Growing earth theory explains a few things

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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

Actually, the "plate tectonics" has a hard time explaining that part of it. What I've read is this earthquake actually "dumps" plate tectonics down the tube. I'm not going to be so harsh, as I don't have the ability to be that. Nor do I think people will give up that model so easily either.

The supposed subduction zone, is actually a very deep rift as far as I can see, where the crust has moved onto the rift in the earth. The japan island is being "pulled" away from the mainland, and into the trench. Residing on a ridge.

During this specific period, there was a "supermoon". The moon hasn't been this close to earth, in a long long time. Now, according to NASA scientists the earth tilted a little bit more and increased its angular momentum. They say it's because of the earthquake ... but unfortunately, that totally defies logic. If you are on a merry go round, you are not going to increase your angular momentum by rocking yourself back and forth. You can do that with a swing, but then you are using gravity and shape (pulling your hands in when turning, or your legs on a swing), to accomplish this. The earth did not "alter shape" according to NASA. So, the earthquake cannot be the cause ... and NASA scientists know this, of course. the culprit, if this is true, is obviously the moon. And when it pulled at the earth, with the effect of increasing it's angular moment ... there was a landslide ... in japan.

There was no subduction, japan ... just slided down the trench into the japan sea.

Another concept, I found rather bizarr, reading the news from NASA. Was, they said earth tilted on it's axis. I believe they mean that because of the increased mass that went into the trench, the earth titled. Now, if the earth was a gyro I would understand the "tilting" thing. Since a gravity pull "beneath" the gyro, can alter it's angular momentum. And weight on the gyro, will also alter it's "tilt" on the needle point.

But the earth is gyro, where the center or needle, is in the center of the earth. So, in my feeble mind, this reference, makes absolutely no sense at all. I can't but start thinking, that NASA is starting to spew out "Hollywood" type news, rather than science. What do you people think?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

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

New Concepts in Global Tectonics
NEWSLETTER No. 59, June, 2011

www.ncgt.org...

FROM THE EDITOR Plate tectonics – gone with the great Japanese earthquake and tsunami n addition to the damage to human life, property and the economy, the historic M9.0 earthquake and tsunami in northern Japan last March (Great East Japan Earthquake – GEJE) has brought about chaos among Japanese seismologists who are heavily committed to plate tectonics.

They failed to warn the Japanese people in advance of this disaster after having spent a huge amount of money in the last four decades on the “predicted” Great Offshore Tokai (western Japan) earthquake which has never occurred (Geller, 2011; Uyeda, 2011). They are now facing a taxpayers’ revolt – people are venting their anger at the seismological authorities.

More seriously, seismologists have had to publicly admit that the prevailing plate tectonic paradigm cannot explain the GEJE. Let’s examine their own problems with the GEJE, based on an article by Ito that appeared in one of the major newspapers in Japan.............. (Yomiuri Shinbun) on 10 April 2011:

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

You didn't answer my question.

First of all, it's well known that earthquake predictions are highly unreliable, and we have some pretty good ideas why. There are too many variables between the plate interactions to model the interactions accurately. So to say they are surprised should really be no surprise.

And second, I don't see how anything you quoted in any way supports expanding earth or contradicts the fact that some kind of massive interaction occurred between two colliding plates.

To use that argument to support expanding Earth is a little like saying that because we've never found the missing link between man and earlier hominids, that man couldn't have evolved from them. That logic holds no water. Something big happened there it's consistent with a constant sized Earth, not with an expanding earth.

And lastly, read this:

earthquake.usgs.gov...

The magnitude 9.0 Tohoku earthquake on March 11, 2011, which occurred near the northeast coast of Honshu, Japan, resulted from thrust faulting on or near the subduction zone plate boundary between the Pacific and North America plates. At the latitude of this earthquake, the Pacific plate moves approximately westwards with respect to the North America plate at a rate of 83 mm/yr, and begins its westward descent beneath Japan at the Japan Trench.

We know the precise rate of movement of the plates toward each other.

The location, depth, and focal mechanism of the March 11 earthquake are consistent with the event having occurred on the subduction zone plate boundary. Modeling of the rupture of this earthquake indicate that the fault moved upwards of 30-40 m, and slipped over an area approximately 300 km long (along-strike) by 150 km wide (in the down-dip direction). The rupture zone is roughly centered on the earthquake epicenter along-strike, while peak slips were up-dip of the hypocenter, towards the Japan Trench axis.

What? I thought your source said it couldn't be explained? Then how is it consistent with the event having occurred on the subduction zone plate boundary? Your source doesn't make sense.

