Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

AAAH yes NCGT Journal... not exactly an unbias source... a journal that ONLY publishes opposition to tectonics, if you only read that then sure... its not like the authors of papers published there are going to be totally 100% unbias and sun-subjective either.

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

AAAH yes NCGT Journal... not exactly an unbias source... a journal that ONLY publishes opposition to tectonics, if you only read that then sure... its not like the authors of papers published there are going to be totally 100% unbias and sun-subjective either.

Why attack the site? Why not just address the materials, regardless of who the author is. And I'm quite certain if there were any evidence to support the subduction theory, someone would have brought that out by now. Its been 50 years now, show me the evidence. Or as a old Wendy's commercial put it. "Wheres the Beef"?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Cherry picking from biased sources again I see. What a shocker.

Mariana Islands. Mariana Trench. QED.

Done now.

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

Cherry picking from biased sources again I see. What a shocker.

Mariana Islands. Mariana Trench. QED.

Done now.

Really? At least I have studied both, theories. I tend to agree with the one that has verifiable evidence, not convenience. And certainly, not because of popularity.

Since you have been so diligent in receiving information concerning the Mariana Islands. Mariana Trench. Here ya go. But then again, I seriously doubt you will ever change your position. Mind control is a very powerful thing....
This is a little tricky, so bear with me on this.

Note that these volcanoes, according to the conventional theory, should be located on the side of the trench belonging to the plate that is not diving. The magma is coming up from the melting of the front edge of the subducting plate, which is now underneath the non-diving plate (the edge of the diving plate is now on the far side of the trench from its plate, and as it melts its magma bubbles upward on the side of the non-diving plate).

In other words, in the diagram above, we see a subducting plate coming from the left, and a non-diving plate on the right. The volcanoes should form on the right of the trench, in the plate on the right, but they are the product of the front edge of the plate coming from the left. The front edge of the left plate, which is subducting and is now under the right plate, creates the magma that forms the volcanoes.

Are you still with me?

Below is another diagram showing almost the same process, but this time instead of taking place near a coast, it is taking place at sea and the volcanoes are forming on the ocean floor instead of on the continent.

Go to the page to view the diagrams. Unless that is, you have a little voice in the back of your head that is telling you, don't look, don't look.

Most people learn these fundamentals of the conventional plate tectonic theory in school, and the explanation sounds fairly reasonable. However, there are many reasons to challenge this basic explanation for the formation of ocean trenches, and to question the very existence of such a process as "subduction."

"But my teacher taught me...". Im betting your teacher was a human being, subject to error.

Below is an image from Google maps showing the southwestern area of the Pacific ocean floor. You can see for yourself the volcanoes which Dr. Brown is discussing in the quotation above, and consider whether the plate tectonic explanation is a good one for the evidence that we actually find, and whether the reality looks anything like the subduction diagrams shown above:

Subduction without trenches?

Dr. Brown believes that the magma that created these volcanoes does not come from a subducting plate -- the magma came from the catastrophic events surrounding a past global flood on our planet. According to his theory, the entire floor of the Pacific was pulled towards the center of the earth by the physics involved in the flood event. When this happened, the intense shearing and heat generated magma around the entire edge of the subsidence -- a ring of magma known today as the "Ring of Fire." The same forces also "depressed, cracked, and distorted the entire western Pacific. Frictional melting produced large volumes of magma that spilled out on top of the Pacific plate. Some of that magma formed volcanoes" (154).

Well, my oh my. There is that word "Flood" again. How utterly inconvenient, and unpopular with the "Evolution bunch", too.

This explanation does a much better job of accounting for all the evidence that we actually find in the Pacific. The tectonic theory, while better than what came before it, has enormous problems. The "subduction" explanation is one major problem with the tectonic theory, but it is not alone. Scientists should overcome their aversion to "catastrophic" explanations and consider the hydroplate theory of Dr. Walt Brown, which provides very comprehensive and satisfactory explanations for the evidence we find on our amazing planet Earth.

Well, at this point I must say I'm having a Deja vu moment.

Pacific volcanoes and the problems with the plate tectonic theory

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Do you actually read all your sources, or do you just selectively quote from them? We know that the Pacific Plate is subducting under the Philippine Plate at the Mariana Trench - hence the Mariana Islands and the volcanoes there. Your source tries to disprove this by pointing to the volcanoes to the East - the seamounts that form the Emperor-Hawaii chain, which is an example of a mantle plume.
Then he jumps the shark completely and mentions a global flood. No.

0/10. Must do better.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

We know that the Pacific Plate is subducting under the Philippine Plate at the Mariana Trench

Prove it. Show me the direct evidence you base that theory on. -Q.E.D.

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

We know that the Pacific Plate is subducting under the Philippine Plate at the Mariana Trench

Prove it. Show me the direct evidence you base that theory on. -Q.E.D.

