Ancient Geo-Engineering is expanding the Earth

I am presently looking at the Expanding earth theory in a new light. For every action there is a equal and opposite, reaction.

Mods I hope I chose the correct forum for this. I also considered "Deep Sea", but it appears because of the subject matter it would be at home here. Move if you feel otherwise.

First, I will admit what I will be proposing is as far out of the accepted norm as one could get, so I must remind folks of this passage from Majic:

A core principle of ATS is providing our members a place where they can discuss "alternative" topics without fear of intimidation, ridicule or retaliation. Our forums intentionally encourage the exploration of subjects that are often ignored or shouted down in other venues, because that's the only way ignorance of them can ever be denied.

I would ask those who are not familiar with the Expanding Earth theory to investigate it, if you will, dig into it because you are going to need that to understand my observations and conclusions. I will attempt to explain why the earth is expanding, and offer a solution. Here is a 10 min primer on the subject.



Fact, all previous life forms were found in the Continents, not in the Ocean beds.
Fact, In total there is approx 310 million cu miles of water on our planet.
Fact, the Ocean beds are the Youngest at the central Ocean rifts and get older the closer to land you get.

One of the things that is not considered in the Expanding Earth Theory is the volume of water on Earth. If the Earth started off with only shallow seas, where did all the water presently found on our planets Oceans, come from? If you reverse the Expanding Earth all the Ocean beds would "close Up", and leave no place for the water to go, except to flood the continents with 310 million cubic miles of water, on a planet half the size of what we see today..

It has been discovered through Us Navy Geo Surveys of the Ocean beds that the oldest Ocean Floor is no older than 70 or 80 million years, which just so happens to coincide closely with the extinction of the Dinosaurs. If you reverse the Expanding Earth back to 70 or 80 million years ago, with the present volume of water, what you are left with is a Flooded water world. It appears to me at any rate that it wasn't a Meteor that did the Dinosaurs in, they were drowned, if the water was added in "some" manner. It would also explain the "Great Flood" as well.

We know that life existed prior to this event because they left bones in the ground and that means we did not start off as a water world, so what ever happened, the great flood, happened some 70 million years ago.

So some, lets say 75 million years ago a great amount of water just happens to arrive here and virtually wipe out all the life forms present, no matter what you call it. How does the Earth deal with this event? It makes room for it. So we have lets say, one mile high water virtually covering the entire planet, only a very few mountain tops are still above the water level, some wildlife manage to take advantage of it but the vast majority drown. Sea life and aquatic animals continue with minor interruptions, and a great deal of added food.

The water pressure works its way into crevices and begins to push down and sideways, squeezing the crust thinner and thinner and at the same time pushing the crevice wider and wider, deeper and deeper. The pressure creates very hot materials in the crust and is pushed up as lava to help release the pressure. As a result the water itself via its own hydrological characteristics creates its own Ocean Basins which allows the water to collect. As the Ocean basins are created it allows the waters level to equalize and water levels to lower so that dry land can once again reappear. It is the volume of water on our planet that has forced it to expand.

There obviously is more technical aspects to my theory and must await a time in the future when the materials fall into the public domain, but until then we can only wait for that day.

I doubt very seriously that the planet can be compressed back to what it used to be, as if we would want to do that anyways. But what we are looking at, if based in fact, is a planet becoming weaker and weaker every day. In my opinion, Earth quakes are actually the planet venting excess pressure on the continents, and are the side effect of the expansion. I'm certain there is a minimal crustal depth that once breached will cause the crust to become unstable and subject our planet to breaking up. Our "Firmament" will no longer be firm.

There are theories that Mars at one time had water on it, as their is also very old stories about a planet that used to reside in the asteroid belt by the name of Tiamat that was a "Water World". Well, if the story's are true about Tiamat, the same thing could happen here. What do we do?

I would suggest that technology be created, and ship Ocean water to Mars, and wish for the best. By removing water we will not stop the expansion completely but we can slow down the effect, depending on the amount we can remove, and maybe create a new habitat for humanity.

Any thought, insights, comments are welcome.

so, then the ocean levels should be lowering and we should be able to see evidence of the continued lowering of the ocean levels over the last millions of years.

I'm sure "expanding Earth" defies all physics - but, hey, I'm no expert.

I should imagine all the underground nuclear testing isn't have a great effect on the Earth though..

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


I have pondered this myself..

aside from the tiamat chunks of frozen ice raining down for 40 nights..

what if, as the atmosphere collected, water was formed through clouds...

as the earth expanded in a natural sequence..

after all, as the ocean data shows, in reversed spreading

resulting in a smaller earth, what we refer to as dinosaurs were still

walking on solid ground..

Originally posted by Tardacus
so, then the ocean levels should be lowering and we should be able to see evidence of the continued lowering of the ocean levels over the last millions of years.

