Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

No matter which side of the debate you stand, no advancement can be made while the parties involved stand in defiance of one another. The questions have been asked and answers offered. Therefore it is only left for the Earth itself to tell the story. For those who are practiced at compromise, you will ultimately find the answer. IMHO.

I personally have already submitted to partial subduction where the crust has road up under continental crust in areas.
Is there anyone who is willing to consider partial expansion?

SUMMARY

Despite the success that standard plate-tectonics theory has enjoyed, there are phenomena that it currently is not able to model. Perhaps the most adequate model would incorporate Owens' suggestion that there is both subduction and expansion. This would allow the earth to expand at a modest rate with reasonable changes in surface gravitation and also require some subduction for which the evidence seems convincing. But such a model presents the difficulty of finding suitable mechanisms for expansion, plate motion and subduction!

The mechanism for expansion should be considered separately from the main theory.

Finally, a week-long workshop on the lithosphere convened by the U.S. Geodynamics committee in 1982 noted that "no generally accepted models exist for the initiation of [subduction]", "rates and mechanisms of assimilation of models for the heating of subducted slabs¼[are] wholly inadequate¼", and "gravity profiles across subduction zones and the published geoid data do not reflect the thermally predicted excess mass" (Lithosphere 1983, pp. 28, 29).

EXPANDING EARTH? Bill Mundy Professor of Physics Pacific Union College, Angwin, California

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Is there anyone who is willing to consider partial expansion?

If the mass of the Earth is increasing by 40 tons a day and the density of that mass is about the same as the Earth (it may be a little less), then the Earth is probably expanding by a proportional amount, which for the 4th time is too small to measure because it's less than measurement uncertainty, and in fact several studies including one you cited yourself show no statistically significant expansion of the Earth's radius, which exceeds measurement uncertainty.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you.

There was a error pointed out concerning the expanding earth models as presented by Neal Adams. It appears Neal did not take into consideration that the plates mate at the continental shelves, not the present land masses. And now that underwater ancient cities have been discovered on those shelf's can only mean those shelves were once above water level.

Each city found is at varying depths and unique location. And researchers exploring these sunken city's are finding varying timelines and reasons given for them to sink below the waves. But there is other information that is pointing to this not being isolated sinking s, but rather, global in nature.

During the most recent ice age (at its maximum about 20,000 years ago) the world's sea level was about 130 m lower than today, due to the large amount of sea water that had evaporated and been deposited as snow and ice, mostly in the Laurentide ice sheet. Most of this had melted by about 10,000 years ago.

Past sea level

And then their is this from the Aboriginal stories

Without using written languages, Australian tribes passed memories of life before, and during, post-glacial shoreline inundations through hundreds of generations as high-fidelity oral history. Some tribes can still point to islands that no longer exist—and provide their original names.

Ancient Sea Rise Tale Told Accurately for 10,000 Years

And then this from India

Mainstream scientists maintain that ancient Indian culture/civilization goes back some 4-5 thousand years. Yet the ruins below the Gulf of Cambay go back at least 9 thousand years, i.e. to the time when the area submerged under water.

Dwarka. Mythical City Found Under Water?

So from the evidence one can make a safe assumption that 10,000 years ago their was a event that triggered all these population centers to "Sink". Science suggest this may have been the results of the Ice caps melting and flooding the planet. (Result of Ice Age Melting). But of course their are questions that come up when considering this.

If one looks at Goggle Earth and the lighter blue continental sheves around the world it becomes clear there is a mismatch. It appears a great deal of real estate has been lost, to the sea. The question is, could it all have come from melting polar ice caps? Can the polar Ice caps have held that much frozen water?

Another error in Neal Adams presentation is that he does not represent the water levels of his models. We know as a fact 10,000 years ago the water was lower by at least 130 meters, as shown by submerged coastal communities. I'm not certain as to the exact sea level but I would theorize that all the light blue areas were above sea level.

So here comes a major problem for EE (Expanding Earth). It can not account for all the water. If Neal were to incorporate Sea Level projections into his model, the planet, as he reveres the expansion and remove the sea beds, the waters would overtake land masses and I suspect, end up covering the entire planet, in water. Plate Tectonics simply states the water has always been here, and does not address the water level rise of 10,000 years ago..

