Expanding earth theory now plausible science?

a reply to: Phage

Are there any theories to why there aren't(not that i know of) or maybe very few volcanoes in the Himalayas?
Maybe there is volcanic evidence from before the collision?
Even after the collision, shouldn't there be a rise in volcanic activity in that region?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Phage

What was there prior to the collision, what filled the gap?

As Phage said, there was an ocean - I didn't know the name, thanks Phage.
Proof: ammonites in thousands of meters height in the Himalaya.
Look it up. Try looking in the Kali Gandaki-rift.

I'm trying to get an understanding the fact plate tectonics is saying that these plates all move separately, floating, not fixed to each other and can even rotate.
Aren't we supposed to see 'gaps' or something?

And what would a gap look like? Maybe some more shallow part of crust over the magma? Like.. an ocean? Of course, there are rifts in the oceans, like the Mariana Trench - as there are exclusions to all rules. Nevertheless, if you would measure the average depth of the seabed, you would find that it is indeed more shallow than the average of the landmasses.

Coincidence? Well, I know some geologists (job-related) and I have never heard about one geologists telling me/us/the world that the earth is expanding in such a rapid way.
The other geologists would shake their heads and point to various counter-examples, like the ammonites in the Himalaya, mentioned above. Or the rising of the Alpes/Himalaya/Andes, which is much better explained by being pushed "up" in an enourmous collision than with the EE-hypothesis.

If what you are saying every subduction zone is created due to collision, there must be Himalayas at every plate edge, no? Or deep ridges( not only in the sea but also at land)

Did you ever see the result in a collision between two cars? Either one has pushed the other one on its hood, sliding under it - or they smashed themselves away from each other, resulting in huge deformations in the hit areas.

Seen the similarities, anyone?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Phage

Are there any theories to why there aren't(not that i know of) or maybe very few volcanoes in the Himalayas?
Maybe there is volcanic evidence from before the collision?
Even after the collision, shouldn't there be a rise in volcanic activity in that region?

The crust in the Himalaya is too thick, about 70kms. Millions of years ago there were vulcans in the Himalaya. Even in the Alpes were some.
Those areas are called fold mountain (lined variation).

A mapped earth never grows.

a reply to: ManFromEurope
I was thinking of it in terms of a more appealing and tasty analogy.

Take three slices of pizza; two deep dish style and one thin crust style. First slide the thin crust against the deep dish crust. Now slide the other deep dish crust against the the thick crust.

The only problem with looking at it this way is that it's sort of hard to simulate the mantle. Maybe a pan of desert (like a very fluffy flan or creme brulee) would be a good analog.

originally posted by: Oannes
I kid you not, the Earth we stand on is hollow. So are most other planets in our system. The moon included. There are ones like us inside and above our heads. Maybe this world is "Middle Earth".

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

biblehub.com...

To keep the "way" of the tree of life.

Geodes (Greek γεώδης - ge-ōdēs, "earthlike")

en.wikipedia.org...

Why in ancient Greek is a "Hollow" rock called, "Earth Like"?

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro IN the earth, and from walking up and down IN it.

biblehub.com...

In???

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things IN heaven, and things IN earth, and things UNDER the earth;

biblehub.com...

And this:

Judas [said] to him, “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are
from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one
who has sent you.”

Knowing that Judas was reflecting upon something that was exalted, Jesus said to him,
“Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is
possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal. [36] For someone else will
replace you, in order that the twelve [disciples] may again come to completion with their
god.”
Judas said to him, “When will you tell me these things, and [when] will the great day
of light dawn for the generation?”
But when he said this, Jesus left him.

The next morning, after this happened, Jesus [appeared] to his disciples again.
They said to him, “Master, where did you go and what did you do when you left us?”
Jesus said to them, “I went to another great and holy generation.”
His disciples said to him, “Lord, what is the great generation that is superior to us and
holier than us, that is not now in these realms?”

www.nationalgeographic.com...

Another, " great and holy generation"?

All of the above is only "Circumstantial" evidence to suggest there might be another inhabitable area within our planet. And, it is inhabited by an ancient generation, that might be a bit wiser than present day standards. It also would suggest that in some narrow, hidden channels, communications and emissaries between these two "Kingdoms", has been achieved.

As Jesus himself stated in the Gospel of Judas " It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal.", is absolutely true. First, trying to convert these "Myths" into rational thought is quite a challenge, and for most people, virtually impossible. Try telling your friends and family what you have discovered. Nothing but, Grief!

The question at hand is, did Jesus have first hand knowledge of another, more advanced civilization, residing with us here on earth? Did the Ancient Greeks know something of the true nature of our planet? And if there is a pearl of truth in any of the above, does it not stand to reason there is also a very powerful force that works to conceal this information. But why?

For a planet, any planet, to expand, it needs three things, in my opinion. One: centrifugal force to move matter outwards. Two: Water, or another material in liquid state, to assist in that movement, changing top soil and dust into mud which can move easier than solid rock. Three: It must be hollow in order for the expansion to occur. Something must enter the interior of any ball to allow it to expand, such as a rubber balloon. But in the case of our planet, it is not pressure that expands it, it is centrifugal force, and a very slight vacum drawing our outside atmosphere to the inside, to displace the volume of the expanded earth..

