Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

originally posted by: OneGoal

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

So where would all this additional matter come from to increase the earth by 400%?

This notion has been around for quite awhile now, I thought it was pretty interesting when I 1st saw it too. And it's still as full of holes as it ever was.

Additional matter like the Moon hitting the earth would be relevant. In the OP's context it's more so about density and location of planetary material.

Correct. It is a redistribution of what is already here, plus more water.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Maybe this where the water comes from?

Scientists believe they've found evidence of a potential ocean beneath our home planet's crust. A study from researchers at Northwestern University and the University of New Mexico have concluded the body of water rests about 400 miles underneath earth's crust and is so large it can fill all our oceans three times over

www.youtube.com...


Tried to embed it it to no avail

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

Maybe this where the water comes from?

Scientists believe they've found evidence of a potential ocean beneath our home planet's crust. A study from researchers at Northwestern University and the University of New Mexico have concluded the body of water rests about 400 miles underneath earth's crust and is so large it can fill all our oceans three times over

There ya go

www.youtube.com...


Tried to embed it it to no avail

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

Maybe this where the water comes from?

Scientists believe they've found evidence of a potential ocean beneath our home planet's crust. A study from researchers at Northwestern University and the University of New Mexico have concluded the body of water rests about 400 miles underneath earth's crust and is so large it can fill all our oceans three times over

www.youtube.com...


Tried to embed it it to no avail

That, is a very interesting bit of information. Thanks for sharing. It deserves "Deeper" thought

a reply to: OneGoal

The object that struck the earth to create the moon did so shortly after the earth had already formed. Maybe a few hundred years later.

The moon is well over 4 billion years old. So that doesn't really fit with the 140 - 70 million year hypothesis in the OP.

a reply to: OneGoal

The breakdown of oxygen molecules is much more common and exponentially more likely to occur than the spontaneous appearance of billions of cubic tons of matter.

a reply to: buckwhizzle

Scientists believe they've found evidence of a potential ocean beneath our home planet's crust. A study from researchers at Northwestern University and the University of New Mexico have concluded the body of water rests about 400 miles underneath earth's crust and is so large it can fill all our oceans three times over

There is no body of water. There are hydrated minerals.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

If by "deeper thought" you mean not a YouTube video then you are correct. It's water saturated in rock, not an actual body of water.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I would make an assumption that the unhindered growth of trees was responsible for the very impressive 35% oxygen content this planet used to have. Is this not a fair assumption?

Not if you assume that trees were the only cause.

If one looks at the chart one will see a rather large decline in the atmospheric oxygen content at approximately 62 million years ago, which seems to have started at around 70 million years ago.

The proxy record goes back quite a bit farther than that, though not with the precision of that derived from amber.


The CT change was sort of a little blip.
As to what causes the changes? Changes in climates. Changes in biology. Changes in volcanic activity. Oxygen is absorbed by oceans and emitted by oceans, depending upon a variety of factors.

a reply to: watchitburn

So where would all this additional matter come from to increase the earth by 400%?

One theory say:

Geodynamic phenomena are attributed to Excess Mass Stress (EMS). The basic idea is that the Earth expands and not due to a heat but to a stress engine. Below the depth of about 100 km in the Earth's interior, electromagnetic and nuclear forces, not heat and gravity, are considered to dominate. Excess Mass (EM) is the product of transformation of cold plasma (electrons, protons and positive ions) into bulk matter, within the outer core, through electromagnetic confinement, resonance, laser clustering, shockwaves, and controlled nuclear fusions. About 3.6x10 51 nucleons, most of them as 2H nuclei, a small number of free protons and about 10 53 electrons were trapped inside the primordial Earth. The primordial Earth had a diameter about 40% its present size. Up until now about 2/3 of this original number of 2H nuclei have been transformed into bulk matter in two distinct phases: The first from 4000-200 m.y. a., when a granitic continental type crust, with a thickness of 300-350 km, was formed. In the second phase (200 m.y.a. to present), the Fe-rich oceanic crust and more than 90% of the rigid mantle were formed. During orogenic episodes, caused by an intensification of laser clustering, degeneracy pressure is reduced and the Earth tends to contract. The net result of its electrical unbalance is a pulsation of the Earth (expansion-contraction), which is superimposed upon its general expansion due to EM generation and emplacement processes. Earthquakes are considered to be the result of coalescence of crystal sized solid EM 'wedges'. The diminution of elastic moduli, is associated with positive gravity anomalies, that imply excess mass, and high heat flow. This EM is the cause of seismic Low Velocity Zones (LVZ). The High Velocity Zones (HVZ) are a result of earlier emplaced, cooler and more compacted EM typified by a faster rate of increase of elastic moduli as compared to density.

