Growing earth theory explains a few things

Here is an abundance of new ideas and theories in regards to our Planets evolution, our understanding of the Tectonic Plates, and so on.....Lots of good theories here.... I got this link form PuterMan on EarthquakeWatch2011 thread. I really enjoyed it and hope some of you will as well.

www.ncgt.org...

It took me a few hours but it sounds as if I am with like company who may enjoy reading and understanding new ideas such as this topic.

Peace!

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by bjarneorn


But my Universe, has no place in it with a God. Unless you call the laws of physics, God.

How ironic when your post shows such a total lock of comprehension for even the simplest scientific facts. The earth will become a sun? Yea, right. Astonishing lack of knowledge. All the miriad experiments which have been done to explain our planet! Try reading some of them.

www.psc.edu...

That is a good start, although it is slightly alternative as a theory.

www.universetoday.com...

This is a more traditional view.

A Planet is a planet, a sun is a sun, and a moon is a moon.

Thing is, Shamatt, that bjarneorn is thinking about things for himself. He's using his mind. And he's honest enough to admit he doesn't know. And best of all, his humble demeanor is not on a warpath and he's not out to insult people who think differently from him.

You, on the other hand, have offered no thought of your own. You don't analyze science critically, which is what science is supposed to be about. You just throw textbooks at people without really thinking about what they're saying.

And then you insult anyone who questions your false holy grail gods of academia.

If you were to think about things for yourself, you might see how flawed the textbooks are. You might notice how they never teach all sides of a debate. They never tell you all the facts they know. It's all only one narrow path meant to force you to fall in step.

And you're falling for it because you apparently think that agreeing with mainstream science makes you sound knowledgeable.

When in fact you sound like you don't understand any of it and you're lying to yourself instead. Academic oppression by science has become the tool for the religious zealotry of its supporters.

You might want to try to mellow out and use that wonderful mind to start thinking for yourself. That's why you have it.

The oppressors of academia are on their deathbed and will not help you when their house of cards comes tumbling down.

Only you can help yourself.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
When concerning the Universe, personally I visualize it this way. The universe is originally just Plasma, where I agree with Big Bang theory. However, I see it as gravitation bubbles that happen within it, that collect much like water dropplets on glass. Every galaxy, is a mere bubble of gravity, with small lesser bubbles within. Distance is merely a perception of energy level required to escape a gravitation field. Time, is merely the amount of energy need to acquire that level. Therefore neither time, nor space actually exist, leaving a notion of multiple dimensions.

I think the idea of a bubble of force, or gravity, is compatible with a lot of theories about the origin of the universe. But I don't see how that means that time and space don't exist. Unless you mean they don't exist in the pure energy state, or realm, or dimension, of the universe. I agree with that. But once that realm is filtered down into the physical universe we're exploring, which is the matter that's made from that pure energy, then in this realm, for our purposes, time and space are the most basic constructs we have.

It takes time to think about space. The more space we can visualize, the more time it takes to think about it.

But then if we try to think about the entirely of time and space, then it's true that they disappear into a singularity of everything. That seems to be the most constructive aspect of Big Bang. But the explanation it offers for what happened immediately after the Big Bang doesn't seem to mesh with a lot of our observations about the universe.

That's where Steady State Theory seems to offer better answers to a lot of the anomalies.

What I tried to show in that story is how both theories can become compatible when the process of how the universe comes into being is divided into two stages. A Big Bang premise for laying the foundation for time and space... and then Steady State for the continuous process of matter being converted from the pure energy source, facilitating the growth of the galaxies, suns, planets and moons.

But my Universe, has no place in it with a God. Unless you call the laws of physics, God.

What I call God is a personal inner conviction of each individual. Our culture, both in religion and science, tries to shift the emphasis from this internal conviction, which differs for each individual, towards the idea of an external deity. But that's not what the word God intrinsically means, because by definition, God cannot be an external deity. If the idea of God was truly external to the universe, then that means that God is limited to somewhere else other than the universe. This doesn't make sense. That's why a lot of the religious perception about God is simply incoherent.

Science generally challenges this very false religious notion about God. But it doesn't address the intrinsic definition because that would challenge its own conviction that the universe doesn't need a God.

So, what is the intrinsic definition of God?

