Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

There is only one reference to Atlantis anywhere. Plato. Nowhere else. He didn't even finish the book it's mentioned in.

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

There is only one reference to Atlantis anywhere. Plato. Nowhere else. He didn't even finish the book it's mentioned in.

Thank you AngryCymraeg, a good observation, but it is being challenged.

Then you might be surprised to learn there has been a group of historians that have been diligently at work, looking to answer your observation. Its a damn shame the Library of Alexandria went up in smoke. It would have answered many many questions, I assume.

Listed in the "Below" link are 49 points that bring into question if Plato was the only source for Atlantis.

Corroborating evidence on the reality of Atlantis Source: atlan.org/articles/corroborating_evidence/ ©Arysio Santos

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Words fail me. No. Sorry, but your cite is ludicrous. Worse, it fails - totally - to explain how the main enemy of Atlantis was Athens. Athens did not exist at the time that Plato stated that Atlantis was a major power.
There is no evidence of any such golden pillars anywhere. And, even worse, there is no evidence whatsoever of a mysterious civilisation from this time. No pottery, no inscriptions, no nothing. No proof.
Now, can we please get back to subduction and mantle plumes as being the cause of volcanoes?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

And no, lava doesn't come from the Earth's core.

At least we agree on something.

This thread is getting increasingly ridiculous. It started off as amusing to anyone with a scintilla of basic knowledge of geology and it's become a case of you saying things and everyone else either laughing or wanting to beat their head against the nearest wall in frustration.

Saying things? I admit I have some tweaks in the Expanding Earth/ Hollow earth theory, but much, in fact, all, my links are by "other" people "saying".

I'm glad you are enjoying yourself, but if your one of the ones banging your head up against a wall, please try to find a "Padded" wall, similar to the ones offered in certain "Institutions".

Now, to date no one has explained satisfactorily, how you can have 280 million years worth of ocean spreading and not have global expansion. If Subduction has been active for 280 million years, then it cant be true. If subduction were true, there would have been no ocean spreading.

Contrary to your belief I do understand the theory, among many others. I happen to be among the growing numbers of people who disagree with it, and reject it, even if the main stream institutions push it .

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I really, really, don't think that this thread is worth any more time. You don't understand plate tectonics, or you are so wedded to this idea that the Earth is expanding that you just don't want to understand it. Subduction is happening along the West Coasts of North America, South America and the East coasts of Japan and the Philippines - and that's the simple version (Ring of Fire anyone?). The Atlantic is widening, pushing America Westwards and the Pacific is shrinking.
And no serious scientist claims otherwise. Case closed.

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

I really, really, don't think that this thread is worth any more time. You don't understand plate tectonics, or you are so wedded to this idea that the Earth is expanding that you just don't want to understand it. Subduction is happening along the West Coasts of North America, South America and the East coasts of Japan and the Philippines - and that's the simple version (Ring of Fire anyone?). The Atlantic is widening, pushing America Westwards and the Pacific is shrinking.
And no serious scientist claims otherwise. Case closed.

The only thing closed, is your mind. The case, is WIDE OPEN.

For those of you who feel subduction is the real myth, fairy tale, there is a place to share your opinions, Ideas, knowledge.

Aims include:

1. Forming an organizational focus for creative ideas not fitting readily within the scope of Plate Tectonics.

2. Forming the basis for the reproduction and publication of such work, especially where there has been censorship or discrimination.

3. Forum for discussion of such ideas and work which has been inhibited in existing channels. This should cover a very wide scope from such aspects as the effect of the rotation of the Earth and planetary and galactic effects, major theories of development of the Earth, lineaments, interpretation and prediction of earthquakes, major times of tectonic and biological change, and so on.

4. Organization of symposia, meetings and conferences.

5. Tabulation and support in case of censorship, discrimination or victimization.

“Alternative Theories to Plate Tectonics”


The Convenient Assumption of Subduction

The Myth of Subduction

Plate Tectonics: Myth, Fact or Just an Official Story?

