In my view, the prime reason Earth expansion has not been generally accepted to date is due to an appalling lack of education concerning the Earth expansion model rather than any "unworkable" flaw integral within the model.  This, combined with the fact that plate tectonics provides a plausible interpretative framework within most geological settings, lulls geologists into using it as their professional "working" model.  In this way, geologists become conditioned to passively tolerate and ignore the numerous interpretative failures of the standard plate drift and subduction theory.

Because of this, geologists often put their unresolved interpretative problems on the back-burner and move on to other areas.  They are fully aware that this is not an ideal state of affairs but they don't know what else to do.  They do not know that there is another scientific explanation of the Earth's Tectonism and history.  Because of this, they don't investigate the potential of the Earth expansion model to solve their unresolved or intractable geological issues.  A much more capable, integrated explanation of the Earth exists which does away with the dubious application and interpretative failures of the plate tectonic theory.

Some years ago, whilst attending a third year lecture on regional geology at James Cook University in North Queensland, one of my lecturers made brief  mention of the Earth Expansion model, along with a few observations concerning, "loony Professor Careys' sanity in comparison to the cuckoo birds" (etc.).  Other students present in the lecture were quite mystified as to who Professor Carey was and what the heck this expansion theory was all about.  They certainly received a non-scientific introduction and an equally non-scientific dismissal of this relevant and unifying geological model.

When I inquired of this particular lecturer concerning his scientific view of the Earth expansion model he stated that the principle problem he had with it was, "the lack of a mechanism to explain the expansion".  He did not raise any further reservations or objections he had with the model.  It took two and a half years of lectures to hear a brief derogatory reference to a scientific model that should have been covered in detail from the first semester of study - just as plate tectonics had been.

The only reason why I knew who Professor S. Warren Carey was, is because I discovered his first book "The Expanding Earth" (Carey, 1976) in the University library during my first week of study at JCU.  I became well aquatinted with this strange model.  I was intrigued as to why an experienced senior academic geologist would entertain the bizarre notion that the Earth is and has been expanding--exponentially!  I was already quite familiar with plate tectonics from reading several texts but Carey's book represented another explanation of the Earth's geology that radically departed from the standard contemporary interpretation, but still seemed to conform acceptably to the geological evidence!  It conformed more closely to geological data than the continental-drift subduction model or offered a more satisfying geological interpretation.

I mentioned this expansion model to several lecturers but was perplexed to find that although most had heard of it, none exhibited any clear knowledge or understanding of it - some lecturers though it was, "surplus to requirements", or, "irrelevant to modern geology".

During an introductory first year lecture, the then Dean of Science at JCU, Dr. Chris Cuff (Geochemist) stated that he did not expect any student to believe the accepted theories.  He said words to this effect: ". . . If on a sound scientific basis you can disbelieve that which we will teach you, I strongly encourage you to do so - if you can . . .".

With that thought in mind I studied the two models in parallel and their related concepts, always contrasting the two.  I also purchased a copy of, "Theories of the Earth and Universe" (Carey, 1988), and after some years of continued parallel study I came to the conclusion that mainstream Western geology had accepted and adopted a seriously flawed interpretation of available geological data. Plate tectonics is ultimately not a workable model.

A lecturer that I worked for on several occasions, the soon to retire founder of JCU's Geology Department, Associate Professor of Igneous petrology, P. J. Stephenson, told me on two separate occasions that, "there may be something to what Carey is saying ...", and, "I admire the way in which Carey has been able to defend the theory for so long against so many attempts to disprove it ...".  Such statements from a wise hard-rock geologist and gentleman such as "PJ" was the closest thing to encouragement I was likely to hear.  If a senior geologist with his career of experience did not automatically rule out Carey's ideas, then I could see no reason why any lesser experienced geologist should arbitrarily rule them out.

The JCU geology department's metamorphic petrology lecturer was derisive of the Earth expansion model and of, " ... Carey's ability to keep up with developments in modern geology ...".  These were extraordinary words considering this lecturer received his doctorate from the University of Tasmania and told me that he was a former first year student of Carey's and spoke of Carey's outstanding ability to enthuse students during his lectures.

Unfortunately this particular lecturer seemed among the least informed of the details and implications of the Earth expansion model (or so it seemed).  He was bluntly dismissive and intolerant of any suggestion of Earth expansion whatever.  He rigidly adhered to the standard plate tectonic derived theoretical dogma of theoretical isotherm profiles within subduction zones and insisted on convergent plate movements to explain the formation and gradation of metamorphic facies in these zones--even though the expansion model predicts the metamorphic facies occurrence as is observed within these parts of the crust!
 