EXCESS MASS STRESS TECTONICS (EMST) : AN OUTLINE OF THE HYPOTHESIS



To the OP, you might be interested in Dr. James Maxlow, an Australian geologist.

Dr. Maxlow's interests in Expansion Tectonics stem from a dissatifaction with plate tectonics in explaining geological phenomena. As part of his PhD research into global tectonics, he created models of an expanding Earth from the present back to the early Archaean Era. This is the first time that both oceanic and continental crusts have been used to reconstruct plate assemblage for the entire 100% of Earth history. Models were then used to layer global geographical, climatic, geophysical and geological data to quantify an Earth expansion process (note: Earth expansion = growing Earth).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ok520bd39b.JPG[/atsimg]

And there is also the Growing Earth Consortium website.

Finally there is the the thread I am coauthor of (I really need to get back and finish that thing) which includes the above and many more links besides:

Is there a connection between the Expanding Earth & Electric Universe theories?

Hope these links help.

a reply to: PhageThanks for the positive contribution, and staying with "History". So I would assume you agree that the oxygen content does play a role in ancient geology, correct?

But you are also correct about the variants involved. No, trees are not the only generator of oxygen, green algae produces oxygen as well as plant life in general. Another variable is, as we would like to think the oxygen content is consistent globally, it is not. It all depends on how many oxygen breathers there are in any given location, and the oxygen that is produced to replace it. If one could imagine, a desert is not a great creator of oxygen. So naturally amber recovered from a swamp filled with algae surrounded by a thick jungle lacking oxygen breathers, would have oxygen content much higher than the average. So I concur with your point.

The point set used to determine the content is troubling as well as we are not given the precise locations of each amber find. Just as with main stream media not getting stories correct, so too can the scientists. But then again, we just have to go with what is written, whether it is a generalization or specific.

So to be safe I would guess we, for the moment, would have to speak in general terms. "At one point in ancient time, the oxygen content was discovered to be at a high of 35%. Today, generally, our oxygen content can run from 21% to 19%. Unless that is, your sampling South Pole Ice Core samples from Lake Vostock, its 35%

Though I would not Characterize the oxygen content dropping from 35% to 15% a minor blip. Its catastrophic. Even for one small area.

I find it interesting that your oxygen content chart and the one I supplied do not coincide with each other in timelines, but do in the graphical chart.. In mine the high of 35% was reached at "Generally" 70 million, while your reached the 35% at 300 million years ago. Again, it may be due to variables.

Do you have a link to the page it came from?
Thanks
ASE.

Sometimes science has a way of bending facts and figures to suit certain predicaments. Just like the rock that "Bends" to "Sub-duct".

The CT change was sort of a little blip.
As to what causes the changes? Changes in climates. Changes in biology. Changes in volcanic activity. Oxygen is absorbed by oceans and emitted by oceans, depending upon a variety of factors.

That is what the 50 thousand dollar question is, what caused the change.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

So I would assume you agree that the oxygen content does play a role in ancient geology, correct?

Actually, no. I would say that geology plays a role in oxygen content to major extent. While climate does affect things such as sedimentation rates and oxygen does have an effect on climate, it would be difficult to agree to much more than that. Earthquakes, vulcanism, no.