Well, that's a very personal thing. It started with people coming to grips with the fact that we are not really the masters of our destiny. Oh, sure, we can navigate our lives any way we like, but things rarely come out as we planned. We don't really have any broad control of our fate because we can't even control our own heart beats. We couldn't control our own embryonic development so that we'd come out handsome or pretty, tall or short. We can barely control our own character and personality because we're at the whims of our own emotions and fears, which cause us to do things sometimes that we later regret or wish we would have done otherwise.

So, since early time, people have attested their lives and fate to a greater force that guides them in their journey through life, for better or worse. It began with outside objects like the sun or moon... and then went on to imaginary deities representing aspects of the human condition like fertility and love. Then it developed into a conviction in a monotheistic omniscient singularity in the Abrahamic faiths. And then religion started taking over and turned that personal conviction in God into a sacrilege worship of what became an external deity in the heavens... that's the premise most religions operate under today.

But people are all different and the same goes for religious people and secular people and people who think they're atheists. Everyone has their own personal conviction of the God that guides their lives.

So it all drifted further and further away from that first notion of a personal conviction that each person has about their own God.

You can see this in most spiritual writings. The language often used is "Love YOUR God" or "I go unto MY God and YOUR God" or "You shall not take the name of YOUR God in vain." The language in spiritual writings is often very personal. Religion de-emphasized the personal nature of God and turned it into collective worship. This made it easy to question an idea of a God who belonged to any one religion alone, to the exclusion of others.

That's the intrinsic definition of God that's become lost to us by religion. And because religion lost grips with the personal God, then science began waging a war on religion and God on that basis. But science ignored the personal nature of the idea of God because it's more convenient to attack the idea of religion and God by ignoring it.

So when discussing God with anyone, I try to be careful about what each person's conviction might be.

If you say you believe the laws of physics are responsible for creating the universe then that means you might believe that the laws of physics are also responsible for your fate and destiny. Because like with all of us, your heart could stop beating any moment for any number of reasons that we have no control over.

So, if you say that it's all due to the laws of physics, then I understand your conviction. But I'm not sure that you've come to grips with what that means. Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems to me that I'd first want to know which laws of physics we're talking about. Or that you should want to know for yourself, considering your fate in this life is dependent on these laws.

Are we talking about the known laws of physics? Or the ones we haven't discovered yet? Or are we talking about what others have decided are the laws of physics, but have been shown to be not so absolute as laws should be?

If I believe that the universe operates under certain laws, but I don't know what these laws are, then, how can I say that I know if these laws are my God or not?

I don't know, really. But I'm wondering what you think about it.

reply to post by MichaelNetzer


You seem to think I have not thought about it.

Perhaps I have looked at the same evidence as you/him but not come up with the same explanationn of the facts. Perhaps just because I agree with some of the main streem views you feel that shows a lack of investigation and critical thinking? Why would you think that? Is it as easy assumptionn to make? Oh, he disagrees with me, must not have looked and things properly and thought them through as I have? Is that your view?

Perhaps after reading about many diferent ideas (Including the slightly off the wall ideas of a crystal core) I have come to the conclusion that it is preposterus to suggest a mini sun at the heart of the earth?

I do, however, appologise for comming over so agressive, if that is the tone you see there. I was just shoked at what I felt was very silly theory.

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by MichaelNetzer

 

You seem to think I have not thought about it.

Perhaps I have looked at the same evidence as you/him but not come up with the same explanationn of the facts. Perhaps just because I agree with some of the main streem views you feel that shows a lack of investigation and critical thinking? Why would you think that? Is it as easy assumptionn to make? Oh, he disagrees with me, must not have looked and things properly and thought them through as I have? Is that your view?

Perhaps after reading about many diferent ideas (Including the slightly off the wall ideas of a crystal core) I have come to the conclusion that it is preposterus to suggest a mini sun at the heart of the earth?

I do, however, appologise for comming over so agressive, if that is the tone you see there. I was just shoked at what I felt was very silly theory.

Actually, we are all individuals. Each and every individual, has his own thought process, that is created during his life. This process, makes his mind unique.

The mainstream ideas, aren't that good. Like plate tectonics ... we're talking about a force, that escapes the earth and somehow enters again. Since the earth has gravity, the force needed to spew it out, needs to exceed gravity only to the point where it is balanced. To enter again, it needs an external force to push it in.

In other words, plate tectonics has a fundamental flaw in it's mechanism. The flaw in Plate Tectonics mechanics, is actually more flawed than that of Expanding Earth.

