It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Plate Tectonics theory busted; Earth Expansion Theory shakes out better.

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 
Disclaimer: As elsewhere!

Explanation: I certainly am mocking the lack of rigorous effort put into assessing the expanded earth theory by both Dr. James Maxlow and the OP! Here is why!....

1] Dr Maxlow relies heavily on the late Professor Sam Warren Carey's work which and I quote from his own website.
"Figure 2: Bedrock geological map of the world (Commission for the Geological Map of the World and UNESCO, 1991).

Important Considerations
At this stage there are a number of very important considerations about the crustal mapping shown in the above figures that must be fully appreciated.

•Firstly, the striping shown in Figure 2 shows that each of the oceans contain a mid-ocean-ridge (currently centred below the pink stripes) and each ocean is increasing its surface area with time. This increase in surface area is shown to be symmetrical within each ocean and the maximum age of exposed sea floor crust is early Jurassic – about 165 million years old (pale blue areas).

[Note I have no problems at all with the evidence being presented here as its backed by the theory of plate tectonics and is science based]

•Secondly, if it were possible to move back in time, each of the stripes shown in both Figures 1 and 2 must be successively removed and the corresponding edges of each coloured stripe must be moved closer together as we move back in time – that is, the volcanic rocks (and similarly the ocean waters) within each stripe must be returned to the mantle where they originally came from.

[Unless of course there is subduction occcuring in which case we would have to run that backwards as well and amazingly in such a case the land being unsubducted would replace the land disappearing down the volcanic ridges and that means the earth doesn't require to under go a 40% increase in size in just 1/20th the time of the earths total history.]

•Thirdly, as we move back in time, each of the continents must move closer together in strict accordance with the striping evidence recorded on the map in Figure 2 regardless of which tectonic theory is adhered to.

[WRONG...plate tectonics requires subduction zones to work! See my answer to No#2 above!]

•Fourthly, subduction of crusts beneath continents is an artifact of the basic Plate Tectonic requirement for a constant Earth radius. The symmetrical striping evidence shown does not support subduction and subduction is not required if the Earth were increasing its radius.

[Unless of course there is actual evidence for subduction zones!]

It should also be appreciated that none, or very little of this magnetic striping and age dating evidence was available when Plate Tectonic theory was first proposed. The global distribution of the magnetic striping and age dating was, in fact, completed later in order to quantify the plate motion history and, therefore, the Plate Tectonic history of each ocean.

[It should also be appreciated that none of the magnetic striping and age data for the subducted was collected because of course that part of the earths crust was shoved deep under another continental plate and melted!
]"

NOTE: All bracketed comments are my EDITS to answer each so called important consideration as they were brought up!

So it all comes down to evidence of subduction zones existing which would support the plate tectonic theory over the expanding earth theory!

Here is my evidence that subduction zones exist!

Subduction [wiki]

Sea Floor geology [NZ gov website!] [do a word search on subduction]

Cascadia subduction zone [wiki]

Mantle thickness [mantleplumes.org]

Detailed plate boundary map [wiki]

Nazca plate [wiki] The best answer to your question is here! 3.7cm /yr subducted!


And finally ...

Expanded Earth [wiki]

Personal Disclosure: Now to look at your actions on this thread...1st you have a go at paranoiaFTW and were just as condescending as I was and yet you provided no education where as I did by showing them why they were wrong!

Then you scold me and again provide no evidence as to why my evidence is wrong!

Then you scold me again for not refuting the claims of the website! Seems to me you've totally overlooked the links I provided in my posts above!

Now as for attacking the OP as the messenger. Well if they hadn't taken a biased position that was wrong on the matter they wouldn't of come in for scrutiny but as they clearly are pushing this POV and the evidence is AGAINST them, then their ability to assess accurately comes directly into question! Care to refute "oh pot who calls the kettle black!"?




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 



OmegaLogos,


Thank you for your contributions to this thread. I will take a look at the urls that your provided and consider them.


As to the Grand Canyon comment on that url that I posted, I did not see that comment and I agree that it is an absurd one.


After reading those urls, I'll post again.


Plus there is a lot more information to consider, but I'm under time constraints at the moment.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Historical-Mozart
 
Disclaimer: As elsewhere!

Explanation: You earned a St*r.


I'm glad you are willing to reconsider all the available evidence and if there is any VALID evidence to the contrary of what I have shown then I too am willing to scrutinize it and the theory further!

Please take your time in assessing the information I have provided...I was taught to measure twice and cut once to save myself and others a whole lot of trouble and I encourage you to do likewise!


Personal Disclosure: You've made my day!
I unreservedly apologize if I have offended your pathos by trying to tarnish your ethos! Your ability to recalibrate is most welcomed and also brings my "the OP's myopia" claim of validity into question and so I retract it forthwith and with out further argument.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   
This theory is complete bull. Plate tectonics are real and are driven by geomechanical forces which I will not elaborate here because it is my thesis and won't be published for a few years. The theory I have devised is based on volcanics and plate tectonics associated with subduction and ridge spreading.
Look for it in a few Years its title will be "The Vulcan Wise Hypothesis", I am confident that my view will combine volcanism and platetectonics, subduction, and ridge spreading into a calculus expression. The Geo-calculus will be derived by exhaustive calculations and field work, and also labratory experiments as well.

The fact is that the plates are moving proves the tectonic forces exist and tectonics are driven. Wait till they decide to do some mountain building again there will be more proof of plate tectonics. Even all of the mountains excluding volcanoes, are the product of plate tectonics and even then the volcanoes are involved deeply with these plates.

So I don't buy into this dudes mysterious expanding Earth hypothesis. The Earth gets bigger from meteors, and anything that comes into our atmosphere. That would account for about 100-120 feet of material covering the whole Earth. That is not considered growth but acretion of stellar space junk.

