Many coincidences?
Many geologists will, perhaps call this a lot of coincidences. I have often been reminded that I can only build on work already done by experts. But, they also have had to work from suppositions and own theories in order to find a solution. As I see it, a new view and idea should and could stimulate to a new effort and new thinking. As in most cases, this can be both necessary and redeeming. A large advantage we have today is that we can receive information from all over the world, through a computer.
Easy to prove or refute.
If a serious researcher takes the time to compare what we have of available information about rock species, minerals and fossils in different areas, he could most likely prove or refute the things I am talking about. In which case, this could be a help in getting published what we have to work with in light of newer research. something that could be of use for both the learned as well as the newcomers in research. I could then imagine that we could get a comparison of existence and rock species in the following areas:
East China/North Australia, Antarctica/Alaska, North-/South America. This is very difficult for me, an amateur geologist, but it shouldn't take too long for a professional.
The problem will rather be that they do not take my theory serious, since I do not have a known name. It is therefore a possibility that this will pass by un-noticed. Though, intuition, that often comes through, when we work intensely and continually with a project, has also followed me in this process and has given me several "aha" experiences on my way. This intuition that even though it is a little measurable work tool, is a well known phenomena, even in the world of research. It has it's place in the larger part of any knowledge arrived at through the years. I have a tremendous respect for this, even though it can not be reasonably explained. I am therefore convinced that through my journey I have touched on something essential in my theory, and thereby it is of a certain worth.
After having used thousands of hours on this study, I do not wish to give up, or to change anything essential of what I have here presented. Not before someone else comes up with a good explanation why I ought to do that. No mentionable controversy has come up, so far, even though I have received quite a few inquiries. Something I think is a little curious. A few kind of funny reactions I have received, never the less. One of these, which I will mention here, I received from an American Geologist. He wrote to me:
" You confuse my students!"
He asked me to remove my Homepage and called my theory false teaching. His students got confused, he told me. I took this as a compliment, since he did not have a more factual reason for his protest.
I here saw the opportunity to get an intelligent debate with a skilled researcher, and said that I would be willing to do just that, if he could give me concrete proof that I was wrong, or in such case, where I was wrong. If I were to withdraw my theory I would want to know exactly where and how and why it couldn’t have happened just the way I have put forth.
After about a week, the geologist came back with quite a few measure analysis of different rock species around the world. As an answer back, I sent him an article that had been presented in "New Scientist" where the researchers reject these measurements.
After this I have not heard a word from this geologist. Neither have I heard from anyone else who were engaged in this discussion.
Regardless, it fits the measurements NASA has done perfectly with my theory that all of the continents engaged in the direction I'm referring to. Geologist The model does not fit into these measurements, because South America driver in the opposite direction in relation to these measurements. We can`t forget the mass inertia.
Wrong way.