Secondly, people's size. It is a general notion, that we will grow taller if gravity is less. And even though I was a little humorous and turned it upside down a little :-) as people are shorter at the equador in many regions. There is more to height, such as nutrition. I understand your notion that things should grow larger, with more gravity (bigger planet). As things would need more muscle, but unfortunately a bigger planet would also mean lesser mobility. And since, speed is also a factor, and paramount. The general notion is, lesser gravity larger animal to compensate for speed and mobility, with weight and muscle.

And when we go to Stonehenge, the Pyramids, or Easter Island. There is no question on the subject. Nobody moved these rocks with bare hands, and mass murder of slaves. There is only one logical conclusion, these objects weighed less ... but people reject the idea, because that would mean that the earth had gained enormous amount of mass ... or, something else happened ... during our human existance.

And that's just it ... you can't ignore these subjects. Any theory, plate tectonics or other, is not complete if it doesn't answer questions like these. Without even suggesting an answer, such a theory should not be accepted. So, I reject it ... until it does. And search for alternatives, that does shed light to these questions.

And now, I am going to get even weirder ... if that is possible. You can really laugh at me now ...

Water on this planet, may partly come from within. But, like many others, I assume water comes from without. From comets, or parts of comets. I theorize, that if such a ball of ice would hit the earth it would have to hit it on the geometric poles of the planet. I haven't done any calculation, and most of it is a hunch ... but, if that was the case it would explain the "ice ages". Such a mass of ice, hitting the north or south pole, would be sufficient to cause instant freezing of mamuts.

The ice ages, come from external objects of comets hitting the earth.

Now, you can call me nuts :-)

Originally posted by MichaelNetzer
If you say you believe the laws of physics are responsible for creating the universe then that means you might believe that the laws of physics are also responsible for your fate and destiny. Because like with all of us, your heart could stop beating any moment for any number of reasons that we have no control over.

So, if you say that it's all due to the laws of physics, then I understand your conviction. But I'm not sure that you've come to grips with what that means. Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems to me that I'd first want to know which laws of physics we're talking about. Or that you should want to know for yourself, considering your fate in this life is dependent on these laws.

Are we talking about the known laws of physics? Or the ones we haven't discovered yet? Or are we talking about what others have decided are the laws of physics, but have been shown to be not so absolute as laws should be?

When I said "I believe", I was also supporting your idea that I have a belief system. However, I reject the idea that the laws of physics are the whims of a consciousness. I rather believe that the Laws of Physics, create a consciousness like our own. One that tries to preserv these laws.

I know that I said I believed we are functioning as this earths digestive system. And I am dictated by the laws of this planet, to live within it's boundaries and so serve it's purpose. To voice my beliefs and make any coherent sense of them, is not easy. I dont think I can, but I agree ... we all have a belief system. But my belief system, has it's non coherent factors. I believe we are bound by the laws of physics, which start at a very small scale. But however, I must admit to the needs and desires of the human mind, but suggest that the two are linked in a way I do not understand. But my notion is this ... nothing is unique in the universe. The planets, the galaxies, did not start in one Big Bang. They happened everywhere at the same time. I do not claim to understand the process, but I insist there must be a process where each and every product within the Universe is merely a function, serving ...

I do not have the vision to voice it clearly.

Here is a link, to an Avatar forum where they are also discussing the same issues.

www.avatar-forums.com...

Here, the concensus is, that in lesser gravity things would get smaller. And with greater gravity, things would need to get larger, because they would need larger muscle mass to move.

One needs only think about the moon landing. For the moon, the astronauts needed moon boots, with lead in them. To make them heavy enough to walk. If you are lighter, in such an environment you have lesser ability to stay on the ground . And the other way around, when you consider greater size. In great gravity, more muscle means heavier and gravity has more pull. This is a question of best movment, according to mass/gravity. On earth, there is no question that smaller animals have better motion ability than we "heavier" animals.

Another issue with the past, is the fact that we needed to adjust the date during the middle ages. Even if people suggest this is due to peoples stupidity that they didn't know how to calculate the date correctly, because of their lack of intellect. I suggest we consider the possibility that they weren't stupid, and the earth altered.

The third suggest I think is concerning the increased spin of the earth during last "earthquake". If this is a fact, that the earth increased it spin. I deny that this can be caused by the earthquake, as is with a person on a spinning wheel. Rolling back and forth, is not going to increase or decrease the spin. The earths internal mechanism, cannot accomplish this. However, the super sized moon ... could have accomplished it. Those close phase to the earth, may have created the pull needed.


