Troubles with Plates Tectonics theory
Surely it is OK if a theory is in trouble. After all it's just a thinking tools. The problem is when a model become a dogmatic institution. Students of geology won't learn that many structures of the ocean crust are incompatible with Plates Tectonics. Often magnetic anomalies and fracture zones contradict the most important mechanism of this model: the seafloor spreading. Dredging of the deep ocean floor reveal too much granitic rock of the continental crust. So odd, that some geologists wouldn't dare looking at these data... Geodoxa can help to see more clearly.
Mountains are not formed like a folding carpet sliding on the floor. Don't let this bad idea stick to your mind.
The foldind of a carpet or plasticine slab are deformed under an applied force, the same is valid for the many sand box experiments. These slabs of earth crust had clearly behaved like a body force, not an applied one. "Subduction must be the cause". Nope. To make things worst, the thick swell of these folds sank deep down, was carved flat (peneplain) to the sea level AND THEN rose up vertically to the stature of being mountains. You are skeptic or you don't get the point? Lets learn some basic principles.
How the last ice age came to an end? What are these arguments supporting a catastrophic scenario?
The Ice Age glaciers left a legacy of specific landscapes all over North America and northern Europe: moraines, drumlins, eskers and bedrock surface sculpted into the so call s-forms. The s-forms are found almost everywhere when glacial sediments are missing. The drama is that the last 20 years of research support that these s-forms are carved by catastrophic water merging from under the ice sheet. Most hydrodynamic physists are in favour of such ideas while some glaciologist remain sceptic!
Paradox in stratigraphy: where are the ancient rocky landscapes and seashores?
There is an obvious paradox in stratigraphy. Along the ancient unconformities we should find a multitude of ancient rocky seashore. Rocky seashores seems to be recorded exclusively in the Tertiary time with a few exceptions. So to say, the paradox is also related to the science of geomorphology. Moreover, Paleozoic and Mesozoic unconformities do not present too many real paleorelieves or at least differential eroded surfaces like the ones of our modern topography. Geodoxa is filming unconformities around the world to stir up this controversy for a better understanding of earth history.
How was the ancient earth atmosphere?
We surely have good arguments that the atmospheric pressure was higher in Paleozoic time. But what about the Mesozoic time. Not an easy question. Recently, Geodoxa started experiments on small ecosystems under different pressures. We use plants, insects and forest litter in acrylic tubes at pressure up to 2 bars. Until now there are not too many experiments on the topic. To encourage this area or research, Geodoxa is willing to share openly some of its expertise and data with faculties and labs around the world. Publication partnership is welcome.
The problem with granite
"The granite problem" is a classic topic in any geology faculty. How a granite's magma can make its way up and find its room to crystallize? But there are other related questions. Why are not we able to produce an artificial granite in our capable laboratories? There is something wrong with our theory. The main model is magmatic differentiation. Early in the hey days of this theory, geologists observed outcrops that clearly request another explanation. One of the author of this website observed a very strange fact in a Canadian Archean granite: its signature of an odd hydrothermal origin. So, it's time to go back to the lab.
About us
Geodoxa aims to educate the next generation about scientific controversies related to the natural history of our planet. These controversies are often ignored for the following reasons:
-
Sometimes a paradox seems to be unsolvable.
-
Some geological phenomena run up against our current paradigms.
-
Sometimes the new generation ignores a controversy because it is obscured by the dogma a current theory in vogue.
-
The educational establishment is not training young geo-scientists to consider these issues.
Geodoxa was conceived by a group of scientists from diverse backgrounds including; government services, universities, research institutes (oceanography) and various private sectors (mining, oil, geotechnics...).
The common goal was to give these controversies the discussion they deserve, by producing videos which could cast a fresh eye over the earth’s mysteries, in collaboration with geologists, geographers, and paleontologists. Also, Geodoxa aims to provide an open source platform for exchange for anyone who might wish to collaborate in its projects. All discussion is welcome on any side of these debates. Sometimes we will re-direct the reader to popular publications or academic articles edited by the Geodoxa team and collaborators.
The term 'Geodoxa'
“Doxa”, from archaic Greek, simply meant a common belief or popular opinion, (although in recent times sociologists have re-defined the term – an interesting tangent for curious readers). Here the term Geo- Doxa can reflect both the positive and negative faces of intuitive thinking - which itself is somewhat characteristic of earth science. The historical nature of this fascinating science makes its paradigms difficult to demonstrate in the laboratory.
Our logo – a stylized eye – is in fact the two Greek letters gamma and delta. It appears as a watermark in our videos.
Geodoxa Production is a Canadian-registered company dedicated to educational documentaries.