Continuing readjustments of stress and associated aftershocks are expected in the region of this earthquake. The exact location and timing of future aftershocks cannot be specified.

Oh no, another admission that we can't predict where the aftershocks will take place! The inability to make accurate predictions is a reflection of the complexity of the plate interaction and in no way discredits plate tectonics as a general theory.

Originally posted by bjarneorn
There was no subduction, japan ... just slided down the trench into the japan sea.

Even if that's the case, that makes my point that it doesn't support an expanding Earth. The crust is disappearing as fast as it's appearing, meaning a constant sized Earth.

I made this video that proves earth expanded. The majority of the growth occurred in the pacific.. You can verify this yourself.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
I made this video that proves earth expanded. The majority of the growth occurred in the pacific.. You can verify this yourself.

What it proves is that you don't know what the globe looks like. Alaska and Russia are already nose to nose, not separated as in the delusional starting point of your video. Here's the real, non-delusional map showing where Russia meets Alaska:

en.wikipedia.org...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c998e821ab76.png[/atsimg]

Also your video is pretty much 2-D, the Earth is 3-D. But that's related to the first problem.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Actually if you pay attention in your map where the red dot is a chain of Islands the were stretched and pulled around as the pacific spreaded.



This next imge you can see where the west coast was connected to Hawaii at some point South America with Austrailia. They are finding rare plants only found in New Zealand and south america are the same strain and grew together.

Originally posted by bjarneorn


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

Some interesting stuff. But before we speculate lets remind ourselves of known facts. This will keep our speculation within some mutualy agreeable boundaries.

Take into account Pressure. We know that as presure increases so does the temperature, and boiling points increase too. Watter will boil at about 85 Degrees C at the top of everest, but remain a liquid at over 400 C at the bottom of our deepest ociens. (source)

So looking at the earth, the presures would be greater by an order af magnitude. We agree that the heaviest metals probably sink the deepest (This would be intuitive) bbut under the presures we are talking about they are very likely to be in a solid state even at those huge temperatures. Heat will be generated by the presure, and also by the nuclear action of decay (assuming things decay in the same way at such depths and presures) but I would hazard a guess that at the very centre of the earth is still solid.

In fact, in theory, ice can exists at over 100C - if it is under enough presure to increase its ccritical point above that temperature. In theory!!!

Perhaps there is another theory here too? We understand the conservation of energy. Energy = matter = energy, and can change between those states in certain very specific circumstances. Perhaps there is so much energy at the sentre of the planet (presure, nuclear decay of heavy metals) that matter is being produced there.

This would be a ballance: As energy is consumed to make matter would the process slow? As the new matter was added, would the energy (Additional gravity) increase causing more matter? Or are these processes in balance? Will they find a ballance, and at that point the earth stop growing?

Interesting subject.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



Perhaps you didn't actually scrolldown to find the articles:

Here is from a blog - more specifically addressing with earth expansion.

The Japan Earthquake March 11th, 2011, follow-up

In an earlier post, Anonymous drew attention to an animation by Greg Beroza, Geophysics of Stanford University, showing the slip rate on the fault that generated the Tsunami of 11th March, 2011, which highlights the difference in approach between Plate Tectonics and an expanding Earth.


The difference concerns the way that transform faults are interpreted, and goes to the heart of the difference between the two models, as they may materially affect the life and times of the circum-Pacific region. Transform faults are the structures cross-cutting the spreading ridges. In Plate Tectonics they are the surface brittle expression of the 'tramrails' of ductile mantle flow-lines along which the continents separated from the ridges. On an Earth that is getting bigger however they represent the surficial brittle expression of along-ridge extension as the spreading ridges grow upwards and away from the continents, as the sea floors accommodate the underplating mantle growth and correction in curvature as the Earth's surface moves outwards from the centre.


With directional dynamics being at right angles to each other, and with implications (or not) for an Earth that has increased in size enormously since Mesozoic times, the two are as different as can possibly be. Plate Tectonics hangs its hat on seismology, but hides behind the ambiguities of relative motion of fault plane solutions necessitated by that geophysical approach. When interpreting geological dynamics of the Earth's crust however, actual motion is important; relative motion is a poor substitute (but does allow the cognitively impaired a degree of intellectual latitude). What it does *not* do however, is allow them to insist in the face of evidence to the contrary, and against all reasonable logic, to insist that the difference does not matter, and, in the case in point, that subduction of the ocean floors and overriding of it by the crust are tantamount to the same thing. They are not.