Lastly, I came across this site when searching data on the net ...

www.youtube.com...

None of this, can be considered to be "coincidence" ... plate tectonics is simply wrong about it

Another thing about this. People ask about where the water came, at the same time we know that life started in the oceans. And then, according to evolution "crept" onto land. Perhaps this is a little bit different in reality, perhaps Earth was originally a smaller water world. Where life, obviously started in the oceans, as the entire earth would have been a shallow ocean. As the earth grew larger, the oceans moved and dry land appeared. Such a slow growth, would force life to start on land, and make an obvious connection between ocean and land continuum.
.

Originally posted by Shamatt
You seem to think I have not thought about it.
Perhaps I have looked at the same evidence as you/him but not come up with the same explanationn of the facts. Perhaps just because I agree with some of the main streem views you feel that shows a lack of investigation and critical thinking? Why would you think that? Is it as easy assumptionn to make? Oh, he disagrees with me, must not have looked and things properly and thought them through as I have?

Is that your view?

No. My response was directed at the manner you disagreed or chose to not discuss. Discussion and debate in goodwill generally entails one side presenting a position and another side countering it by explaining why they might disagree with it. That's how ideas are generally exchanged. Members here sometimes go to length in explaining what their positions are and why. It's preferable, for the good exchange of ideas to relate to the others' position and explanations. Such discussions, exchanged in goodwill can help both sides widen their horizons. I am personally interested in people and what they think but I admit that's not always the basis for every exchange. I believe this line from the forum guidelines is a good basis to consider:

If you're posting links to other sites or videos, please include your commentary on how the video is relevant to the discussion.

Bjarneorn and I don't agree on everything but we seem to explain ourselves to each other in good spirit. Then your response came and it had no real explanation. It seemed aggressive and condescending. Instead it brought links with a conclusion that we could find your position in them but no real elaboration from yourself. The combination of what seemed like insult and lack of explanation was a bit of a jolt. I responded as I did hoping to hear what you think and more hopefully to hear what you think about what's been said about Growing Earth. Perhaps more exposition on why you disagree with specific ideas. I admit I was also aggressive but I did it because you left me little choice due to your style. So it's not because you disagreed but because of the way you did so.

Perhaps after reading about many diferent ideas (Including the slightly off the wall ideas of a crystal core) I have come to the conclusion that it is preposterus to suggest a mini sun at the heart of the earth?

Perhaps. But then how are we to know that? And even so, if you feel our position is preposterous, then why not explain why? What parts are unacceptable to you and how do you see the reality to be? Certainly, if you disagree, then you must have a reason other than that the textbooks say so. Do you believe these books give you all the information needed to make an informed decision? Are there scientific theories that disagree with the mainstream and have sound basis in research and logic that the textbooks omit?

It's such a wide subject and there's so much to learn. Seems a shame to waste our time sniping at each other, even though I know that's not what you meant to do.

I do, however, appologise for comming over so agressive, if that is the tone you see there. I was just shoked at what I felt was very silly theory.

I've never asked for an apology for anything and there's no need for one here either. I understand your angst. But when you discover what's behind the theory, you'll realize that very serious scientists agree with it and support it ever since the 1950's. It has a sound theoretical and logical basis along with overwhelming evidence. It's not silly at all, really.

Think about it with me for a moment. If you found some pieces of broken pottery and you tried to put them together and discovered that they fit perfectly to make a round bowl. Wouldn't it make sense to you that that's what they were before they broke apart?

Well, the continents are like broken pottery. Put them together on a smaller Earth and they cover it perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle. A perfect spherical shell crust of the whole smaller planet.

That's pretty amazing. And this was discovered in the 1950's. it was first theorized around the late 1800's. Then a geologist made models and proved it.

I don't think it's silly to conclude the Earth grew larger from that size when all the continents covered a smaller Earth.

But because we don't know how it happened and because science prefers not to deal with it because it makes a lot of trouble for science. They made up a story telling us why what we're seeing isn't true.

They basically told you that the bowl you saw is really an elephant.

And you agree with it. And you don't explain why.

Maybe you'd like to elaborate. Or maybe not. It's alright.

