Ironically, after all the above definitions, in relaton to the apparent overlapping of fields and their compartmentalization, there is a situation that I have not yet found a word for. But it is something which is essential to the development and interpretation of this website and I will describe it.

A person, or a small group of people, are researching a topic within a chosen field. For practical reasons ( i.e. time and manpower constraints ) they must place definite parameters on their work. This involves defining and accepting a foundation to build on. But the foundation of their chosen field is in itself a chosen field which is simultaneously being researched by another small group of people. This is the case with most topics. The knock-on effect of this is that if the conclusions reached by any one of these groups is wrong, then it is a foregone conclusion that everyone else’s work will also be wrong and will remain wrong indefinitely until the erroneous foundation that started the knock-on effect in the first place is identified and taken out of the equation. *

I believe that two of the main fields relating to this website that suffer from this problem are the aforementioned Plate-Tectonics and branches of Astrophysics that deal with solar system and planet formation. I believe the erroneous foundation that effects both is the general understanding that planets form by accretion ( an increase in the mass of a celestial object by the collection of surrounding interstellar gases by gravity ).

However, as is demonstrated by the scientific method and intersubjective verifiability, accretion is a model which has persisted because it is repeatable, which means that it is not necessarily wrong in itself. But, I believe it is misplaced as the foundation of planetary formation. My main reason for believing this is my reconstruction of the Pre-Cambrian Shields of the Earth ( the oldest areas of rock on the planet surface ). This reconstruction is based on the positioning and types of the major fault lines between these areas of rock and their magnetic striping ( crustal magnetic field ). These things are briefly outlined in the first two sections of ‘The Visible Earths’ - ‘Shields of the Earth’ and ‘Shield Re-Assembly’ - and given some background in 'Origins'. This is what has led me to question accretion as the main process in planetary formation. However, its verifiability by the scientific method demonstrates that it is a process that exists and does occur, and I think it is a crucial process at several stages in the later development of a planet - for example, in my proposed transformation from rock planet to gas giant - see 'Ecosphere' and 'Ecosphere II'. I should reiterate here, however, that the content of this website does not yet contain alternate models that can be repeated by others. I don't yet have the means to do that, which is another reason why I regard the content in its present form as conceptual, or 'protoscientific'.

Another aspect of the overall conclusions within these fields that I am attempting to re-interpret, which I think may be symptomatic of the compartmentalization of disciplines, is a certain linear approach. Generally, after reading the synopsis of my hypotheses, two things happen, people forget about the changing orbits and the ice ages, and they ask, “where does all the extra material come from inside?” ( in relation to the expansion ). This question is natural but things rarely progress past it because people understandably get hung up on the fact that the absence of any identifiable source for the presumed extra material that must cause expansion means the only explanation is either matter from nothing, which is impossible, or some fantastic process that has so far defied our imagination and science, which is improbable.

I believe this is symptomatic of what I think of simply as ‘straight thinking’. But not to be critical, it appears to be our natural way of thinking, and I think a lateral approach, which is much more difficult to sustain, is required. I believe that working on the basis of accretion is in itself a perfect example of how far reaching are the consequences of the apparent absence of a lateral approach in either of these fields.

For example: As it is generally understood that the Earth, and all celestial bodies, formed by accretion, and have always retained their present diameters, in this case, the Pre-Cambrian shields, as the earliest continents, would have been scattered around the globe, separated by huge ancient seafloors now long subsumed back into the mantle ( see ‘Shields of the Earth’ for subduction ). However, If you take accretion out of the equation, thereby overstepping the question ‘how did it form / where did it come from?’ and eliminating the need to move them around on a constant diameter, then you are free to re-assemble these shields at any diameter - in which case the simplest thing to do is a free form re-assembly which allows them to determine their own diameter. This reconstruction you will find in ‘Shield Re-Assembly’. This approach circumnavigates dead end questions like matter from nothing and leads to many things which would not arise otherwise and which shed new light on those questions retrospectively. Another example: the fact that the re-assembled Pre-Cambrian shields have a diameter similar to Mercury suggests that Mercury is, in fact, an Earth in its Pre-Cambrian state ( which is the point at which the actual premise of this website emerges ). Rather than be tempted to dismiss it as an impossibility, I think it is more interesting and productive to regard it as something which has revealed itself via a very oblique approach and calls into question the current answers to dead end questions ( see: 'Origins' - Pangea VIII / XI ). I think lateral thinking may be the essence of this site and many of its concepts, and I would like to think that retaining a lateral approach indefinitely may bring one closer to the way nature works.

If one accepts the wildly unorthodox object that results from my free-form shield re-assembly, then many more fundamental questions are raised. But if the same approach is taken in addressing these questions the results begin to lead on a clear but almost entirely tangeantial path, which appears to continue to shed new light on familiar, but here circumnavigated questions. For example; a common idea amongst geologists is that continent movement passed through several configurations. This is partly based on the understanding that there must have been something going on for all the billions of years since the Earth formed, as radioactive dating gives it an age of 4.5 billion years. Yet, my shield re-assembly through full expansion to present diameter only takes 20 to 25 million years, in one sweeping movement, based on the rate of present seafloor expansion ( see ‘Full Expansion’ ). Many of the radioactive dating methods by which a 4.5 billion year age is deduced are regarded as scientific absolutes and uncontestable. However, if one accepts my Shield Reconstruction at an age of 20 to 25 million years, then the answer to the question of what was going on for those billions of years since the Earth formed is simple but very different; those billions of years weren’t there. The means of determining that time must be flawed, or, if radioactive dating methods are uncontestable in themselves, then there is another factor, as yet unknown.

next

* Above I have used an alteration of an engraving by Johann Zahn, from 1685, to illustrate the concept of perceiving something from different viewpoints.