There is a big difference for example between an avalanche that buries the village, and a village that somehow upstilts and rushes under the mountain, although the motion of one relative to the other in each case is the same. Or, if we are to remain with credible geology, between granitic bodies that intrude the crust, and a crust that somehow collapses over granites. Similarly there is a big difference between the crust collapsing over the mantle because it is gravitationally unstable (as in Earth expansion), and the mantle collapsing under the crust because the mantle somehow gets cold by sinking into the hotter regions of the Earth (as in Plate Tectonics).

earthexpansion.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What it proves is that you don't know what the globe looks like. Alaska and Russia are already nose to nose, not separated as in the delusional starting point of your video. Here's the real, non-delusional map showing where Russia meets Alaska:

Also your video is pretty much 2-D, the Earth is 3-D. But that's related to the first problem.

Sir, you are basically putting yourself on a high horse, claiming everyone has to prove their point. But you, yourself don't, because you are a member of the most popular religious theatre.

People point out flaws, you don't listen to them ... because you ignore everything. You know you are right, and don't have to show anything. You point at data, and say "see". No, sir ... we don't see. Problem is, "plate tectonics" alther their view, to fit any new data that comes along. It's not a theory, it's a popular dogma. What is the data supposed to show? that the ground is moving ... yes, we know that already. That the american continental plate is moving somewhere ... no sir, it doesn't. It shows that the islands are moving in a direction, that appear to be moving towards the mainland of north America. They can also be interpreted, as the North american plate, is moving towards the islands, closing the gaps. The movement is relative, to a reference point on the continent of north America.

This data, sir ... doesn't prove a God, damn thing.

The first thing you need to PROVE, is the mechanism for plate tectonics. Because you are defying physics. Because plate tectonics dogma, is popular, so must physics support the dogma. According to this dogma, the laws of physics are altered to support the dogma. Sir, take a paper and a book, put part of that book on top of the piece of paper over a curved surface. And, SIR, PROVE beyond reasonable doubt, that you can push this paper from beneath it, by ways of friction, so that the paper will go under the book. You have to provide a model, that will show this movement ... you MUST PROVE IT. The point here is, if you "pull" on the paper under the book you can accomplish it. But if you use a friction point at somewhere beyond the book, the paper must crumble and the book won't move. Movement of magma beneath the earth is not an equivalent movement, with a rubber band that has equal contact with the entire paper. It will have contact only with parts of it, and move at unequal rates, just as lava does. Resulting in crumbling of the sea bottom and raising it ... and not subduction.

Just because Christianity, Hindu, Islam, Judaism, have millions of supporters. Does not prove their point ... their dogma, is just a piece of convenient ... crap, pardon my french. I know it's not really nice, to ignore peoples religion in this manner, but I am proving a point. Just because you happen to hold a view, common to the majority, does not mean you are right.

I can easily provide a model, with a balloon, that shows that the crust will break and move, if the earth grows bigger. It can easily shown that vulanic eruptions, are caused by breaking of preasure points, a vent. It can also be easily shown, that oil, water, will "spew" out, because of internal preassure inside the earth. It can also be shown, that such preassure seeks release vertically. It can also be shown, by oil fields in the former soviet union, that if the fields are close, preassure will build. Meaning that there is preassure, trying to escape, pressing against the mantle ... but trapped by the crust, mantle, and the gravity of the core.

The hot magma, as it escapes and rips open the crust, it will flow out ... cool, and become a new crust. As it cools, it will increase in volume. Even if slightly, it is still an increase in volume.

Plate tectonics, is denying the evidence.

Originally posted by Shamatt

Perhaps there is another theory here too? We understand the conservation of energy. Energy = matter = energy, and can change between those states in certain very specific circumstances. Perhaps there is so much energy at the sentre of the planet (presure, nuclear decay of heavy metals) that matter is being produced there.

This would be a ballance: As energy is consumed to make matter would the process slow? As the new matter was added, would the energy (Additional gravity) increase causing more matter? Or are these processes in balance? Will they find a ballance, and at that point the earth stop growing?

Interesting subject.

Yes, it is.

What if, the earths core is a plasma core? That the reason for earths magnetic fields, is it's plasmatic core, that has retracted from it's bounding shell and is generating heat? I know, that seismic waves, don't tell you that there is such a thing there, but what if there was?