But thanks for explaining what you did.

reply to post by MichaelNetzer


OK, fair enough! I will explain what I beleive.

I completely agree that the whole place techtonics theory is flawed (excuse the pun lol)

I totally support the growing earth theory, and also see how the land masses on earth can fit together so neetly. My understanding of this is that as magma rises to the surface and the pressure on it is released it expands, and forms new land at the plate boundaries. The volcanic ridges at the bottom of the sea cause the sea floor to spread, pushing continents further appart, or in some cases closer together creating mountain ranges. Plate techtonics can not provide enough force for this process.

I beleive the mass of the planet and therfore it's gravity has increased over the millenia. I think that in greater gravity it is harder to move body mass, and pump blood to grate heights, and so animals grow smaller. Thus no dinosaur size lizards on todays world. My explanation for this additional gravity is acretion of space rock and dust, meteors etc.

I beleive the core of the planet is some sort of solid, possibly crystalised Iron (as per the link I posted) which would explain observations like siezmic waves traveling through the core at diferent speeds in diferent directions.

I have never found any evidence, nor any observation that would point to the earth having a small sun at it's core. This strikes me as not only counter intuitive, but also counter to everything I have learned about cosmology.

I hope I have got the tone of this post right! It is intended as friendly and factual. I am not too good at juging such subtlety though, see my sig ;O)

Originally posted by bjarneorn

When I said "I believe", I was also supporting your idea that I have a belief system. However, I reject the idea that the laws of physics are the whims of a consciousness. I rather believe that the Laws of Physics, create a consciousness like our own. One that tries to preserv these laws.

I know that I said I believed we are functioning as this earths digestive system. And I am dictated by the laws of this planet, to live within it's boundaries and so serve it's purpose. To voice my beliefs and make any coherent sense of them, is not easy. I dont think I can, but I agree ... we all have a belief system. But my belief system, has it's non coherent factors. I believe we are bound by the laws of physics, which start at a very small scale. But however, I must admit to the needs and desires of the human mind, but suggest that the two are linked in a way I do not understand. But my notion is this ... nothing is unique in the universe. The planets, the galaxies, did not start in one Big Bang. They happened everywhere at the same time. I do not claim to understand the process, but I insist there must be a process where each and every product within the Universe is merely a function, serving ...

I see where you're coming from.

Maybe I can add something to this line of thinking. I think the laws of physics can get complex in scientific terms but it's possible to start with the simplest concepts. It seems one of the primary forces is a sort of pulling and repelling force. Like gravity. Or electromagnetic attraction. Something pulls into itself and something else is repelling from it. If both are balanced, then we get an orbit where the pulling force is orbited by the repelling one. It seems the basis for the most simple law of physics we can observe. It happens in everything from atoms to planets to suns to galaxies. But it also happens in people. We tend to give and take. Either material things or ideas. In an exchange of ideas, I'm attracted by your explanations. I'm drawn into your mind and then I tend to explain ideas of my own, which draw you into mine. A continuing discussion is like an orbit. That's one basic force or action or law of physics we can understand.

So let's say we try to apply it to making the universe. Let's say we're starting with nothing. Say a big zero. How do we make something out of nothing? Well, let's say we have this pulling/repelling force and we're able to stretch this nothing and divide it into two halves. One half would be a +1 and the other half would be a -1. Together they're a big zero. Nothing. But now we have a +1 and -1. That's a lot of something to get from nothing. Pretty incredible. If we keep doing that we can turn this big endless nothing into an endless amount of +1's and -1's.

So, if these small pairs come back together, they revert to nothing and we haven't accomplished anything. But if we can keep them pulled apart, we can hold on to them and have something. Now, let's say we use the pulling force to keep them apart, then the +1, which pulls stronger because it's more than the -1, then it can pull more of these +1's and -1's that we made and cause them to stick to it. But because this +1 at the core is disturbing the balance, then all these other pairs can't come together to revert back to nothing. But they all stick to the core piece. So now we have a big clump of +1's and -1's around a core +1 that's holding them together. It can hold together so much and then it runs out of pulling force because it used it up on all the pieces already stuck to it. But there's still that first -1 that we kept apart from the core +1. Well now it can't reach the core anymore though it wants to. All it can do is orbit around the clump.

I think we just made a hydrogen atom.

If we repeat this we can make so much hydrogen that we get a sun.

The rest is history.

