Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

Before I start I would like to share my thoughts about "Institutions" and why I consider myself a "Iconoclast"
"a person who attacks cherished beliefs or institutions."
I view institutions as bubbles, bubbles of trains of thoughts, beliefs, and instructions on how to live, etc. When one is told to think outside of the box, in essence, to me, it translates to think outside of the institutional mindset, box. Science, Religion, Social Norms, Judicial Systems, Governments, Higher Education, and the list goes on.

Each institution has a boundary, and if crossed results in a type of "Discipline". Some institutions are even called "Disciplines". At any rate, free thinking is discouraged.

In my case, I started to question institutions many years ago by seeing something that was outside of all institutions, and effectively forced me outside of all the boxes, intellectually. Once in that position I was able to see the "Strings" that bound the bubble mindsets together and answered many questions I had.

A geophysicist is someone who studies the Earth using gravity, magnetic, electrical, and seismic methods. Some geophysicists spend most of their time outdoors studying various features of the Earth, and others spend most of their time indoors using computers for modeling and calculations.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Here is a example of the subliminal boundary applied to Geophysics. Simply, leaving out a study of history, and implying only using "gravity, magnetic, electrical, and seismic methods" makes it a complete study. You are encouraged to keep your studies within the given boundaries. Why not consider history as a valid study area???

Well, when you do factor in "History" you come up with some rather interesting results. And in fact, Earth Shattering!

The Earth is approximately 4.5 to 5 billion years old. At about 140 million years ago the earths atmospheric oxygen content was about 25%, then though the next 70 million rose to a high of 35%. We are told during those times the earth only had shallow inland seas. It must have been a very green landscape with a great amount of trees, for trees as I understand it absorb water and carbon dioxide, and create oxygen.

One large tree can lift up to 100 gallons of water out of the ground and discharge it into the air in a day.

One large tree can provide a day's supply of oxygen for up to four people.

www.ncsu.edu...

I would make an assumption that the unhindered growth of trees was responsible for the very impressive 35% oxygen content this planet used to have. Is this not a fair assumption? And if its true that the planet only had inland seas, then it would also be an assumption that virtually all of the land mass, was covered by trees. So, when and where did our present oceans come from? And did they play a role in lowering the planetary oxygen content down to the present 21%?

The following chart at the link shows the history of oxygen as expressed in recovered "Amber".



geology.com...

If one looks at the chart one will see a rather large decline in the atmospheric oxygen content at approximately 62 million years ago, which seems to have started at around 70 million years ago.

For anyone studying the age of the ocean floors, one finds that the ocean floors are no older than 62 - 70 million years. For such a drastic decrease in oxygen content to occur, something must have happened to the trees, and I would assume what ever it was, also effected the Dinosaurs..

Conclusion: Since the decline of oxygen, the birth of the oceans, and the disappearance of the Dinosaurs all occurred in the same geologic time line, one must conclude they are tied together by one global event.

Marsquakes: To date, there is no reliable data in place, due to the equipment sent to mars not being fitted with the appropriate instruments. But when looking at Mars one can see the results of Marsquakes in the form of rifts, ancient rifts. Science is on the verge of claiming Mars at one time had water, maybe even, oceans. I myself can not see any reason why this would not be true. So the obvious becomes clear, Mars has no water, or very insignificant amounts, and is seismically inactive, and Earth, with 70 % of its surface covered in water, and quite seismically active.

In the Expanding Earth theory (which I personally find to be more than a theory) the Earth has grown in size 400 % in the last 70 million years, while Mars shows no signs of growth.

Conclusion: Water (or any liquid) causes global expansion.

Earthquakes are very common these days, but I would venture a guess they have only been with us some 70 million years. As the weight of the water pushes down, it also pushes sideways. In science we are taught that water seeks its own level, well, it did. We call them oceans. Not only does it seek its own level, it also will create a space to occupy, we call them ocean beds. As the weight of the water works in unison, the weight pushes collectively against anything that is in its way, continents and ocean beds included. As these forces push against each other you might have a buckling of the continent close to the shore line in the form of a pressure ridge, we call them Mountain Chains. In the United States we have two prominent pressure ridges called the "Rockies" and "Appalachians".

The Rocky Mountains were initially formed from 80 million to 55 million

en.wikipedia.org...

Research is still on going for the Appalachian chains age.



Conclusion: Mountain chains are the result of pressure ridges forming due to the weight of the water, pushing against the continents. The location of these ridges would be anyone's guess due to unknown crustal weaknesses and faults deep within the earth.

It appears Earthquakes generally occur along the coast lines and mid ocean rifts, and do appear to be associated to the oceans. Again, the weight of the water seems to play a very crucial role in earthquake events.



But, going back to the expanding Earth theory, as the planet becomes larger, the radius becomes larger. Imagine if you will, a ball having a 4 in diameter, compared to a ball having a 12 in diameter. In order to have a 4 in circle fit into a 12 in diameter, it must be stretched. But the earth is not made of rubber, but of rock.

Conclusion: Earthquakes are the result of the crust breaking in order to expand to the new larger diameter. Earthquakes are the result, and proof, of a expanding earth.