"Subduction exists only in the minds of its creators"

And no serious scientist claims otherwise

???
Maybe so, but the honest ones, are up in arms.

I apologize, but it is you, who does not understand the theory of expansion. And it is you, who refuses to explore it.

The crust of the planet has broken into plates, I find is true. There is a interaction between the plates, this is true. There is creation of lava in the boundaries covered in water, and on dry land, there are mountain ranges. All boundaries have earthquakes. This, I find to be true. I do not find Subduction to be based in any substantial fact. It is scientifically baseless. And, I'm not the only one who feels this way. AND, I find that Earth Quakes are the result of the Crust of the expanding planet to be caused by the radius of the crust breaking in an attempt to take the shape of the newer larger crustal radius.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I don't really see how you can accuse others of being closed minded when it is you who has closed off your mind to all of the evidence that refutes your position.

Surely an open mind would be willing to change it's position in light of contrary evidence, regardless of whether or not it finds the conclusions comforting, no?

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

I don't really see how you can accuse others of being closed minded when it is you who has closed off your mind to all of the evidence that refutes your position.

Surely an open mind would be willing to change it's position in light of contrary evidence, regardless of whether or not it finds the conclusions comforting, no?

Seconded. Loudly.

a reply to: GetHyped

I don't really see how you can accuse others of being closed minded when it is you who has closed off your mind to all of the evidence that refutes your position.

All I have seen is assumptions being labeled, as evidence.

Surely an open mind would be willing to change it's position in light of contrary evidence, regardless of whether or not it finds the conclusions comforting, no?

I am always open to new ideas, trains of thought, facts, assumptions, theories and philosophies. And above all else, I am open to differing interpretations of evidence. And the "Evidence" for Subduction is absolutely open to interpretation, and debate.

Calling assumptions, evidence and fact, in my opinion does not solve any issues, it only creates them. Please answer the following question

Now, to date no one has explained satisfactorily, how you can have 280 million years worth of ocean spreading and not have global expansion. If Subduction has been active for 280 million years, then it cant be true. If subduction were true, there would have been no ocean spreading.

To augment my question from the above post is a article entitled

How do you start subduction?

[ex]"According to the other view, externally applied compressive stresses and moderate convergence are necessary to form a new subduction zone."2 "The most likely mechanism would be through a transfer of stress induced by a collision, leading to 'forced' subduction initiation elsewhere. Yet the response to recent collisions suggests otherwise. The formation of the Alpine-Himalayan chain represents the collision of India and Africa with Eurasia at about 35 to 50 million years ago in the closure of the Tethys Ocean. If large-scale collisional stress transfer occurred, we would expect subduction to have initiated elsewhere within the Indian and African plates. However, no new subduction zones have initiated south of either India or Africa... More than 50 million years have elapsed without the initiation of subduction."6

What this review article shows is that when plate tectonics theory moves from the cartoon image in the mind to the real world of physics, how it could possibly have gotten started on Earth is neither simple nor elegant. One may wonder if it is even possible. The lack of progress in modeling is stunning.

Was the earth "Subducting" prior to 280 million years ago?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
To augment my question from the above post is a article entitled

How do you start subduction?

[ex]"According to the other view, externally applied compressive stresses and moderate convergence are necessary to form a new subduction zone."2 "The most likely mechanism would be through a transfer of stress induced by a collision, leading to 'forced' subduction initiation elsewhere. Yet the response to recent collisions suggests otherwise. The formation of the Alpine-Himalayan chain represents the collision of India and Africa with Eurasia at about 35 to 50 million years ago in the closure of the Tethys Ocean. If large-scale collisional stress transfer occurred, we would expect subduction to have initiated elsewhere within the Indian and African plates. However, no new subduction zones have initiated south of either India or Africa... More than 50 million years have elapsed without the initiation of subduction."6

What this review article shows is that when plate tectonics theory moves from the cartoon image in the mind to the real world of physics, how it could possibly have gotten started on Earth is neither simple nor elegant. One may wonder if it is even possible. The lack of progress in modeling is stunning.