So, for EE theory to "Hold" any water, it must explain if the water was not always here, then where did it come from.
And again the possibilities involving this should not be a determining factor in deciding what is evident and what isn't, just like what causes the mechanism for expansion in the first place. In other words, we shouldn't throw the baby out, with the bath water. Scientifically speaking.

Now looking at "just" the Atlantic ocean not considering any other areas, the rift going down the center of the Ocean mirrors exactly the outline of Africa's continental shelf. And on the West side, South America mirrors the rift. The North American does not because of the Age of the ocean bed there appears to have been a "Sea" or small Ocean already there, 70,000,000 ago. That body of water actually lead to the entire Atlantic Ocean, as revealed by the ages of the ocean bed. Africa has a section of old sea floor that matches up to the North American side.

The Rift in the middle of that ancient water body started the whole process of pushing the continents part. And in as far as subduction I do not know of any that are claimed to be present in this area. The planet is telling us that at least between Africa, North and South America, the planet has expanded. Just in that area. There is no spinning or floating about observed, just the continents slowly moving away from each other. There is no Atlantic "Ring of Fire".

a reply to: ArbitrageurThat original Atlantic ocean was approximately 1850 miles North East to Southwest, and 1300 miles wide from the North west to the South east. The split, rift, did not occur in the center but off to the East about 300 miles from the position of Africa at that time, 70,000,000 million years ago. The Northern most point of this Ancient Ocean appears to be close to the present site of where the Titanic rests, and at the Southern end west of present day Cuba. This is all deduced from the Ages of the Ocean floor. Direct observations, if you will.

As with all previous Geologists they viewed this naturally as a earth that is and or has expanded, in the past. We do not have any means of confirmation as no satellites were present to confirm this, 70,000,000 years ago.

Does the ages of the ocean beds tell us about how quickly or slowly this all happened? Not directly. Except we do know the volume of lava that is presently being ejected out of the rifts. But that in itself does not relay any times in the past when more or less was created. There could have been times when expansion in this area could be feet per year, or presently, "statistically insignificant". The only other thing we have is the magnetic reversal that is embedded in the rocks themselves.

Reversals are the rule, not the exception. Earth has settled in the last 20 million years into a pattern of a pole reversal about every 200,000 to 300,000 years, although it has been more than twice that long since the last reversal. A reversal happens over hundreds or thousands of years, and it is not exactly a clean back flip. Magnetic fields morph and push and pull at one another, with multiple poles emerging at odd latitudes throughout the process. Scientists estimate reversals have happened at least hundreds of times over the past three billion years. And while reversals have happened more frequently in "recent" years, when dinosaurs walked Earth a reversal was more likely to happen only about every one million years.

2012: Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time

So when this reversal happens one might start to imagine that the plates will respond. And any Model of the Earth, should take this into consideration. I would imagine that the expansion rate could become "Statistically Relevant", at the very least.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
So when this reversal happens one might start to imagine that the plates will respond. And any Model of the Earth, should take this into consideration. I would imagine that the expansion rate could become "Statistically Relevant", at the very least.

You've got the cart pulling the horse there. Scientists think the horse pulls the cart instead, which makes more sense to me. I can fully understand how the hypotheses the scientists describe might work using principles of physics, but I can't understand any physics behind your cart pulling the horse scenario, I don't think there is any.

Plate tectonics may control reversals in the Earth's magnetic field

the further the centre of gravity of the continents moved away from the equator, the faster the rate of (geomagnetic) reversals (up to eight per million years for a maximum degree of asymmetry).

What does this suggest about the mechanism behind geomagnetic reversals? The scientists envisage two scenarios. In the first, terrestrial plates could be directly responsible for variations in the frequency of reversals: after plunging into the Earth's crust at subduction zones, the plates could descend until they reach the core, where they could modify the flow of iron. In the second, the movements of the plates may only reflect the mixing of the material taking place in the mantle and particularly at its base. In both cases, the movements of rocks outside the core would cause flow asymmetry in the liquid core and determine reversal frequency.