So to be safe I would guess we, for the moment, would have to speak in general terms. "At one point in ancient time, the oxygen content was discovered to be at a high of 35%. Today, generally, our oxygen content can run from 21% to 19%. Unless that is, your sampling South Pole Ice Core samples from Lake Vostock, its 35%

False. Using the date derived from amber samples in comparision with other proxies, it would seem that the other proxies underestimate atmospheric O2 levels. This indicates that there was a period during which O2 levels were significantly higher than 35%. And those levels fell to significantly less than that.

Do you have a link to the page it came from?

I do.
www.pnas.org...

Sometimes science has a way of bending facts and figures to suit certain predicaments. Just like the rock that "Bends" to "Sub-duct".

Sometimes people pick and choose facts and figures to suit their mindset.

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

Download Google Earth and take a look at the sea floor in the middle of the atlantic. That's the mid atlantic rift where litho sphere rises through the crust and the Atlantic Ocean spreads.

On the other side of earth you have in the Pacific several subduction zones where crust dives into the lithosphere.

These are essentially the two main points of interest and if you look at it, it's essentially recycling mantle material. Based on this I'd say the Earth is not changing in size.

Picture a volcano. Now imagine that its main vent extends in a line. Now imagine that this line is so long that it runs for more than 40,000 miles through the dark recesses of all the world’s oceans, girding the globe like the seams of a baseball.

www.nytimes.com...

When I measured the rifts (expansion joints) I come up with a figure closer to 45,288 miles, in total length. Science has now proven that these rifts actually do spread, its given. Now, in order for the planet not to expand, you need a equal amount of subduction zones, equaling 40 to 45 thousand miles of subduction zones in order for the crustal material to be "recycled", correct? Show me a total of 40,000 miles of subduction. If you cant, then their is a bottle neck in the theory of subduction, one which could cause a backlog of material being piled, somewhere, maybe in the form of "Expansion"..

Show me the chart for subduction zones, please.
ASE

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

If you cant, then their is a bottle neck in the theory of subduction, one which could cause a backlog of material being piled, somewhere, maybe in the form of "Expansion"..

Indeed.
The Andes and Himalayas are good examples of what happens at subduction zones.

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

So I would assume you agree that the oxygen content does play a role in ancient geology, correct?

Actually, no. I would say that geology plays a role in oxygen content to major extent. While climate does affect things such as sedimentation rates and oxygen does have an effect on climate, it would be difficult to agree to much more than that. Earthquakes, vulcanism, no

Sometimes science has a way of bending facts and figures to suit certain predicaments. Just like the rock that "Bends" to "Sub-duct".

Sometimes people pick and choose facts and figures to suit their mindset.

From your link

Therefore, the study of these cycles and how they may have varied in the geological past is important to the history, not only of the atmosphere, but also of earth surface environments.

www.pnas.org...

Actually, yes. What I'm trying to share is that because of the rapid drop in oxygen content there was a "Event" that altered the oxygen cycles to such a degree that it had a great impact not only on the geology of the planet, but its life forms as well. Bare with me on this.

What would kill off most of the oxygen producing plant life, including trees? What would kill off all the dinosaurs? I doubt a meteor could do this as sufficient life forms would have survived somewhere on the planet. There are "Bone Beds" of Dinosaurs that have multiple species in it, as if they were washed their like a log jam in a river. There was a group of primates in Africa that were found deep within a cave system, who had all their bones broken, no predation. Sorry I cant remember the name of the dig. Some of the passages were extremely small, and 3/4 of a mile in, and slanted down ward, and up.

It is quite apparent to me that a great amount of water washed those primates into the cave system, breaking all their bones as they were washed down into the cave.

Again, the Bone Beds show clear signs of flooding. Flooding to such a degree that virtually all the trees and plant life were submerged, and unable to produce oxygen.

Sometimes people pick and choose facts and figures to suit their mindset.

So absolutely true! And that is okay, as long as they do not fabricate the facts and figures, or turn fact into fiction, or fiction into facts. And that, is exactly how one solves a puzzle. Isn't it?

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

If you cant, then their is a bottle neck in the theory of subduction, one which could cause a backlog of material being piled, somewhere, maybe in the form of "Expansion"..

