It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

page: 15
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


the earth was still about 2/3 covered by water back then just as it is today. There were huge oceans 127 million years ago and 140 million years ago wasn't much different, here's the model of 127 million years ago:
His statement leads me to believe that at least 140 million years ago, the planet was the same size as it is today, and had the same amount of water, as today. Does Plate tectonics teach this or not.

The age of the ocean bed goes back 280 million years, and the most expansion has occurred in the last 70 to 80 million years. Using plate tectonics, please explain why the greatest expansion has occurred in such a small geologic time line.




Subduction does. All that subducted material, must go somewhere, right?

Yes. It returns to the mantle. The mantle is not the core.
It returns to the mantle, and if it does not exit the mantle in the same volume it entered, what happens? Obviously, if there is such a large volume of materials entering the mantle, then obviously, it must exit somewhere, in some form for the planet to remain the same size. Or, you have to accept, expansion. We can account for what is ejected from the rifts and volcanoes. But there is no way to compare it against said subduction. And until such time as subduction can be verified and measured, it is only a assumption.

Of course the sizes of Oceans have changed, its obvious from the age of the sea floor spreading.




posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

His statement leads me to believe that at least 140 million years ago, the planet was the same size as it is today, and had the same amount of water, as today. Does Plate tectonics teach this or not.
I don't think plate tectonics addresses either the amount of water on the Earth or its size. The amount of water is not at all relevant.



Using plate tectonics, please explain why the greatest expansion has occurred in such a small geologic time line.
I don't understand what you mean by "the most expansion has occurred in the last 70 to 80 million years." Are you talking about certain locations? Are you talking about in general? I ask because, as far as I can tell, there is a wide variation in the rate of seafloor spreading.



Obviously, if there is such a large volume of materials entering the mantle, then obviously, it must exit somewhere, in some form for the planet to remain the same size.
Yes. At the mid ocean ridges. research.bpcrc.osu.edu...


Of course the sizes of Oceans have changed, its obvious from the age of the sea floor spreading.
Yes. But you seem to think that plate tectonics cannot account for that.
edit on 6/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: PhageThank you Phage.

So if Arbitrageur brought this to the table for consideration, then you would say, it is outside of the scope of Plate tectonics?


No, we are not told that, the earth was still about 2/3 covered by water back then just as it is today. There were huge oceans 127 million years ago and 140 million years ago wasn't much different, here's the model of 127 million years ago:



I don't understand what you mean by "the most expansion has occurred in the last 70 to 80 million years." Are you talking about certain locations? Are you talking about in general? I ask because, as far as I can tell, there is a wide variation in the rate of seafloor spreading.
Lets just look at the Atlantic spread because its convenient to take in.

It took approximately, give or take, 190 million years to spread 3,477 miles. Out of that figure the last 80, again, give or take, million years the ocean expanded 2578 miles of the total mileage. So basically, the ocean only expanded 899 miles in the first 100 million years, and in the last 80 million 2578. So, 74% of the expansion has occurred in the last 80 million years.

In the Pacific there is a total of 5300 miles of spreading, and of that 3520 miles have occurred in the last 80 million years. The first 100 million it spread approximately 1780 miles So, 66% of the pacific spread has occurred in the last 80 million years. Give or take.

So my question is, what mechanism in Plate tectonics would explain why the rate of expansion increased in such a dramatic way between 70 - 80 million years ago.. Which also by the way coincides with the loss of the dinosaurs, and the decrease of the global oxygen content.


Yes. At the mid ocean ridges. research.bpcrc.osu.edu...
Yes, nice picture. Does plate tectonics give any estimates as to the volume of excreted materials, globally?

And again, why are the rifts in the oceans verses hotter parts of the globe. In as far as I know, there are no rifts ejecting lava, on dry land. Why is that?


Yes. But you seem to think that plate tectonics cannot account for that.
So far, it has supplied none of the answers to the questions I pose, based on evidence and fact..



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

So basically, the ocean only expanded 899 miles in the first 100 million years, and in the last 80 million 2578.
Please show your work.



The first 100 million it spread approximately 1780 miles So, 66% of the pacific spread has occurred in the last 80 million years.
Ditto.


Upon what do you base those figures?