So those researchers think "the movements of rocks outside the core" influences magnetic reversals, not the other way around, as you suggest.

As with all previous Geologists they viewed this naturally as a earth that is and or has expanded, in the past.

What you seem to neglect is that there are reasons the old view have changed, and you don't seem to be aware of the evidence that led to these changes in thinking. Scientists didn't just wake up on a different side of the bed one day and decide to use a different model. There are reasons why we have the models we do today, and one of them is we know more than we used to because we've collected more data.

It appears a great deal of real estate has been lost, to the sea. The question is, could it all have come from melting polar ice caps? Can the polar Ice caps have held that much frozen water?

During ice ages, there is ice below the polar regions. The location that is now New York City for example would have been covered in ice so deep that not even the tallest skyscrapers would come close to the top of the ice which was a mile thick. The Laurentide ice sheet was so extensive it covered not only almost all of Canada but also some of the northern US like New York City, which isn't considered a "polar region".

The Laurentide ice sheet was still around 20,000 years ago when the sea level was lower as described here:

Archaeologists debunk the claim that underwater structures in the Gulf of Khambat point to the existence of a pre-Harappan civilisation.

Says Dr. D.P. Agrawal, chairman of the Paleoclimate Group who is responsible for establishing Carbon-14 laboratories in India: "To date a city on the basis of a dredged sample of wood is irresponsible and ridiculous. I have worked with the Paleoclimate Group on the changes in climate over the ages. It is a known fact that during the Ice Age, about 20,000 years ago, the Arabian Sea was 100 metres lower (than its present level). Entire forests are buried beneath the sea in this area. It is not extraordinary to find a piece of wood going back to 7500 B.C. or 5000 B.C. There is no way it can be used as evidence to date this so-called city."

Apparently Gulf of Khambat is the more modern name for the Gulf of Cambay, so he's talking about the same region mentioned in your post.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What you seem to neglect is that there are reasons the old view have changed, and you don't seem to be aware of the evidence that led to these changes in thinking. Scientists didn't just wake up on a different side of the bed one day and decide to use a different model. There are reasons why we have the models we do today, and one of them is we know more than we used to because we've collected more data.

Please, post that reason.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Apparently Gulf of Khambat is the more modern name for the Gulf of Cambay, so he's talking about the same region mentioned in your post.

There is no argument. Im not debating whether the city is there or not. Im certain there were other evidences involved to make the determination.

Entire forests are buried beneath the sea in this area. It is not extraordinary to find a piece of wood going back to 7500 B.C. or 5000 B.C. There is no way it can be used as evidence to date this so-called city."

It is only conformation of the date. 7500BC is 9500AD. Which puts it in the 10,000 year ball park. For my point is not about the city itself, but of dry land, globally. Forests do nicely in pointing that out.

You've got the cart pulling the horse there. Scientists think the horse pulls the cart instead, which makes more sense to me. I can fully understand how the hypotheses the scientists describe might work using principles of physics, but I can't understand any physics behind your cart pulling the horse scenario, I don't think there is any.

My point is that this reversal is inbred into the molten rock. I do not state the cause of the reversal. Only that the plates may be effected by the reversal, maybe even in a grand way.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Please, post that reason.

I said reasons as in plural and I posted an example here. Your reply to that post only showed you don't understand the current model, even though I posted a simple video explaining that, but you don't seem to understand the model. You also said something about there not being evidence the plate being subducted is moving toward the plate under which it's subducting, but there is evidence for such movement, which when coupled with that earthquake graph is enough to convince the scientific community subduction is occurring. If it fails to convince you, that's inconsequential.

Other reasons include the research you cited showing there's no statistically significant expansion of the Earth, another research paper I cited on paleomagnetic analysis coming to the same conclusion, and much more, notably the lack of any plausible mechanism for the expansion. Maxlow says he doesn't know what would make the Earth expand, and your hypothesis is contradicted by known physics, though you don't seem to be aware of this. The only plausible mechanism I know of for any expansion is the 40 tons a day of cosmic debris I mentioned, which doesn't support any expanding earth model such as Maxlow's, but it does suggest the possibility of an immeasurably small expansion. Whether that would actually occur depends partly on the climate and energy balance. If the Earth cools during an ice age it might get a little smaller due to thermal shrinkage, but once again, probably not very much.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
My point is that this reversal is inbred into the molten rock. I do not state the cause of the reversal. Only that the plates may be effected by the reversal, maybe even in a grand way.

