It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
note: could oceans currents be created by magma currents? what would this explain if it was the case? (the expanding of the oceans?)
Also, I cannot provide evidence to support my theory, because as I have said before, I am not a scientist. I do not have an education in planetary geology. I did not go to college to get a degree that would certify my opinions in this matter. I aim to ask questions that might help me understand how things work.
Yepper, it considered to have been pretty much proven that Australia and Antarctica were once connected to Northern America, which means the Pangaea theory is pretty much toast.
How do we explain that there are ancient fossils of sea creatures in the mountains without recognizing that they must have been under the sea.
We know the ocean floors are expanding, this is also something that the plate tectonics theory has recognized. This fits in with an expanding Earth theory. We also do not know what caused the ice ages.
To me, it all points to a period in Earths history when we must have been inundated with matter from space, which explains why and how Earth expanded.
Spreading means expanding
The Pacific Ocean is not getting smaller, it is getting bigger. [/.quote]
Another lie unless you can provide any evidence for it.
Nice observation. You don't hear much from science looking at the effects of volcanic heat on ocean currents. If the expanding ocean ridges are being created by hot magma, it makes sense that they would have considered affects on the ocean currents.
There is no evidence that proves the subduction theory. There is no evidence that shows that volcanic heat does not affect ocean currents.
Heat flows constantly from its sources within the Earth to the surface. Total heat loss from the earth is 42 TW (4.2 × 1013 watts). This is approximately 1/10 watt/square meter on average, (about 1/10,000 of solar irradiation,) but is much more concentrated in areas where thermal energy is transported toward the crust by Mantle plumes; a form of convection consisting of upwellings of higher-temperature rock.
Evidence has been provided throughout the thread that supports all the reasons, doesn't have to be just one, for recognizing the validity of the expanded Earth theory.
You whole response can be summed up as, "is not is not is not". That is quite a level of denial you have going.
I see you're still here stating that no one has given you any answers to your questions, and that you are calling the theory an outdated failure, without giving any PROOF of why the theory is a failure.
I gave you the information with links that scientists have discovered water issuing from black holes in space, and also information with links that scientists have discovered water in the sun. Plenty of us have given information showing that all the matter needed is in space, and coming from the sun in the form of chemicals such as carbon, neon, hydrogen, silica, copper, iron, basically every chemical found in the rocks and dirt on the planet.
Can I say exactly what process may be at work, or how fast the process is occurring? No, I can't. But by the same token, YOU can't positively tell me that all your theories are correct, either.
200 years of scientific knowledge is not enough time to confirm if a theory is correct because 200 years is an extremely short period of time in a process that may take hundreds of thousands of years if the planet is actually expanding. (Which it is, as seen in the oceans, you do agree that the ocean floor is expanding, correct?)
You act like the theory you are supporting is the only one that could be correct, when others have stated that there is no reason why the two theories might not be a part of the same process.
Scientific theories fall and are changed, but it usually takes a while for a new theory that's better, to be accepted, because so many people have their pride and their livelihood caught up in it. The more stake you have in an idea, the more likely you would be to vehemently defend that idea.
As far as your comment about the expansion theory not being written up in peer reviewed journals, do you positively know that this theory is not in the process of replacing all or part of the tectonic plate theory, or the subduction zone theory. Do you positively know that this theory has NOT been written up and published in any scientific journals?
Then, we come back to, who accepts articles for publication in scientific journals? If 6 people are a part of the decision making process, and 5 of them support the tectonic/subduction/iron core idea, then I doubt the article would be published.
I have read a few times that peer reviewed journals are not the open-minded bastions that you might think, and that preferential treatment is frequently the driver of what is published.
I realize this is a scary theory because it means, if true, the earth could possibly just break up anywhere, and that means that even if you aren't in a place that is known to be earthquake or volcanic prone, there could still be a danger.
can you definitively say that without a doubt dark matter could play no part in the expansion of a planet? can you prove your view of the issue?
A one-day symposium on new and conventional ideas in plate tectonics and Mediterranean geodynamics was held in Rome on February 19, 2003 at the headquarters of INGV. There were two main reasons for such an initiative. The first was an invitation to Giancarlo Scalera from the «Gabriele DAnnunzio» University of Chieti to present his alternative ideas on global tectonics to final year students of the Regional Geology course. The second was a reciprocal invitation to Giusy Lavecchia and Francesco Stoppa to explain their criticisms of the application of subduction-related models to Italian geology and to present their data on the recently discovered intra-Apennines carbonatite occurrences. It was decided to dedicate an entire day to seminars, involving people with a more conventional approach to geodynamics, especially those involved with seismic tomography.
In the last few years, high-resolution mantle tomographic models have been widely used to unravel the geometry of subduction zones. A turning point in the field, however, was a review paper written by Fukao et al. (Rev. Geophysics, 39, 291-323, 2001) showing that there was no clear evidence for slab subduction down to the core-mantle boundary, thus posing a major problem on the balance between the lithosphere subducted at consuming plate margins and the large amount of oceanic lithosphere accreted at diverging plate margins. This prompted the need to re-evaluate the nature of subduction and plate margin evolution.
Accepting the theory of plate tectonics, many problems remain open, especially those regarding plate driving mechanisms and their possible link with the forces developed at the core-mantle boundary. Might these forces trigger pulsating tectonic and magmatic activity, with mantle upwellings and large-scale emission of CO2, capable of causing dramatic changes in the composition of the atmosphere and changes at the Earths surface? Could these lead to major catastrophic changes in Earth history? During the one-day symposium, a stimulating discussion took place involving different interpretations of observations, especially those relating to the geodynamics of the Mediterranean region. Although the papers in this collection do not provide unique solutions, they do, however, provide new insights into some problems and in some cases suggest new interpretations. Many questions also arise about the relationships between the tectonics of the lithosphere and the deep mantle processes. May the denser portions of the inner parts of the Earth transform into shallower, lighter chemical phases, with a possible increase in the Earths volume?
Finally as a link to fundamental physics an original mechanism of energy conversion from gravitons to photons is proposed as a supply of energy for global tectonic processes. Obviously, because of an often diverse philosophical and scientific background, it is difficult for the ideas presented in this supplement to be shared by all readers and contributors. But we hope that these ideas will help to encourage critical evaluations of some commonly accepted concepts in modern plate tectonic theory.
Yeah........looks like some scientists, unlike other people, are willing to postulate, and even accept that the THEORY of plate tectonics, subduction zones, and seismology still have a lot of questions that need to be answered, and that even within the different theories, there are some instances in which there are anomalies that can't be explained by the current accepted theories.
The most important words are always left out.........we think, but we don't really know for sure.
... combined with the belt's low combined mass, which is only about 4% of the mass of the Earth's Moon ...
Where does this say that plate tectonics is wrong? It doesn't.
Where does it state that the Earth is expanding? Nowhere.
Who suggests that plate tectonics is a 100% well understood process? No one.
If everything was known then it would be time for scientists to pack up and stop researching.
None of this is any reason to believe that such a ridiculous story such as the expanding Earth has any truth behind it.
Just because there are important questions to ask about one theory does not mean it is wrong.
Just because there are always going to be issues that are difficult to understand does not mean another theory has any validity whatsoever.
Every man should have a built-in automatic crap detector operating inside him - Ernest Hemingway