My study leads me to believe that the Earth was originally quite a bit larger and completely covered in water. Then it got hit directly by a massive object that actually tore off 2/3 of the Earths crust and took a quantity of the original ammount of water with it.

Angel One



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by paranoiaFTW
This is just stupid. I can't even use words to describe this... It is impossible for the earth to expand.
Fail.


I love it when people make comments like this with nothing to back it up. If this is soooo wrong, please show your proof that it is. Comments with no proof are a dime a dozen. In other words, with no proof or facts to back it up, it isn`t true.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Historical-Mozart
 
Disclaimer: As elsewhere!

Explanation: You earned a St*r.


I'm glad you are willing to reconsider all the available evidence and if there is any VALID evidence to the contrary of what I have shown then I too am willing to scrutinize it and the theory further!

Please take your time in assessing the information I have provided...I was taught to measure twice and cut once to save myself and others a whole lot of trouble and I encourage you to do likewise!


Personal Disclosure: You've made my day!
I unreservedly apologize if I have offended your pathos by trying to tarnish your ethos! Your ability to recalibrate is most welcomed and also brings my "the OP's myopia" claim of validity into question and so I retract it forthwith and with out further argument.

OT:
Now, was this said only because you think he may come over to your side of the thinking? What if he doesn`t change his thinking about it? Are you still going to treat him fairly, or go back to hitting him below the belt? I`ve seen this happen way to often on here with personal attacks because someone may not agree with their thoghts on a subject.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pharyax
The PROBLEM in the field of Science today is that anyone with a new, radical idea is fearful of releasing a paper--even if the data looks perfect, because his or her peers will discredit them or ruin their career JUST because its different.


I disagree with you there, that has ALWAYS been the way science was treated. Science has never had a time where new, radical ideas were accepted with open arms.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I like it, I wouldn't say it's impossible. It's actually quite probably, and like a giant puzzle, the pieces do fit together perfectly. They don't under the Plate theory I'm afraid. I don't agree that there were almost no oceans, and 40% of its current size is a little bit of an exaggeration, but I believe this is what's happening, more so than the old theory.

Thanks for posting it up, I had been reading about it elsewhere also.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
The "expanding Earth" hypothesis (as it is not a theory) is based on an extremely flawed view and a lack of understanding geological history.

There are numerous holes in this hypothesis. The original people who first came up with this hypothesis ignored several important facts and structures which would automatically put their hypothesis into question:

Ophiolites: Ancient oceanic crusts which have been uplifted onto continental crust via plate collisions attributed to plate tectonics. These can be found in many areas of known continental crust collisions where the oceanic crust was caught in between and uplifted during the collision. They can be found in the many mountain ranges around the world, including the Himalayas, Andes, central China, Northwest US, British Islands, and Turkey to name a few. The OLDEST ophiolite is the Dongwanzi Ophiolite which is about 2.505 billion years old.
gsa.confex.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Convergence zones: Areas where the plates are visibly in collision or have just had experienced a collision. India slamming into the Asian continent. The entire western section of the US. It is shown to be an aggregate of numerous volcanic arcs and mini-continents which have collided with the North American plate over hundreds of millions of years.

Subduction zones: Where is the oceanic crust going when it meets the edge of a continental crust? It subducts. Why is it that geologists have mapped out the locations of subducted crusts deep underneath continental crusts, ie the Cascadia Subduction zone? They mapped them with earthquakes. With the foci of the earthquakes, they managed to map out the shape and depth of the subducted crust underneath western US, and also in other subduction zones, like by the Mexican subduction zone and Japan.
www.tectonics.caltech.edu...
Also, the materials erupted have in them the subducted materials from the subducted plate millions of years earlier. How can this be according to "expansion of Earth"?

The shrinking and subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate:
If the hypothesis of "expanding Earth" is true, then why is the Juan de Fuca Plate, with its own oceanic ridge disappearing underneath the North American Plate? Shouldn't it also be expanding? But its not!

Formation of the Alps: They formed as a direct result of the COLLISION of the European and African Plates, which also closed the ancient Tethys Sea, resulting in the Mediterranean. Also the volcanism of Italy is connected to this.

I can go on and on and on with the countless facts that the "expanding Earth" people have voluntarily ignored to make their hypothesis seem like a good idea. But doing so, they have shot themselves in the foot. Sorry, "expanding Earth" is just a grossly flawed hypothesis.

Also be sure to change the title to "Earth Expansion Hypothesis Busted When Put Under Close Scrutiny."



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Again, the problem I see in these arguments is that plate tectonics is not a solid refutation of an expanding planet. Nor does an expanding planet theory mean that there cannot also be plate tectonics.

One side says, "there is no subduction" the other "subduction means no expansion." Plate tectonics are driven by the core moving the mantle. Expansion would probably average to about an even distribution of a sphere becoming larger, but to assume that this is an even process of accretion isn't sensible. This would lead to mangle movement which would suggest more than expansion.

Anyways. I am again not suggesting that I am a believer in expansion theory. I find it interesting, and find that the arguments on these two "sides" while genuine act as if they are mutually exclusive when this is not logical. The two models are not mutually exclusive at all. One being correct doesn't disprove the other in any way. Proving how correct one's "side" is doesn't contradict the other.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Historical-Mozart
For 4.25 billion years (assuming the age of our Earth to be exactly 4.5 billion years old, for sake of this argument), Earth was a much-smaller planet with no huge oceans; then, suddenly, in just a short span of 250 million years, Earth expanded suddenly, adding in enormous oceans.


Makes sense to me. Lots of magma under pressure below us. The continents fit together like a jigsaw.

The idea of the Earth suddenly expanding has merit.




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join