Indeed.
The Andes and Himalayas are good examples of what happens at subduction zones.

Please show me the chart for Subduction zones. And, the total mileage of these zones.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Please show me the chart for Subduction zones.

cioss.coas.oregonstate.edu...

And, the total mileage of these zones.

Nah. It wouldn't convince you of anything but is there some requirement that the per mile subduction rate has to equal the per mile expansion rate?

It is quite apparent to me that a great amount of water washed those primates into the cave system, breaking all their bones as they were washed down into the cave.

And it was all part of the same flood. It all happened at the same time. Of course.

So absolutely true! And that is okay, as long as they do not fabricate the facts and figures, or turn fact into fiction, or fiction into facts. And that, is exactly how one solves a puzzle. Isn't it?

You have not really presented any facts which favor an expanding Earth over one that hasn't.

a reply to: Phage

but is there some requirement that the per mile subduction rate has to equal the per mile expansion rate?

To me, yes. If you want me to believe that the earth is not expanding, show me how all those expansion rifts are expanding into a subduction zone of equal or greater size. I explained it above.

Also, what authority do I assign to the "Smile Winter Teacher Workshop High School Club Activities" Subduction zone Chart?? Is that a Sub Department in NOAA?

You know, Science is about observing phenomenon. The mid Oceanic rifts are observable and testable, so, it is acceptable. Can a test be devised to prove subduction, and make it fact instead of theory? Sure is. But I suspect no one would be interested in funding those tests.. So, until they do that, I'm strictly from Missouri on the subject. "Show Me"

a reply to: All Seeing Eye
You really can't find a chart all by yourself?
www.johomaps.com...

Can a test be devised to prove subduction, and make it fact instead of theory?

The mantle residues of crust formation were previously believed to have mixed back into the mantle so thoroughly that evidence of the planet’s oldest geochemical events, such as core formation, was lost completely.

However, the research team—which also included Sujoy Mukhopadhyay and Vicky Manthos of University of California Davis, Don Francis of McGill University, and Matthew Jackson, a Carnegie alumnus now at University of California Santa Barbara—was able find a geochemical signature of material left over from the early melting events that accompanied Earth’s formation. They found it in relatively young rocks both from Baffin Island, off the coast of northern Canada, and from the Ontong-Java Plateau in the Pacific Ocean, north of the Solomon Islands.

carnegiescience.edu...

Subducted material returned to the surface.

a reply to: PhagePhage, first I must thank you again for contributing your time to this debate. Your one of the members who I care for, the most. And, one of the hardest cookies around. One might even think you are the original designer of the subduction "Theory", but I'm sure that isn't the case. Okay, enough of that.

You really can't find a chart all by yourself?

During a debate, I bring thoughts, ideas, facts and figures that support my position, and if your position differs, you bring thoughts, ideas, facts and figures to support yours. If you are going to defend "Subduction" then you should do just that, in my humble opinion. I have offered an alternative theory as to the creation of Earthquakes, and as you can see, I do not accept the presently offered theory.

From your chart link, there is no authoring information attached.

Tectonic Plates of the Earth

Plate boundaries are approximate. Subduction plate boundaries are arbitrarily mapped. Subduction of plates occurs in a wide zone of plate contact, instead of a definite boundary. This zone is defined by a zone of frequent earthquakes.

Most large earthquakes are generated by subduction, including megathrust earthquakes that exceed the magnitude of 8.0. The Sumatra Section of the subduction zone has been very active since the giant tsunami-generating megathrust earthquake of December 26, 2004, which reached 9.0 on the Richter Scale.

You will note the words "Approximate" "Arbitrarily" in the above. Do these terms sound scientific to you?

Most large earthquakes are generated by subduction

Has this been proven by science, or, is this an assumption??

The title of your next link is

Found: surviving evidence of Earth’s formative years

I don't think anyone will argue that this planet was formed under extreme heat and pressures of some type. Gasses may have also played a part in the creation of this planet, and as some have pointed out, water as well. The actual formation of this planet is by far the most puzzling and at the same time inspiring event in anyone's lifetime. But the title is misleading. Anyone who walks on a continent, is walking on evidence of Earths formative years. Certainly, absolutely, during the formation of this planet, there was mixing occurring on a scale as large as the planet itself.