I do not see it as a question of raising or lowering of the land masses or sea level. I see it more having to do with equalization between two different types of materials being compressed by the same force of gravity. Can sea level rise higher because of it? I doubt it. Besides, coast lines are continually in a state of change due to the actions of the water. Will the perceived "Sea Level" drop lower? Maybe if the earth doubled again in size, making even deeper Ocean beds for it to pool in.

I doubt seriously the Ice caps play any major role in sea level, or the history of it. Polar Ice caps have just as much frozen water on them as they ever have. They can not hold more because excess pressure of the ice is vented in glaciers.

For the time being, I would say, Sea Level, has stabilized.

Originally posted by reeferman
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

I have pondered this myself..

aside from the tiamat chunks of frozen ice raining down for 40 nights..

what if, as the atmosphere collected, water was formed through clouds...

as the earth expanded in a natural sequence..

after all, as the ocean data shows, in reversed spreading

resulting in a smaller earth, what we refer to as dinosaurs were still

walking on solid ground..

edit on 20-2-2013 by reeferman because: sticky wwww key

I would imagine water from another heavenly body arriving here may or may not be a natural occurrence. I would suspect that if frozen ice from, where ever, were to enter our atmosphere, it would melt quickly, vaporize, and appear to be nothing more than rain. But that all depends on how much entered at one time and over what period of time.

What we see today in the form of a expanding earth, is in fact a natural response to excess water on a planetary body, in our present distance from our sun, and our temperature range, the 3rd rock from the sun. Expansion may also take place on planets with frozen water but at a much much slower rate.

I am suspicious that maybe the timelines we are given could be corrupted. The whole expansion could have occurred more quickly than what we are lead to believe.

Not really chemtrails or geoengineering at all - why is it in this forum??

My thoughts are that whatever geological processes were involved with the formation of the earth, there were steps and anomalies that happened far quicker than one may believe.

There was an island formed somewhere in in the sea of Asov in Eastern Europe fairly quickly. I couldn't imagine swimming in the sea and then seeing this.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Not really chemtrails or geoengineering at all - why is it in this forum??

Geo as in geod, as in earth. engineering as in creating change and effect. Adding vast amounts of water to a space geo would effect change in the atmosphere, weather. Again, in ancient times. your right, has nothing to do with chem trails but everything to do with the earths climate.

reply to post by Goldcurrent

I think your on to something with the timeline. "Things" can happen faster than, again, what we were lead to believe.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Not really chemtrails or geoengineering at all - why is it in this forum??

Geo as in geod, as in earth. engineering as in creating change and effect. Adding vast amounts of water to a space geo would effect change in the atmosphere, weather. Again, in ancient times. your right, has nothing to do with chem trails but everything to do with the earths climate.

Geo-engineering refers to deliberate attempts to achieve this and generally this means by humans - not to anything that has possibly happened millions of years ago.

Possibly fragile earth would be a more reasonable place, or possibly "skunk works" if the theory is "controversial"!

reply to post by All Seeing Eye

Fact, all previous life forms were found in the Continents, not in the Ocean beds.

wrong

Fact, In total there is approx 310 million cu miles of water on our planet.
Fact, the Ocean beds are the Youngest at the central Ocean rifts and get older the closer to land you get.

2 out of 3 - not bad.

One of the things that is not considered in the Expanding Earth Theory is the volume of water on Earth. If the Earth started off with only shallow seas,

Actually earth "started" with no seas at all.

where did all the water presently found on our planets Oceans, come from?

"outer space" - jsut like everything else on earth.

If you reverse the Expanding Earth all the Ocean beds would "close Up", and leave no place for the water to go, except to flood the continents with 310 million cubic miles of water, on a planet half the size of what we see today..

that assumes that "expanding Earth is true in eth first palce - for which there is no evidence at all - and conveniently ignores plate tectonics whereby the "new seafloor" being made does nto make eth earth bigger because it is matched by the subduction of surface area in other zones.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
that assumes that "expanding Earth is true in eth first palce - for which there is no evidence at all - and conveniently ignores plate tectonics whereby the "new seafloor" being made does nto make eth earth bigger because it is matched by the subduction of surface area in other zones.

Thats "assuming" the rate of subduction in other areas is equal to the rate of expansion.

if it isn't then theres the proof the earth is expanding.

Not everything is always equal in nature. Sunduction is usually slower as there more tension/friction in these areas than the areas where expansion/new mantle is being produced.

happy to be corrected if my perception of this is false.

Originally posted by Tardacus
so, then the ocean levels should be lowering and we should be able to see evidence of the continued lowering of the ocean levels over the last millions of years.

We are still somewhat unsure on how the water got there in the first place...... You cannot presume to see lowering of the ocean over time equating with an expanding earth.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

that assumes that "expanding Earth is true in eth first palce - for which there is no evidence at all - and conveniently ignores plate tectonics whereby the "new seafloor" being made does nto make eth earth bigger because it is matched by the subduction of surface area in other zones.