 


And again, why are the rifts in the oceans verses hotter parts of the globe. In as far as I know, there are no rifts ejecting lava, on dry land. Why is that?
Because the crust is thinner in oceanic regions. Because that is where the cycle "starts."
 


So far, it has supplied none of the answers to the questions I pose, based on evidence and fact..
Yeah. Confirmation bias can be funny that way. Ignoring things that are contrary to your paradigm.
edit on 6/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Go to www.ngdc.noaa.gov... and study the color coded maps that reflect age of the ocean beds.

Take and measure the spread totally and then subtract the color coded area that represents 80 million years. Take the two numbers and calculate using Old school math, the percentage. You can ascertain the distances using google earth.

Interestingly, the oldest sea bed is in the Mediterranean. 220 -280 million years old, and no spreading or rifts are observable.

Yes, I know it is a pretty picture as well, but I would guess NOAA would have something close to reality.


Yeah. Confirmation bias can be funny that way. Ignoring things that are contrary to your paradigm.
So true, so very true.

And as I said above, it is give or take, or ball park if you prefer.
edit on PMSaturdaySaturday thAmerica/ChicagoAmerica/Chicago3268 by All Seeing Eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye




Take and measure the spread totally and then subtract the color coded area that represents 80 million years. Take the two numbers and calculate using Old school math, the percentage. You can ascertain the distances using google earth.
Oh. I see what you mean but I don't know why you have concentrated on 80 million years. The thing is, much of the older (earlier) seafloor has subducted so is no longer the sea floor. If you look at more discrete intervals it is apparent that the rate of spread has varied somewhat but is pretty consistent overall.
biology-forums.com...
edit on 6/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
His statement leads me to believe that at least 140 million years ago, the planet was the same size as it is today, and had the same amount of water, as today. Does Plate tectonics teach this or not.
I posted the videos explaining what plate tectonics teaches. The first video I posted on page 1 is of a model that appears to rely on the assumption that since we have no evidence of huge inflows or outflows of water from Earth to space, that the amount of water hasn't changed by a huge amount.

If you watched the video you'd see that the Earth stays covered by approximately 2/3 water though the distribution of that water varies as the plates move around and continents are re-configured. I suppose an argument could be made that in continent collisions which don't subduct such as the Himilayas, there could be a slight increase in the water to land ratio, but this would assume that there were no similar processes or counter-effects taking place in the past. In either case all the viable models or their permutations are dramatically different from your claim in the OP that "At about 140 million years ago the earths atmospheric oxygen content was about 25%, then though the next 70 million rose to a high of 35%. We are told during those times the earth only had shallow inland seas." I don't know where you come up with these crazy ideas about what we are told, you just don't seem to know the topic you're discussing at all.

The other video I posted on page 9 explains how plate tectonics works, and what it says about water is that it's absorbed by the oceanic crust and the water-laden oceanic crust which subducts has certain properties at the subduction zone because of some of the water being released from the subducting crust. The video doesn't make any specific claim about the "water subduction budget", meaning whether the amount of water being subducted in oceanic crust is exactly balanced by the amount of water being released. While it's not implausible there could be small imbalances in this "budget" I wouldn't expect those to significantly affect ocean to land mass ratios.

Regarding the size of the Earth, anybody can watch meteor showers and see the "shooting stars" so we know there's more matter accreting on Earth from such events. One estimate is 40 tons a day though there are other lower estimates. But if you take the 40 tons a day figure, and multiply that by the number of days over the last 140 million years, that would give you a generous estimate of the increase of the Earth's mass over the last 140 million years. It will sound like a big figure in tons, until you divide it by the Earth's mass to convert it to a percentage increase, in which event it then appears not significant.

So when we assume the Earth's size hasn't changed much in the last 140 million years it's with that caveat, that we do assume that tiny increase in mass, but it's not significant especially in the context of the claims of this thread. That's not a prediction of plate tectonics but if you calculate that percentage yourself you'll see why there's no problem if geologists consider that effect to be negligible.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Oh. I see what you mean but I don't know why you have concentrated on 80 million years.
Thank you, thank you very much.

Now, why 80 million? Because that is where the expansion seems to have increased dramatically. And again, the disappearance of the Dinosaurs, and the change in atmospheric oxygen content happen in the same geologic time frame. I can not see these events not being tied to one another.

