Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Compression can do many interesting things to rock... but as has been stated before... the extra pressure added by water pales in comparison to rock.

By your own words, again you seem to be making the statement that where you have enormous rock pressure you get melting and lava.... thats fine... except you seem to believe that water magically produces more pressure than it does.

Rock, underground at the same depth as the deepest trench in the ocean that is under a land mass is under way way way more pressure than the rock below the trench. This is a scientific and engineering fact.

More over what you also fail to want to see is that if you rub two things together they can generate a lot of heat due to compression and friction. Subduction gives a very simple and natural means or process which can produce exactly what we see on the Earth.

Also what chemical reaction exactly? what is the process? again we humans have been around a far bit and know quite a lot regarding chemistry... not all, sure, but quite a bit.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Science just reported in and says that the subduction part of the theory of plate tectonics is alive and well. Check out the Ring of Fire. Proof of subduction from a map.

You seem to think that there's a dialogue going on here. There isn't. Just a few people who bother to try and educate you, despite the fact that you misunderstand, misrepresent, etc. etc. etc.

a reply to: ErosA433

Also what chemical reaction exactly? what is the process? again we humans have been around a far bit and know quite a lot regarding chemistry... not all, sure, but quite a bit.

There is a theory where deep inside the earth, scattered among the various layers of rock, and what else might be down there, are deposits of materials, that when come into contact with water, can be quite explosive. The size and location of these deposits is anyone's guess, but suspected to be associated with volcanic events. As you might imagine, the chemical reaction is contained within the crust and not allowed to vent until it reaches a point where the crust can no longer contain it, and the pressure is vented via a volcano.

If you can imagine a deposit of considerable size, say 1/8 mile square, of anyone of the materials that react with water, you may have a reaction that lasts for years, decades, or longer. Or, once the materials have exhausted themselves, the associated volcano will go extinct. Then, you might have a new volcano that becomes active because the water finally arrived to react to a deposit that previously was dry.





So, not only the weight of the water, but its chemical reactions with other elements, can be quite destructive. As a comparison you can look at mars, which is virtually devoid of water, and geologically speaking, at rest. Certainly, we do not know if these elements are present deep within our crust, nor do we know what the composition of Mars is, deep within. Its only,a theory.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
There is a theory where deep inside the earth, scattered among the various layers of rock, and what else might be down there, are deposits of materials, that when come into contact with water, can be quite explosive.

What theory?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye
I just cannot see this being the case, deposits are one thing, but the amount of material would be huge, not only that but if magma is produced using a highly exothermic reaction such as those you posted you need pure reactive metal samples

The beauty of reactive elements is that they react very readily and are NEVER found in a pure form. Iron and Nickel are far less reactive than the Alkali metals and yet we never find pure deposits of those.

So again, what you are proposing just doesn't make logical sense.

Not only that but magma that comes from a volcano in the way you have imagined, would contain compounds highly enriched in said metals... This... I do not believe is the case.

This also being the case, it would mean that everywhere on the Earth you would expect volcanos... again, this is not what we see...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

An utterly ridiculous one. All Seeing Eye does not understand basic geology.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Check out the Ring of Fire. Proof of subduction from a map.

THE MAP
I always knew Glenda's tower was real. Oh, oh, and look, there is is for all to see, the Great and Honorable, Emerald City. See it, right there in the middle of the MAP.

And look, at the bottom on the map, it says "Based on the original map designed by the ROYAL Historian of OZ". Pay Dirt Baby, I knew oz was real. Royal Historian? I wonder if he is in the same office as the Royal Institution (Formally known as the Royal Society ). It must be, it all fits.

Its Party Time........

Just a few people who bother to try and educate you,

Well... what can I say..........




Thank you.

a reply to: ErosA433

This also being the case, it would mean that everywhere on the Earth you would expect volcanos... again, this is not what we see...

I disagree with that. They would only be where there were ample supplies of the chemical catalyst. The ocean beds are another situation, that may, or may not contain the catalyst. Though, the Hawaiian Island chain does come to mind, because it appears it is older than the start of the sea spreading.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

There are subduction trenches all around the Ring of Fire - and there are volcanoes on the subducting side. What a co-incidence! Oh, wait...

Meh.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

No, a catalyst is not the same as the chemical causing the reaction, it is either supplies of the chemicals or both the chemicals and a catalyst... really just think that you don't understand chemistry ontop of geology too. firing in buzz words.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

No, a catalyst is not the same as the chemical causing the reaction, it is either supplies of the chemicals or both the chemicals and a catalyst... really just think that you don't understand chemistry ontop of geology too. firing in buzz words.

a person or thing that precipitates an event.

cat·a·lyst

You may have taken my "word" out of context.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You may have taken my "word" out of context.

Your context was that of a chemical reaction, was it not?

Your source, apparently.

a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.

www.google.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
There is a theory where deep inside the earth, scattered among the various layers of rock, and what else might be down there, are deposits of materials, that when come into contact with water, can be quite explosive.

