Reviewing the geological model of the evolution of Earth's crust

Reflections on Paradigmatic Changes

The development of geological approaches and theories on Earth's planetary origin and evolution, and in particular the Earth's crust, has been continuous for the last two centuries and even earlier. In that time span the accepted hypotheses have varied considerably. 
At the beginning of the 21st century, theories prevail that claim that the planet is divided into more or less rigid plates that move horizontally, converge, diverge, overlap or subduce one above others producing slow and gradual changes in the configuration of continents and Oceans (tectonic plates).

Likewise, there is general agreement that the composition of the upper mantle differs geochemically, mineralogically and petrographically from the composition of the crust, and that the main source of terrestrial inner energy comes from the disintegration of some radioactive elements.

There is also a coincidence that all these processes occur without significant changes in terrestrial volume. On the other hand, there is agreement on the idea that internal processes in the crust mainly occur in the presence of water in liquid or gaseous state and that the carbonous fluids (natural gas, petroleum) are the result of the evolution of the organisms residues which have been buried in the various sedimentary basins.

Finally there is the conviction that elements nuclei are stable and that chemical elements are permanent and that, with the exception of radioactive elements, atoms do not transmute at normal planetary temperatures. Therefore, both on the surface of the Earth and inside it,  the non-radioactive chemical elements remain unchanged and without any transmutations.

All these geophysical and geochemical models appear as absolutely proven and discordant opinions are not seriously considered. Anyone who does not agree with any of these statements does not receive scientific journals or obtain funds to conduct research to ratify or rectify their opinions.

The objective of this work is to describe some of the theories that differ from the official model, clarifying that these descriptions do not imply the acceptance of the same, but simply to emphasize that the models accepted at the level of the scientific and academic levels can be substituted By other, perhaps more appropriate, models, and that new ideas should not be censured, which, on the contrary, should be considered and, where the data show them to be coherent, embodied in universal human knowledge.

Somehow in this report some uncertainties are introduced into accepted certainties, rethinking some geological postulates that have been considered axioms and that we believe deserve to be visited again. As J. Lovelock reflects on "The Agress of Gaia" and Thomas S. Kuhn himself in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962), scientific advance requires constant rethinking of accepted theories from various scientific fields to approach truth .

Revisionist Proposals

One of the innovative and revisionist proposals about the processes that gave rise to the earth's crust has been developed by Vicente Sánchez Cela in numerous works (1999, 2005, 2012), where he rethinks the origin of granite as the result of an exothermic phase change With increased volume of silicate mantle minerals giving rise to various geological cortical processes. The theory of Sánchez Cela implies a gradual increase of the terrestrial volume due to tge decrease of density previously indicated. This increase in volume has been considered especially by the Australian geologists SWCarey and J. Maxlow who do not accept the theory of plate tectonics and instead imagine a planetary volume increase that would have been responsible for the changes of configuration of the continents and the appearance and expansion of the oceans.

In addition, the radical proposals of some authors concerning the possibility of nuclear transmutations of chemical elements under conditions of pressure and temperature (Louis Kervran, Pierre Baranger, and others) are highlighted. These authors emphasize the possibility, which has been denied absolutely by Orthodoxy, that some elements may be transformed into others due to the loss or gain of protons (H +) or oxygen nuclei (12O -2). For example, the regressive transmutation of silicon to aluminum (Si -H = Al) (Na + O = K). These transformations could occur, according to these authors, in geothermal environments of high pressure and temperature, or even, suggests Louis Kervran, as a result Of biological processes under normal conditions on the Earth's surface 

At the petrogenetic level, if these transmutations occurred they would effectively involve fundamental mineralogical and petrographic changes. Sodium and potassium feldspars could be transformed into anortites (calcium) by the loss of a positive valence (Si to Al) that would allow the integration of bivalent Ca. This would be possible especially considering that in general the Ca is more abundant than the Na and the K. In that case the granites would be transformed into gabbros and the rhyolites in basalts.

