Introduction
We began our study of continental drift because of the findings reached from our investigation of the geometry of ancient sites. As we saw how the many ancient sites around the world aligned themselves in relation to the major river basins, it became clear that the ancients grasped the geographical nature of the planet. Now, given the fact that there is much precision in the placement of the ancient sites, questions regarding the factor of continental drift have often been raised. There are scholars who even contend that the builders of the Great Pyramid of Giza took into account continental drift, and thereby explain how the precision of placement is maintained with that monument.
For the past eight years or so, I have been studying the maps of the ocean floors, as the theme is fascinating. My first impression was that it would appear that the Earth's crust is such that the oceans, much like the rivers, have incised into the land mass. That was my first impression. As I read more extensively on the subject, that first impression remains intact, but now supported by more information.
As I attempted to explain to myself how the continents might move across the face of the Earth, somewhat like floating icebergs, it was difficult to accept the idea that South America had floated so far away from Africa. It was even more difficult, if not impossible, to accept the idea that the Pacific Rim of Asia and North/South America had also floated to their present day positions.
But, the more unbelievable idea is that South American and Africa split apart and have retained to date a shape that matches so neatly together, that Alfred Wegener over 85 years ago suggested that they were once joined together. To imagine a heated planet, cooling down, and all that turmoil of splitting up (by some yet unknown force), pushing/pulling the continents apart, and their remaining intact was and still is an unthinkable idea.
As I pondered the map of the ocean floors more and more, the image of the waters of the Atlantic incising the shores of the continents of South America and Africa kept coming to mind. In my view, the eastern rim of South America and the western rim of Africa simply do not make a match, even at the superficial level of the contour of their shorelines above water. And, this idea was constantly being reinforced by the view of the continental shelves of the continents. One elementary issue kept coming to mind: if the continents were joined together once upon a time, they must have been joined at the line demarcated by the continental shelves.
Another unacceptable idea was the thesis that all of the land mass of the Earth was lumped together in one large super-continent, called Pangaea (consisting of Laurasia and Gondwanaland). The idea that this proto-continent lay initially on one side [side] of the globe, and then broke up and marched itself around the Earth in a lateral movement was and still is simply impossible to conceive. Furthermore, to date no plausible explanation has been offered to explain the force behind such a radical movement. Physicists have discarded the math regarding such a force for the mid-ocean ridges or the fact that the Earth spins on its axis.
And, in spite of all of these doubts, which apparently are shared by many, the theses set forth by Alfred Wegener between 1912 and 1915, though initially rejected, are the code invoked by today's scholars on the subject. Other ideas came to mind in opposition to those set forth by Wegener. At first, it appeared that the Earth must be expanding, given the molten core's chemical activity. But, then this idea was discarded the same moment that it occurred to me, similarly to the reason why the idea about the wandering continents was unacceptable. One questions immediately the reasons why the continent have come to a relative rest position, just as one could question immediately why the Earth stopped expanding so radically.
The answers to these questions seem to be apparent: there is no radical movement of the continents as posed by Wegener, and there is no radical expansion of the planet Earth. These two interpretations are offered now in opposition to one another, and most scholars adhere to one or the other. In both cases, however, one idea remains intact: the continents themselves have kept their original contours and configurations. Both groups of theorists believe that South America and Africa fit neatly together, joined once across the great Atlantic Divide.
No matter how intensely we view the map of the ocean floors, however, we do not see the outlines of the continents fitting together, rather we simply see the shorelines of the land masses as having been incised by moving waters. Living only a few blocks from the mighty Mississippi River, the idea never comes to mind that possibly the East bank and the West bank of the river were once joined together. By looking at a map, superficially, one could conclude such an idea; scholars have done this with respect to the banks of the Atlantic Ocean for nearly a century now.
No one could doubt the evidence offered by Wegener and confirmed by so many scholars after him: the plant, animal and fossil records of South America and Africa coincide in many respects. On an infinitely smaller scale, one would find an even more precise coincidence of evidence between the two banks of any river on Earth. Yet, similarly, as the evidence of all the rivers could never serve as a basis for concluding that the land at the banks of the rivers were once joined together at their waterlines, so it would be with the oceans.
It is difficult to think why scholars give more credibility to the incisive power of the waters of a river, than to the incisive power of the waters of the ocean. They easily comprehend and accept the fact that river water incises the land, while such a comment is not even observed regarding the fact that the oceans' waters incised the continental land masses. Obviously, many more factors come into play in the creation of the oceans and the configuration of the dividing lines between water and land on the planet, than those relating to a river or stream. It is a trickle down effect of factors and variables. And, inversely, it is a build-up of factors and variables.