What I understand of a plasma core, is that it causes heat when under preassure and retracts from it's bounding shell. I also understand, that such a plasma would be consistent with the "ball" shape of the earth. Assuming that the outer shell, is the containment field for the plasma core, and that the heat it's generating is what is heating up the earth. The suns magnetic field, is what interacts with the earths, and provides the electrons and ions to sustain and feed the plasmatic core. Wouldn't that also explain why the earths electromagnetic field is capable of reversing, much like the suns own?

As far as I understand, plasma can exist in a state much like solid, liquid or gas, depending on the preassure. Also, as far as I can understand, plasma is also the suns core and it's corona. Which to me, point out, that a core like the earths could be equivalent but the preassure at it's formation was not enough to make a nuclear fusion.

However, what if, the plasma that is being emitted by the sun is actually finding it's way through the north and south pole, into the earth. In the form of ions and electrons, And wouldn't that, cause the plasma particles to revert to gas and fall to the earth?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Actually if you pay attention in your map where the red dot is a chain of Islands the were stretched and pulled around as the pacific spreaded.

What he means is, that you have to do it in 3 dimensions, not just rotate it like that. It's much more complicated, and the way Niel Adams did it is quite convincing. You have to shrink the picture, and rotate it, at much the same rate.

However, what is not being taken into account in neal adams films. Is that the sea bottom is not new sediment. It is a thinned underlying crust, with new sediment on top. The layer is much like a stretchmark on the earth, rather than newly created sediment.

The result would be, not a 50% smaller earth, perhaps more like 75-80% of the current size. And, furthermore. You would have to go all the way back, to the age of the land crust, to actually get the size Niel Adams suggests. It is not enough to go back to the age of the new sediment in the seas. Because the crust under that sediment, is much older. When the age of the underlying crust is determined, by drilling ... we'll know for sure.

Expanding Geospheres:
Energy and Mass Transfers From Earth's Interior
Editor: C. Warren Hunt;
Contributing authors: C. Warren Hunt, L. G. Collins, E. A. Skobelin

Growth of the earth episodically throughout geological time is abundantly evident. The three authors of this book give new spins to many geological phenomena that can better be explained by earth expansion than by existing, widely accepted theories, such as plate tectonics

As a consequence of these theories, which were developed during the writing of the two books, the editor, whose career has spanned over fifty years in petroleum and mining exploration, is pursuing the logical consequences of his theory. He has undertaken to drill for oil and metallic minerals beneath the largest petroleum resource known on Earth, the Athahasca bituminous sands of Alberta, Canada. The proof of the theory of carbide/hydride systematics, first enunciated in Environment of Violence and then developed in Expanding Geospheres, should soon he proven if it is really true.

www.polarpublishing.com...


Excellent paper on the hydridic earth theory as it relates to earth expansion here:

eearthk.com...

Originally posted by lagnar
Thought you might like this.
Enjoy

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

I think that if you view the position of mainstream science as being exclusively infallible, then I'd agree with you that this is how it seems. But when you look at the position of dissenting scientists, the evidence they continue to uncover... and study the history of Earth theory relative to other studies such as cosmology and physics, then the picture becomes far more profound and supports a somewhat sinister conspiracy on the part of the mainstream.

First, let's agree that the broken pottery argument is very solid evidence that has not ever been falsified. A succinctly compelling bit of evidence of the first degree. Let's try to explain how is it possible to claim that these pieces were not in fact a bowl when our eyes can clearly see a perfect match of the pieces, to the smallest details, making a near perfectly round and entirely smooth bowl. How do we explain that when the pieces are placed together as a bowl, all the random markings on the pieces form a homogeneous pattern as if they were created when the bowl was in tact before it was shattered? Did science even attempt to falsify this aspect of it?

No, it did not. Because it could not.

Instead scientists basically looked at this bowl and said something like this (my version):

Oh no! This will not do at all. If we accept that this was a bowl, then we need to reassess more than 50 years of theory in cosmology, particle physics, anthropology and other fields, where our position is that matter cannot be made anymore in the universe, celestial body growth is zero, and that a giant meteor caused the extinction of dinosaurs...among many other new foundations we've established. We cannot allow this evidence to be heard. We must find an alternate solution... Oh oh oh... look we just saw piece of ocean floor sticking out of the water and just look at this genius solution to our dilemma that Wadati and Benioff are proposing. Yes! SUBDUCTION will save us! So let's never ever again mention anything about seeing the bowl. Instead, we'll just take the pieces apart and only discuss them separately. Here look, this piece looks like an elephant's ear... and oh oh, this one looks like an elephant's tail, well it could be a hippo tail also but why confuse things. From this day forward, these pieces are an elephant that we'll call plate tectonics. We reject the bowl idea and anyone supporting it will become an outcast dissident who will be denied funding and credibility. We can pull this off guys, if we all stick to our story. United we stand!

