Dear Dr. Minas,

as a geoscientist working in applied sciences (economic geology) I think the best evidence for the right approach to be taken is the success reached in this case based on a model like plate tectonics. Moreover the deeper we dig into the Earth´s crust and the more advanced the new methods in geophysical deep-sounding are, we realize that both speak in favor of this old (do not forget A. Wegner) and new global tectonics the results of which we can see as we just skim a small-scale map of the globe.

H.G.Dill

Thank you Harald G. Dill for answering, mid oceanic ridge formed before 20 ma, well what about the period before that did that mean no PT present before 200ma.

Geoscientists even try to extend and apply this model on global tectonics back to the Precambrian series as I know from my personal experience with explorantion geologists. And the exploration models based upon its architectural elements seem to work perfectly well.

H.G.Dill

for while it is good and make geology more understood

Dear Dr. Minas and all,

I am a field geologist who has worked for 40 years on land and in the oceans.

My opinion about plate-tectonics is as follows.

Plate-tectonics is interesting and original concept, which summarized most of the facts about the structure of the Earth, accumulated for the 20th century. Plate-tectonics served the progress of tectonic science for a long time and take great popularity with its simplicity and logic.

However, there are a number of fundamental limitations that have been imposed on plate tectonics by its authors. The physical basis of plate tectonics is not proven.

Over time, a large number of facts have accumulated, contrary to plate tectonics. But the inertia of thinking for decades does not allow scientists to abandon the outdated paradigm, forcing them to invent more and more new sub- theories and sub- models for guard of the plate-tectonic As a result, plate tectonics lost their original simplicity and logic.

This situation can not continue long time. The history of science is the history of changing paradigms. And if we are looking for the truth, and not just grants, if we recognize the priority of the fact over the theory and model, we will have to reconsider our views on geotectonics in accordance with reality.

I believe that the time of the revolution in geotectonics is approaching, after which a new paradigm will burn, that generalizes all existing volume of facts at a new level. Plate tectonics for a long time contributed to the development of science, now it hinders science, and it's time to change it.

It's time for serious reflection on an alternative geotectonic paradigm.

Under some strange coincidence, plate tectonics may still be true. But for its adoption, I need more weighty evidence than air towers built from models.

V. M. Anokhin

Dr. Mr. Anokhin,

can you please name some of the alternative theories with reference? How far are these theories evolved and what can they explain what plate tectonics can not?

Best regards

Christian Günther

Dear Ass. Prof. Dr. Haithem A. Minas,

My answer to your question is not! You have gotten an excellent response from V. M. Anokhin… He mentioned the next: ‘(…)However, there are a number of fundamental limitations that have been imposed on plate tectonics by its authors. The physical basis of plate tectonics is not proven.

Over time, a large number of facts have accumulated, contrary to plate tectonics. But the inertia of thinking for decades does not allow scientists to abandon the outdated paradigm, forcing them to invent more and more new sub-theories and submodels for the guard of the plate-tectonic As a result, plate tectonics lost their original simplicity and logic(…)’.

I

n the next place was written the next: ‘As everything in a worldwide society Science is a business, and conformism is the rule to succeed.’ (Jean Claude Dutailly) https://www.researchgate.net/post/An_old_question_that_is_still_fresh_Is_gravity_a_Newtonian_force_or_Einstein_space-time_curvature#view=5c937594f8ea52bbcd372446

From these two sentences, you conclude that PT is actual forms are blinding the young scientist to see the Earth surface in real form… That is why I am a skeptic that is will change in good direction… Example your country is rich in hydrocarbon, but you are not able to determine easily their reserves…

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear All,

I think Mr. Anokhin has well indicated where lies the problem. Over the five decades of developing the plate tectonics theory many professorships, doctorates and other so-called scientific achievements have been built.... And for more than 50 years geology is stuck in some kind of a vicious circle.

In 1958 sea-floor spreading was first described by Samuel Warren Carey. That phenomen was undeniably proved and later descibed by many other authors. However, it was Carey who concluded that spreading causes expansion of the sea floors and therefore growth of the Earth radius. Later he formulated the principles of the Expanding Earth theory.