Was the earth "Subducting" prior to 280 million years ago?

Yes, Here.
And here.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
To augment my question from the above post is a article entitled

How do you start subduction?

[ex]"According to the other view, externally applied compressive stresses and moderate convergence are necessary to form a new subduction zone."2 "The most likely mechanism would be through a transfer of stress induced by a collision, leading to 'forced' subduction initiation elsewhere. Yet the response to recent collisions suggests otherwise. The formation of the Alpine-Himalayan chain represents the collision of India and Africa with Eurasia at about 35 to 50 million years ago in the closure of the Tethys Ocean. If large-scale collisional stress transfer occurred, we would expect subduction to have initiated elsewhere within the Indian and African plates. However, no new subduction zones have initiated south of either India or Africa... More than 50 million years have elapsed without the initiation of subduction."6

What this review article shows is that when plate tectonics theory moves from the cartoon image in the mind to the real world of physics, how it could possibly have gotten started on Earth is neither simple nor elegant. One may wonder if it is even possible. The lack of progress in modeling is stunning.

Was the earth "Subducting" prior to 280 million years ago?

Yes, Here.
And here.

The links you provided, and by the way, I do read all links, is quite a leap of faith. In fact, and in my opinion, a leap of faith that is 300 million years long.

As you might have guessed I specialize in the genesis of trains of thought. In other words "Where on, in, earth did that idea come from"

Subduction, or the idea of subduction is quite a challenge to track down. Authorship and accreditation are very hard to find. Today, most articles gives you the impression that it is common knowledge or fact, without sighting the author of the theory. As if no one is taking any credit for its creation, as a theory.

I have only been able to find two bits of information concerning the genesis of Subduction.

The very first mention I can find is that of Alfred Wegener, the father of Continental drift and forerunner of Plate tectonics. It is stated:

Continental drift was a good hypothesis that was rejected by other scientists. A key part of Wegener’s hypothesis was that some unknown force had caused the continents to slide over, or push through, the rocky bottoms of the oceans. Yet, neither he nor anyone else could identify the source of the force needed to move continents. Continental drift helped explain issues in geology— like why South America and Africa seem to fit together. However, continental drift could not be accepted by scientists because there was no evidence to explain how continents could move

www.tclauset.org...

"Slide over, and push through"? That to me sounds like what is called "Subduction" today, and it was rejected!

The other point come from 1965 at the "Royal Society", symposium on continental drift:

A symposium on continental drift was held at the Royal Society of London in 1965 which must be regarded as the official start of the acceptance of plate tectonics by the scientific community, and which abstracts are issued as Blacket, Bullard & Runcorn (1965). In this symposium, Edward Bullard and co-workers showed with a computer calculation how the continents along both sides of the Atlantic would best fit to close the ocean, which became known as the famous "Bullard's Fit".

en.wikipedia.org...

It appears as though Alfred Wegener's theory has now been accepted, as "Subduction". Though no mention of his theory was accredited to him.

As Alfred's theory was rejected because no force could be demonstrated to effect movements of the crust, undoubtedly, that force must have been concluded to be a molten sub surface where continents would be free to move about, float. This would then allow Alfreds once rejected theory to be exercised.

If you have further information concerning the origins of the "Subduction" theory could you please post them for me?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

No. I refuse to provide evidence that will be ignored, belittled or twisted by you. The fact that you seem to think that subduction is controversial in any way shape of form shows that you are sticking to your own agenda and that you will subvert whatever is provided for your own purposes. The fact is that the expanding Earth theory has been DEBUNKED.

And one last point. The expanding Earth theory is also bloody stupid because it utterly fails to explain basic physics.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
I wanted to address this statement first and it is taking me considerable time in, finding the words.

The expanding Earth theory is also bloody stupid because it utterly fails to explain basic physics.