But the pieces of the bowl are still with us for everyone to see. They will not go away. The internet age is giving rise to this atrocity of science because dissenting scientists and the common sense of the people are joining their evidence and knowledge of history towards lifting the truth into the open. We can now see that more than 50 years of misrepresenting evidence and fudging of science by the mainstream are being exposed for what they are.

It could have been different if science stuck to the tenets of the scientific method. The most scientifically sound response to Expanding Earth should have been something like this: (my version)

You know guys, there is some pretty compelling evidence for these pieces having been a bowl. And we all understand the problem it presents to our other theories. Maybe, just maybe we jumped the gun with everything. Maybe Steady State is also scientifically sound. Maybe dinosaurs became extinct because the Earth grew and their migration became cut off by the new developing oceans. We don't really know but there are fascinating new scientific possibilities emerging from Expanding Earth. As scientists of integrity, whom we profess to be, we cannot ignore this evidence even if it means re-assessing our previous positions in other fields. The only scientifically sound course we have is to open research in the two opposing directions we have before us. We will expend funds and credible exploration of both the bowl and the elephant ideas simultaneously. We will weigh all the evidence we uncover, from this day forward, under the possibility that both ideas are probable. Because we believe in our scientific method, then in time we will see which one of the two theories is more sound. If we discover we jumped the gun in other sciences, then we will adjust our position and re-write the books. From now on, we will strive for an age of honesty and truth, being careful not to prematurely lock ourselves into theories that we do not have enough evidence for... even if it means that we seem to sound as if we are not certain what the answers really are. This is our new imperative. May the best pieces of pottery win.

But we know that's not what science did. And now the entire story is being revealed slowly and the people are raising their voice in demand of truth, justice and scientific integrity.

Because of this history, the position of mainstream science is suspect of inaccuracies, foregone conclusions and the fudging of data and evidence, all meant to hide this history and truth from the people. This is especially borne out in the way science avoids discussing any of it through scientific debate and rather chooses to discredit dissenters with ridicule by shutting them out from legitimacy in scientific circles.

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.

This is exactly the type of forgone conclusion that science uses to make somewhat preposterous claims about the Earth's size by analyzing data in a way to assert something that cannot yet be asserted scientifically. If both models were researched simultaneously, the same evidence might be shown to support a change in the Earth's radius. But that was no longer an option by the year 2000. Anyone making such analysis would be shut out from the community as a dissenter. So scientists who want funding and stature, all fell in step and that's why we have such papers asserting near absolute conclusions that we cannot really assert.

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.

Yes, we believe aspects of the map are made up. Like the movements of continents, for one example, and subduction zones, for another. These are all fabricated in a very sinister way to perpetuate the cover-up. And it's done in a way where the entire story is never explained to the people. We assume that GPS data is conclusive but it cannot be so, considering what it's trying to assert.

First, GPS data has only been compiled since the mid-80's. That gives us less than 30 years to work with. When you consider the geological times (hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years) that Plate tectonics and Expanding Earth are dealing with, regarding the movements of the plates, then 30 years of data cannot be any more conclusive than looking at a grain of sand and trying to assess what the entire desert it came from, is made of. It is simply not enough evidence to make the conclusions science claims. More so, when looking at the movement of the continents in an Expanding Earth model, based on the ages of the ocean floor, and focusing on any 30 year period for scrutiny, then because of this decompressed time period relative to geological time, we can see that the movements of the continents are not uni-directional. There is twisting and turning along the way evident in the movements going back in time as evidenced by the ages in the ocean floor. Any thirty year period would also reveal a sort of high frequency vibration within the movement, where continents may be moving west but appear to be moving east when a 5 or 10 year period is isolated.

Additionally, GPS data is compiled from hundreds of stations that are not placed in straight geological lines relative to the distances they measure. The reason is because of the curvature of the Earth. Stations are placed on fixed land masses, wherever possible. In the Pacific, this is very hazardous because of its expanse. So stations are placed in a relatively zig-zagging alignment to each other because of the availability of islands that can be used for the stations. Data is extrapolated and compiled to arrive at a straight line, but the results become a conclusion of convoluted mathematical equations that carry a margin of error which is ignored. This is significant when speaking about an assumption of a one-millimeter difference between measurements that go through this process. Add to all this that scientists must show results that support Plate Tectonics if they want their research to remain within the mainstream, then we have very strong reason to believe that these assertions are suspect and cannot be trusted.

