Geophysics

   

Examination of MAXLOW’S Model for Expansion Tectonics – an Astronomical Perspective

Authors: Raymond HV Gallucci, Pe

While not drawing any conclusion regarding the validity of the theory that Earth has undergone volumetric (and mass) expansion over the course of its geologic history, this paper examines one of the leading contenders' models for just such growth, that of James Maxlow ("Global Tectonic Data Modeling," Terella Press, Australia [2017]). Maxlow’s extensive analysis of (paleo-)geology, paleomagnetics, space geodetics, paleogeography, paleoclimatology, paleobiology, fossil fuels, past extinctions and metallogenics suggest that Earth’s radius has grown exponentially over the past 1.6 x 109 years by a factor of 3.75, with sufficient increase in mass to ensure that surface gravity has not decreased, and quite possibly has increased. A much more cursory examination of this assumption from the perspective of astronomical physics, particularly conservation of Earth’s orbital and rotational angular momentum, suggests a much more “modest” rate of increase, not necessarily exponential. And, while quite limited in comparison to Maxlow’s analysis, this simplified one still raises apparently valid discrepancies that should be addressed. Hopefully, further research and analysis, or validation of different assumptions, can bring these two competing arenas into closer agreement.

Comments: 10 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2017-09-15 09:16:28

Unique-IP document downloads: 7 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus