Nexus - 0602 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

The rotation and simultaneous bending has the conse - quence of fatiguing the crust and eventually exhausting the plastic layer's resilience. The crust's ties to the inner Earth will eventually break and everything will be set to fail. It plain out-and-out fails from fatigue! Throughout his book Bowles emphasises, while quoting the works of scientists and other professionals who have spoken on the same issue, that all of the Earth's processes are controlled by forces—not energy, not momentum, and not any deeply hidden principle of unknown character; just forces. By example, forces are what propel cars, bicycles and the water from the faucet; they provide lift for an aircraft, cause a baseball to curve, and a golf ball to go into the brush; they cause electric motors to turn and they raise mountains. We merely have to observe the physical consequence of their action to establish their identity. I'll expand on this point below, but for the moment I want to establish for the reader my intent in the continuing pages of this article. So here are the issues, as concisely as I can state them: a) The Debate: Evolution vs Creation, Uniformitarianism vs Catastrophism b) Uniformitarianism: What does it mean? c) Catastrophism: What does it mean, and does its conse- quence affect us today? e) A Solution to the Dilemma: a Unified Theory e) The Unifying Theory: the RB-Effect Vertical The rotation and simultaneous bending has the conse - So there we go! Nothing seems to be caused by anything that quence of fatiguing the crust and eventually exhausting the we are the least bit familiar with! Why, and I must ask this again, plastic layer's resilience. The crust's ties to the inner Earth why is that? I've said that I read all the books that the new will eventually break and everything will be set to fail. It authors send me, and I've drawn some conclusions from the new plain out-and-out fails from fatigue! ideas that have been proposed. Throughout his book Bowles emphasises, while quoting the Here is where | stand. I'm on record in my own book, 5/5/2000, works of scientists and other professionals who have spoken on Ice: The Ultimate Disaster, that I support the Catastrophism the same issue, that all of the Earth's processes are controlled by view, and I have given up on the theory of pure natural selection forces—not energy, not momentum, and not any deeply hidden in the evolution of new species in favour of a form of natural principle of unknown character; just forces. By example, forces selection which is 'signatured' by catastrophic interludes that are what propel cars, bicycles and the water from the faucet; they prompt episodes of spontaneous mutation. provide lift for an aircraft, cause a baseball to curve, and a golf I favour brief cataclysmic episodes and shifting crusts over ball to go into the brush; they cause electric motors to turn and plate tectonics, and isostasy as a process. I favour the answers they raise mountains. We merely have to observe the physical concerning the origin of the geomagnetic field and the recent consequence of their action to establish their identity. changes in elevation in the Himalayan mountains to be addressed I'll expand on this point below, but for the moment I want to as a product of upper mantle processes. I favour accretion over a establish for the reader my intent in the continuing pages of this fiery primordial ball, and I'll not even comment on Pyramid slave article. So here are the issues, as concisely as I can state them: labour or the Columbus debates, preferring instead to label them a) The Debate: Evolution vs Creation, Uniformitarianism vs as ludicrous. Catastrophism What I've done here is taken my computer mouse and clicked b) Uniformitarianism: What does it mean? on every option that I felt had any chance of survival in an open c) Catastrophism: What does it mean, and does its conse- debate where substantial elements of real proof had to be submit- quence affect us today? ted in advance as a condition for participation. As my last selec- e) A Solution to the Dilemma: a Unified Theory tion, I clicked on Creation over the Big Bang because of articles e) The Unifying Theory: the : that appeared in two US period- RB-Effect Vertical Reference icals, US News & World Report’ and Newsweek’ where it Che DEBATE: Evolution vs was said that many of today's reation, Uniformitarianism vs scientists are having a difficult Catastrophism Gravitational time with the Big Bang theory If we were to examine the level of Fore 3 without some consideration informational bureaucracy in the Earth sciences today, we'd be so con- . fused that it'd take a month of blue + moons to re-gather our thoughts. Let me give you some for-instances. There are more glossary terms than |(Jrbital P| ane, there are stars in the sky. There are or éecl ipti «. " no! more unsolved mysteries than you can put a position paper togeth- could find from every ancient culture er that doesn't provide multiple in the world. There are more adver- answers to questions and does- being given to Divine interven- tion. I think the advantage of the high ground, in terms of the unifying theory that we will be discussing below, goes to those who can demonstrate that they sarial topics than there are synonyms The Earth and the RB-Effect (From The Gods, Gemini, and the Great n't put all the controlling princi- for antonyms written in all the dictio- | py;amid, by James Bowles: reprinted with permission) ples that they're administering naries that have ever been. And if in conflict with one another. we were to sum up what we know, that is to say, what we are real- How many debate camps would we have if these were the rules? ly sure of, we'd be forced to admit that we know virtually nothing! Ihave to admit, though grudgingly because it was a great idea, Why is that? that forming a position paper of this sort was not my idea. It It is because the debates that have hampered discovery have came from Mac B. Strain, author of The Earth's Shifting Axis. been around for so long that they have all acquired names: Strain fashioned his position paper on page seven as an open Catastrophism versus Uniformitarianism, Evolution vs Creation, challenge to scientists. He challenges the concept of thermal the Big Bang vs Steady State, the Big Bang vs Creation, Plate energies powering tectonic movements, and he challenges the Tectonics vs Catastrophism, Plate Tectonics vs Shifting Crust,or corollary theory of subduction. He challenges the validity of Plate Tectonics vs Shifting Axis. We don't know whether isostasy palaeomagnetism and the "notion" (his term) that the ice and coal is a process or a condition, or whether the geomagnetic field is ages, which he views as concurrent antipodal events, relate in any formed deep within the Earth's core or from processes that go on way to changes in solar heat, or that the Siberian mammoths died in the upper mantle. We don't know whether recent elevations of a slow death, and he suggests that the glacial fingerprints in India, the Himalayas are the result of crustal collisions or due to some Africa and South America are not those of drifting continents. unknown, deep Earth process, and we're in constant debate over = Most remarkably in my opinion, he challenges the validity, and whether the Earth originated as the product of accretion or as a even the advisability of elevating what he calls "working theories" fiery, primordial ball. And we still think that human culture to the status of fact before they have earned the right—plate tec- evolved in a lineal ascent from the primitive to the advanced, that _ tonics theory and its corollaries, he suggests, being a single but Columbus discovered America, and that the Great Pyramid was classic example. For my part, I have little problem with any of constructed using slave labour. these. NEXUS - 47 FEBRUARY — MARCH 1999