But let's look at the subduction zones in the Wikipedia map from 2006 that you presented. Let's focus on the subduction zones that are the blue lines with small triangles on them.



Now, here's another map, from another source also in 2006. I've had this on my computer for some years and don't remember the source. It's from a Spanish language Earth studies curriculum. Same year as the Wikipedia map.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b2de2961c9e0.jpg[/atsimg]

Notice the difference in the subduction zones on both maps from the same year. Specifically, the Spanish map has no zone in the Mediterranean as the USAG map. Notice also the discrepancy in the southern tip of South America. There are many more and they're quite visible. If we look at these maps, based on information from the same year, with scrutiny, we need to wonder why they are not the same. Why does one Earth studies curriculum use a different map of subduction zones from another? Which is the more official or accurate one, The American or Spanish map? Are subduction zones an accurate science? What are they based on?

Well, they are based on an assumption of the boundaries of Tectonic Plates and a necessity to explain where all the new magma coming out of the mid-ocean ridges is going. Subduction zones are also assumed by trenches and continental shelf sediments that suggest friction between the ocean floor slabs and the continents, just before the slabs subduct. But in a growing Earth scenario, then all the evidence for subduction is also explained in COMPRESSION zones instead. Compression resulting in the pressure at the outer edges of the ocean floor, coming from the new magma pushing out from the ridges on the other side. This pressure causes the compression that creates the friction and continental shelf sediments. All the evidence we have for subduction is also explained this way. Including volcanoes and earthquakes. Growing Earth explanations are seen as more sound and conclusive than Plate Tectonics because the source of the force causing the phenomenon is more physically feasible than convection. For there to be enough convection force to pull a 15 mile thick slab of basalt to sink into the less dense lithosphere, then the lithosphere would need to be as unstable as the surface of a pot of boiling water, that science tells us convection is modeled after. We know the lithosphere is more stable by comparison. And if it wasn't, then the Earth's surface could also not be as stable as it is.

So subduction zones are fabricated as the agents of keeping the Earth at the same size. But the science behind them doesn't work within the most basic and known laws of physics. The reason both maps are different is because they are both fabricated assumptions. Not based on any sound scientific method or conclusive evidence.

But there's another aspect to this idea that all the new basalt magma coming out of the MORs, is subducting equally on the other side to keep the Earth the same size. Looking at the maps above, consider the length of the MORs and how much more of them there is than subduction zones. And consider their placements and age. Here's the most recent geological map that clarifies it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6e49de3cc15d.jpg[/atsimg]

Let's look at the spreading process based on the age of the ocean floor. In the last 180 million years, the magmatic basalt coming out of the center of the MORs, which are the red colored areas and the newest. Well all of that spreading, according to map and age indications, is converging into the triangular area in the west Pacific. It's not going into the subduction zones at all. There is no directional indication in the progression to suggest it twisting and spreading into the entire ring of fire. Yes, some of it is assumed to be subducting in the western coast of South America but that's such a very small part of it. All the rest appears to be pushing into that triangular center. Based on this map, most of the new material would be subducting in one spot on the planet and not all over the uncorroborated subduction zones. There is no directional flow of the spread to accommodate plate tectonics.

This is why Panea was contrived to try to explain this. Pangea allows for the source of spreading to begin in the West pacific ring of fire but it doesn't support the movements needed to have all this new material spread out in all directions towards the subduction zones. And even more so, all these MOR's are spreading in both directions from their center lines. The Pangea scenario ignores the other side of the spreading. Where is all that going to? No answer there. It's all going in one direction only, into the ring of fire. And what about the other side of the ring, specifically that triangular hole? The continental side of that triangle? Why is that the same age all around going into that center, when there's no subduction possible in that point because there's no trench or zone there? How can all of that ocean floor be sinking into one spot from all around?

Growing Earth solves all these anomalies. No such mass scale subduction. Instead compression zones resulting from the pressure caused by the pushing force of the ocean floor at the other side continental masses, during the planet's growth. That's the more plausible explanation for all the evidence used for subduction.

These are some of the reasons such dissent exists among scientists and geologists for plate tectonics.

But even if we were to explain all this away through some bending of the laws of physics, then we'd still need to look at a topographical map of the ocean floor and see evidence for this massive directional flow of ocean floor into the subduction zones. And because we have so much more material coming in from all directions into relatively few zones, then we should be able to expect a sort of bottleneck convergence of subducting plates there. You cannot force all of this material coming in from all directions into such few zones without some signs of it appearing in the topography, in the same way we can see a bottleneck convergance of cars from a 4 lane highway merging into one lane. We would need to see signs of the directional movement and bottleneck it causes.

