Verified empirical inputs and primary sources

Verified empirical inputs and primary sources — Every load-bearing empirical input below was checked against the primary literature (r18). The mechanism layer is physics/derivation; this table covers the external numbers the argument imports, with the verification status stated honestly. No part of the chronology-firewall argument depends on the precise value.

Every load-bearing empirical input below was checked against the primary literature (r18). The mechanism layer is physics/derivation; this table covers the external numbers the argument imports, with the verification status stated honestly.

Every load-bearing empirical input below was checked against the primary literature (r18). The mechanism layer is physics/derivation; this table covers the external numbers the argument imports, with the verification status stated honestly. “Confirmed” means the cited source supports the used value; “direction confirmed” means the qualitative claim is supported but the exact figure is compilation-dependent and is flagged in-text.

Note on the South Atlantic factor. The argument requires only a high initial rate that decelerates, which is robustly supported: published South Atlantic reconstructions show early opening rates well above present and a monotone-to-episodic slowdown [R10,R11]. The specific multiple (~2.6×) depends on the early/present rate pair and the basin location chosen; it is therefore reported as “of order 2–3× in published reconstructions,” and c5_velocity_history.py states its exact input pair. No part of the chronology-firewall argument depends on the precise value.

References (verified r18).

{ [R1] C. S. O'Hern, L. E. Silbert, A. J. Liu, S. R. Nagel, “Jamming at zero temperature and zero applied stress: the epitome of disorder,” Phys. Rev. E 68, 011306 (2003). [R2] W. Lowrie, D. V. Kent, “Geomagnetic polarity timescales and reversal frequency regimes,” in Timescales of the Paleomagnetic Field, AGU Geophys. Monogr. 145, 117–129 (2004). [R3] P. Bird, “An updated digital model of plate boundaries,” Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 4(3), 1027 (2003), doi:10.1029/2001GC000252. [R4] P. Bouysse, D. Westercamp (1990), Lesser Antilles arc; M. J. Christeson et al. (2003), Lesser Antilles crustal structure; Five Deeps Expedition multibeam (2019), South Sandwich Trench. [R5] P. Schulte et al., “The Chicxulub asteroid impact and mass extinction at the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary,” Science 327, 1214–1218 (2010); impactor ~10 km, crater 180–200 km, energy ~5×10²³J. [R6] Liou et al., “The Dabie–Sulu continental collision zone: a comprehensive review” (2009); SHRIMP U–Pb: subduction ~10–11 Myr, exhumation ~19–20 Myr; exhumation 5–10 km Myr⁻¹. [R7] WGR thermochronology: ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar muscovite shows exhumation to mid-upper crust ~20 Myr after UHP; initial ~10 mm yr⁻¹ (Walsh et al. 2013 and refs. therein). [R8] J. G. Liou et al. (1994), UHP coesite/diamond preservation and exhumation constraints. [R9] J. H. Davies, D. R. Davies, “Earth's surface heat flux,” Solid Earth 1, 5–24 (2010); global heat flow 47±2TW. [R10] L. Pérez-D\'iaz, G. Eagles, “Constraining South Atlantic growth with seafloor spreading data,” Tectonics (2014); and follow-up rate compilation (2017). [R11] Early South Atlantic M-series full spreading rate ~28–29 mm yr⁻¹ at M0–M4 (~130–126 Ma) from magnetochron correlations north of the Rio Grande Fracture Zone (Geophys. J. Int., 2016). }