It seems that everything in the universe could be made this way. Including us. And it seems that you could make the case for our minds and curiosity to also work this way like we said about discussions. So I think we can make a consciousness too this way, as you suggest.

But then the question is, what came first, the atom or the mind? The chicken or the egg?

I hope we never find out because it would ruin things for a lot of people.

I do not have the vision to voice it clearly.

I'm about 55 years old. I've spent most of my life trying to find a way to voice my vision clearly and still haven't found it. But every time I tried since I was about 15, I learned something that helped me a little. In the last few years I've gotten a little better at it, but I'm still learning from my mistakes.

So I'd say that if you're under 50 then you're doing pretty good considering you're trying to tackle the biggest questions about how everything works. People have been trying to figure it out for thousands of years and still don't have much of an idea. And most people don't even try to voice their visions anyway. The most important thing is that you're trying and if you keep it up, I have a feeling you're going to have some very important ideas to offer the world. So stay on track, you're doing great.

reply to post by bjarneorn


Please read my reply to MichaelNetzer - it is as much a resonce to your post as it is to his.

reply to post by MichaelNetzer


I don't think it was a silly theory in the 1950s. We didn't have a lot of evidence to contradict it then, and back then the broken pottery argument sounded like it might have some merit.

I only think it's a silly theory today now that we have so much evidence to contradict it that it can be described as overwhelming.

For example this paper was only published in 2000, we didn't know this in the 1950s:

"Geological constraints on the Precambrian history of the Earth’s rotation and the moon’s orbit" (pdf)

The late Neoproterozoic rhythmite data do not support significant change in Earth’s moment of inertia and radius over the past 620 Myr.

And whether you want to call it subduction or something else, we have very precise measurements of plates moving together today. To my knowledge we didn't have this in the 1950s.

I think expanding Earth proponents must think this map is made up, instead of consisting of actual measurements, because it clearly shows that we have as much crust moving together as we do plates separating.:

en.wikipedia.org...
Detailed map showing the tectonic plates with their movement vectors.


We didn't have that map in 1950. But we do today and that's pretty compelling evidence showing there's as much crust disappearing as there is crust appearing. How can anyone look at that map and not see this? Do you think the map is wrong? And if so what's your basis or evidence for this?

The current motion of the tectonic plates is nowadays revealed from remote sensing satellite data sets, calibrated with ground station measurements.

I can't ignore the satellite data.

But if we turned the clock back to 1950 and you proposed the EE idea then, I wouldn't have dismissed it at that time (we'd need a time machine because I wasn't alive then). I only dismiss it today in light of the overwhelming evidence against it which exists today.

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by MichaelNetzer

 

I beleive the core of the planet is some sort of solid, possibly crystalised Iron (as per the link I posted) which would explain observations like siezmic waves traveling through the core at diferent speeds in diferent directions.

I have never found any evidence, nor any observation that would point to the earth having a small sun at it's core. This strikes me as not only counter intuitive, but also counter to everything I have learned about cosmology.

I hope I have got the tone of this post right! It is intended as friendly and factual. I am not too good at juging such subtlety though, see my sig ;O)

Ok, now I read you.

I agree that there is not much evidence, that there is a nuclear process inside the earth. Except for one, and that is based on the fact, where you find heavy metals. They are generally found in mountain areas, where "deep" crust, has risen up. In other words, the heavier the metal the deeper it is. This supports the suggest, I believe, that heaver metals will sink down to the core. And as they do, they should ignire. I believe, that the preassure of the center, is enough to form a nuclear reaction. And it is this nuclear reaction that is creating the heat, and providing the motion that is driving the liquid electromagnetic engine.

So, the way I see it ... more a hunch, and a belief. Is that the Sun is spewing out through eruptions a lot of materia into space. And the earth, is a collector of this materia. With every materia that is collected, the preassure on the core is increased and depending on the material within the core, the type of fusion reaction will change. Today I believe it's heavy metals, meaning the there is a metal core in and by itself ... but not an Iron core. The magnetic field around the earth, differs from the known magnetic fields ... and shares aspects of a liquid magnetic dynamo. But still, these magnetic fields are not quite equivalent ... so the core differs from the known materia.

There is also fluctuation in the magnetic field, and in time it will reverse. I believe, that when fusion material has exhausted, it will change what material is being used for the fusion reaction. And when that happens, the motion reverses, and so does the magnetic field.