Continue:

wouldn't something come out of the quakes like lava ?

There is one more area that also proves the expanding earth theory when viewed with a open mind. For years any discussion concerning the size of the earth was limited to "Space Dust" gathering on the surface. There is no doubt this has occurred but not to such a degree that the earth becomes 4 times larger. But when one goes back 70 million years there does appear to be a event that did trigger the expansion, except it was a majority of water, instead of dust.

Conclusion: Solid planets can not expand, even when a liquid is applied to the exterior. It has to do with the internal vacuum that would be created by the expansion. The vacuum would counter the pushing or pulling that would be required by the expansion. There can be only one other geologic feature that would allow expansion to occur. And, that "feature" is absolutely denied by virtually all the institutions.

The ramifications, one way or another, will be Earth Changing.

ASE

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
wouldn't something come out of the quakes like lava ?

If, the earth was filled with molten rock, and the rift were deep enough, yes lava should flow from the crack. Is that what we see?

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Download Google Earth and take a look at the sea floor in the middle of the atlantic. That's the mid atlantic rift where litho sphere rises through the crust and the Atlantic Ocean spreads.

On the other side of earth you have in the Pacific several subduction zones where crust dives into the lithosphere.

These are essentially the two main points of interest and if you look at it, it's essentially recycling mantle material. Based on this I'd say the Earth is not changing in size.

originally posted by: OneGoal
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Download Google Earth and take a look at the sea floor in the middle of the atlantic. That's the mid atlantic rift where litho sphere rises through the crust and the Atlantic Ocean spreads.

On the other side of earth you have in the Pacific several subduction zones where crust dives into the lithosphere.

These are essentially the two main points of interest and if you look at it, it's essentially recycling mantle material. Based on this I'd say the Earth is not changing in size.

I have google Earth and have studied it to no end. A great tool, but not perfect. It would be nice to see them color code the ages of the ocean floors so people can get a more accurate presentation. The Pacific rift actually runs along the west coasts of the Americas. The rift in the Pacific is not as easy to see because of this.

One other thing, view the following video and share your thoughts...

The Earth isn't expanding. It's actually shrinking as mass gets pushed closer and closer to the center of the Earth.

With every major earthquake, the mass gets tighter, the Earth rotates faster, and the days get shorter. None of these are signs of an expanding Earth.

You can read more here:

www.space.com...

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
The Earth is approximately 4.5 to 5 billion years old. At about 140 million years ago the earths atmospheric oxygen content was about 25%, then though the next 70 million rose to a high of 35%. We are told during those times the earth only had shallow inland seas.

No, we are not told that, the earth was still about 2/3 covered by water back then just as it is today. There were huge oceans 127 million years ago and 140 million years ago wasn't much different, here's the model of 127 million years ago:

Early Cretaceous Earth:


From this video:

Animation of the earth in early cretaceous period (127 mya). I created a high-resolution (5400 x 2700) map based on the continent outlines by Dr. Ronald Blakey (Ron Blakey, Colorado Plateau Geosystems, Arizona USA) using textures from satellite images by the NASA.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Fascinating theory.

I wonder if the core structure and composition allow for this further "densifying?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: OneGoal
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Download Google Earth and take a look at the sea floor in the middle of the atlantic. That's the mid atlantic rift where litho sphere rises through the crust and the Atlantic Ocean spreads.

On the other side of earth you have in the Pacific several subduction zones where crust dives into the lithosphere.

These are essentially the two main points of interest and if you look at it, it's essentially recycling mantle material. Based on this I'd say the Earth is not changing in size.

I have google Earth and have studied it to no end. A great tool, but not perfect. It would be nice to see them color code the ages of the ocean floors so people can get a more accurate presentation. The Pacific rift actually runs along the west coasts of the Americas. The rift in the Pacific is not as easy to see because of this.

One other thing, view the following video and share your thoughts...

You seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject!

I will check the video when I have a chance and respond accordingly.

originally posted by: OneGoal
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Download Google Earth and take a look at the sea floor in the middle of the atlantic. That's the mid atlantic rift where litho sphere rises through the crust and the Atlantic Ocean spreads.

On the other side of earth you have in the Pacific several subduction zones where crust dives into the lithosphere.

These are essentially the two main points of interest and if you look at it, it's essentially recycling mantle material. Based on this I'd say the Earth is not changing in size.

I have to say that is where I am, and since there may not be a single cause for Earthquakes, it just shows how dynamic is Earth's structure, and from forces inside and out. Someone should cook porridge and see what happens.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
The Earth isn't expanding. It's actually shrinking as mass gets pushed closer and closer to the center of the Earth.

With every major earthquake, the mass gets tighter, the Earth rotates faster, and the days get shorter. None of these are signs of an expanding Earth.

A single earthquake can shorten the length of a day but still the overall trend is for days to get longer, which has more to do with tidal friction and angular momentum of Earth's rotation being transferred to the moon; in essence the Earth is slowing down and the moon is speeding up which is why the moon continues to move farther from the Earth every year.