I believe, you have the horse, before the cart. Physics, as I understand it, is suppose to explain the phenomenon we see in our universe. The Phenomenon, is not suppose to explain, physics.

The fact is that the expanding Earth theory has been DEBUNKED.

I agree, that there are people out there, and maybe in here, who are attempting to debunk the theory. This is fact. But what is also fact is that there are many other people in this world who believe the opposite, in that the theory is as viable as ever.

No. I refuse to provide evidence that will be ignored, belittled or twisted by you. The fact that you seem to think that subduction is controversial in any way shape of form shows that you are sticking to your own agenda and that you will subvert whatever is provided for your own purposes.

Yes, to be honest, I do have an agenda. Yes, I will twist the pertinent facts out of the fog of history. But I will leave belittling and ignorance to others. My agenda is simply, to get to the truth.

There are actually two main philosophy's concerning our planet. One, and the oldest states our planet is hollow, and it has its center of gravity in the center of the crust (Which is debatable). The other, and newest, is that it is solid, and has its center of gravity at the center of the sphere, and is partially liquefied(which is greatly debatable).

I find the answer to be found when both philosophy are considered, side by side. What of plate tectonics you say? I say it scientifically fits, minus subduction.

There can be little doubt that our world, through time, has broken into chunks called plates. A absolute solid planet, minus any flexible interior, would not be broken. It certainly might have some very deep cratering, but I seriously doubt it would fracture. Think a cannon ball being shot with a bullet.

But we find that our crust is in fact somewhat flexible as demonstrated by the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan peninsula which still today clearly shows rebound rings. Rebound rings can be seen by shooting a bullet through tempered glass thumb1.shutterstock.com... The glass does not dent outward and remain there, it rebounds back to its original position. In the case of the glass there is nothing behind it pushing the glass back, and is due to the elasticity of the clear plastic layer within the glass pane itself, pulling the fragmented and broken pieces back.

Flexibility within the solid planet philosophy is thought to be a molten layer of rock pushing the crust back to its original position, which leave the distinctive rings. In the hollow earth philosophy, the crust is returned to its position because it is thought that gravity is in the center of the crust, therefore, pulling itself back into place. And in that, there is a problem. If gravity were in the center of the crust, there would be no force to return it to its original position, there would just be a big dent. At this point one might just settle on the solid molten model, without exploring further. All the scientists to date have been able to measure gravity, this is true. But just as true, they haven't a clue as to what the force of gravity is. I personally believe gravity, as we recognize it, in nature, is a pushing thing rather than a pulling thing. And may be multi faceted.

In either event, or philosophy, a solid planet, even one with a molten center, can not expand, unless, you pump something into it. And I doubt seriously anyone has ever done that, unless you consider the great oxygen pumps of the past.

So, the rebound crater in Chicxulub demonstrates either a hydrolic type action, or, one of air pressure being the mechanism of rebound. And since solid planets can not expand, and there is clear and obvious evidence to support expansion, it therefore, must be filled with air, or hollow. Sir Edmund Hally was correct in his philosophy.

The Chicxulub crater wasn't discovered until the 1980s, well after the inception of the authorless "Subduction" theory implanted into plate tectonics in 1965, so it wasn't considered in the debate. Cary, who is mentioned numerous times in your link, was a great opponent to the subduction theory.

From your link:

Conclusion

Criticism can be fired at all the theories expounded to explain the mechanism of plate tectonics. Therefore, it is best to choose the theory, which contains only minor holes and explains the mechanism in a simple, clear and distinct way.

70 million years ago a great amount of water arrived on planet earth. The mechanism for expansion was the weight of the water. The weight of the water caused a pinching effect and was caught between two opposing forces, one exterior, one interior. As a result the crust was squeezed to the point of liquidation and the following pressure was and is released at the plate boundaries. The continents have never moved from their original positions but spread apart by the spreading ocean beds. And this is why they fit back together if ocean spreading is removed. There are only two holes in the theory, north, and south.