And if plate tectonics can not explain these events then it is time to consider a new model. And no, I do not accept a single meteor is the fault.


www.youtube.com...



These were massive impacts and it doesn't appear to have involved the entire planet. It is intended to demonstrate that meteors are regional events at most, depending on the size, not global in its effects. I find all the graphics concerning the meteor of the Yucatan peninsula to be way overrated in its destructive effects concerning the demise of the Dinosaurs.

Though I do concede we were hit by something, just not one single meteor. And I believe that what ever it was, is also to blame for the accelerated expansion of the ocean beds.



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Now, why 80 million? Because that is where the expansion seems to have increased dramatically.
Except that does not seem to be the case. The rate seems, with some variation, to be relatively constant.



And again, the disappearance of the Dinosaurs, and the change in atmospheric oxygen content happen in the same geologic time frame.
Dinosaurs disappeared from the fossil record about 65 million years ago. 15 million years is a very long time.



And if plate tectonics can not explain these events then it is time to consider a new model.
Why should plate tectonics have to explain the disappearance of dinosaurs?



These were massive impacts and it doesn't appear to have involved the entire planet.
You understand that Jupiter is quite a bit larger than Earth, right? You know that it is what is known as a gas giant, right? You know that it is different, in every respect, from what the Earth is, right?


edit on 6/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Dinosaurs disappeared from the fossil record about 65 million years ago. 15 million years is a very long time.
Depending on your source. It ranges from 62 to 70 million. But hey, whatsa few mil among friends.



The rate seems, with some variation, to be relatively constant.

That is putting it mildly .


Why should plate tectonics have to explain the disappearance of dinosaurs?
Actually, it may be the disappearance of the Dinosaur's, that may help to explain Geophysics. In my humble opinion. Already, as stated before, a majority of the recovered samples have been in group settings and multiple species as though they were washed there as in a log jam in a river. But then again, we are not encouraged to bring information from one "Discipline" into another.


You understand that Jupiter is quite a bit larger than Earth, right? You know that it is what is known as a gas giant, right? You know that it is different, in every respect, from what the Earth is, right?
Yes, yes I do. It was only a example to show the true nature of a meteorite impact, localized. It was not intended to be a identical parallel.

There are plans to drill into the Chicxulub crater to a depth of 4921. Oddly though they are going to drill 18 miles off shore. The epicenter appears to be on the coast line. I would bet whatever hit us, is still down there in one form or another.

At any rate I sure would like to see the analysis of what they find. Especially, the age of the impact.

Searching for life after the mass extinction: Scientists plan to drill into the crater left by the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs

Update.

Scientists hit pay dirt in drilling of dinosaur-killing impact crater

Oh, o, they found a bone, of contention


Another bone of contention for the team concerns the boundary between the Cretaceous—the last age of the dinosaurs—and the Paleogene, the period that began 66 million years ago. Traditionally, Morgan says, the K-Pg boundary, as it is known, has been defined by appearance of fossils of small shelled creatures called foraminifera. By that definition, the team crossed the K-Pg boundary last week, at a depth of 620 meters, when drillers left fossil-containing limestone layers and entered sandy tsunami deposits. But Gulick points out that the tsunami deposits and impact breccia found between 620 and 670 meters all came after the impact itself, so they could technically be considered part of the Paleogene. He suggests that scientists instead call this thick section between the Cretaceous and Paleogene an “event layer.”


Move along, its just a event layer....



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I notice that you seem to be ignoring my own comments, which blow a massive hole in your entertaining comments that show that you know nothing about basic geology.

I continue to watch this thread with derision.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
On the subject on impact craters, I live around the second largest and one of the oldest known impact points on the Earth... en.wikipedia.org...

And, yes, it is a pretty solid bet that what ever hit, likely left something behind. In the case of sudbury, the whole region is extremely mineral rich. Likely one of the biggest Nickel, Copper and precious metals deposits in the world. AND it goes deep, probably in the top 10 deepest mines at around 2.5km down...

So why not accepting a single meteor being at fault for a major extinction event? You do know that around the world where ever you go there is a thick dust layer found in rock dating back to that mass extinction event. So that would suggest that on the whole, lots of dust was put down during a specific period, thats regular rock, with dust and then back to normal looking rock... So what could do that?