At the very beginning there were contradictors to the radius-growing concept. In one of the fundamental papers for the plate tectonics theory Le-Pichon (1968) stated that if the Earth radius is growing in the rift zones due to spreading process, there must be zones where the crust (and therefore radius) is shortened and compensated, if assuming that the Earth radius is constant. And vicious circle started to roll...

On that false assumption the idea of subduction process was created. The existence of Wadati-Benioff zones has been already known and as it turned out such zones might help to prove the subduction process. Followers of the idea developed models and subduction started to live its life. Later on subduction started to being used as an explanation to plate tectonics mechanism. As well as mantle convection and many others that were developed to demonstrate and explain how plate tectonics works. More and more models were created and Le-Pichon’s original assumption of constant Earth radius was not mentioned again.

In the other hand, there is a theory that explains many phenomena in much simpler way. The theory of an Expanding Earth is not based on any assumptions. It is proved by geological evidence. There are many papers about Expanding Earth theory by eg. Samuel Warren Carey, James Maxlow, Klaus Vogel, Giancarlo Scalera.

I graduated in the Institute of Geological Sciences of Wroclaw University, Poland. This is (or rather was) an important center of development of the Expanding Earth theory. I had a quite unique possibility to attend to probably the only lectures on the Expanding Earth in the world. They were conducted by Mr. Jan Koziar. We had the opportunity to learn both theories. Such approach really opens mind.

Nowadays, Jan Koziar works in Wroclaw Geotectonic Laboratory ( www.wrocgeolab.pl ) and actively publishes his work concerning the Expanding Earth theory. If you are interested, please refer to the mentioned website. It is probably the best website to start to learn about the Expanding Earth. The most of its content is in English. You will find there not only proofs of the Earth’s expansion, but also physical and cosmological background, refrence to space geodesy and of course models eg. tensional development of active continental margins or gravitational mechanism of tectogenesis.

The main objection of the supporters of the plate tectonics theory is the unknown mechanism causing the expansion. Well… Greeks proved that the Earth is round, even though they did not know why…

Kind regards,

Dominik

Dominik Sokalski

Do you have any measurements which prove the expansion of the earth? With all the satellites and global positioning systems from the US, EU, Russia and China it should be possible to measure a rise in radius, circumference etc.

Dear Dominic,

Do you have the proof that the subduction is a real physical process?

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear all, question about alternative tectonic theory is not simply. Now main resourses of tectonic science direct to help of the plate tectonic. In first we must understand: "real theory of geotectonic not exist now". And start to create the new concept from this point, with real data about the Earth only. I make somesing in this direct - in April we ll organise the new session "Concept. Tectonic..." in the Gen. Assambly of EGU in the Vienna. I m respect Carey and the theory of spread Earth. Thinking & working.

Of Course it’s the best theory at present to explain the earths processes, and since the movement can be measured, it works for me. Of course there are flat earth people “around the globe!"

You can measure vertical movements too, right? But it is unlikely that anybody, on the basis of measured instantaneous values of vertical movements, will argue that mountains grow for millions years with these speeds. Vertical movements are mainly oscillatory. Why not assume that the horizontal movements are oscillatory, and, therefore, the plates are moving not very far?

Because of the trace of fossils in the rocks and the crenelations in metamorphic rocks especially the feldspars. Look up wrangellia. They can be traced all the way from Pt. Reyes in CA through the 7 devils of Idaho to the Wrangle Mts of Alaska. The 200 mbp record of sea floor spreading in the Atlantic. The 10 million year record on the floor of the Juan De Fuca. The Mesozoic record of the Track of India to from off coast of the tip of Africa to the Himalayan Mt. What University are you at?

Look at your own Ural Mt. Record where the ancient sea floor fossils are at the top.

plate tectonics, species evolution, climate change ... all hoaxes obviously... ;-)

Dear colleagues, I studied all these arguments about 20-30 years ago, and they all do not satisfy me deeply. All these arguments are discussed in detail in the article:

David Pratt, 2000. Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat. Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 307-352, 2000.

I recommend to read.

I work in the Russian Academy of Sciences, and many of us do not accept plate tectonics. In addition, I remind you that I have seen a lot with my own eyes over the decades of field and marine geological and geophysical works in which I participated. And I recommend everyone not to refer to someone's results and theories, but to open his eyes to the fundamental facts and think with his own head.