The one word that is the most troubling from the above passage is " believed ". To me, the word denotes religion far more than it does observable, provable, science. You want me to believe in the Religion of Subduction?

Here is some "Hard Core" science.

Fact: the Atlantic Ocean has had its ocean bed dated, from the rift outwards to North America, to Africa, from yesterday, to approximately 150 million years. In total, that spread alone is 3,660 miles wide.

So what this subduction theory is saying is that over the last 150 million years, a equal amount of space has dropped into and disappeared down a subduction black hole. And if that is the case, why is their a spread allowed to exist??? There should be NO Spreading if Subduction is true.

Fact: The Pacific Ocean has had its ocean bed dated and the same phenomenon is noted. Except in the Pacific there are 3 major fault lines, but again, the age at the fault line is yesterday and progressing backwards in time to 150 to 160 million years. The total distance east to west is roughly 8,957 miles. Why did subduction allow such a large pacific spread? When is subduction going to kick in and stop the spreading??? It just seems to me that Subduction has been on holiday for the last 160 million years. Is subduction, just lazy??

So, Phage, I hope you can accept and or at least understand my reasoning why Subduction is not a viable Scientific Theory. You don't have to accept what I offer, but you must accept that I hold a differing view.

In the theory of subduction earthquakes are used to prove subduction is occurring. In mine, Earthquakes are the result of the global radius breaking into a new, larger diameter, due to ocean spreading. We have solid scientific proof this is occurring. But with subduction, there should be no spreading. WE can see and document the spreading, but not so, with subduction.

Now in saying all of that, I will admit, locally, and on a very minor scale, subduction does in fact occur, but not globally, nor to the depths envisioned.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
You will note the words "Approximate" "Arbitrarily" in the above. Do these terms sound scientific to you?

They do to me. Good scientists are careful to use such qualifiers, especially when you're looking at a 2 dimensional global map of a 3 dimensional phenomenon like subduction.

First, a 2D map can't show all the 3D details because it's missing a dimension which is part of the reason "arbitrarily" makes sense as there's no exact line on the surface for a subduction zone like surveyors can make for a country border. There's a reason it's called a subduction zone and not a subduction line, yet they are using lines on the map, right?

Second, it's approximate because a global map can't show as much detail as more detailed local maps like this one of the Sumatra subduction zone:

www.annualreviews.org...

When is subduction going to kick in and stop the spreading??? It just seems to me that Subduction has been on holiday for the last 160 million years. Is subduction, just lazy??

You're making an unfounded assumption that every part of the crust must undergo subduction on a certain time scale but there is no such aspect to the plate tectonics model. In fact the model allows for the frequency of subduction to vary such that it may occur in shorter timescales in some regions and longer time scales in other regions. Most of the Earth's original crust isn't present but a discovery of some very old crust has been made that apparently hasn't been subducted in over 4 billion years, so 150 million years is brief compared to that:

Earth's Oldest Crust Dates to 4.4 Billion Years Ago

Australia holds the oldest continental crust on Earth, researchers have confirmed, hills some 4.4 billion years old.

For more than a decade, geoscientists have debated whether the iron-rich Jack Hills of western Australia represent the oldest rocks on Earth. The new findings rely on atom-scale analyses of tiny crystals in rocks that solidified from lava there eons ago. (See also: "Oldest Rocks on Earth Discovered?")

"This confirms our view of how the Earth cooled and became habitable," said study leader John Valley of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in a statement.

However that's somewhat of a rarity to find crust that old because plate tectonics does tend to recycle the crust. However your supposition that this must happen to all crust on some exact time scale is entirely a fictitious assumption and that's one of many reasons why you're wrong.


Of course you can believe anything you want, but expanding earth no longer is considered plausible since there's too much evidence contradicting it. That wasn't always the case; it was considered as one possibility before we had so much evidence against it, which you seem to be unfamiliar with and/or unwilling to accept.