originally posted by: toms54
It's an interesting read and it does explain some facts. However, it's horrifyingly radical as it contradicts nearly everything I have ever read in
my entire life about continental drift and plate tectonics.
originally posted by: watchitburn
This is very interesting, but tying it into the expanding earth theory is a step further than I'm prepared to go.
A great read though either way. Thanks again.
One more comment on the horrifyingly radical
—toms54 words. I prefer uncomfortably radical :-) —move from the comfort of the established
plate tectonics theory to the unease of the far less popular and oft-ridiculed expanding Earth theory. Any dynamic that drives Earth expansion is
certainly complex at best and impossible at worst. It has driven and continues to drive a desire to cling to the less complicated concept of a static
Earth. But that need to adhere to the simplicity of a static Earth has necessitated the introduction of complicated and sometimes seemingly outrageous
theories to explain surface patterns with easily observable origins.
Kamchatka’s true origin is a discovery that geologists may easily adapt to plate tectonics as it does not contradict the theory, but this new find
still provides a very clear, undeniable glimpse into how a simple observation was overlooked in favor of an elaborate and erroneous theory that falls
in line with plate tectonics. Geologists are still wrestling with their current theory as they struggle to explain Kamchatka’s parallel rows of
mountains when subduction can only account for the creation of a single row. The clear answer is that the mountains were formed during the Genesis
impact while Kamchatka was still merged into the side of Asia. The valley that lies between the two Kamchatka ranges extends out to the peninsula’s
point and aligns with a valley on the Asian continent when pocketed back into the coast.
This complexity extends to the Genesis Hemispheric Impact Structure also introduced here. Compression and shear fracturing go hand-in-hand with an
impact and provide a rather simple, straightforward explanation for the concentric paralleling rings. Geologists have not, to the best of my
knowledge, demonstrated an awareness of this pattern. It would be interesting to see how geologists do address this. Again, within the plate tectonics
model, something so clearly observable has been overlooked for the more complex and relatively impossible. Plate tectonics asks us to believe that
this circular concentric pattern is the product of happenstance, the result of randomly colliding and separating continental plates. It also requires
impeccable timing on our part to exist precisely at a time when this random alignment has come together and prior to it breaking up further with
sections meandering about across the surface of a static Earth.
Here is another example of a simple and straightforward observation from an Earth expansion point of view, which has necessitated one of the most
remarkable theories associated with the breaking up of plate tectonics' theoretical Pangaea. In the image below, you can clearly see the seafloor
crustal age between the Americas and Africa is identical to the crustal age between Africa and India. The Central Indian Ridge marks the location
where East Africa was once merged with Asia similar to how the Mid-Atlantic Ridge marks the location where West Africa and Europe were merged with the
Americas before separation.
Müller, R.D., M. Sdrolias, C. Gaina, and W.R. Roest 2008. Age, spreading rates and spreading symmetry of the world's ocean crust, Geochem. Geophys.
Geosyst., 9, Q04006, doi:10.1029/2007GC001743. NOAA / NCEI.
This poses a huge problem for plate tectonics as Africa could have been attached to the Americas or Asia but not both simultaneously on a planet
Earth’s current size. It is akin to fitting a baseball cover over a basketball; moving a section to one side for attachment increases the gap to the
other side. Of course, fitting Africa to both the Americas and Asia simultaneously on a much smaller Earth is no problem and would explain the readily
The plate tectonics’ fix: Asia, in the form of India, was attached to Africa, and through the miracle of forces that can neither be seen nor proven
to exist, was propelled away from Africa with such force that it plowed through an ancient theoretical seafloor compressing it upward into the
Himalayan Mountains while opening up the Indian Ocean behind it. Some might suggest that that is a ‘horrifyingly radical’ theory if it were not
for the fact that we have all had it ingrained into us from childhood.
Therefore, I believe it really comes down to two very clear options:
1. Accept the very simple and logical belief that the world maintains a static size and
.......Adhere to inconsistent and fantastic explanations for the formation of rather basic surface patterns, or
2. Accept surface patterns for what they clearly appear to be with regard to fracture mechanics but
.......Adhere to something as fantastic as a planet that expands.
In Maps, Myths & Paradigms
I address many of these surface patterns including a
multitude of overlooked fractures of some significance and the true origin of ridges currently claimed to be the product of invisible forces known as
hotspots or mantle plumes. I hope to post soon on some of these findings and how they disprove subduction, which of course forms the foundation of
Until then, I will leave you with this one last thing to consider: Aside from the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain, proposed hotspots/mantle plumes
rode divergent boundaries throughout the globe from the breakup of Pangaea until 30-50 million years ago. This is confirmed by mirrored seafloor
ridges either side of expansion ridges that extend from continental mass and truncate at the edge of this newer crust. How did deep subsurface mantle
plumes know where surface structures like divergent boundaries exist so as to ride them so perfectly throughout the globe for over 100 million years?
And why did they all simultaneously and suddenly jump to one side or the other 30-50 million years ago truncating these ridges? And if they did indeed
jump to one side, why do we not see any sort of extension of the ridge on that particular side of the divergent boundary after 30-50 million years of
edit on 12-31-2018 by Doug Fisher because: (no reason given)