By the way, any fossils on the tops of any mountains logically indicate vertical movements, or not?

Dear Steve Carison,

It’s your trouble what you are saying… In Pannonia Basin, the interpretation with PT is a fake story… The PT is a business theory, for blind eyes of the most countries researcher to see their country geology in real circumstances…

Can you explain correctly how happened the mega-tsunami from Lituya Bay 1958? In the case of the tsunami (2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami): Why in the affected zone by the tsunami the people did not fell the Earthquakes…? Why only in the USA exists UFO? Can we assume that the PT is like a UFO story?

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear colleagues:

In my opinion the best proof for the quality of this theory lies in its application for mineral exploration which not only benefits from the structural architectural elements of it but also from the mineralogical and lithological as well as chemical side effects which can be attributed to this model. The plate tectonics is only the framework which in the succeeding decades was successfully "stuffed" with data from the disciplines cited. There were also modifications to the model, e.g., those concerned with ensialic orogens.

This is, however, by no means a criterion to query the entire approach.

It is similar to the approach taken in sedimentology called “sequences stratigraphy”

With kind regards

H.G.Dill

DILL, H.G. (1985) Die Vererzung am Westrand der Böhmischen Masse. - Metallogenese in einer ensialischen Orogenzone. - Geologisches Jahrbuch, D 73: 3-461.(English, Russian, French summary)

DILL, H.G. (1985) Antimoniferous mineralization from the Mid-European Saxothuringian Zone; Mineralogy, Geology, Geochemistry and ensialic Origin. - International Journal of Earth Sciences, 74: 447-466.

DILL, H. G. (1989) Metallogenetic and geodynamic evolution in the Central European Variscides. - A pre-well site study for the German Continental Deep Drilling Programme. - Ore Geology Reviews, 4: 279-304.

DILL, H.G. (2015) The Hagendorf-Pleystein Province: The center of pegmatites in an ensialic orogen.- Modern Approaches in Solid Earth Sciences, Springer, Dortrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, ISBN-978-3-319-18805-8, 475 pp.

Dear Dr. Minas

I agree to Anokhin's arguement.

In fact, there is no better theory to replace the plate tectnoic theory now, although it hard to explains many geologic fact, such as the Mesozoic granite in the South China and the magmatism in the inner of plate. But you can still use it explain most of observations in the margin of blocks that are the origin of plate theory.

Best wishes,

Zhankun

Dear All:

I am correcting my new ready argumentative article with arguments against to subduction process process I would like to ask you: if the next sentence information is correct or not:

The phenomena of subduction was formulated first by Isacks, B.L., Oliver, J. and Sykes, L.R., and accepted onto base of their work [Bibliography: Isacks, B.L., Oliver, J. and Sykes, L.R., 1968, Seismology and the new global tectonics, J. Geophys. Res. 73: 5855–5899] Based on the location of the hypocentres of earthquakes to the west of the KT (Kermadec-Tonga) trench.

Every better and honestly correction is welcome (author, the first article, and time)

This small help is welcome from the supporter of PT, too. (I would like to get response in few days)

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Colleagues:

When I began my studies in geosciences at the universities I learnt the theories of the late Professor Stille to be the correct way of geodynamics. His “Orogenic Cycle Theory”, including eugeosynclinal and miogeosynclinal basins was state-of-the art then. And many textbooks paid tribute to this theory which worked well for the Variscides and to some extent also for the Caledonides and Alpides. I was attracted by the logic of the explanation of the outward appearance of the various orogens but I did not understand what the driving force behind all that was.

I do not want to repeat my previous answer from the scratch but the plate tectonic as we look at the outward appearance is as logical as it was the theory of Stille then. In my opinion the new global tectonics comes closer to the truth than Stille´s theory. But digging deeper and looking for the “deus ex machina” at depth confronted me with the same unsolved issues and it is another of the same.

As a member of the project management group of the “Continental Deep Drilling Program of the F.R. Germany” which was initially planned for 14000 m but ended at 9000 m I was faced with the same shortcomings I mentioned above. In spite of a far-reaching geophysical project in the run-up to the drilling project, proper, we were caught up on the wrong foot and had to resign into the fact that geology was totally different from what we expected. The thin skin of the crust which we look at with our own eyes allows us to make up our mind. But going deeper……?