Welp, there's this.

And this.

Oh, and there's this too.

By the way, this is getting to be embarrassingly one-sided.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Welp, there's this.

I took some time to read your links. Yes, I read your links with an open mind.

Now this link in particular was rather complicated, and made many, many assumptions about the area. Actually written quite well. But left me feeling as though someone was attempting to describe their decent down the rabbits hole, chasing after the mad hatter.

There are a great many long distance "Leaps of Faith" in timelines into the ancient past, and pronouncements that this is the way it happened. Some of it seems to be great detective work. But my quest was not to be dazzled by the scientific terminology, but looking for the evidence that exposes subduction as a reality.

The only thing I found was assumption after assumption, after assumption. I thought you were going to share with me the "Evidence" that would put the story to rest. If you know where the experimentation is in these links, please quote them.

But at the end of this "Abstract", it stated this disclaimer:

Further investigations and physical experiments are needed to validate our model.

So what you have given me to read, basically,this model, is invalid.

Show me, please, the physical experiments...........

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

So what you have given me to read, basically,this model, is invalid.

Show me, please, the physical experiments...........

Ditto... expanding Earth... show me the experiments, iv not seen any thus far

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

It's more valid than anything you have so far produced. So I'm declaring victory and wandering off whistling.

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

It's more valid than anything you have so far produced. So I'm declaring victory and wandering off whistling.

I'm still reeling in shock....

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

It's more valid than anything you have so far produced. So I'm declaring victory and wandering off whistling.

I'm still reeling in shock....

Given the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on, it's no wonder you're reeling.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

It's more valid than anything you have so far produced. So I'm declaring victory and wandering off whistling.

I'm still reeling in shock....

Given the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on, it's no wonder you're reeling.

I don't know how you can state that, and that is the shocking part. Your Science has stated the Earth is expanding. Oh, all be it, to cover their arses, they state it is "Statistically insignificant". They admit it has expanded 53 miles in the last 70 million years. They admit to this, but play it as no change in diameter. Plain and simple manipulation of the facts!

But they also state, their findings are subject to error!

It's a small world, after all: Earth is not expanding, NASA research confirms

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

Its shocking that the material is misrepresented.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

It's more valid than anything you have so far produced. So I'm declaring victory and wandering off whistling.

I'm still reeling in shock....

Given the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on, it's no wonder you're reeling.

I don't know how you can state that, and that is the shocking part. Your Science has stated the Earth is expanding. Oh, all be it, to cover their arses, they state it is "Statistically insignificant". They admit it has expanded 53 miles in the last 70 million years. They admit to this, but play it as no change in diameter. Plain and simple manipulation of the facts!

But they also state, their findings are subject to error!

It's a small world, after all: Earth is not expanding, NASA research confirms

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

Its shocking that the material is misrepresented.

Do you ever read your own cites, or do you just read the headlines and then imagine that you understand what the article must be about? Because it's actually a very interesting article about geodesy. The problem is that it says nothing about expanding 53 miles in the past 71 million years. It does say that the average change in radius is 0.004 inches a year. The problem is that it doesn't say if that's an increase or a decrease every year.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

It's more valid than anything you have so far produced. So I'm declaring victory and wandering off whistling.

I'm still reeling in shock....

Given the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on, it's no wonder you're reeling.

I don't know how you can state that, and that is the shocking part. Your Science has stated the Earth is expanding. Oh, all be it, to cover their arses, they state it is "Statistically insignificant". They admit it has expanded 53 miles in the last 70 million years. They admit to this, but play it as no change in diameter. Plain and simple manipulation of the facts!

But they also state, their findings are subject to error!

It's a small world, after all: Earth is not expanding, NASA research confirms

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

Its shocking that the material is misrepresented.

Do you ever read your own cites, or do you just read the headlines and then imagine that you understand what the article must be about? Because it's actually a very interesting article about geodesy. The problem is that it says nothing about expanding 53 miles in the past 71 million years. It does say that the average change in radius is 0.004 inches a year. The problem is that it doesn't say if that's an increase or a decrease every year.

If there is no minus sign in front of the number it is taken as a positive number.

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year

Per year.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
They admit it has expanded 53 miles in the last 70 million years. They admit to this, but play it as no change in diameter. Plain and simple manipulation of the facts!

But they also state, their findings are subject to error!

It's a small world, after all: Earth is not expanding, NASA research confirms

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

So you don't know how measurement uncertainties work? I am not surprised. The list of what you don't know keeps getting longer. Every measurement ever made has measurement uncertainty, whether you know what it is or not. Scientists try to do the best job they can to determine what's significant using math etc.