What theory?

Etidorhpa belongs to a subgenre of fiction that shares elements of science fiction, fantasy, Utopian fiction, and scientific (or pseudo-scientific) speculation.

Etidorhpa

The book blends passages on the nature of physical phenomena, such as gravity and volcanoes, with spiritualist speculation and adventure-story elements

Granted a fictional book, but exceptionally well written. And within the book it describes an alternative explanation for the existence of volcanoes.

But regardless if the theory was in the funny papers, or a scientific journal, it still should be looked at, and considered, in a mature manner.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Erm, what part of the concept of 'fictional' do you not understand?

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

Erm, what part of the concept of 'fictional' do you not understand?

Well, if this

Proof of subduction from a map

can be the basis of a fact, then why not a book?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

Erm, what part of the concept of 'fictional' do you not understand?

Well, if this

Proof of subduction from a map

can be the basis of a fact, then why not a book?

(Facepalm)

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Sad part about this thread is that everyone is simply learning about how concepts can be so ignorantly intrenched outside of reality and how far the OP will attempt to go in order to argue his/her corner despite running out of ammunition on the second or third page.

OP has demonstrated a lack of understanding of not only geology, but physics and chemistry too. It might be best for everyones sanity to let this thread die... unless the OP is willing to explain things in a logically coherent manner rather than what is happening now which quite frankly is quite worrisome.

I mean... by OPs standards lets get our science from the Bible... works right... whole of science is wrong

*facepalm*

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

Erm, what part of the concept of 'fictional' do you not understand?

Well, if this

Proof of subduction from a map

can be the basis of a fact, then why not a book?

I like reading DiscWorld by Terry Pratchett. That doesn't mean that the world is a disc, supported by 4 elephants on top of a turtle swimming through space. Nor does it mean that there's a special type of wood that can make semi-intelligent chests with legs.

It's called fiction for a reason.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
But regardless if the theory was in the funny papers, or a scientific journal, it still should be looked at, and considered, in a mature manner.

The list of things you don't seem to know keeps getting longer and longer. Here's a few things on the list so far:

1. The physics of gravitation resulting in planets which have a spherical shape. The reason the shape is spherical is because the rocks can't substantially resist the gravitation, meaning not only are there limits to the sizes of mountains and valleys but also limits to how much of the planet can be hollow.

2. Basic Geology: You keep mis-stating the assumptions made by geologists, which are not the assumptions made by geologists. You haven't yet learned what geologists really think, about how much of the Earth's interior is molten, and many other topics.

3. Basic Chemistry: You seem to know very little about chemical reactions, catalysts, etc.

4. The physics of angular momentum and orbital motions. Your posts seem to infer that the relatively simple explanation of one tectonic plate sliding under the other when they collide is wrong, but to explain the evidence you instead apparently propose that not only is the Earth hollow, but also the moon must be hollow (according to the source you posted) and is a giant spaceship, which instead of following a natural orbit was flown into the earth to change the direction of the Earth's rotation, as a better explanation for the scars on the Earth than the simple subduction. Then after this collision of the moon and Earth, they had to repair the damaged exterior of the moon to restore it to appear like a natural-looking cratered surface. Subduction seems a whole lot simpler than the moon flying around and crashing into Earth to change the Earth's direction of rotation, especially when the orbit of the moon looks perfectly natural, and I don't see any signs of it having crashed into Earth.

4. Definition of scientific theory.
If the theory isn't a scientific theory outside the funny papers, or other fictional work, it's not a scientific theory. Your claims just keep getting more and more absurd, I'm rubbing my eyes because I can't believe what I'm reading here. At first I thought maybe you were a somewhat rational but uninformed person, but based on the moon flying into the Earth to change the direction of rotation, and this last comment about fiction being a theory, I'm starting to re-evaluate that assumption. These ideas don't strike me as being rational.

a reply to: ErosA433

Sad part about this thread is that everyone is simply learning about how concepts can be so ignorantly entrenched outside of reality

So true, so very, very, true. And I pray that the reader will read each word, each link, and decide for themselves, the truth of the above statement, and not let the gate keepers make their minds up for them..

It might be best for everyones sanity to let this thread die... unless the OP is willing to explain things in a logically coherent manner rather than what is happening now which quite frankly is quite worrisome.

I am not a Theoretical Scientist with a wink and a nod from the Royal institute.

I am always willing to entertain facts. In "fact" all that is required is that I be shown, again, irrefutable, undeniable, evidence, that subduction exists. The thread will continue, if at all possible, until that day arrives.

Now a little something I stumbled upon here at ATS I believe. I cant remember who posted it. It does not address the subject of subduction, but it does explain the Sun in basic layman's terms, and is at the verge of explaining why the Earth maintains its orbit around the Sun. There is nothing "Settled" about Subduction. Great Day for science.

" Exposing the Myths of “Settled Science”"


David Talbott | Exposing the Myths of “Settled Science”

Black Holes Plasma Cosmology Electric Universe Astronomy