But this field, is all very unclear ... we don't know what is in the core, so let's speculate and get creative.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by MichaelNetzer

 

We didn't have that map in 1950. But we do today and that's pretty compelling evidence showing there's as much crust disappearing as there is crust appearing. How can anyone look at that map and not see this? Do you think the map is wrong? And if so what's your basis or evidence for this?

The current motion of the tectonic plates is nowadays revealed from remote sensing satellite data sets, calibrated with ground station measurements.

I can't ignore the satellite data.

But if we turned the clock back to 1950 and you proposed the EE idea then, I wouldn't have dismissed it at that time (we'd need a time machine because I wasn't alive then). I only dismiss it today in light of the overwhelming evidence against it which exists today.

edit on 14-7-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix tags

There is no such data. If there was, please be free to give us the data itself.

Earths crust is not floating plates, as the ocean bottom, even if younger on top. Is a crust, that has been thinned out ... not subducted and recycled. The Atlantic ridge, is a continental crust beneath a layer of lava, that has thinned out. It's not a recycled ocean bottom.

Another thing that needs to be considered, is that during the last japan quake. Japan jumped 20-30 meters closer to America. But America didn't move. This means, that the American plate (which japan sits on) did not move. It also means, that there was no subduction, but an "override", or to put it more simply ... a "landslide", where japan simply broke and slided a bit down the slop towards the pacific.

Further more, south America has a 100 meter wide rip created. Japan has 20-30 meter slip. Africa has another ... but there was subduction created. Just the mere 20-30 meters in Japan, suggests a thousand year collection of movement in that "subduction" zone.

More specific, there is no such subduction. The figures on your map, are figures created that show "suggested" or "reuired" subduction, to compensate for the crust opening. It's not actual data. All evidence, including natural observation ... suggest quite clearly, that the earth crust is ripped apart from preassure within. And Niel Adams, did a hell of a good job, to show the obvious connection. The connection he makes, is too much to be concidered a coincidence ... plate tectonics is simply wrong.

On notes on the inner of the earth. I understand why people think it has to be an iron ball, that is crystalized. We only know about iron, that actually is capable of aligning itself so that a magnetic field is generated. However consider, that the magnetic field of the earth. Is not equivalent to the magnetic field of an iron coil. It suggests that the elements within are aligned similarly ... but that does not mean it is so, only that we know of no other element that could do it.

Consider the sun, it as well has a magnetic field. Far greater than the earth. I suggest the inner most concept of the two is similar, except the fusion being greater within the sun, but the mechanism being similar. I believe it is, that all these things are similar in nature, and there is no uniqueness. Now, of course, I understand that the heat generated in two differ a lot ... but there is no iron core in the sun, yet it creates a magnetic field. The same applies for the earth, it does not need an iron core for this purpose. It only needs a plasma core, which has aligned itself in a similar way. I believe the difference beteween the earth and the sun, is the size, preassure and heat of the core itself. That the only difference between these balls in the sky, is precisely that. A black hole, in my mind, would be a further work of such a core ... where the radiation of it, is outside of the visual spectrum ... where the entire mass, has entered the core and some plasmatic state.

Hope this makes some sense.

Organized Opposition to Plate Tectonics: The New Concepts in Global Tectonics Group

davidpratt.info...

Here is a good overview of the current opposition amongst geologists to plate tectonics as currently theorised.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
There is no such data. If there was, please be free to give us the data itself.

Of course there is.

You can even plot the data for about a dozen stations yourself here:

www.oceanlink.info...

Plot Real Time GPS data from various sites on the west coast of North America to visualize plate movements.

I plotted part of the data from the Seattle WA station here:


And the units are very precise for something as massive as plate tectonics, it's measured in millimeters.
That covers data from about a dozen stations, and here is a link to the underlying data for the global measurements:

www.geology.wisc.edu...

This Web site helps users calculate the present relative or no-net-rotation velocities of selected tectonic plates with the MORVEL or NNR-MORVEL56 angular velocities. It also provides information and source data for MORVEL, NNR-MORVEL56, and their underlying data.

scroll down and click on the link that says "Click here for the supplementary documentation (PDF) that accompanies the above publication."

Here's the pdf with the data from a while back:

Supplementary tables for ”Geologically current plate motions”

Here's more recent data but apparently the latest data isn't free, though you can buy it.

Geologically current plate motions They spent the last 20 years working on that so I can understand why they'd want to charge something for 20 years worth of work.