We could also likely expect a pile-up of ocean floor pieces as they twist and turn to fit into the relatively few zones. So let's look at the ocean floor topography to see if it has any signs of all this. Here's a link to a high rez version of the most accurate map we have, produced by Heezen and Tharp after a decade of ocean floor drilling, mapping and exploration in the late 1960's. You'll need to see it up close but here is a smaller version below.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cc148051aa38.jpg[/atsimg]

When you look at it up close, you can see the magnetic striping from the MOR's which shows the direction of spreading. It does not support the movement into the subduction zones. Just the opposite, it reflects a smooth process, as the aging map also does, beginning in the oldest triangular area we saw earlier. As if to indicate that 180 million years ago, it's at that point that the continental crust which covered the entire smaller Earth began breaking apart.

Look at the subduction zones. Where are the indications of a bottleneck pile up into them? Nothing. Zilch. It's as if this has been a continuous and smooth process moving in one rhythmic flow, with the only disturbances being land masses being pulled apart as the Earth grew, stretched and broken up to form islands which also follow the same smooth directional spreading. None of these maps support what science is saying about them.

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.

I don't know that it's possible to convince anyone who thinks otherwise. I understand your position. It's not easy to try to make sense of it and I don't think it's as simple as accepting the evidence put forth by the scientific community. There's a lot more to it than we're being told. If what they say is true, they shouldn't have a problem defending it. But instead, they ignore the debate, discredit inquisitive minds with ridicule, and shut out dissenters. That's not a very scientific way to defend a model. It's more indicative of an indefensible cover-up.

But we can at least try to look at all the sides of the debate and seek to understand why so many scientists and geologists are thinking this over and disagreeing. For us, the best we can do is to gain as much information as possible and learn the history so we can have a more informed view.

In the end, we can each only come to conclusions that we allow ourselves to. Thanks for the more amicable tone of discussion.

This next image is for people with beautiful minds. You can clearly see how the pacific expanded. You can see North Americas previous locations.
Think hard, let your brain do all the math and simulations and you will then see that earth did indeed expand. In the above image you can see that Baja California was were Hawaii is now.

Originally posted by lagnar
Thought you might like this.
Enjoy

Nice posts MichaelNetzer and Shadow Herder.

The Pangea theory is so dumb if it believed the earth has always been the same diameter all its existence. Just imagine a planet covered in water with a bulge of land only on one side. This is not possible in nature. Plant life and living creatures produce limbs in symmetry. A molten planet would do the same as it formed. There would be an equal distribution of valleys and peaks. The Pangea theory only works with an expanding earth model.

I never thought about growing crystals as being the mechanism for planet growth. I believe the mass of the planet would always be the same even if the planet grew. The material that made the crystals grow is always the same mass. The only difference is that the source material turns into a reinforcing lattice. The growth of Kalel’s fortress of Solitude in the north pole has new meaning for me now.

Crystal cave


Giant crystals found 1000 ft under a desert in Mexico.



The growth of Superman’s Fortress of Solitude


The growth of Superman’s Fortress of Solitude

reply to post by bjarneorn


Wat IF.... your post makes no sence. Not backed up by any science or even any known observations of our planet.

It's not OK just to say what if and then spout. It does not give you license to make up stuff.

What if you point to 1 scientific theory or peice of evidence, or even 1 observation which might back you up? (We already agree on one observation which negates your theory)

Also - reread your last paragraph. It is illogical. How can anything fall to earth if the reaction between this mystical plasma and the electrons or whatever from the sun (Which magically enter through the norht or south pole???) happens underground? So to answer your question - No, that would not happen.

Sorry if this post sounds a bit sharp, but you can't just go arround saying "what if" and then presenting an empty case. It reminds me of those people who say "I don't mean to be rude" and then go ahead and be rude!!!! lol

There is in reality, no conspiray of "science".

I urge all to think this through.

A lot of people in the world, live most of their lives in or on water. They work in rice fields, from childhood to their deathbeds, or as fishermen. But I have yet to see any of these, grow gills, and start to migrate into the ocean.

Yes, I know that we only live in a small portion of the millions of years, the earth is supposed to have been like this and bla bla. But, tell me ... can anyone of you seriously believe, that if we were swimming all day long throughout our lives, our kids would become fish? I am very soryy, to have to tell anyone, that such ideas are so absurd ... I can't imagine how anyone thought of them.