Also the title of your first video is misleading, it isn't an Earth sized meteor. An Earth sized object passing through the solar system would of had major consequences, causing many many asteroids to be thrown out of their usual orbits and cause lots of issues for Earth. What the image shows is a smaller object hitting Jupiter and producing a disruption in the atmosphere that extends roughly the diameter of the Earth... these are very different things, but also is evidence for exactly how wide ranging the consequences of an impact can be.

I think the ball park figure (from my Astronomy Lectures at uni) is that the impact crater produced is roughly 10-20x that of the impactor. Thus, 1km rock hits the surface it can, give you about 15km blast crater, and dump a huge amount of energy not only in the atmosphere but the surface it hits. It will dump roughly the same amount of energy as the largest known nuclear test.

You also realize that... a 1km diameter asteroid is on the small side right?

So your stipulation that an asteroid impact could not have caused the extinction is based entirely upon ignorance of the evidence.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433


So your stipulation that an asteroid impact could not have caused the extinction is based entirely upon ignorance of the evidence.
That all depends on what you will accept as evidence, and fact, not ignorance.


Scientific support for the dinosaur-collision hypothesis is not unanimous. Evolutionary paleontologists, especially, question the sudden loss of so many varied species. Most prefer a gradual extinction of life from climatic changes, sea-level variations, or volcanism.



Actually, of course, these supposed climatic effects from such a hypothesized collision are very uncertain. Regardless, the scenario sees the dinosaurs, marine reptiles, flying reptiles, and much other life extinguished in a mere instant of geologic time from this ecological disaster.



First, why did the alleged impact kill off the dinosaurs while many other forms of life remained healthy?
Second, the fossil record does not show an instantaneous demise of the dinosaurs. Some dinosaurs died out within the Cretaceous period while others apparently survived well into the Tertiary period, millions of years later in evolutionary thinking
Third, it is not certain that Chicxulub is an actual impact site. Practically all the data in support of a collision have alternative explanations



Also, in fossil-rich eastern Montana, the iridium layer is found two-three meters above the highest in situ dinosaur remains (Archibold, 1982). In this location, it thus appears that dinosaurs disappeared long before any collision event.
Chicxulub and the Demise of the Dinosaurs

Before you start your site bashing I'm going to say this, I don't care if your religion uses superstitions or assumptions. Its still a religion. I will read and consider all information without bias, one way or the other.

I believe Chicxulub was in fact a meteorite impact, or a bolide. I believe it was quite destructive regionally with a global impact, but not to the degree where it killed off all the dinosaurs. This is a rebound crater, and rebound craters will absorb a greater amount of the explosive energy deeper into the crust.

In as far as this impactor killing all the dinosaurs, as read above, they were already dead. And just because I do not subscribe to your religion, doesn't make me ignorant.


So why not accepting a single meteor being at fault for a major extinction event?
Because the evidence does not show it to be true.

There were 4 previous extinction events prior to the KT event. So what ever caused the previous extinctions may very well be responsible for the 5th. And it should be noted that after the previous events, life went on.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Rarely have I seen so much hokum in a single thread. I mean, we've gone from having a white-hole in the center of the earth to having a complete misunderstanding of plate techtonics to a complete misapplication of the comet that struck Jupiter.

I'm unsubscribing. Nothing helpful is going to happen here.
edit on 19-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers
Rarely have I seen so much hokum in a single thread. I mean, we've gone from having a white-hole in the center of the earth to having a complete misunderstanding of plate techtonics to a complete misapplication of the comet that struck Jupiter.

I'm unsubscribing. Nothing helpful is going to happen here.
I have noticed you have not contributed to the thread and this is your first post in it.

I'm wondering what it is you are searching for? This is a conspiracy site that deals with many "Hokum" subjects. Its not going to be a pleasant and beautiful experience. Its not going to be a neat little pill one takes in find ones own reality or truth. I had a science teacher quietly come up behind me and tap my head. Why? He informed me that my head was far more useful than a place to deposit ones hat.

If you want mainstream views, your defiantly in the wrong place.


Nothing helpful is going to happen here
A gentle tap on ones head.

As you leave, there are refreshments and hand outs next to the door.

Be safe



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
This just in:


A meteorite discovered in a Swedish quarry appears to be the only remnant of one part of a massive asteroid collision more than 470 million years ago, according to new research.