The closer one gets to a small trickle of water on the ground that creates a brook, stream and then river, one can logically, without too much theory, comprehend the power of the forces coming to bear within and around the oceans of the planet. But, if one begins the analysis with two-thirds yin (water) and one-third yang (land), then it is relatively easy to come up with the idea of a floating garden (continental drift). Wegener's mental process went backwards: he stated that he observed similarity in the outline configuration of the South American and African continents, and thought them to have been joined together in the past. The only conclusion from there was to invent the two-thirds water and one-third land theory. With that idea in mind, rivers and oceans have nothing to do with one another; even land and water are chemically separated from the moment of creation.
The expansionist theorists who have countered Wegener's ideas have done so by maintaining the basic belief of Wegener, that the shoreline configuration of South America and Africa, and in fact of all the continents, have remained the same since the beginning, since their inception. The expansionists simply suggest reducing the size of the planet Earth in order to have the different shorelines meet one another across the face of the Earth. But, they generally leave the water aspect intact by stating that the Pacific Ocean is void of land mass. Their main reasoning appears to rest upon the idea that the mid-ocean ridges are in the middle of the oceans. This, to them is proof that the Earth expanded, because there is no other way to explain the ridges rising precisely at mid-ocean.
From our analysis, there seems to be another way. We view the formation and configuration of the Earth's crust and waters as follows. The Earth is a molten core of chemical reaction, which has been and is cooling down constantly. Its size has probably remained relatively the same since its inception. The cooling down has created the conditions of existence for the waters and the land (or crust) covering the Earth. These exist as one integral chemical process. The chemical reaction within the Earth appears to follow a distinctive path of movement in the general direction from the trenches of the Pacific Ocean internally towards the ridges around the globe, but especially towards the opposing Atlantic Ocean.
The molten core that touches the mantle of the Earth has transformed or given off a crust, which is the land mass. The land mass has completely covered the Earth in a relatively uniform manner from its inception. However, the crust has been and still remains to be thicker and thinner at different parts of the globe. The ocean floors, for example, are thinner than the continental crusts. The mid-ocean crests are thicker than the ocean floors; the mountain ranges are thicker than the continental crusts; and so on.
The chemical reaction within the Earth (or as of the conditions of existence of the Earth) caused/causes the mantle's crust to appear. It also gives rise to activity that affects the mantle's crust to disappear in some places ( much of the Pacific Ocean area); or, to wrinkle into mountains ranges in other places as of the relative movements of the tectonic plates (crust). The mantle/crust/tectonic plates are in constant movement as of the projected movement coming from the molten core of the Earth. In a sense, the entire crust sitting on the tectonic plates move in an appearance not dissimilar to that of an iceberg on water. But, the analogy can be deceiving, as it has been for many.
Brazilian scientists are finding that the continents are attached to the Earth's crust/mantle with sedimentary rock that protrudes down much like the keel of a ship. And, instead of the continents moving on their own by some unknown force, they are being pushed/pulled by the movement of the mantle/core. One can readily see that all of the different layers between molten core and the Earth's continents exist as one, moving in unison with one another, joined together. But, there would be no radical movement of the continents breaking away from these different layers and venturing out on their own across the face of the globe.
From our visual analysis of the map of the ocean floors, it would appear that the continents of South America and Africa have developed ovr millions of years in situ, with the relative movements characteristic of the interrelated motion cited above. We do not doubt the measurements of the movement of the continents, which are cited today as being between 50mm and 90mm per year. It is doubtful that this almost imperceptible movement has changed radically once the core/mantle/crust relation was established throughout the Earth's surface. To our individual perspective, we may have difficulty in visualizing the creation of the mountain ranges over the face of the Earth at this almost imperceptible velocity. But, we may realize or not that the mountain ranges, as we ponder them today, are still within that creation process.
We are made more aware of such movements when eruptive volcanic activity creates a mountain or an island in a day or so, and adds terrain to a continental land mass. But, generally, we are simply distracted by other things in life. Geological time is not something that most of us are pondering all the time; a necessary pun.
The thesis about a singular land mass, created at the beginning of time is quite suggestive and fits the view of many religions throughout the world. The philosophical and theological value of Wegener's ideas is recognizable. The idea of an expanding Earth also assists certain philosophical and theological systems, similar to the big-bang theory as to the creation of the Universe. However, the Universe, and the Earth in particular, appear to obey rules and laws that, although equally exciting, are somehow more difficult to unravel. A continent that walks on its own, a planet that expands and possibly one day shall explode back into space, are ideas that can fire the mind.