It depends on the direction and from whatever angle we look at the issue of plate tectonic.

Harald G. Dill

Dear companions:

We have read a very nice and honest explanation of Prof. Harald G. Dill. With the majority thought I am in accord with him. But I cannot accept Plate Tectonic! I did not have the opportunity to work in my profession (political reason, after the publishing of my philosophical book, 1995.) But in the shortly of free time I continued to make study: Perhaps I got intuitionally a possible good explanation of the Dinosaurs extension (no published); some type of Earthquakes prediction (no verified and worked out… only studied work of Prof Vjacheslav Nagorny, who has a very good resolution which can be used very well)… I have discovered the Planet erosion process (2007) which led me to abandon Plate tectonic theory forever after 25 years acceptance in 2007… (This remark will be continued soon)   

Regards,

Laszlo

P.S. Nobody, the most famous academician, can sell again for me the plate tectonics! I know well why was created! It cannot be used for explanation dinosaurs'extinction (impact theory is wrong) , cannot be do with it good earthquakes prediction, with it cannot explain planet-erosion, to find easily oil-petroleum- mineral resources, to make an easy prospection of Moon and Mars surface…   

thank you all for your

deep opinion

Dear companions The mid oceanic ridge began working nearly at 200my, that mean PT not present older than 200my, in other word we have no continental movement present, but I saw some studies still present that PT working, could that be wright?

Dear colleague need to understand the reality of PT, and because some refuse to understand the scientific objection on PT, I want to clarify that science is an agreement of scientists under what can be proved.

Dear Colleagues,

Here is my new article Hungarian:  ‘A szubdukció jelensége összeegyeztethetetlen a Föld felszíni geometriájávalés geomorfológiájával’ (The Subduction process cannot be complied with geometry and geomorphology of  Earth’s surface ).

Article A szubdukció jelensége összeegyeztethetetlen a Föld felszíni...

In Hungarian is explained easily that the subduction process is against to the real (‘spherical’) geometry of the Earth… In the case of Kermadec-Tonga Trench (2) is presented such a proves which shows clearly that the subduction in this zone is a false story…  If I am finding somebody, who is helping me in English version correction, I will translate into English. Regards,

Laszlo

How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? … in my opinion the answer to this question is, briefly, this: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

- Albert Einstein

The concept of the Plate Tectonic has created a profound paradigm shift within the scientific community that we argue created equally important changes in the ideas of the Earth as a Dynamic Planet.

Plate tectonic is an ill-posed problem. All currently used, and observations are, at best, approximations. As a result, we face the problem that many models of the Earth´ interior dynamic give rise to data, all of which fit the data within a given measure of error. It is the job of the Geologists and Geophysicists to choose among this set of well-fitting models those that are geologically most plausible, given the interpreter´s experience and prior geologic knowledge of the area being explored.

So, Plate tectonics is a well-posed problem that, as it gathers observations and more observations, allows us to better understand the terrestrial dynamics, even though surely at some point, those same observations will move us towards another paradigm not yet discovered.

Mario E. Sigismondi

Daer Mario Emilio,

I'm sorry I don't have a full English translation of the recent paper. I do not have money to pay for translation. I do not have time to do it and pay for correction… (I do not get money from University).

Nobody can negate that an orange (apple) has the same form as Earth! So if we create cuttings ( ‘subduction forms’ onto it in the same condition, we have to get the same form onto them! As the different mammals multiply equally!

In the article ‘Isacks, B., Oliver, J., Sykes, L., Seismology and the New Global Tectonics, Journal of Geophysical Research, Band 73, 1968, S. 5855’. They used flat projection when written down the subduction phenomena: see the attached file… How could the ‘scientific’ community accept such a mistake?… The term of the scientific community is not correct (precise is the American Scientific Community).

Regards,

Laszlo

I think it's true.

Dear all,

Now I comeback from General Assembly EGU in the Vienna. We worked at our session "Conceptual Tectonics: Proof and Refutation in Tectonic Knowledge". My opinion - we take success. We ll make a book with reports from this session. My overall impression of EGU-18 and EGU-19: plate tectonics is under increasing criticism, moreover at the level of plenary reports.