In relation to the role fulfilled by the water and carbonous fluids inside the upper mantle and the crust, Thomas Gold explains that the main deep fluids are constituted by hydrocarbons, mainly methane, which modifies (oxidizes) gradually during their ascent, emphasizing The role that the hyperthermobacteria would fulfill in these processes that would culminate in the accumulation of the hydrocarbons in diverse stratigraphic traps.

The false paradigm of fossil fuels resists in spite of repeated contradictory evidences

D.Anton

The fossil fuel theory is difficult to debunk. Everyday there are new data showing that in the Earth and in the planetary bodies of the Solar System methane IS NOT biological. In the Earth there are some biological sources of methane related, for instance, to swamps, but they are, compared with astronomical and planetary sources, very tiny.
This is obvious, but the paradigm survives. The following article from The Economist shows that even with constantly appearing new information the author does not dare to say it, 

Most, practically ALL methane contribution to the Earth atmosphere comes from deep crust and mantle geological levels.  

Fuel, loose and fossil-free

An unexpected source of methane just keeps popping up

EARLY two millennia ago, Pliny the Elder, a Roman chronicler of natural history, spotted flames seeping from bare rock at a site that is probably Yanartas, in modern Turkey. It was an extraordinary find, though not for reasons that Pliny could have guessed. The gas that fuelled the flames, and fuels them still today, comes from a source that geologists would once have decried as implausible, if not altogether impossible. But that source is turning out to be a significant one. The overwhelming majority of the methane extracted commercially and 90% of what is in the air is biotic—that is to say, it comes from the decomposition of the stuff of life. However, natural gas can also form abiotically, as a result of chemical reactions in a kind of volcanic rock called peridotite. 

Add to such rock the heat and pressures of depth, throw in a splash of water, and eventually out comes methane. But it is not just explaining away fires on Earth that is of interest; serpentinization, as this process is called, was invoked to account for plumes of methane spotted by orbiters around Mars that might otherwise have been indicative of life (such methane plumes are now in doubt). Well-understood as the phenomenon is, however, such "seeps" of abiotic methane were until recently believed to be an exceptionally rare thing: between Pliny's observations in 77AD and 2012, only three more were discovered. That view is now changing. In 2013 and so far in 2014, a further five abiotic gas seeps have been reported—in Portugal, Greece, Italy, Japan and another in Turkey. The man behind many of these finds is Giuseppe Etiope of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, in Rome. Together with colleagues in Canada and Spain, Dr Etiope has discovered two more abiotic seeps that the team will report in December, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. With the addition of these two sites, in Spain and the UAE, the number of known abiotic seeps has more than doubled since the beginning of 2013. Six more, from Europe to North and Central America to the South Pacific, are currently being analysed for suspected abiotic origins. It is not that the world is springing an abiotic methane leak, however. The recent spate of discoveries can be ascribed in part to advances in technology—a new generation of sensors in wide use can measure the flow of methane on diverse sites—and to growing scientific interest in the details of serpentinization.

What started as geochemistry curiosity could yet have economic implications as the number of abiotic seeps—which have never been commercially exploited—rises further. Based on geological similarities with existing sites, Dr Etiope strongly suspects that there may be more in Cyprus and Bosnia. A similar hunch prompted the search for the seeps that were discovered in Spain and the UAE. Dr Etiope has received research funding from Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil giant, to formulate an estimate for the worldwide abiotic methane reserve. He reckons that it will take at least a year to arrive at even a rough guess. But Pliny may finally be of some help here. Given the well-dated observation of the fires at Yanartas and a good estimate of how much methane is required to keep them going, Dr Etiope believes the seep has expelled some 400m cubic metres since then—comparable to the output of some conventional gas fields.

That is likely to be an underestimate; presumably, it had been going for a while before Pliny showed up. As a newly appreciated potential source of gas, it will take some time to understand just hny abiotic seeps there are, and how much methane each might produce. The general view of hydrocarbons such as oil and gas is one of dwindling reserves. But there is still some exploring to be done.