In retrospect, Charles Darwin took many years to develop his theory of Evolution.  He made many observations, wrote his thesis, refined it and published it - without a mechanism to explain the evidence for evolution.  Darwin did offer the hypothesis that natural selection was the decisive active agent of evolutionary change which occurs via some uncertain and later to be explained mechanism.  The mechanism of evolutionary change is now understood to be due to the variation of a reproductively inherited unique DNA sequence--which was not identified until generations after the publication of Darwin's theory.

Nevertheless, evolution, without a detailed mechanistic description, produced a revolutionary and unsurpassed leap forward in biological studies.  Most people are aware that the theory met intense resistance due to intellectual, scientific, social and religious preconceptions. The evolution theory is now considered, "the Law of Evolution", within biology today because there appears to be no other scientific explanation possible.

In contrast, Careys' 40 year gestation of the expansion model has produced a model every bit as revolutionary as Evolution and probably much more so.  Carey has published his model with extraordinary detail and clarity.  He has offered a reasonable explanation of how and why the expansion of the Earth and Cosmos occurs.  He has also developed the most astonishing original insights and fundamental conceptual breakthroughs in cosmology, wave/particle theory and gravity theory.

I consider it a wholly unrealistic expectation for any individual scientist or scientific clique to expect a complete technical description or detailed understanding of the mechanism of continuous exponential matter generation within the Earth and other planets.  Or to unreasonably expect such a mechanistic explanation to be available in the short term--or in ten or in twenty or even in fifty years!

The mechanism of expansion will eventually be elucidated but this may take more than a century of research and scientific debate.  I consider "scientific" excuses that there is, "no clear mechanism available to explain Earth expansion", as nothing more than a weak obfuscation of their scientific responsibility to investigate the model.

Nevertheless, the Earth and planetary sciences now has a fully developed alternative paradigm and successor to the plate tectonics model which works flawlessly in all tectonic settings and offers a clear and interpretively descriptive understanding of global tectonism and also of the geological developmental history of the Earth and other planets.  Surely this will inspire any young research geologist to investigate the expansion model and evaluate it against the standard plate tectonic theory and its flawed derived interpretations.

Unlike the "Law of Evolution", expansion is but one of two possible unified explanations of the Earths' tectonism history, therefore there is little immediate or pressing need (as there was with evolution in biology) to quickly adopt the Earth expansion model.  What is beyond doubt to myself is that the expansion geotectonic model will be adopted in the next two decades.

Even if Careys' explanation of the Earth's expansion turns out to be less than correct this would not and could not alter the empirical validity of the Earth's expansion. Nor could this, by default, add any credibility to the subduction concept.  Carey has established the falseness of subduction beyond doubt and the subduction geotectonic fallacy should be discarded.  If Carey's explanation of the expansion is found to be inadequate this would only mean that another explanation must be developed for as with evolution, there remains no other scientific explanation possible for what is observed.
 

Why do so many academic geologists cling to the compressional subduction interpretation of the Earth when the empirical evidence supporting expansion is so strong?  Are they paralysed by biased funding opportunities or perhaps their career of intellectual investment in the publication of papers and geological interpretations which have painted them into a corner from which they can not extricate themselves without loosing face or status?

A paradigm change requires informed students and graduates who can convincingly debate both tectonic models in appropriate forums.  Students have incisive enquiring minds that are largely unbiased and open.  Their minds have not yet been pre-set to interpret data with a biased theoretical tunnel-vision which obscures and filters scientific understanding.  They are also not motivated by the beguiling influences that always control and dictate academic careers, motives, professional interactions and research preconceptions.

I believe it is the students role to analyse, contrast and judge the validity of the expansion model relative to plate tectonics.  I believe that most of the current batch of career academic geologists are incapable of doing this because they function within a constricting theoretical straight-jacket from which they do not seem to be able to progress within.  I am convinced that if plate tectonics and Earth expansion are given equal time and equal treatment in lectures, practicals, tutorials and field-work, within a decade, a majority of graduates would reject the unnecessary assumption of oceanic crustal subduction throughout geological history.

All that is required for this to happen is rigorous unbiased education.  Unfortunately this educational objectivity is sadly lacking in English-speaking, publicly-funded geological institutions around the world.  A more fitting and extensively developed alternative model of global tectonism exists.  Surely the next generation of professional geologists will cast off the erroneous subduction hypothesis and the blind preconception of whole-crustal compression during orogenesis.

Since the late 1960's the sensible career and funding driven dogma of plate tectonics has dictated what is an "acceptable and correct", interpretative pre-conception within geological research institutions in the English-speaking world.  Ubiquitous ignorance of Earth expansion will eventually fade as the over-whelming evidence of global expansion becomes more widely disseminated and generally understood.

Geology is entering into a new phase of development which is much wider in scope than the plate tectonic theory.  The coming geological paradigm change will be stridently resisted.  The coming change will not occur quickly, nor in the short term.  I expect the change to be underway within a decade and largely complete within two.