Abstract

Pangaea, reconstructed on a globe of present Earth radius, occupies a little more than a hemisphere, the remainder being the EoPacific Ocean. Opening of the Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, and Southern Oceans, nearly doubled the area of Pangaea. Hence on a constant-radius Earth the Pacific would have been reduced virtually to zero. This is not so. Instead, each of the continental blocks around the Pacific has separated from its neighbours by large amounts in the direction of the Pacific perimeter, so that the Pacific, far from reducing to near zero, has greatly increased in area. This is impossible except on an expanding Earth. Palaeomagnetic measurements show that all of the continents except Antarctica have converged on the Arctic by several tens of degrees since the Permian. Wholly independent data from the Triassic Jurassic and Cretaceous give the same conclusion in progressively diminishing degree. Yet throughout this time the Arctic has been an area of extension. This is absurd unless the Earth has greatly expanded. Several other independent sets of data set out herein require Earth expansion. All the characters of orogeny ? heat flux, vulcanism, plutonics, attitudes of thrusts and lineations, incidence of metamorphics, distribution and incidence of seismicity, and others, fit better the expansion model of diapiric orogenesis than the subduction model. Expansion has been denied on limits of palaeogravity, palaeomagnetic compilations, and the condition of other planets. Many of these criticisms are Quixotic ? setting up a model. then proceeding to demolish it, but the criticisms do not apply to the model herein proposed Others are simply invalid.