Oct 22nd 2014 |  The Economist, Science and Technology

Contemporary scientific dogmas and the "excommunication" of heretics
Danilo Anton
In every historical moment there are conceptual and / or scientific models which are largely ideological support systems of the prevailing power. Governments and their political, academic and religious structures are based largely on those models.

However, models change as time passes. new data are obtained, other conceptual approaches are developed, and finally, the model change occurs. It is what Kuhn called the "paradigm shift". Generally, political, religious and academic authorities resist this change, but in the end, the accumulation of information and the dissemination of new ideas impose the replacement of old visions with new ones better adapted to the state of the society knowledge and feelings at that moment.
Although this process took place systematically throughout history, the elites of each period act as if their views were immutable, true dogmas.
This also happens in contemporary societies.
Human societies organize their knowledge through the symbolic systems of their cultures.
In every age there are dominant models that relate to social power structures and policies.
These models, which during long time had been religious and dogmatic, allowed social and economic control by the dominant political groups.
When the elites imposed a system of knowledge, they ensured political control and enjoyment of the economic and social privileges that ensued.
Modern history of dogmatism
The process of replacing European dogmatic religious systems began early in the "Middle Ages". Revolutionary minds were sheltered in the medieval "Universities" and urban centers ("boroughs" or "burgos") that developed through the demographic and commercial expansion of the ecumenical regions.
Discrepant with dogmas were declared "heretics.".  Some, like Giordano Bruno and Thomas More were executed for their beliefs that went against the principles and standards set by the political and religious castes. Others, like Nicolaus Copernicus or Galileo Galilei, were criticized bitterly, forced to recant, dismissed or persecuted for their ideas.
The new ideological systems put aside philosophical structures which were based on biblical, canonical and Greco-Roman influences.

With the triumph of the European industrialist revolution, new knowledge systems developed, leaving aside religious and dogmatic geocentric approaches.
The new economic and political structures engendered a system of knowledge based on a network of academic, corporate and government institutions.
Whatever is accepted by this "network" is defined as "official" knowledge and determine the projects that will be supported and articles or books that will be published.
According to the work of Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (expanded edition, 1970), the (official) "normal" scientific research cares little about search news of importance, both in the field of concepts in such phenomena. From what point it is to develop more precisely the accepted conceptual frames as well as obtain data "confirm" what is already known.
James Lovelock points out in his paper "The Ages of Gaia" (1988) that "...academic scientists may think they are free but in reality most of them "freedom of thought have changed for good working conditions, a regular income, a fee and A Hostel. They are also limited by an army of bureaucratic forces from funding agencies to health and safety organizations. Scientists are also limited by tribal rules of discipline they belong A physicist would have difficulties in chemistry and a biologist would find it almost impossible to do physically. To complete the above, in recent years the "purity" of science is more closely guarded by a self imposed inquisition called peers review"
Thomas S. Kuhn calls normal science or "paradigm"  the current scientific model or system.
The paradigm of normal science in Kuhn's vision is the set of theories, rules, procedures and knowledge that permeate a particular society at a particular time in its history. Today it applies to the scientific "model" widely adopted in the modern globalized society.

In this "globalized" official intellectual system, scientific construction works through the accumulation of scientific data that allows (supposedly) to develop more and better knowledge. However, what it does, is to achieve greater detail in the practical application of already accepted scientific models, but not to change it.
There is no method in this official paradigm (or in any other dominant paradigm) that would establish a new "whole model"  accepting other theories or applying other rules or procedures that may end up radically changing the recognized model.
The main difficulty of changing the official paradigm lies in the fact that a radical paradigm shift involves altering power relations.
Politically, the holders of paradigmatic power are those in decision-making positions. Economically, they are benefiting from its privileged position in the structure of knowledge. Academically, they defend the prestige and economic security that give academic and professional positions they occupy.
In short, the struggle for the preservation of the paradigm by its leading proponent is mainly and sosmetimes exclusively posed in terms of power.
Danilo Anton