The present and planned content of this EE website is mainly a result of my long-standing work on basic geotectonic issues. In this work, leading to the better documentation of the expansion of the Earth, other persons of Wrocław scientific community were and still are engaged.

This conclusion was supported by my earlier understanding of the character of the set of previous geotectonic hypotheses as a tangled pile of mutually contradictory elements – surely a hint that at a fundamental level in geotectonics, some false assumption had been tacitly and unconsciously adopted. I then realized that the problematic assumption is precisely the assumption that the Earth is not expanding.

As is seen from the papers given at the above addresses, the driving mechanism of the lithosphere in the lithosphere-mantle system is very simple on the expanding Earth but the cause of the expansion of the Earth’s core is unknown. However this is not a negative feature of the theory (as often supposed) but a positive one (if a good empirical support for the expansion as such exists) because it guides us toward a new physical process unknown to contemporary physics. After all, in this way, science is driven forward. The demand that a postulated new process must be physically (causally) explained by some previously known process is tantamount to the demand for a closed scientific system and turning science upside-down.

Such understanding of the problem of the expanding Earth led me at once to two long-term strategy principles. A third principle (also of long-term strategy) appeared later but quite early in my work on expanding Earth issues. These are:

The expansion of the Earth is the most fundamental, clearly visible, true process. If an interpretation of development of a given geological structure is contradictory to the expansion of the Earth this means that it is false and a correct interpretation must be found.

This concerns both – (a) decoding the mechanisms of development of particular geologic structures and (b) proving the expansion of the Earth in general.

a. Working out of correct interpretation of development of various geologic structures cannot be done by deduction from the initially determined fact of the expansion of the Earth but only by induction from various well-recognized facts.

b. Working out of independent proofs of expansion of the Earth itself cannot be done by deduction from hypothetical physical causes of expansion but only by induction on the basis of well recognized facts. It should be done in several independent ways.

Regarding a. This rule is important for three reasons:

1. My initial recognition of expansion of the Earth as a real phenomenon on the basis of the lengthwise expansion of oceanic ridges may have not convinced many other persons. This was fully confirmed in practice.

3. The inductive method assures a good insight into structures which are being analyzed and good contact with the real world, especially when the method is widely applied. Apart from that it can supply other empirical proofs of the Earth’s expansion itself and in fact this is what really happened. Examples are: Tensional-diapiric-gravitational mechanism of island arcs and active continental margins, tensional-diapiric-gravitational mechanism of intracontinental fold belts, tensional origin of basin inversion and reinterpretation of space geodesy data.

It was predictable that the obtained results would be mutually consistent and in fact this is what was found. This statement applies especially to intra-continental fold belts and island arcs. Starting from different sets of data and applying different reasoning, the same tensional-diapiric-gravitational mechanism was obtained. In general – starting from different geological problems a fully harmonized picture has been, step-by-step, obtained. It was performed mostly by posing a question and then obtaining an answer from geological facts often in a quite unpredicted way. This may be likened to a dialog with Nature and was a very exciting scientific adventure.

Regarding b. Deduction from hypothetical physical causes of some postulated phenomenon is a bad scientific method and in fact such practice is actually rather uncommon outside the field of geotectonics. But unfortunately in the latter this method has gained a foreground position.

The ancient Greeks were able to prove the spherical shape of the Earth based on a set of observations and a set of independent empirical proofs. They did not know the physical cause of this shape and this did not disturb them or make them doubt the reality of their conclusion. In fact the physical cause was found only two thousand years later by Newton.

A similar situation occurred with the Heliocentric System. Its geometry and kinematics were proved by observation and only afterwards they were explained dynamically – once again by Newton.

Without such a proper sequence of scientific operations the progress of science would be impossible. The theory of gravity would never have appeared if people had not earlier understood the reality of the spherical shape of the Earth and reality of the Heliocentric System.

Some expansionists attempted to devise various causal explanations of the Earth’s expansion, which then became targets of opponents’ criticism. Such criticism generally ignored the fact that it is possible to invent several false causal explanations for a true process. The rejection of a theory on the grounds of falsification of its hypothetical casual explanation is another bad scientific practice. The fate of Wegener’s theory is the best example. As is common knowledge the theory was rejected on the grounds of criticism of Wegener’s causal explanation for how continents could drift apart (so-called “Polflucht” and “Westdrift”). Wegener’s causal explanation was really wrong but the moving apart of continents was true.

In fact some former solutions of development of some geologic structures are also proofs of the expansion of the Earth. This is true for the divergent development of intra-continental fold belts and divergent development of island arcs and active continental margins. But the proofs given in the above papers are more simple.

In the end it should be said that scientists correctly value induction more than deduction. However the philosopher Karl Popper insisted that in fact they always use deduction from some theoretical assumptions. In my case the deduction gave me only the general initial hints towards correct deciphering of the development of several geological structures. The rest of the work was done by induction. Of course there were several little deductions but only from firm data, not from an expanding-Earth assumption and not from a hypothetical cause of Earth’s expansion.

