Plate Tectonics versus Earth Expansion – A Gravity Problem by Louis Hissink

The Plate Tectonic model dominates mainstream geology and science.

It is based on the cosmological model of:

■ An initial state of nothingness which then exploded as the LeMaitre-Gamow Cosmic Big Bang Event when T=0, (time)

■ Some time afterwards another miracle happened and the exploding matter, exploding in all directions, started to locally slow down to gravitational attraction (How, don’t ask) and forming primal clusters of matter

■ These small clusters of gravitationally accreted matter started to clump to other nearby clumps that, over time, started forming stars where gravitational accretion was so intense that nuclear reactions started and lo, there was light!

■ Other, not so bright, clumps formed planets where the accretionary force of gravity continues to operate.

■ Today we live in a gravitational universe in which observations that don’t fit theory are explained by ad hoc adjustments including Dark Matter, Black Holes, Dark Energy, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, particle duality where electrons are either particles or waves, and what other miracles will be needed to explain future observations.

Plate tectonics replaced Continental Drift theory that was itself based on the amazing coincidence of the near parallelism of the coasts of the Americas and Africa.

Because gravity is THE force, it is continually attracting and compressing matter so that the Earth is unable to expand and remains thus fixed in size and, obviously, volume.

Under such basic physical principles, earth expansion (EE) is not possible and hence EE proselytisers invoke matter creation, or is it mass, and does it matter, in the earth’s core to fuel the expansion process. The latest version of this Creation Process is having solar protons arrive at the poles and then descend downwards into the core where the protons cause a mass increase thus causing expansion by negating gravity. (How the protons manage to pass through the atmosphere, oceans, crust and mantle is never explained).

The Plate Tectonists (PT) are founded in Gravity Theory (GT) and hence when mid ocean spreading ridges were discovered logically deduced that, given the fixed size earth, then the movement of the newly formed crust outwards must subduct elsewhere, hence the subduction zones. How new material formed at the mid-ocean spreading ridges, less dense than their parent rocks deeper in the crust, could descend into the more dense lower crust is not well explained because if less dense material is subducted downwards, and mixes with denser material, then it means the output of this mixing has to be an intermediate density rock, which implies gross density decrease with time and hence volumetric expansion. This remains a problem, among many others for the PT camp if they venture out of their ivory towers in academia.

Since there cannot be any expansion, subducted less dense material is therefore thought to become compressed by gravity to more dense phases. How this happens is usually explained by having mantle hotspots fuelled by the thermal decay of radiogenic elements that have been supplying heat since the Earth was created/formed 4.5 billions of years ago producing mantle convection cells. (An impolite commentator might note that if this mechanism were real, then extruded basalts and other oceanic mafics, being the product of radiogenic thermometry, should also be radioactive, which they emphatically are not).

Mighty be the force (of gravity), (apologies to Yoda).

In 2009 I supervised two drilling programs for, now delisted, ASX company Brumby Resources NL ASX Code BMY). The projects were Telyagel for a buried channel iron deposit, and Goldsworthy, a deep magnetite target. Both targets were based purely on geophysics, Telyagel on gravity and Goldsworthy on magnetics. Both projects were located on the flat lying Cretaceous aged West Canning Basin artesian aquifer that overlaid Proterozoic rocks including banded iron formations (BIF), mafics, volcanics etc., typical cratonic rock types.

Telyagel was drill tested by a vertical water bore using mud as the drilling medium. It stopped at 139 metres when the hole stopped in basement. No channel iron deposits were found in the Cretaceous sediments (carbonate rich). Goldsworthy was tested by an angle diamond cored hole dipping down at 57 Degrees below horizontal. It was stopped at 387.3 metres and did not pass through any magnetite dominant rocks. The hole was surveyed by a combination instrument that measured gravity, magnetic and temperature fields downhole and the results previously detailed on a previous post.

Figure 1 DH Survey GWD001 through flat lying Cretaceous aquifer of West Canning Basin

The two anomalous dip readings at 90 and 120 metres pointing to a gravitating body some 3 times more dense than the underlying proterozoic rocks is not borne out by the in situ geology and hence the behaviour of the instrument cannot be attributed to the standard gravity assumption. As the Goldsworthy drilling operation comprised 3 diamond core holes, the drillers confirmed the same anomalous readings were also obtained for GWD002 and GWD003, thus negating instrument malfunction explanation, and if one obeys the protocols of the scientific method, the theory has to be questioned, rather than the data.

The artesian ground water in the region has a measured pH of > 8 which makes it from an electrical sense strongly negative. This water would also fall into Gerald Pollack’s definition of EZ water, vis. proton poor water. The warm water down hole also confirms the presence of infra-red radiation, necessary for formation of EZ water at physical interfaces.

Thus we have a strong, electrically negatively charged layer at the surface. This leads to the idea of gravity being electrical, as envisaged by Wal Thornhill, where an atom can be considered an electric dipole elongated in the direction of gravity. In an isotropic field the atomic model would be spherical, but in an electric field, elongated in the vertical direction due to the attraction of the electron upwards to the positively charged ionosphere, and the downward attraction of the proton to the negatively charged Earth’s surface, essentially a plasma double layer.