ΔT

Universal Time is a time scale based on the Earth's rotation, which is somewhat irregular over short periods (days up to a century), thus any time based on it cannot have an accuracy better than 1 : 108. But the principal effect is over the long term: over many centuries tidal friction inexorably slows Earth's rate of rotation by about dT/dt = +2.3 ms/cy, or α = +2.3 ms/day/cy. During one day, this results in a very small fractional change of ΔT/T = 7.3×10−13. However, there are other forces changing the rotation rate of the Earth. The most important one is believed to be a result of the melting of continental ice sheets at the end of the last glacial period. This removed their tremendous weight, allowing the land under them to begin to rebound upward in the polar regions, which has been continuing and will continue until isostatic equilibrium is reached. This "post-glacial rebound" brings mass closer to the rotation axis of the Earth, which makes the Earth spin faster (law of conservation of angular momentum)[clarification needed]: the rate derived from models is about −0.6 ms/day/cy. So the net acceleration (actually a deceleration) of the rotation of the Earth, or the change in the length of the mean solar day (LOD), is +1.7 ms/day/cy. This is indeed the average rate as observed over the past 27 centuries.

Aside from Earthquakes which can buck the overall trend are ice ages, where advancing and receding ice sheets can change the mass distribution of the Earth thus changing angular momentum, not unlike the way a figure skater's spin speeds up when she pulls in her arms.

If you want to get really really picky, the earth's mass is increasing by maybe 40 tons a day which might create an immeasurably small expansion completely inconsistent with any expanding Earth theory. 40 tons a day is one guess at the average amount of cosmic debris striking Earth (which we see as "shooting stars" at night, meteor showers, etc, and it could be less than that but probably not much more.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

So where would all this additional matter come from to increase the earth by 400%?

This notion has been around for quite awhile now, I thought it was pretty interesting when I 1st saw it too. And it's still as full of holes as it ever was.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I'm confused as to what makes the Earth get bigger and where the new water comes from. I read the OP but didn't (can't now) watch the youtube video. Can you summarize those two items?

I've been traveling for 14 hours and counting, so it might have been obvious and my brain function is declining due to being around too many people who can't figure out what "take your shoes off and put them in the bin" means.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I used to have the colored overlay from NOAA in GE but it's not available anymore i noticed.
There are others available nachon.free.fr...

If you dont like that one you could download the image from NOAA and make your own overlay in google earth.
www.ngdc.noaa.gov...
It's pretty easy to do, I'd be glad to help.

In addition i will refer to a thread of mine from a few years back
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and this post www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

So where would all this additional matter come from to increase the earth by 400%?

This notion has been around for quite awhile now, I thought it was pretty interesting when I 1st saw it too. And it's still as full of holes as it ever was.

Additional matter like the Moon hitting the earth would be relevant. In the OP's context it's more so about density and location of planetary material.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Aside from Earthquakes which can buck the overall trend are ice ages, where advancing and receding ice sheets can change the mass distribution of the Earth thus changing angular momentum, not unlike the way a figure skater's spin speeds up when she pulls in her arms.

That's right, it is happening in Connemara as of now, and has been. That part of Ireland is tipping downward, while the northern most part of Ireland is rising, it's called post glacial rebound or, Isostatic depresion The same applies to Southern and Northern UK. In other words, the Earth's mass at any given time, is not an even distribution, and can't be.
The link below gives just a general view.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

So where would all this additional matter come from to increase the earth by 400%?

This notion has been around for quite awhile now, I thought it was pretty interesting when I 1st saw it too. And it's still as full of holes as it ever was.

If you read the part about trees producing enough oxygen for 4 people a day, you might wonder where all that excess oxygen went. Must have gone somewhere..

a reply to: smurfy

In other words, the Earth's mass at any given time, is not an even distribution

It will always seek an even distribution, but it will never be 100% attained before it's destruction, for any of the orbital, geological or solar reasons....

As far as expanding or shrinking... we just do not have enough data.
The scientific bet is on shrinking, by gravity alone.

Over 60 tons of cosmic dust fall on the earth every 24 hours, and 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen and 1,600 tones of helium escape Earth every year. Do the math on that, and we are shrinking and getting lighter.... Strange world.

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I'm confused as to what makes the Earth get bigger and where the new water comes from. I read the OP but didn't (can't now) watch the youtube video. Can you summarize those two items?

I've been traveling for 14 hours and counting, so it might have been obvious and my brain function is declining due to being around too many people who can't figure out what "take your shoes off and put them in the bin" means.

First, where does water come from. How is water created in nature, and unbelievably, Science says they do not understand the process, not completely, anyways.

The origin of water on Earth, or the reason that there is clearly more liquid water on the Earth than on the other rocky planets of the Solar System, is not completely understood

en.wikipedia.org...
One way water is created is by burning hydrogen and oxygen together. The result is water. Another I have heard is by lightning. I suppose that if lightning passed through hydrogen and oxygen, igniting it, the result would be a very minor amount of water. New water arriving in mass would have to be created elsewhere, but by the same method, I assume.

To the Earth expanding, think of it as a Rubber ball being filled with air, except its a ball of rock.