The only thing the theory of subduction does, is keep the planet the same size, and solid. And a solid planet, can not expand.

And by the way, your contribution of the link, was commendable.

Plate Tectonics and the Expanding Earth

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

The fact that you and I are the only people remaining on this thread is a testament to its validity. The concept of a hollow Earth is ridiculous, and that of an expanding Earth is massively ridiculous. For one thing it would mean that gravity would change and for another it would mean that all that expansion came from somewhere, without explaining what. None of the other planets in the Solar System show any such signs of expansion and we can only conclude that it's not happening. As for subduction all the evidence points towards the fact that it's happening, that it has happened for billions of years. It's not 'authorless', it's accepted by the vast majority of geologists. It fits the maps, it fits the facts on the ground, it fits the evidence. We have the deep water trenches, we have the volcanic arcs like the Ring of Fire that fit those trenches and subduction areas.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

None of the other planets in the Solar System show any such signs of expansion and we can only conclude that it's not happening

We also do not see any subduction either, shall we make the same conclusion?

When we look at our nearest neighbor, Mars, first thing is its size. Roughly 1/4 that of Earth. It also has a very interesting feature in the Melas Chasma which is roughly 1400 miles long. And in fact, it looks like a tear, or possibly a rift. Scientists today are on the verge, if not already stated, that Mars once had a large amount of water on it. The polar caps still display snow and ice. And clear erosion channels can be seen. Mars also has large rebound craters, but, we know Mars is inactive geologically. No volcano, no rifts with molten lave spewing out. NO LARGE OCEANS, being the most obvious.

I would conclude that since mars lacks oceans, and the pressures they would bring, there is no expansion, no geological activity. And if it did have oceans, the first place to rift would be Melas Chasma .

People may be underestimating the force the oceans poses. 1 cubic inch of water at the bottom of the Marianas trench exerts 8 tons of pressure/ weight. One Inch.... Try to imagine that on a square mile. Place one cubic inch of that pressure, on your desk, and try to pick it up. You cant? Of course you cant, it collapsed your desk and it broke a hole through your wooden floor.

For one thing it would mean that gravity would change

No, not change. We in fact really have no idea what triggers gravity, or its true nature. And since we have never seen gravity at work deep within the planet, then we have only ever seen 1/2 of it, to theorize about it. So any theory today is only deductions from 1/2 of the possible observations. And in my mind any theory today concerning gravity, is based on ignorant assumptions. Gravity, may have a counterpart, we know nothing about.

and for another it would mean that all that expansion came from somewhere, without explaining what

Again, we have to backtrack to the assumption that is being transformed into fact, what is below our feet.

Assumption after assumption have been created to try and explain what we see on earth. Generations later someone forgets assumptions are only temporary placeholders until, the assumption can be substantiated. The theory of continental drift transformed into Plate tectonics because of solid substantiated assumptions. I doubt anyone can argue plate tectonics. The Earth does have rather large plates that do come back together, on a smaller, Mars sized planet.

Where does the need material come from to cause the planet to expand? To understand this we must remove ourselves out of the assumptive context of a solid sphere, and into a new(old) paradigm of a planet that is hollow.

Existence of hollow nuclear matter may have many implications in nuclear or atomic physics or astrophysics as well as some practical applications.

Hollow nuclear matter Its not really hard to do.

In the context of a hollow planet one sees that the crust has a inner and outer surface. In your mind crate a hollow sphere out of clay, and apply a equal omni directional pressure both on the inside and out. Let the sphere hang in a no gravity environment. Now increase the internal pressure ever so slightly. You will now see the sphere begin to increase in size because the pressure is lesser on the outside.

There is no material added to increase the size. It is expanding because the crust is in essence, being squeezed thinner. Now add water to the mix and you will find that the clay becomes diluted and the expansion rate will increase.