Regarding geotectonic mechanisms: can some plumes move all the observed tectonic processes?

Dear V. M. Anokhin,

Congratulation to the success of this session…

You have made a great question:  ‘Regarding geotectonic mechanisms: can some plumes move all the observed tectonic processes?’ The answer is simple, yes but needs a profound changing of actual supported geo-tectonics theory, where the last geosyncline theory well worked points come back again, and a limited Expanding Earth theory same get acceptance, and sure the plate tectonics some points same included… This theory has to be sustained by a simple geochemical proves, stratigraphy, etc… Do you have these strong points?

Do not forget, actually anyone from the economically power states (the USA, China… USA invented China continuing) give up the falsification of geo-tectonics.

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Laszlo,

Thanks for your congradulation.

Regarding the mechanism of geotectonics - I just asked the question: can the rise and spreading of plumes be the main mechanism of most visible tectonic processes? Could plumes reconcile classical geosynclinal theory with the theory of expanding (pulsating) Earth and plate tectonics (if plate tectonics is limited to plate movements up to 100 km, collision instead of subduction, advection instead of convection)? There are many geochemical and stratigraphic data in the world, the main thing is to understand them correctly.

Regards, Vlad

Dear VLad,

Your question is well understandable… Perhaps my suggestion was not so … My source of payment and science inspiration comes from Chinese clothes:

https://www.facebook.com/laszloattila.horvath

There wrote my most scientifical articles after 2007… Thank you for reading my last article:

‘A szubdukció jelensége összeegyeztethetetlen a Föld felszíni geometriájával és geomorfológiájával’ (The subduction process incompatible with Earth surface geometry and geomorphology) Text Hungarian, only abstract in English)

If somebody looks onto pictures and has enough healthy imagination that the subduction process is a totally brain made process which was invented to replace the subsidence process of geosyncline theory… The falsification was made using psychological tools that is why exists some similar sounding of these two words: subsidence --- subduction…

You can look in the majorities of plate tectonics articles and you cannot find those articles mentioned between those which were mentioned in the bibliography which played an important role for the acceptance of plate tectonics! The name of   Victor Hugo Benioff and  Kiyoo Wadati name were used for the inexistent plane (Plane of Benioff-Wadati), these two persons did not mention the existence of such a plane… Their works can be used in other theory which is developed independently from actual mainstream plate tectonics: accept mainly part of geosyncline theory, accept expanding processes of partially expanding Earth's theory  which explains the separation of Pangea taking account others processes which are not presented in the current work…, gives attention to catastrophism  of Cuvier, uniformity of planetological process of rocky planets… In the mentioned theory ‘perhaps’ the plumes will play an important role…

My question to you: do you have imagined such a theory…? What is the most easier geochemical method which can easily sustain this plumes theory visions?  Do you have any explanation to geomagnetic pole migration?…

Regards,

Laszlo 

P.S.

Now shortly I am unswerving to your question:

‘Can the rise and spreading of plumes be the main mechanism of most visible tectonic processes?’ Yes, it can! (Here needs clear geophysical proves of their existence, needs a clear of the definition of plumes.., What the plumes are made geochemically, why?...)

‘Could plumes reconcile classical geosynclinal theory with the theory of expanding (pulsating) Earth and plate tectonics (if plate tectonics is limited to plate movements up to 100 km, collision instead of subduction, advection instead of convection)? Yes! only we need to eliminate those processes which are not present in reality (subduction) or are overestimated (movements of plates) have to define correctly terms of plates connecting to the term of geosyncline theory (example rock SIMA-SIAL slabs, blocks not overestimated dimension like in case of plate tectonics…

‘ There are many geochemical and stratigraphic data in the world, the main thing is to understand them correctly.’ the real truth is present in the ‘Stony Book of nature’ should be well if we are reading correctly… 

Could Plate Tectonics theory be right?

- NO.

(as any theory, he he...)

Lately, I often hear: "This idea makes sense." Following these words, the idea is unreasonably beginning to be treated as proven.

Everything makes sense, except complete nonsense.

Science is not a search for senses. Science is a search for truth.

Does plate tectonics make sense? - YES. Very beautiful system of models.

Is this idea true? - NO. It doesn't match reality enough