Yes, you think the cart may be pulling the horse because you don't understand physics. Neither of the scientific hypotheses have the proverbial cart pulling the horse as in your speculation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You also said something about there not being evidence the plate being subducted

I have asked if Science has suspected areas of subduction in the Atlantic Ocean. And if not, why not?

I have pointed out the original "Atlantic" body of water, which predates the present day ocean by hundreds of millions of years. Would not Science suspect subduction to initiate in the oldest water beds first?

Where is Subduction in the Atlantic?

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

You also said something about there not being evidence the plate being subducted

I have asked if Science has suspected areas of subduction in the Atlantic Ocean. And if not, why not?

I have pointed out the original "Atlantic" body of water, which predates the present day ocean by hundreds of millions of years. Would not Science suspect subduction to initiate in the oldest water beds first?

Where is Subduction in the Atlantic?

(Cough cough cough)

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Your link reminds me of something Issac Newton had said.

" A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.

— Isaac Newton"

Again, if there were any logic, or for that matter, reality concerning subduction, one would expect it to display a reoccurring methodology. To suggest two earthquakes hundreds of years apart is the beginning of a subduction zone, is purely, imagination.

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

Your link reminds me of something Issac Newton had said.

" A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.

— Isaac Newton"

Again, if there were any logic, or for that matter, reality concerning subduction, one would expect it to display a reoccurring methodology. To suggest two earthquakes hundreds of years apart is the beginning of a subduction zone, is purely, imagination.

I see. So, if you fail to understand the science you therefore reject it. Par for the course for you then.
Oh and thanks for thinking in human time, not geological time. You really, really, don't understand the processes involved, do you?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

So, if you fail to understand the science you therefore reject it

As I understand the scientific method, there first must be an "Observation". I do not reject science, or its method. "After observing something, a scientist tries to explain what has been seen. The explanation is called an hypothesis."

There is a difference between science based in an observation, and science based in a imagination, theory. No subduction has ever been seen, to make a hypothesis. And that, is not science.

Oh and thanks for thinking in human time, not geological time. You really, really, don't understand the processes involved, do you?

I understand what is being taught, and I reject it, because it is not science.

I understand why subduction was created, for political reasons. The observation is, it has nothing to do with science.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

(Hysterical laughter)
For political reasons???? Seriously?
Oh, please, name those reasons!

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

(Hysterical laughter)
For political reasons???? Seriously?
Oh, please, name those reasons!

Before I do that, name the person who witnessed subduction, post his evidence, not, his theory.

As I said, or have tried to share is partial subduction, and its results can be seen in Mountain Ranges. Land masses pushed under other land mass causing the Mountains to go up. But more akin to Ice Ridges.

Subduction, as taught in Science classes today, is non science!

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Errrrm, seeing as how subduction occurs at depths down to around 670km you are rather asking the impossible, I suspect that you know that.

Come now, what are these "political reasons" of yours? Do tell.

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

Errrrm, seeing as how subduction occurs at depths down to around 670km you are rather asking the impossible, I suspect that you know that.

Come now, what are these "political reasons" of yours? Do tell.

asking the impossible, I suspect that you know that.

Yes, taken out of context, Subduction, is impossible, and yes, I know that......

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Can you repeat that so that it might hopefully make some sense, please?

a reply to: oldcarpyIn as far as the political reasons, your going to have to give me a bit of time. Its a very old system that will require a finesse I presently do not posses, but will, shortly.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Yes, taken out of context, Subduction, is impossible, and yes, I know that......

Now you're just trolling, you already admitted subduction has happened so by now saying it's impossible you're contradicting yourself.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So you've admitted that subduction occurs but your theory has no subduction. That's a little hard to follow frankly.

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

So you've admitted that subduction occurs but your theory has no subduction. That's a little hard to follow frankly.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I should of said, has occurred, in the past. And, this type of subduction has gone dormant.