At https://phys.org/news/2026-02-geomagnetic-reversals-earth-incomplete.html … interesting study by a number of Japanese institutes and interested accomplices. Several studies, we are told, have suggested geomagnetic reversal, rather than excursions which occur more often, were more common than they are represented in the mainstream models. If reversals were more common how common, then, would have been excursions? Undiscovered geomagnetic records may be hidden as they are difficult to spot. We are also introduced to a new reversal event – approximately 31 million years ago. It was recognised in Ethiopian flood basalts.
The next stop is at https://phys.org/news/2026-02-earth-mantle-cooler-thought-pangea.html … when Pangea began to fragment, or break up, dated fairly early in the Jurassic period [basically the Triassic-Jurassic boundary event] it is thought to have opened up new oceans. This idea is one of those consensus ideas entrenched firmly in mainstream – yet the Triassic-Jurassic boundary event is preceded by many other extinction events. Might be worth going back to the beginning of the idea of Pangea in order to see what was embedded by assumption into the theory. Mainstream have also assumed the break-up itself had a gradual and uniformitarian kind of origin – when it clearly had a link to major extinction events. They claim accumulations of heat beneath the supercontinent set it in motion. A sort of thermal insolate that caused the underlying Mantle to become and grow unusually hot. As occurs in later research this idea is now being questioned as new evidence suggests the crust at the margins was not excessively hot. Not a lot hotter than previously – when the supercontinent was thought to be intact. A more complex process was involved. Yet to be worked out. Obviously, the involvement of catastrophism is not in the list of possibilities that might have influenced the shattering of earth’s crust in so many locations. Neither is it thought likely catastrophism was involved at other locations – including the Cretaceous boundary event when it is thought an asteroid crashed into the Earth. This is mainly as a result of the dominant earth science theory of Plate Tectonics overriding every other consideration. This has the ability to worm itself into the uniformitarian model of geology. It is used to mask the possibility of catastrophism. No where else in the near universe, mostly our solar system, is there any evidence of Plate Tectonics. There are only rifts and fault lines that get bigger or slip or suddenly flare up. Why is Earth different? Because geologists want it to be different as they do not want to consider catastrophic ideas. Especially the idea the Earth has been repeatedly struck by space rocks over its lengthy history. Hence, geologists were happy to sit on the idea of thermal heat causing the break-up of the supercontinent of Pangea. This made me think about Pangea – outside the box. How far back on the geochronological timeline did the Earth begin to break-up? We have been lumbered with the idea of repeated supercontinents forming and breaking up in order to fill the billions of years of Earth history, yet we have had a recent study that repudiates at least one of these [see earlier post]. What if the Expanding Earth idea was given legs. The evidence may not be a lot different to the evidence of Plate Tectonics and continental drift. It is what is in your head when you look at it. Should geologists be more open to alternative ideas? They do not have to accept it but they should say the evidence is ambiguous on occasion and could be interpreted in different ways. In context, if the oceans form from hydrogen and oxygen already present on Earth, in its innards so to speak, as has been posited by some studies, and then catastrophic events could periodically cause a bigger leak of those gases and greater and bigger ocean basins. After all, most of the Atlantic ocean bottom is composed of rocks going back to the Cretaceous – with little or no evidence of later formations. Basalt intrusions from the Mid Atlantic Ridge do not cover the whole of the ocean floor – but those parts closest to the ridge. There is very little on this in the literature as it might show that floor stripes have a different origin from continental drift and have nothing to do with Plate Tectonics. What lies beneath the Cretaceous floor of the Atlantic? Are there older formations – or indeed, what particular part of the Cretaceous period is preserved on the ocean bottom. Is it an assumption that the floor of the Atlantic dates to the Cretaceous – as part of the idea of the break up of Pangea?