For you "Deep" thinkers, pun intended, you may want to consider how long this condition is allowed to continue, until the Balloon pops. .6 .06 mm a year does not sound like a awful lot, till you figure into your equation that the end of our planet will slowly start, and end suddenly, just as a balloon. As the crust becomes thinner and thinner, the expansion will go to .8, 1.01, 2.5, 5.3, 10.6, etc, etc, a year, until such time the crust will no longer be rigid and it will loose its own cohesiveness as a whole. Earthquakes, to me, are evidence of a expanding earth.

There is only one thing that can stop this effect, and that is to remove excess water from this planet. And this can not be accomplished unless we have a, for starters, a unified planet, to include that ancient generation Jesus spoke of. The planet Mars stopped its "Growth" when all of its water "mysteriously" disappeared.

As to who hides all of this, look at the organizations that "traditionally" controlled scientific education. It hides its secrets in a private, secretive, vault. Keeping secrets at all costs, in the end, will cost us everything.

Is the earth really hollow? I don't know, never been there. Maybe someone should ask the pope......

a reply to: ManFromEurope

why would they be a proof contradicting EEH?

Why do we only see mountains on 1 side of the collission?
Because India was moving more rapid that Asia?

Ever seen a car collision where the moving vehicle showed no damage?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

hollow earth, you got me there.
I've heard about this one but there is very little data suggesting this theory a fact unlikely the expanding earth theory.

Although there is some data in the earthquake models(waves travelling through the planet) suggesting there are some 'hollow areas' or less dense areas, but what those contain are just speculations. Could be some form of rock, crystal, gas we don't yet know about.
If those areas can sustain life i doubt that.
But like you said i've never been there so i couldn't tell.

I put the link to this thread in my signature. Very interesting find.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Phage

What was there prior to the collision, what filled the gap?

As Phage said, there was an ocean - I didn't know the name, thanks Phage.
Proof: ammonites in thousands of meters height in the Himalaya.
Look it up. Try looking in the Kali Gandaki-rift.

I'm trying to get an understanding the fact plate tectonics is saying that these plates all move separately, floating, not fixed to each other and can even rotate.
Aren't we supposed to see 'gaps' or something?

And what would a gap look like? Maybe some more shallow part of crust over the magma? Like.. an ocean? Of course, there are rifts in the oceans, like the Mariana Trench - as there are exclusions to all rules. Nevertheless, if you would measure the average depth of the seabed, you would find that it is indeed more shallow than the average of the landmasses.

Coincidence? Well, I know some geologists (job-related) and I have never heard about one geologists telling me/us/the world that the earth is expanding in such a rapid way.
The other geologists would shake their heads and point to various counter-examples, like the ammonites in the Himalaya, mentioned above. Or the rising of the Alpes/Himalaya/Andes, which is much better explained by being pushed "up" in an enourmous collision than with the EE-hypothesis.

If what you are saying every subduction zone is created due to collision, there must be Himalayas at every plate edge, no? Or deep ridges( not only in the sea but also at land)

Did you ever see the result in a collision between two cars? Either one has pushed the other one on its hood, sliding under it - or they smashed themselves away from each other, resulting in huge deformations in the hit areas.

Seen the similarities, anyone?

I get that they are using the anemones as evidence of subduction, but wouldn't the thinner ocean floor portion slide under the thicker land portion?

Isn't it just as easy to conclude that there may have been a shallow sea and the fracture that occurred lifted the seabed to where it is now?

It just seems sorta silly, when you think of the car crash comparison, that the smaller land mass (India) is causing the larger land mass (Asia) to subduct. You'd think it would be the opposite?

a reply to: gspat
Eurasia is not subducting.

What happened is that when the Tethyan Ocean was being subducted (prior to the arrival of India), the edge of the Eurasian plate acted like a snowplow, scraping (or squeezing) the seabed off of the top of the oceanic crust. This material was carried upward as the mountains began forming as the continental crust of India arrived.
www.geocraft.com...
skyblue.utb.edu...

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

hollow earth, you got me there.
I've heard about this one but there is very little data suggesting this theory a fact unlikely the expanding earth theory.

Although there is some data in the earthquake models(waves travelling through the planet) suggesting there are some 'hollow areas' or less dense areas, but what those contain are just speculations. Could be some form of rock, crystal, gas we don't yet know about.
If those areas can sustain life i doubt that.
But like you said i've never been there so i couldn't tell.

Some people may mistake that I am religious because I quote what is considered religious text. Far from it. I view the bible as a history book that has been hijacked, and taken out of context. I also believe that our planet suffers the same outcome, hijacked and out of context.

We, from birth to death, live our lives in a fantasy world when it comes to facts concerning our ancient history and the possible reality of another inhabitable "Kingdom" here on earth. People see things, real things flying by, and when they try to share what they have experienced, they get nothing but grief, where did I read that before....