A test mass placed above this layer during a ground gravity survey would thus indicate a higher than expected value for G from the effect of the electric field of the water saturated layer. This may explain the misinterpretation of a shallow dense object from the Telyagel gravity survey, location A in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Electric Dipole Behaviour Model
(Note: Seismic velocity changes at depth may actually be due to electric double layers)

A test mass placed under the electrically negatively charged layer would then be attracted upwards as observed in the down hole data at the 90m and 120m downhole depths, and since the normal electric field was encountered at 150 metres where the dip reading assumed the expected value of 57 degrees, it may be assumed that the local electric field returned to its expected value.

The take home message of this field data points to gravity being an electrical phenomenon.

It is clear we are dealing with an electrical universe and not as is presently assumed, a totalitarian gravity one, so this possibility will be rejected by the mainstream scientific milieu as it will require a serious paradigm shift in physics and geology.

So what is gravity? It’s the weak Lorentz force caused by Birkeland currents interacting at a plasma Z-Pinch, neglecting stronger local electric fields.

Update: Raw Data

Gallery | This entry was posted in Electric Universe, Geology, Gerald Pollack, Gravity, Inflating Earth. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Plate Tectonics versus Earth Expansion – A Gravity Problem by Louis Hissink

  1. Of course if gravity is electrical then how to explain the observed high PT conditions at depth in the Earth?


    Planets are initially produced by intensive Z-Pinches over time, and while some planets might be fizzled out stars, others may not be, but the end product of a Z-Pinch is tightly compressed matter.

    Once the forcing current is removed or decreased, then a slow or fast, depends, transition from high PT to lower PT states evolve, and this probably results in outgassing and igneous activity. One could imagine the Earth as a leaky capacitor that is slowly leaking, and over time it will metamorphose into lower pressure and less dense phases of matter. This is imply volumetric expansion and is the mechanism behind Earth Expansion.

    Gravitational accretion is effectively a nonsense, but a necessary one if you believe in Creation.

    • thx1138 says:

      … stars “give birth” from time to time by electrical parturition. It occurs in a nova-type discharge from their charged interior. Unlike the hydrogen-bomb model of stars, there is no internal heating. Intense plasma discharges at the stellar surface give rise to starshine. Those discharges synthesize “metals” that continually rain into the star’s depths. The heavy element abundance in a star’s spectrum is not just an inheritance from old supernovae. Stellar interiors become enriched in heavy elements. The star “children” are gas giants or binary partners formed from those heavier elements after expulsion from the star.

      Therefore we should simply expect from the electric star model that the longer a star has been shining the more heavy elements it will show in its spectrum and the more time it has had to “give birth.” So stars forming today are not more likely to have planets than earlier generations. They probably have not had time to have planetary “children.” Whether a star has planetary companions or not is NOT a condition of its birth. We should expect that below a certain metallicity (that is, age) a star will not have planets. We do not expect babies to give birth! Planet formation has more to do with the growth of internal electrical stress in a star. It can be enhanced by episodes of unusual electric stress in its environment. We should be looking closely at stars that have undergone nova outbursts.

      It should be noted that plasma cosmologists have a view of star formation that allows for a number of condensed bodies to be formed in close proximity at the same time. And the separation of elements by their “critical ionization velocity” in a plasma pinch may offer an alternative explanation for differences in metallicity between the bodies. However, it is not clear to what extent this mechanism plays a role in the development of planets about a star. Certainly, it does not explain the propensity for planets to be found in higher numbers near stars of higher metallicity.

      The stellar parturition model seems to offer a simple solution to:

      a) the presence of heavy elements in gas giants,
      b) a greater number of gas giants being found around stars of high metallicity, and
      c) the propensity for close orbits of the gas giants about their parent star.

      Wal Thornhill

    • thx1138 says:

      Science rewrites Genesis

      Present theories of the origin of the universe and the Earth have taken on the mantle of religious truth. It is as if scientists feel obliged to provide an alternative “scientific” Genesis story to replace the biblical one. All that has been achieved is a Hollywood rewrite complete with the obligatory stupendous explosion, an imaginary hell of black holes and the occasional miracle to allow the plot to continue. The story has been limited by cultural preconceptions and by restricting the “writers” to experts in one narrow specialty. The story is overdue for a shake-up. The irony is that Genesis is only one version among many of a major evolutionary event in the history of the solar system; a “re-creation” event witnessed by prehistoric man and memorialised by all of the earliest civilizations. It has much to offer in a more general approach to discovering the real history of the Earth and the origin of planets.

      Wal Thornhill

    • thx1138 says:

      So you think the Earth is fizzing into a larger volume kind of like when I pour my beer too quickly into my glass?

      • No, like a leaky electric capacitor that gets hot and exudes dielectric which oozes out and of course gas phases might be associated too but frothing like a beer badly poured ?

        Yes and no depends on what scale one is observing from. The Ant might not see it as a frizzle but as a slow deluge of whatever. The galaxy monster might see it as a frizzle over a billion years that is its time frame.

        So it depends on the time scale one is peering from, or which fractal dimension on might be in.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s