Scientists at the University of California, Davis have published their findings on the unique space rock discovered in 2011 in the journal Nature Communications.

The meteorite is the first of its kind found on Earth. "In our entire civilization, we have collected over 50,000 meteorites, and no one has seen anything like this one before," said study co-author Qing-zhu Yin.

"Discovering a new type of meteorite is very, very exciting," he added.



“The meteorites found on Earth today apparently do not give a full representation of the kind of bodies in the asteroid belt 500 million years ago,” the study says.


Space rock relic: Scientists say new type of meteorite is remnant of ancient asteroid collision

What this does in essence is opening the door to speculation as to what did exist in the Asteroid Belt, so long ago.

Some feel that the belt only contained the raw materials needed to create a planet, that never came together.


Origin

Early in the life of the solar system, dust and rock circling the sun were pulled together by gravity into planets. But Jupiter, the largest planet, kept a number of the pieces from coalescing into another planet. Instead, its gravity disrupted the formation process, leaving an array of unattached asteroids.
Asteroid Belt: Facts & Formation

While others, outside of main stream media believe it was a planet that failed for one reason or another.
Planet "Tiamat"

Now, we have a history of 5 extinction events, and a rich history of impacts.. And regardless if you believe there was or was not a planet there, all the materials were, some 500 million years ago. Might some of those materials in what ever form or state they were in, come to planet earth?



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Greggers
Rarely have I seen so much hokum in a single thread. I mean, we've gone from having a white-hole in the center of the earth to having a complete misunderstanding of plate techtonics to a complete misapplication of the comet that struck Jupiter.

I'm unsubscribing. Nothing helpful is going to happen here.
I have noticed you have not contributed to the thread and this is your first post in it.

I'm wondering what it is you are searching for? This is a conspiracy site that deals with many "Hokum" subjects. Its not going to be a pleasant and beautiful experience. Its not going to be a neat little pill one takes in find ones own reality or truth. I had a science teacher quietly come up behind me and tap my head. Why? He informed me that my head was far more useful than a place to deposit ones hat.

If you want mainstream views, your defiantly in the wrong place.


Nothing helpful is going to happen here
A gentle tap on ones head.

As you leave, there are refreshments and hand outs next to the door.

Be safe


I posted earlier. Then I continued to follow the thread to see if anyone could talk sense into you. Looks like it's not going to happen.

By the way, I don't want whatever refreshments you're offering.
edit on 19-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Then I continued to follow the thread to see if anyone could talk sense into you.
I appreciate the concern your displaying concerning my intellectual abilities.

You will find in life some people march to a different drummer. That is all this really boils down to. I am in no danger of what I think, or how I came to my conclusions. When crossing the street I look both ways. Before buying anything I like to do comparisons first, so I know I'm getting my monies worth. And, I have a keen eye for unsafe physical conditions around me.

My faculties seem to be in order. But of course, when you see someone going around the circle in the wrong direction you are concerned for them, and will attempt to correct their direction. Why do Muslims walk around the Kaaba seven times?

Now if it were possible to "Talk Sense" into that person it would have been done, already. Shouldn't the ones walking in the circle really stop, and ask why that person is walking in the wrong direction, or for that matter, why do they follow the crowd, in the first place? Its just much easier to listen to the bullhorn, and not use the hat rack. Get my point?

For what ever reason, and I'm sure there are quite a few, Science is walking around in a circle, in my opinion. And because I do not accept the theory of the "Conveyor belt, Subduction", I am in essence, walking the wrong way, in their minds.

Time, will ultimately be my judge, not some religion.

As far as what I drink? Well, I can tell you, I don't drink the fluoridated water any longer



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

*Cough*

Mariana Trench. Mariana Islands. Subduction & volcanism! Connection! You seem to be ignoring this a lot, so I'm going to keep reminding everyone about this.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

*Cough*

Mariana Trench. Mariana Islands. Subduction & volcanism! Connection! You seem to be ignoring this a lot, so I'm going to keep reminding everyone about this.



Now on another note, while reading this, I thought of you


Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans


so I'm going to keep reminding everyone about this.
Well, good, go for it. Keep reminding folks their appears to be a higher intelligence other than our own, floating around, somewhere.........



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join