Hollow earth? Well, I have been lied to my entire life about other subjects, why not this one? When one digs deep into the subject, lol, one discovers that many of the mysteries, miracles, of the past, can be explained. High Technology, wrapped in ignorance of it, and the location it issues from.

First one must consider why there is a "HE" (Hollow Earth) theory in the first place. What set of trains of thought led to such a idea? Was it a fiction based story based on a cave man discovering a geode, and then proclaiming it to be just like earth, even though this cave man never left his neck of the woods to know the entirety of the planet he lived on?? Or might it be based on some ancient globally accepted reality that was systematically removed from mankind's memory, only to continually come back to haunt those who wish it to be kept secret for profit and control?.

This topic has really been enjoyable.

The different views are great. What really springs to my mind though is Captain Spock, stating that "All we have is a theory; that happens to fit the facts".

I tried to find a clip of this on YT, but nothing came up... the closest was this snippet, but still made me smile at least.
www.youtube.com...

I actually am on the fence regarding the mainstream view, and the EEH. I like the idea of the EEH, and it does resonate with me on a number of levels, but I also seem to be drawn to aspects of the mainstream views regarding tectonics and so on.

With reagards the ideas of the acretion of matter to Earth over the years, however, we have to consider a number of things. As already pointed out the Earth is collecting 10 to 100 tonnes of matter from space on a regular basis. However, this is just what's calculated on an average cycle, from objects that we know are floating through the system. Yet, what might not have been taken into account are things like dust clouds. As Sol rotates around the galaxy, it is certainly conceivable that the sun and all the planets move through dust clouds that might not be orbiting the galaxy as fast as this system is. Any dust in the cloud would certainly be drawn in to planets and the like. I cannot see how this would be sufficient to make the Earth grow in size by a big amount, but over the last 4,600 million years, we might well have passed through a few dust clouds, and bear in mind they could me millions of miles wide, the same long and deep, and be quite dense... meaning we could have picked up a few million tonnes of space dust/matter along the way.

I do also do hold on to the idea that massive dinosaurs evolved because the Earth was smaller, and gravity therefore not as strong, so they could grow to that size... But, again, I cannot shake the idea of tectonics in the mainstream sense.

I suppose one day, we will have a definitive answer, and the debate will be settled one way or another, but for now, all we have are theories that happen to fit the facts.

a reply to: Phage
What is an other example of such a collision (India-Eurasia).
Where did this same process happened before?

a reply to: intergalactic fire
The collision between the Arabian plate and the Eurasian plate.

The result is the Zagros Mountains. The Zagros are younger than the Himalayas, the original collision occurred less than 38 million years ago.
www.uwec.edu...

a reply to: intergalactic fire

It would seem to me that the earth has to be expanding or increasing in mass. As per this article from science daily quite a bit of debris lands on earth each year and if you take into account billions and billions of years that would seem to be quite an increase thus an expansion unless it is all being compacted and just getting denser.

www.sciencedaily.com...

From the article:

"We have a conundrum -- estimates of how much dust comes in vary by a factor of a hundred," said Plane. "The aim of CODITA is to resolve this huge discrepancy."
Satellite observations suggest that 100-300 tonnes of cosmic dust enter the atmosphere each day. This figure tallies with the rate of accumulation in polar ice cores and deep-sea sediments of rare elements linked to cosmic dust, such as iridium and osmium. However, measurements in Earth's atmosphere indicate that the input could be as low as 5 tonnes per day. These measurements include meteor radar observations, laser observations of the sodium and iron atoms from evaporating dust in the upper atmosphere, and measurements by high altitude aircraft of meteoritic iron in the lower stratosphere.
"If the dust input is around 200 tons per day, then the particles are being transported down through the middle atmosphere considerably faster than generally believed; if the 5-tonne figure is correct, we will need to revise substantially our understanding of how dust evolves in the Solar System and is transported from the middle atmosphere to the surface," said Plane.


I am very much a layman on this and most subjects but maybe Phage or one of the other knowledgable people could do some calculations and see if this debris alone would even add up over billions of years to make a difference in the expansion theory. Just an off the wall thought I have had about this anytime someone brings up EEH theory.

Have mercy on me if this is just stupid and try and explain to me why it would not expand the earth somewhat.

BTW I think from the quick glance at the article , it talks of the amount that makes it through the atmosphere without all burning up but I could be wrong.

Either way, kinda interesting stuff to contemplate on.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Another example would be the Appalachian Mountians of the eastern US.
Geology of the Appalachians Wiki

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Im sorry guys but ive been looking at this site for years and this is the first time i have needed to sign up. Please get a grip ! this is nonsence. Please do your own research into why some Dinosaurs got so large and take a look at this link if you still believe the earth is expanding after that well you wil believe anything ! Although space dust etc and other objects from space find their way onto our surface it cannot explain this expantion nonsence !

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Olivine

created by the collision of 2 tectonic plates?

Still looking into the Arabian-Eurasian collision...
What i notice is that there are even mountain ranges on each side of the fault.
Still reading..

a reply to: murph3010

Funny to say, do your own research and linking a youtube video...

So what would be your explanation to why animals back then were much bigger?