But, to conceive of the Earth as a chemical reaction, much like a boiling pot of liquid that leaves a crust or, something like a curd of milk, may not be all that exciting to some. The Earth's crust, the continental crust and the ocean crests, have been worn down through the constant action and activity of the energies and forces in and about the Earth. The wear of water is obviously not the only force sculpturing the face of the Earth. One must consider as many factors and characteristics as possible. In our analysis, we consider only a few in order to establish our method of reasoning. We look at the possible effects and relationships of the Earth, such as the alignment of the Ecliptic, the Equator, the Prime Meridian, in the light of all of those other geological factors. One must make additional considerations for the magnetic field of the Earth, volcanic activity emanating from the molten mass, earthquakes, and so many other factors. Many of these factors are themselves already consequences of the core/mantle/crust relationship. But, organizing the factors and variables is not our objective at this time.
We simply want to distinguish the main characteristics among the different theories that intend to explain the activity of the continental drift and tectonic plates that has been observed by scholars and scientists.
The distinguishing characteristics of these theories may be summarized in relationship to the main idea cited by Alfred Wegener, when he began his speculation into the idea of a proto-continent, still referred to this day as Pangaea. In our analysis, we explore many different factors and variables. But, in this introduction, we shall concentrate upon a single theme, which in our mind suffices to explain the fact that South American and Africa were not joined together in the manner cited by Wegener and still maintained today by the academic community.
Our thesis refers to the idea and concept of symmetry. The existence of matter-energy reflects specific kinds of symmetry, that is the existence of two events on either side of a central dividing line or axis. Today, scholars distinguish different kinds of symmetry, but we shall concentrate upon only two of them:
| Reflective Symmetry |
b | d |
| And, |
| Translations Symmetry |
b | b |
In the theories of continental drift (Wegener, et.al), and those of an expanding Earth (Carey, et.al.), the thesis regarding the splitting of the continents into two (parts) suggests the idea of a reflective symmetry. For example, the continents of South America and Africa split along a dividing line. To a lesser or greater extent there is the coveted idea that each of these continents would reveal a right-hand and a left-hand (reflective) symmetry of elements at their dividing line (eg., the plant, animal and fossil records). As we mentioned earlier, the circumstantial evidence for any two opposing river banks would reveal this as well.
In our analysis of the continental shelves of the land mass covering the Earth, there appears to be a translations symmetry. And, we shall offer here only two illustrations to make this point, although more images are presented in the extensive analysis.
Translations Symmetry of South America and Africa
Translations Symmetry | |
Earth's Axis |
At the level of the continental shelves, one may observe a strict correspondence between the configuration of South America and Africa, which is suggestive of a development in situ. Each continent illustrates the wear and tear of time, being acted upon by the force in and about the Earth. Land mass has been worn away on either side of these two continents in a similar manner, as a result of the many energies and forces in play during their creation, development and current state of existence.
The mere odds of two individual pieces of a proto-continent, coming to rest opposite one another, and showing the signs of a similar configuration would seem to be incalculable. In our study, we examine how the translations symmetry reflects something as obvious as the current flows of the oceans, and the make-up of the ocean floors. From the above-cited theoretical posits of continental drift and the expanding Earth, one would not expect the appearance of a translations symmetry, but rather of a diametrically opposed reflective symmetry.
On the contrary, South America and Africa suggest the configuration of a backward capital letter "P". Africa is the right-hand symmetry, and South America translates to that same right-hand position. When we observe the Ecliptic poised at the base of the semicircular northwestern tip of both of these continents, we then begin to realize the significance of certain factors that have not been invoked in the other interpretations cited.
The analysis that we present is plagued with deficiencies, which reflect our self-taught learning process on this subject. And, we offer our apologies for that; but, we have left the original writing as it stands in hopes that others will make the necessary corrections. Our individual purpose has been achieved; we simply wanted to comprehend the relationship of the Giza Plateau to the geographical layout of the Earth. We end our study with a few brief notes and references to this particular point, which is of utmost interest to our own studies.
The Giza Plateau, with the Great Pyramid, lies at what looks to be an almost precise 45 degrees from the point where the Prime Meridian, the Ecliptic and the Equator meet on the face of the Earth. This is the relationship that we were researching, and which is explained in part in our study of continental drift and tectonic plates.
***
©2001 Copyrighted by Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved. Reproduction prohibited.
johnson@earthmatrix.com
To receive your
copy of
Was Wegener Wrong?
Tectonic Plates, Continental Drift and The Symmetry of the Continents
ISBN 1-58616-199-7 ---- PC-disk ---- Price: $25.00
|
We are now
accepting payment by credit cards:
|
|
|
|
|
Master
Card
|
Visa
|
American
Express
|
Be sure to
specify book titles and their price,
with your contact information: e-mail address preferred.
Thank you for your order.
|
|
|