When I said "there was no such data", I meant the data in question does not show "tectonic plates".

What you provided, I interpret as information showing precisely the same kind of movement on the east coast of the US, as there was in Japan.

We look at this data, and we see different things. The data suggests, that there is new ocean floor being created and that ocean floor is pushing on the land mass which accumulates preassure and will release it in an earthquake.

The point of all of this is, my friend ... japan jumped 20-30 meters towards the US. It "jumped", or more precisely it got wider by 20-30 meters. This does suggest that the ocean floor is closing, but it says that the supposed "subduction" zone around Japan, is actually an "override" zone.

Now let us go back to your ocean floor. The ocean floor, being far softer and newer, than the continental crust. It shouldn't have the amount of strength to push it. Instead pushing and "crumbling" the continental crust, the ocean floor should be crumbling instead. What this data is saying, that you have thin paper and on one side you have a thick book. The soft paper is a little curved, but whine sliding it towards the book (on a curved surface) the book wil crumble together, instead of the paper.

Nope ... sorry, doesn't make it for me. Remember, that the density below the paper surface is far greater than that of the paper and that of the book. The paper having less density, than the book.

No, sorry ... can't agree to this anology.

Or, perhaps you are saying that there is so much friction beneath the earth that it is moving the continental plate. Well, I can agree with that as a possibility. But the movement you suggest, means that there is movement beneath that is pressing it together.. Some sort of circular movement ... now, you have to give me some mechanism that would support such movement, with the different friction rates, as the crust is moving at different rates.

Again, can't agree with that. Why would there be such movement beneath the crust? It sounds like there is some sort of "gear" system, that is changing gears ... doesn't make sense to me. Maybe, I am just being too dense, I don't know. But I don't see anything logical about this.

On the other hand, if you have a growing earth with a very dense inner that is breaking through the crust, at different angles and at different thickness. Then this would provide the mechanism for different movement, within localized areas. But that would require an expanding earth.

That is the way I see it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by bjarneorn
There is no such data. If there was, please be free to give us the data itself.

Of course there is.

You can even plot the data for about a dozen stations yourself here:

www.oceanlink.info...

Plot Real Time GPS data from various sites on the west coast of North America to visualize plate movements.

I plotted part of the data from the Seattle WA station here:


And the units are very precise for something as massive as plate tectonics, it's measured in millimeters.
That covers data from about a dozen stations, and here is a link to the underlying data for the global measurements:

www.geology.wisc.edu...

This Web site helps users calculate the present relative or no-net-rotation velocities of selected tectonic plates with the MORVEL or NNR-MORVEL56 angular velocities. It also provides information and source data for MORVEL, NNR-MORVEL56, and their underlying data.

scroll down and click on the link that says "Click here for the supplementary documentation (PDF) that accompanies the above publication."

Here's the pdf with the data from a while back:

Supplementary tables for ”Geologically current plate motions”

Here's more recent data but apparently the latest data isn't free, though you can buy it.

Geologically current plate motions They spent the last 20 years working on that so I can understand why they'd want to charge something for 20 years worth of work.

edit on 15-7-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

It occurs to me that if the earth is going to increase in size then the plates on it's crust are going to have to move. So your evidence of the plates moving in no way deminishes the theory at hand.

www.agu.org...

Plate Motion and Its Relation to Deforming Zones II


Take a look at this page discussing the supposed data on plate movements - it is full of special pleading for special cases as to why their data does not match the models - this is just like the global warming modellers, they make all sorts of 'allowances' to account for say elasticity, crumpling ,heat contraction to 'account' for why the subduction is not found.

Then there is this MORVEL model they are using, which is a new closure-enforced global set of angular velocities. - sounds to me that they are putting in the preconditions for a zero growth earth before they start! - same as they are doing with the satelite data - using the 'known' diameter of the earth as a baseline to calibrate the data.

Originally posted by Shamatt
It occurs to me that if the earth is going to increase in size then the plates on it's crust are going to have to move. So your evidence of the plates moving in no way deminishes the theory at hand.

Quoting an entire long post like that violates the site rules.

But on topic, you're missing the point. Not only does it show plates moving apart where new crust is created, it also shows plates moving together. How do you explain what is happening where the plates are moving together?

How do you explain what caused the 9.0 Earthquake in March 2011 in a subduction zone, which caused the Fukushima disaster?