Continental Drift Contradictions (CDC)

I've added a prequel today that better summarises www.nodrift.com content:

Earth's surface features have been "inscribed" as faultlines by huge, super huge impacts, subsequently depressed and/or uplifted along these faultlines in a competition between watery "Freeze Effect" and magmatism, volcanism energised by impact, the "melt" of impact "fracture-melt", and radio-active heating, as ocean basins, channels, river systems and so on, mountain ranges, mountains, half-domes, hills and so on.

Impact shock wave "inscriptions" are manifestations of shock wave interference pattern fringes. These are globally distributed in cases of super huge impact. The most energetic such fringes bisect clusters of circular forms I call "SERMs" (Supercrater Etalon Resonance Manifestations), which impacts ubiquitously produce on rocky planetary surfaces, most emphatically on non-oceanic rocky planets such as the Moon, as "craters", actually sermed excavations.

The uncratered look of the Earth is largely due to the effect of Earth's oceans on serm cluster bisectional faultlines. It has nothing to do with Continental Drift, which this ebook contradicts and is theoretically and experimentally unproved.

Both "Freeze Effect" AND magmatism and volcanism develop faultlines in proportion to inscriptional energisation, while serm cluster bisectional faultlines are both maximally energised AND generally uncircular, except for the largest, global bisectional faultlines. These follow great circles midway between super huge impacts and their antipodes, most obviously on Saturn's moon Iapetus,
as the equatorial double ridge which makes it look like a "walnut", w.2.

How do you explain the fact there are no gaps between the continents? They fix together like a jigsaw puzzle and if impacts caused the spacing between the land masses there would be gaps where the ocean waters are. The fact that land mass moves on top of a liquid magna makes a lot more sense than impact cratering. The continents move because force is applied at the mid-ocean ridge which is seafloor spreading. This is measured fairly well and is not some wild theory.

Thanks Jim, Yes, as you wrote, "seafloor spreading . . . is measured fairly well and is not some wild theory". I have always accepted seafloor spread. Indeed, my theory almost starts with a shared enthusiasm about this new science, in 1960.

My disagreement with the geological mainstream, headed in Tasmania by Professor Sam Carey, started when seafloor spreading was theoretically generalised into Continental Drift by Sam and others, because of my prior conviction that Earth's rough polar congruencies and ocean-continent rhythmicity were extremely unlikely to be random coincidences.

I explain seafloor spread as confined to the oceans. It is a property of Earth's oceans due to extreme impact energisation of the oceans, mostly from the last super huge impact. So subduction and stacking processes I call Sea-Ice Effect, akin to what happens to sea-ice, is going on where subsiding seafloors meet continents. It has not been reported yet simply because it has not yet been looked for.

You write: ". . . [There are] no gaps between the continents? They fix together like a jigsaw puzzle . . ." I suppose you are alluding to the fit between South America and Africa, or the components of Gondwanaland . . .

Yes, while I say that none of those continents were ever drifting, and never fitted together, I do say that there are many intriguing congruencies consistent with such fits. But these are also consistent with my subthesis that Earth's continents and oceans were inscribed, during the first 1-2 weeks of the last super huge impact, much as and where we see them today, by a "resonating object", which would have produced such congruencies ubiquitously.

It would also have produced symmetries AND rhythmicities AND antipodal resonances ubiquitously (as indeed it has as I show, corroboratively, at www.nodrift.com ), because it would have been an antipodally resonant, planetary scale shock wave interference pattern degeneracy, 3.1's PIRO-IRO, pretty much where my ebook starts.

You write: ". . . if impacts caused the spacing between the land masses there would be gaps where the ocean waters are . . ."

I am saying that the last super huge impact (my ebook's "Theshi") has produced most of the faultlines and magma we see today as super huge impact "fracture-melt". The impacted hemisphere was orders of magnitude more fractured than the antipodal hemisphere so, Earth being an oceanic planet, this hemisphere was most heavily depressed by watery Freeze Effect, became mostly ocean. East Asia and the Americas were exceptional for various reasons, such as their being continents or shallow seas prior to impact.

Freeze Effect ranges from strongest in ocean deeps to weakest on mountain tops. Continental Freeze Effect has nevertheless been effective in producing relic continental symmetries ubiquitously (as I show, corroboratively, in my ebook slide shows), because of globally super huge tidal waves, super huge geysers during subsequent decades, centuries, millenia, globally huge tidal waves, huge geysers during subsequent millions of years.

Only the Pacific, Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans were directly impact-energised. The Indian Ocean was extremely energised sub-horizontally ahead of central and SW Pacific impactors, antipodally to North American impactors.

The South Atlantic Ocean was similarly indirectly extremely energised, sub-horizontally ahead of Eastern and SE Pacific-South American impactors, antipodally to North American impactors.

South America may have been impact-energised even more energetically than the oceans, consistent with its extreme mineralisation, fastest rising mountains, maximal seafloor spread of its ocean surrounds.

Peripheral Australia may have been indirectly extremely energised, consistent with its extreme mineralisation: sub-horizontally ahead of central Pacific impactors, antipodally to North Atlantic impactors.

Tom wrote: ". . . The fact that land mass moves on top of a liquid magna makes a lot more sense than impact cratering."

Not continents, to many, such as Lowman at ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/lowman.htm#sp , who contends ". . . that the very deep roots of continental cratons, which seismotomography has shown to extend to depths of 400 to 600 km, make it impossible for very large continents to drift."

Correction in Yellow to my 3rd last para.: "The South Atlantic Ocean was similarly indirectly extremely energised, sub-horizontally ahead of Eastern and SE Pacific-South American impactors, antipodally to <font color="yellow">NE Asian, NW Pacific impactors</font id="yellow">."

Iapetus' equatorial ridge is a key mention in my "prequel" post. It can be seen at: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/multimedia/pia06169.html

Correction in Yellow to my last post, 1st para.:

<font color="yellow">Jim</font id="yellow"> wrote: ". . . The fact that land mass moves on top of a liquid magna makes a lot more sense than impact cratering."

The thickness of the continental rock is less than fourty miles and it is not drifting around. The continents are lighter than seafloor rocks and are being pushed or forced to move by midocean magna that upwells at a more or less constant rate. The light continents never sink as the seafloor moves and pushes them around.