Yes, I can see the correlation, yes I can see how an embrio grows in the belly ... but no, I cannot possibly imagine, my child will be born a fish, if we swim in water. There are a lot of women, who have their children born in water, and have yet to see a fish get born ...

Where am I going? the only answer to me, is that originally the planet was small enough to be covered with ocean, even if a shallow ocean. This is why life started in the oceans. When the earth grew, some of the oceans grew bigger, slowly and fish started to find themselves on land. But, you'd still need more than that ... you need a kick in the evolutionary chain by means of mutation.

The answer to the mutation, storms, lightning I believe is a plasma core. The universe is 99% plasma, and it makes sense that in the beginning, with 100% plasma. That it all began by plasma forming bubbles and then the outer parts of them loosing their plasma status and starting the process of making a cooler outer shell. It is unpredictable, can fluctuate and most likely cause electromagnetic fluctuations that can trigger mutations.

What you are referring to as "conspiracy" of science, is merely the ignorance of science. A group that is protecting themselves in much a same way, as the aristocrats and priests protected themselves in previous societies. And as police, army and all groups, have a tendancy to protect their group and status. Throwing in the word "conspiracy" is applying a conscious mind behind this process, and to be perfectly honest, I don't think we humans have such an intellect that we can "plan" so deeply, that we could call it "conspiracy".

It's the nature of all living things, to protect their territory. And that is what is being dealt with ... not "conspiracy". We can elaborate on the "protection", as to see how, where and why, but they aren't coming together and planning how to refute other ideas.

People are looking for evidence, to prove their own work. We are doing much the same. We are looking at the same data, and we are seeing our side of things, as much as others are seeing theirs. True, our side has more evidence. But then, if our side did not have so much evidence, we would still be bending the laws of physics to make the universe fit our view.

To be scientific, is not a natural thing. But we are today, providing the basis of allowing anyone with a few bucks, to acquire the status of a scientist. The only thing the person has to accomplish, is the ability to be able to reside the books he is being given, and to show that he his capable of working with the theories and utilities, he is being provided with. And show, that he has the understanding of these items, that the tutor requires. In other words, we are not educating people to have critical minds. We are educating people, to work with our modules, as we define them. And we are educating them, to go out their and find proof of the theories, we have created.

If someone has a creative mind, in the University and has the audacity to use his own solutions, while he is studying. Will he be rewarded? unlikely. Not impossible though, but unlikely. It depends on the tutor, and weather he has an open mind to new ideas. If he doesn't, that path is closed ... so a student, has only one possible route to take, and that is to do exactly has he is being told, and copy. And as he studies these books, from childhood to the age of maturity. he of course, knows no other world. It is logical for that person, to have only that view.

People, like myself, are people who have gone through ordeals in life. We have learned, through sorrow and pain, that what we were tought. Is not necessarily the truth, but it took a lot to get here. Pretty much, a "biblical" route, if you allow me to point that out here. This process, have given us the ability to view things with a critical mind, and sometimes ... not always, even view ourselves with a critical mind.

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

Wat IF.... your post makes no sence. Not backed up by any science or even any known observations of our planet.

Also - reread your last paragraph. It is illogical. How can anything fall to earth if the reaction between this mystical plasma and the electrons or whatever from the sun (Which magically enter through the norht or south pole???) happens underground? So to answer your question - No, that would not happen.

In what way is it illogical?

Let me point out something "illogical".

In a universe, which is made 99% of plasma. Where it originally started out, as 100% plasma ... the earth starting, or being made in within this universe ... having an "iron" core, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And how would that "iron" collect to form a an iron core, in a planet ... within a plasma universe? The suns corona spews out plasma ... not iron, or molten lava. How would this plasma from the sun ... just "happen" to become iron.

Now, there is something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Kid, the universe being plasma in the beginning. No one refutes. Now, start with that plasma and tell me, where your iron balls comes from, that makes up the core of the earth. You have plasma, forming suns ... now you got suns, where does the iron come from, to form cores for the planets? Remember, you are in a universe made out of plasma ... start with plasma, and give me inner core of iron, please.

oh, and on other notes. There are LDE in the earth, that actually suggest the earth is hollow. Which is the hollow chamber around a plasma core. And going to our "known" observations of this planet. We observe this planet, as being an unstable planet with a lot of electrical activity. Where do we observe such activity? yes, a plasma ball. Another thing, an iron "ball" will lose it's magnetism when heated ... which is pretty much why the "nickel" aspect was added to the theory ...