Now, take and add our continents into the clay where they fit together, or Pangea. Now add water and you will see that the water will push down in between the continental fractures, pushing down and outwards, actually appearing that the continents are moving, but it is only the clay being thinned and spread out. There is no new material added, just reshaped old.

It's not 'authorless',

If it isn't, then please give me his name so I can discuss these "Scars", smudge marks in the clay, with him.





We know nothing as to the true nature of what lays below our feet.

We know nothing as to the true nature of what lays below our feet.

Well, not exactly true. We know, only 7.5 miles down, and it was quite interesting that some scientific "Assumptions" were overturned.

Kola Superdeep Borehole

What's At The Bottom Of The Deepest Hole On Earth?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

(Hysterical laughter)
The images you have posted are of the Mariana Trench - subduction at its finest, as can be seen the beautiful line of volcanoes that just happen to be on the Mariana Islands to the West of it - and the Scotia Arc, a rather beautiful example of transform faults and continental drift.
The issue of subduction is, it has been argued, tied to the existence of liquid water. This planet, obviously, has it. There seems to be evidence of ancient subduction on Mars, which ended when the water vanished. Europa possibly has subduction. And Venus seems to periodically resurface itself because it lacks liquid water and as a result cannot subduct.

My, that was amusing.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Now you have me laughing......

Europa possibly has subduction.

If I'm not mistaken, Europa, is a moon of Jupiter? Okay... And its surface down to 19km is, Ice, okay. At first I though you sent me to a Satirical Geology page lol. No, this person is actually looking for "Subduction" zones, on a Icy Moon. Well, you did say "Possibly"....... Apples, and Oranges. Well, possibly, they are both round......

But the author of the article does say this:

This graphic shows you where the bands are, but doesn't really present the case for why you might think they are subduction zones. UUUMMMM, Okaaay..........

The issue of subduction is, it has been argued, tied to the existence of liquid water.

Again, horses and carts. Expansion, is tied to water. Water weight, to be exact. Subduction, is tied to an authoress theory.. Or maybe a Harry Potter movie, or to the Lock ness monsters tail. Or, maybe a bit of undigested cheese.......

I agree with Sam Cary:

Sam Carey taught subduction, the essence of which later became known as Plate Tectonics, decades before Johnnies- come-lately hailed it (and appropriated it) as the 'New Global Tectonics', but he discarded it as unworkable in favor of an earth getting bigger.

Debunking the myths of Plate Tectonics

In as far as "Subduction" on other heavenly bodies:

Plate tectonics only occurs on Earth. We do not know exactly why. We have looked for plate tectonics on all of the other terrestrial bodies in the Solar System(i.e.terrestrial planets and satellites),and found that it is unique to Earth.

Why does plate tectonics occur only on Earth ?

If you really really want Subduction, then look no further than our very own star, our Sun. I believe its the only thing that does any real subducting. Energy pulsing out, then drawn back in, in subductive cycles.



Break your funny bone yet? lol

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
If you really really want Subduction, then look no further than our very own star, our Sun. I believe its the only thing that does any real subducting. Energy pulsing out, then drawn back in, in subductive cycles.

Subduction in plate tectonics refers to subduction of rocky crust and the sun is made of plasma so it doesn't have rocky plates.

What the sun does have is convection, the same process thought to drive plate tectonics on Earth. Here's a pretty good video of how the convection process is thought to work on Earth. Note in particular the convection illustration at time 7:54:

Plate Tectonics Basics 1


Here's a great video of how convection works in the sun with a lab demo of convection performed with a liquid:

Thermal Transport in the Sun II: Convection


Look at the fantastic closeups of the convection cells in the lab demo, which really reminds me of the surface of the sun and the cells we see there. So there certainly are some similarities in the convection processes between the earth and the sun, convection is convection. What's lacking on the sun are rocky plates floating on top of the convection cells and since it's the rocky plates on Earth that sometimes have subduction, I don't see how you're getting such subduction on the sun which has no such plates.