As I said on Page 1:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If you want to get really really picky, the earth's mass is increasing by maybe 40 tons a day which might create an immeasurably small expansion completely inconsistent with any expanding Earth theory. 40 tons a day is one guess at the average amount of cosmic debris striking Earth (which we see as "shooting stars" at night, meteor showers, etc, and it could be less than that but probably not much more.

I haven't tried to compare that 40 tons per day mass increase to the not significant change in the Earth's radius "within current measurement uncertainties", but as I said 40 tons a day is probably too small to measure (meaning not significant beyond measurement uncertainties) for the Earth's actual mass or possible radius increase.

Anyway you need a lot more than the specified radius increase to support Maxlow's expanding Earth hypothesis, even if you were to assume it might not be measurement error or uncertainty. It's along the lines of the paleomagnetic research I posted which you didn't respond to showing if the Earth's radius has increased over the last hundreds of millions of years, it's not enough to support any of the proposed expanding Earth theories.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So you don't know how measurement uncertainties work? I am not surprised. The list of what you don't know keeps getting longer. Every measurement ever made has measurement uncertainty, whether you know what it is or not. Scientists try to do the best job they can to determine what's significant using math etc.

I have the understanding of acceptable error when it comes to measurements, or, assumptions. And if you reconsider my point it was not about acceptable errors, but changing the context of the statement. The number quoted, shows in fact, a positive number, meaning the title of the article, is Misleading. It is blatant manipulation.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye
I don't see how it's misleading. The article says no statistically significant expansion of the Earth was found, and that is what the headline conveys to me since I'm aware that most science papers require levels of statistical significance in the analysis of data. You generally don't see the words "statistically significant" in headlines for several reasons, because it's too wordy for a headline and because where science is involved, it's implied (if the scientists didn't use statistical significance analysis, it wouldn't be good science).

For example, it might be possible to come up with a slight growth figure for the Earth if the Earth was actually shrinking, or a slight shrinking figure of the Earth if the Earth was actually expanding due to measurement uncertainty. Reporting either of these results would be both wrong and irresponsible, yet it seems like that's what you're asking for here, so it still seems to me like you don't understand. If the data doesn't show a statistically significant change then they might not know if the sign on the data is right or not, or it could just be effectively zero change.

As I said I think there is reason to believe something like 40 tons of mass are added to the Earth daily, but I think this would be very difficult to measure because it's such a small amount of mass relative to the Earth, even after adding up millions of years worth.

Let's also remember that major bolide impacts knock matter off this world, so all in all I think that the evidence is in and we need to abandon this increasingly meaningless thread.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
We did all abandon this thread at one point, when you were the only one keeping it going with OP.

I know bolide impacts have given us Mars meteorites, but bolides knocking matter off of the Earth is a different matter. Not only does the Earth have a greater escape velocity due to its greater mass and gravity, but another impediment is that even if an object was ejected from Earth's surface at escape velocity, it still might not escape the Earth because the Earth's atmosphere is 100 times more dense than the atmosphere of Mars. So something traveling at just over escape velocity leaving Earth's surface doesn't actually escape because the atmosphere would slow it down before it did. It would have to vastly exceed escape velocity leaving the Earth surface so that it would still be above escape velocity by the time it passed through the Earth's atmosphere on the way up.

I doubt bolides have knocked much mass off the Earth in the past few hundred million years for these reasons, but the calculations are extremely difficult for gigantic fireballs, plasma effects, etc. so there is some room for debate I suppose but I tend to agree with this assessment of the Chixulub impact that made the dinosaurs extinct, except they are probably overestimating the size of the bolide which was probably 6 miles or less across:

impact.ese.ic.ac.uk...

Please note: the results below are estimates based on current (limited) understanding of the impact process and come with large uncertainties...
Estimated Chicxulub Parameters:
Projectile diameter: 12.00 km ( = 7.45 miles )
Major Global Changes:
The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.

The dinosaurs may have a different opinion about the Earth being disturbed, but the negligible mass loss point is probably right, in fact there was probably a net gain in mass, I'd expect over 99% of the mass of the bolide though not everyone would agree, but I think most will agree with the "large uncertainties" assessment.

In a time frame before that being discussed in this thread, over 3 billion years ago in the late heavy bombardment, bolides were probably large enough to eject more significant amounts of mass, but some of those dwarfed the Chicxulub bolide, like this one 3.26 billion years ago:

Huge Impact


How do you like this source?

adsabs.harvard.edu...

The calculation of ballistic trajectories is an essential step in understanding ejecta distributions, but must be augmented by a fuller understanding of fireball-atmosphere dynamics under conditions that are difficult to calculate and have not been observed.

Let's hope we don't get to observe another Chixulub-type impact on Earth, since there might be nobody left to write up the results except the folks on the ISS, and who is going to read their paper? But that aside I think those comments from years ago are probably still true today that the fireball-atmosphere dynamic conditions are difficult to calculate and haven't been observed.