I assume you are interested in this theory, otherwise, there is no reason for you to post, and add positive materials to the discussion. And thank you for your input.

But you might be wrong about "no proof". There is sufficient proof for me, and for me, that's all that counts. Your balance may be on a entirely different scale and that is for you to come to terms with.

If you have not noticed Ill tell you. I have personally abandon the "Subduction" theory. And I have abandon it, with or without your permission. I do hope you understand. I have found that the science behind it to be at best, lacking. You would think by now if subduction was actually taking place we would have photos and video of the subduction zones. That's not the only reason though. Where do you suggest these zones reside?

No, I believe a Expanding earth theory is closer to the truth than the present day Plate Tectonic theory is.

for which there is no evidence at all

Obviously your not taking into consideration what is presented in the theory. Maybe you should take some time and study it before you come here and try to reinforce a theory ( Plate Tectonics ) that is doomed to the scrap heap, in my opinion.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

You would think by now if subduction was actually taking place we would have photos and video of the subduction zones. That's not the only reason though. Where do you suggest these zones reside?

Pretty much all around the world!

No, I believe a Expanding earth theory is closer to the truth than the present day Plate Tectonic theory is.

for which there is no evidence at all

Obviously your not taking into consideration what is presented in the theory. Maybe you should take some time and study it before you come here and try to reinforce a theory ( Plate Tectonics ) that is doomed to the scrap heap, in my opinion.

Expanding earth it is not a new theory - indeed it was a theory with a considerable following up until the 1960's and it crops up fairly regularly - I have seen it before.

However there was no actual evidence for it then - it was speculative back then, and with the evidence for tectonics being provable it is now without scientific merit - that is to say there is no evidence that is falsifiable, there are no tests of it that are repeatable.

It is, as you say, opinion - to which you are certainly entitled, as you also say.

However it would be a mistake to consider it important or of value.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


So, this is your idea of "Proof" that Subduction Zones are real?



I will meet you half way on this. The only subduction going on is in local areas where "Suppressed" sea floor is being recycled into magma and being forced up through breeches called plate margins. It is not a issue where the entire plate is being subducted under another plate. If plate tectonics were a real physical phenomenon the entire planet would have already "Cycled" a thousand times, and no prehistoric bones would be found, because eventually all plates would have been subducted. But we know this is not the case because we still have continents that are billions of years old. In fact, all of them.

Look at the Hawaiian Island chain. In the Pacific you have one hot spot that is constantly venting molten lava as the crust moves over it. As it vents it leaves a Island, the crust moves so far, then the pressure build and you have another Island. What you are actually looking at are the footprints of a expanding sea floor.



The direction of the expansion is shown, and speed at which it was expanding. Note the smaller Islands to the left are small indicating the speed of movement, then to the right the Islands get bigger because the movement has slowed down and is allowed to build bigger Islands. It really isn't rocket science here, its simple, very simple. Timeline? Approx 80 million years!

www.hawaii.edu...

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


the pictures are jsut that - pictures - the "proof" is in the studies and science that maps the zones.

you "local" subduction zones are thousansa of miles long - here is a better pic for your perusal:

cioss.coas.oregonstate.edu...

the Map of Hawaii certainly shows the plate moving over a "hot spot" - but it is nothing more than that - a plate moving. It says nothing at all about why that plate is moving or subduction.

And of course the Pacific plate that Hawaii is on is slowly being subducted over by Japan - that well known area that has massive earthquakes because of that subduction

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

the pictures are jsut that - pictures - the "proof" is in the studies and science that maps the zones.

I went to your link, and you know what I saw? A very colorful, picture......... You do have a sense of humor. But at this point I must ask you, because you really haven't addressed my OP, are you a covert member of this organization? theflatearthsociety.org...

Are you here secretly trying to derail my posting, in hopes of boosting your membership and dues, by shooting down competing theories? lol lol lol

Seriously, do you have any questions for my modification of the Expanding Earth Theory?

I have given the subject of "Subduction" a little more time to consider. And I have to admit subduction does play a larger role in the movements of the continents, Ill explain.

In the expanding earth theory, Subduction, is down played to the point where it is irrelevant. But now I must say that subduction is as irrelevant as the Rockies, Appalachian, Himalayas, and any other mountain range you care to mention. They are pressure ridges, pushed up via the subduction process.

I can see that the ocean beds do expand, and in some places the expansion pushes on continents that are already being push on from another direction by the expanding process. Something must give, so the continent in essence must give, and in doing so a mountain range can be formed.

I still do not see "Subduction" as a global explanation. The subducted materials do not cycle down but rebound up, forcing the area up as well. Its the same with ocean Ice forming a pressure ridge.

So in that sense I accept "Subduction".