Expanding Earth has implications, by its nature, in the majority of geological issues. Because of this situation a peculiar feature arose in discussions after even my first lectures on various aspects of the expanding Earth. Namely:

Of course, discussants most often asked about the physical causes of expansion. After some time I was able to cope with the problem of the causes (but only in communities in which I lectured often) not by giving a positive answer but by explaining the inappropriateness of such a question at the initial stage of investigation.

Young listeners asked about other matters than the lectured problem, being motivated by natural scientific curiosity. But older scientific workers often adopted an adversarial stance – the questions were posted as counterarguments. At one of my lectures on development of the oceans an eminent geologist pointed to the allegedly convergent origin of intra-continental fold belts. He did this taking the whole time destined for discussion, without any word about oceans.

In 1990s when several problems were already solved I started lectures with the list of these solved problems and asked to discuss only the currently presented one. But such appeals were seldom heeded.

Thus I preferred to devote myself to scientific work which continuously gave good results, than cope with hostile reviewers on such terms and waste time which could be used more productively. For the same reason I neglected my scientific career. Both resulted in some practical formal problems for me and for my bosses but the end result of this long-term strategy has been rather positive.

Incidentally, I must share with the reader that I never thought that the work on EE would take so much time. I can add, as an excuse, that almost the whole 1980s were excluded from my EE investigation because of political reasons and after that I was also much engaged in the social-economical problems of the post-communism transformation in Poland which also occupied much of my time.

Expanding Earth strikes at the very fundaments of dogmatic thinking in geology. This dogmatic thinking has grown tremendously over the five decades of reign of plate tectonics.

I claim that it is impossible to prove the fallacy of plate tectonics and the reality of expansion of the Earth by demonstration from only one or two aspects of geology, even if they were fundamental and clear. It is because the members of geological community would be convinced that all the rest of geological structures and processes are contradictory to the demonstrated result and thus that there must be something wrong with it. Thus the proper way is to solve the majority of geological problems connected with expansion and make them publicly available. After almost four decades of work on geotectonics (the 1980s are here excluded) I think that I have approached this goal.

Some of these early and later results are presented already on this website. After the establishing of the website in 2013 I published still four new, more comprehensive, papers. This are:

Now I will show what I plan to do in the field of EE in the near future. In fact the planned activity will mostly consist in preparing a large part of my (and coauthors) previous (and partly published) EE results for presentation on this website. It will be mostly a technical task.

These topics are published or almost ready for publishing.

The paper was requested by the editors of the Wrocław scientific journal Geologia Sudetica in 2009 for a volume devoted to the memory of the late Professor Józef Oberc, the icon of Wrocław geology and a supporter and promoter of the Expanding Earth. The Sicily conference and then the necessity of setting up this website prevented me from finishing this paper. The paper demonstrates in detail the seven independent proofs of the expansion of the Earth. They are:

The paper demonstrates the correctness of the tensional-diapiric-gravitational mechanism of intra-continental fold belts on the examples of almost all large fold belts globally, including the Himalayas. The tensional-diapiric-gravitational mechanism of intra-continental fold belts is fully compatible with the tensional-diapiric-gravitational mechanism of the functioning of island arcs and active continental margins.

Of course no of this group of items completely describes the topics I have worked on, and so it is possible that additional brochures will be added to the list as work progresses.

Ultimately the contents of this website should number about 40 items. Then there will be a time for precise reconstructions of the lithosphere on the expanding Earth to which superb contributions have already been made by Klaus Vogel in Germany and James Maxlow in Australia. Of course I have been working on the reconstructions of the lithosphere since the beginnings of my investigations on other EE issues.

This website was started in August 2013 with 10 items and was then described as “initial”. Now it counts 25 items and so the adjective may be omitted.

Expanding Earth was almost completely displaced from geology by plate tectonics. Many geologists have not ever heard about it. And those, who have heard, are mainly convinced that the Expanding Earth was scientifically well-tested with a firm negative result. Really, it is unbelievable that such a rejection is possible without strict scientific tests. But this unbelievable situation actually happened. Such a strict procedure was never followed.

The most common argument against the Expanding Earth is still the problem of the causes of expansion. The incorrectness of such arguments was already explained in section II-B-b of this introduction. But such an approach still dominates. The most recent criticism of the Expanding Earth (P. Sudiro “The Earth expansion theory and its transition from scientific hypothesis to pseudo scientific belief” – Hist. Geo Space Sci, 5, p.131-148, 2014) again concentrates on physical causes of expansion. Other counterarguments given in this source and elsewhere are speculative or based on ignorance.

In closing this introduction I would like to make the following appeal to young geologists: If you hear from older geologists, the presumed authorities in geology, that the Expanding Earth is wrong, ask them why? After incisive examination they will have finally to admit that they think so because other authorities think the same. That means that they do not know what they are talking about.