Member

Science started in the middle. Visions of the wise, and "revelations" from "rapid-eye-movement" sleep, when the mind is released from beliefs we think we know, were passed on and repeated indefinitely to become dogma. A gene is a self-replicating organic complex. A meme is a self-replicating concept, which likewise may propagate through generations.

Astrology starts with the time and date of birth. Calculations establish the relative positions of the planets and the zodiac constellations. So far so good.     impeccable science. The meme is to believe that the relative position of lordly Jupiter and voluptuous Venus, or of peripatetic Mercury and belligerent Mars, to Libra's scales of justice or the threat of Scorpio have profound influence on a specific billionth of humanity. Such anthropomorphism of stars and planets is utterly absurd fantasy. Yet more than a third of adult Americans believe it. Every newspaper and magazine has its astrology page. Nancy Reagan, wife of an American President, is reported to have her personal astrologer. Kepler, great physicist though he was, earned his livelihood as an astrologer. The chant: such precise mathematics could not be wrong.

Four fundamentally different causes have been proposed for Earth expansion: Phase change from ultra-dense primordial matter (e.g. Lindermann, Egved, Holmes, Kremp, and many others); Decline in the gravitational constant (e.g. Dicke, Jordan, Ivanenko and Sagitov, and others); Meteoric accretion (e.g. Shields, Dachille, and others); Secular increase in the mass of the Earth (e.g. Hilgenberg, Carey, Kirillov, Neiman, Blinov, and others).

Two empiricisms impose constraints. First, most authors converge on a Proterozoic Earth radius about half the present radius. Second, rate of expansion has increased exponentially, with most rapid expansion in most recent times. More than one cause may co-operate, but the exponential rate-increase eliminates as main cause meteoritic accretion, which would diminish exponentially with time.

Phase change at constant mass is eliminated as main cause because the surface gravity force would have been unacceptably high with the Proterozoic (or even Palaeozoic) diameter. This is a problem shared by the whole Universe, because regression of Hubble dispersion would concentrate the whole mass of the Universe into a small space, billions of times more massive than a black hole, whence nothing could ever have escaped. Earth and Universe demand the same answer ? mass must increase exponentially with time, at a rate which must increase exponentially with time, with a significant exponent so that small bodies wax imperceptably slowly whereas centres of galaxies appear (as Jeans has remarked) like singular points where matter is "created" at high rates. Empiricism also suggests a modulating term with the primary exponential expression to add a pulsation,

Creation has no place in physics, yet all physics rests ultimately on creation, which however is outside the laws of physics. This dilemma vanishes if the sum of all matter, energy, momentun and charge is zero ? a universal null. Creation vanishes as a problem, because everything in the Universe has its equal and opposite, gemini which appear together, and mutually cancel. Indeed, it could not be otherwise!

It is easy to contemplate that all positive and negative charge cancels, and that all momentum cancels. But it is less obvious that matter is the antithesis of energy, like the obverse and reverse of a coin ? impossible of independent existence. The instant that new matter of mass m appears in the Universe, the potential energy of the whole universe increases by mc2, like increasing our assets by increasing our debt. We could call matter and energy positive and negative and write E=-mc2, which would be no more nor less correct. than, our convention of positive and negative charge, or writing + and - for N and S poles, or up and down. Putting energy negative with respect to matter seems to be contradicted by the release of nuclear energy with loss of mass. But this energy is only configurational energy of such very large or very small nuclei, which can be released by fission or fusion with loss of mass. But no such energy is available from iron or other atoms in the middle of the range, towards which both ends converge.

The inertial mass of any body equals the potential energy of the Universe in its field. As Mach, and later Einstein, observed, there can be no inertia against space, only against other matter. Universal mass and universal energy both commenced from zero at T0 (at minus infinity?) and have increased pari passu, The dilemma of creation vanishes, and with it Aristotle's problem of the unique initial term or uncaused cause. Physics is made whole, with no unique initial state outside its laws.

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.