from the Sun but the loose waters continued in the other direction. The great waves from the south picked up (suddenly) the abundant animal life roaming the MOUNTAINLESS plains and deposited them in bulk at Llakoff's island. While there was supposed to have existed a FROZEN glacier, freezing cold over most of the North and South, the mastodons and other animals at Llakoff, were found with FRESH TEMPERATE VEGETABLE GROWTH in their mouths and stomachs, just eaten on the plains from where they suddenly were swept northward.
How could the plains of Northern Asia (and the Gobi) have vast areas of TEMPERATE vegetation? (Please don't someone say they came out of the Polar opening. In this case it is not necessary) That the waters contained no ice is proven by the intact, frozen condition of many of these animals. Had ice accompanied the waves, they would (like animal and human life in Canada and the upper United States) also have been ground to a pulp, mixed with mud without trace as fertilizer.
The waves continued north, picking up rocks and the accumulated ice at the north pole, joined the waves of the Arctic down onto Canada (sweeping free all top soil down to the bedrock) and plunged onto the United States (another part of it sweeping down on parts of Northern Europe. ) The impetus of the waves began to peter out to mostly water as far South as New Mexico. The largest rocks (rounded to boulders, some hundreds of tons in size) were first dropped on the plains. More ice and smaller boulders dropped off later. Then lighter gravel and soil. (the "drift' lines) In Churchward's imagination he pictured the (again MOUNTAINLESS) plains of North America as one vast sea of MUD, for thousands of miles, with here and there mounds of soil and large boulders showing above the mud.
Later, when subterranean "gas belts" formed, uplifting the land into mountains and mountain ranges above them, the boulders on the plains (and those originating further back up north), went up with them to where geologists find them today. Churchward was convinced (from evidence in Asia) that the "MAGNETIC CATACLYSM" causing the pole to "lurch," happened about 17,000 years back. At that time the UIGHER empire occupied the then verdant Gobi. He wrote of a Russian explorer who had dug 50 feet down under gravel in the Gobi desert and discovered the Uigher capital city, KARA KOTA. He ran out of funds after that, and unless he is listed in Russian archaeological history, his find went unreported in the West. From the preceding (and more not mentioned here), Churchward was convinced that the mythical ice age is completely misunderstood. Instead of being an event that lasted for thousands of years, it was a catastrophe lasting probably just days.
WHY DID THE MONSTROUS DINOSAURS VANISH?...
I've digressed from the fate of the giant Dinosaurs, according to Churchward. As Earth's crustal rocks continued to cool and the ground begin hardening more, the SWAMPS (that were nearly everywhere) began to dry out, turn to marshes with dry ridges on their edges.
The SWAMPS where the Dinosaurs lay their eggs began to disappear. But most of all as Churchward explained, the atmospheric temperatures dropped BELOW the optimum temperature needed to hatch their eggs!
Reason? All life on Earth began as SIMPLE organisms, vegetable and animal. There is a "LIFE" Force, Churchward explained. It was a COMPOUND Force composed partly of Earth's HEAT Force. The "Life" Force was decreed by the Creator to BALANCE all the chemical parts and elements of life forms. The Force HEAT played a great role and the amount of Life Force in the atmosphere could be roughly determined by past temperatures on Earth.
It may seem strange, but Churchward said a SIMPLE organism needed a LARGE volume of Life Force to "balance" its parts and put them into motion. Too much Life Force and the organism would be over-powered and die. Too little Life Force and the organism would also die, not enough power to some parts, especially the GENERATIVE parts and fluids. The Dinosaurs (if Churchward was correct) were already the "fag" end of their line. The gradual lowering of Heat in the atmosphere (and thus in the Life Force) was becoming insufficient to balance the simple chemical elements in their bodies. Too little power to some parts, too much to others resulting in the incredible (and often useless) appendages found in late dinosaurs. They were chemically UNBALANCED, on their way out as a species. But Churchward remarks, one scientist he named, found that the Dinosaurs in warmer South America died out much LATER than those further north.
That should put the juvenile theory that an ASTEROID or METEOR struck off the coast of Mexico and its "dust" or whatever, somehow circled the globe killing off all the Dinosaurs (Their high heads got choked?)... along with (I've read now) most of other life on Earth.
If such an impact did that so close to South America, why didn't those South American Dinosaurs die off first - or at least at the same time as the Dinosaurs in Europe and North America? But we must not question orthodox "scientists" no matter how stupid and unfounded are some of their theories and conclusions.Churchward points out that as the last of the Dinosaurs (whose eggs wouldn't hatch) disappeared, they were "suddenly" replaced by new life forms, the MAMMALS. Many distinct species appeared, all about the size of small dogs... with long toes like today's wading birds, because the marshes, now also drying out, were being replaced by mostly soft, spongy ground.
Chemically and in all their parts they were MORE COMPLEX than the Dinosaurs and other simple creatures that preceded them. A LESSER volume of Life Force (and contained Heat Force) was needed to "balance" their parts into action. From that Eocene time, Churchward insisted, all present mammal animal life forms were established, including the Eocene Horse, chemically the same as today's horse. The only major change in today's larger horse being, not "evolution" but MODIFICATIONS only to its hooves to enable it to flee from its pursuers over HARD GROUND. The soft ground on Earth's surface had gradually dried out and hardened.
Your contention that the Earth has expanded may or may not be based on fact. But I personally frown on the theory that there are continental plates, slipping and sliding on "magna" (or is it molten lead now?) miles thick bending like plastic and disappearing into the earth at 45 degrees... then new plates emerging elsewhere, again at 45 degree angles . (Those are the detailed illustration in a book I have by Jastrow and Thompson. Vertical "fault" cracks opened everywhere in the cooling primary granite of early earth. They are superficial, and though they can be shifted around by the hot volcanic gases being moved through gas belts 10 to 15 miles deep, they are not the cause of earthquakes... or indicators of "plate tectonics." Just a secondary effect.
I recall reading a scientific journal space probes article over ten years back that said how surprised scientists were because the space probes had found NO EVIDENCE of tectonic plates elsewhere aside from earth. The writer expressed his opinion that Earth may be very unique.
In my saved 1952 issue of LIFE magazine (wish i could locate it)... they made many elaborate color illustrations of the 1952 GEOPHYSICAL YEAR. The oceans were mapped with radar. Even today we still hear some "scientists" saying that plate movement is proved by "fitting together" Africa, South America and America. They seem to FIT together is the claim. But look at the ocean bottoms shown by the maps in that Life magazine and you see that the SHAPE of the North Atlantic ridge on either side, could also roughly fit around edges of the continents on both sides! And for a fact, it has been established for many decades that parts of the North Atlantic ridge were once above water for extended periods of time! How could those continents split apart if there was another hunk of solid real estate in the middle. Are there any scientists still alive today who remember those Life magazine maps about the Geophysical year? Apparently not.
Were any of you aware that as recent as the 1950s the theory of continental plates was being laughed at in many leading universities? It was at the Univ of Washington when my wife was a student there. That doesn't prove it was mistaken, but it was doubted by some.
I really feel like a spoilsport having brought up all the preceding. But unless you (or any reader) can provide me with solid evidence to knock the pins out from under Churchward's ideas, I remain skeptical about some of your basic contentions that I read in Emails and websites. I look forward to hearing from some more expert than myself to put reasonable doubt on Churchward's assertions. I'm sure he must have errors somewhere in his writing. (I've myself found a few I have doubts about) But in the main the guy seems to me to have a better overall grasp about the geology of the Earth than anyone I've yet read. And they have never read his books.
- Dick Fojut in Tucson