Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

you know that the weight of water... or lets actually call it by what it really is, the head pressure at the bottom of the ocean's deepest crevice... is still less than the head pressure of any land mass at the same depth. So all this you have been posting about Water pushing down on things is a little bit moot, since it pushes down less than any of the rock land masses.

Why? Well because the average density of water, even at depth (remember liquids are not very compressable) is still only roughly 1kg/l where are rock, depending what it is, is typically somewthere between 1.5 to 3.5 kg/l

The pressures exhibited at depth are the main causes of problems in deep mines. I work in a lab located roughly 2km, we occasionally experience rock burst events, which is basically micro-earthquakes that make rock pretty much explode because of the pressure. They rocks crack and sometimes shatter in order to re-distribute the stress as everything moves around. It is not a solid piece by any stretch of the imagination. Ground conditions constantly change and in some cases the shapes of the backs and drifts constantly move.

a reply to: ArbitrageurThe original term "subduction" translates to "Drawn from Below". And I believe is most appropriate word to describe what is seen on the Sun. In the original context of the word, there is no reference to its present use. Using the word to describe Crust being "Pushed" down by weight, is out of context of the original meaning of the word.

But once again they are both round so it must be true for both................. Not! I never intended the reader to "Assume" I made any physical connection to the Earth and the Sun, they are in two separate classes of heavenly bodies. And quite obviously, through direct observation, there are no plates on the Sun. Direct observation confirms that the energy, plasma, of the Sun is being drawn back into the interior, below the surface, or being Subducted.

Thank you for the second video.

the same process thought to drive plate tectonics on Earth

And thank you for pointing this out. But this is the problem.

The present day concept, theory, of Subduction on Earth, has no direct observation, it only has circumstantial evidence that can be interpreted differently, and in many other ways, it is thought. So in as far as logic is concerned, other possibilities are just as reasonable. But the Scientific community has decided to commit themselves to a logic and theory, that at best is only comprised of baseless "Assumptions". No direct observations have been made of crust reentering the core of the planet have been documented.

Sound logical Science is when an observation is made, then a theory is devised to explain the observation. Unsound science is when you try to force observations, into a theory. And that is exactly what is being done with the assumption of Subduction.

When I was a child my mother once told me "everyone is jumping off the bridge, do you want to, too?" From that day forward I decided I should do a little thinking before I jump. And I have decided not to follow the masses to the bridge named "Subduction".


Arbitrageur, thank you for your input, it is greatly appreciated.

a reply to: ErosA433

you know that the weight of water... or lets actually call it by what it really is, the head pressure at the bottom of the ocean's deepest crevice... is still less than the head pressure of any land mass at the same depth. So all this you have been posting about Water pushing down on things is a little bit moot, since it pushes down less than any of the rock land masses.

Again, apples and oranges.

It is two types of materials that act differently. I worked in a mine so I know how explosive the walls can be. Most of them had a protective netting over them so if it exploded, it would be somewhat contained.

It is the nature of liquid water that causes it to be even more destructive. Rocks, or Column weight, going down will most generally put pressure on what it sets on and the force of the weight is transferred generally down and not sideways. Because each rock is a unique structure that contains itself, like bricks built upon one another. But water seeks its own level, it is not contained, its weight is distributed equally in the whole of the body of water. Hydrolic force is superior to physical blocks. That is one reason why breaks on cars where changed from metal rods, to hydrolic lines. The oceans weight is collective in that it is actually one force, one weight. It is united in its search to find its own level. It does not act one gallon at a time, it acts as a whole. And, its pressure is evenly pushing on anything that gets in its way.

Another compounding problem with water is that it contains oxygen. You have seen what happens when you leave anything metal out in the rain unprotected, it rusts, it corrodes, it oxidizes. You have seen what water does to lime in underground caves. Can you imagine what it is doing under the ocean beds, at pressure???

The oceans are glorious to behold, but insidious in its effects on the planet.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You are very amusing. And also... deceitful. I point out the flaw in your photos - or rather your usage of them - and you pivot to another point. Sorry, but what's the worth in debating you and your ludicrous theories again?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: ErosA433

you know that the weight of water... or lets actually call it by what it really is, the head pressure at the bottom of the ocean's deepest crevice... is still less than the head pressure of any land mass at the same depth. So all this you have been posting about Water pushing down on things is a little bit moot, since it pushes down less than any of the rock land masses.

Again, apples and oranges.

It is two types of materials that act differently. I worked in a mine so I know how explosive the walls can be. Most of them had a protective netting over them so if it exploded, it would be somewhat contained.

It is the nature of liquid water that causes it to be even more destructive. Rocks, or Column weight, going down will most generally put pressure on what it sets on and the force of the weight is transferred generally down and not sideways. Because each rock is a unique structure that contains itself, like bricks built upon one another. But water seeks its own level, it is not contained, its weight is distributed equally in the whole of the body of water. Hydrolic force is superior to physical blocks. That is one reason why breaks on cars where changed from metal rods, to hydrolic lines. The oceans weight is collective in that it is actually one force, one weight. It is united in its search to find its own level. It does not act one gallon at a time, it acts as a whole. And, its pressure is evenly pushing on anything that gets in its way.

Another compounding problem with water is that it contains oxygen. You have seen what happens when you leave anything metal out in the rain unprotected, it rusts, it corrodes, it oxidizes. You have seen what water does to lime in underground caves. Can you imagine what it is doing under the ocean beds, at pressure???

The oceans are glorious to behold, but insidious in its effects on the planet.

(Further hysterical laughter)
You really really don't understand any of this, do you? Oh, my aching sides...

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You really really don't understand any of this, do you? Oh, my aching sides...

Oh but I do...

I don't tell everything I know, it just wouldn't be proper, now would it?

The whole idea of Suduction is nothing more than a mind control program. Slip a little truth in the debate, and the questionable stuff has a greater chance of being accepted.

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

You are very amusing. And also... deceitful. I point out the flaw in your photos - or rather your usage of them - and you pivot to another point. Sorry, but what's the worth in debating you and your ludicrous theories again?

Please point out the deception, specifically. Or, are you the author of this mythical theory?

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

You really really don't understand any of this, do you? Oh, my aching sides...

Oh but I do...

I don't tell everything I know, it just wouldn't be proper, now would it?

The whole idea of Suduction is nothing more than a mind control program. Slip a little truth in the debate, and the questionable stuff has a greater chance of being accepted.

"Mind control"??? Erm - your own image. Mariana trench. Next to the Mariana Islands. With all those volcanoes? Get the connection?
Meh. You're not even trying.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

You are very amusing. And also... deceitful. I point out the flaw in your photos - or rather your usage of them - and you pivot to another point. Sorry, but what's the worth in debating you and your ludicrous theories again?

Please point out the deception, specifically. Or, are you the author of this mythical theory?

Please see the post above.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
as far as logic is concerned, other possibilities are just as reasonable.

Other possibilities that don't conflict with observation should certainly be considered. The possibility you propose that the Earth is hollow conflicts with numerous observations, many of which have been mentioned here, such as seismic waves traveling through the Earth which you pointed out via one of your sources, yet you chose to ignore the conflicting evidence you yourself cited. There is no logic at all in this approach of ignoring evidence which contradicts your hypothesis.

Even more compelling lines of evidence are that there's no known mechanism which can support the weight of a planet's crust to make it substantially hollow, like a geode, so saying the Earth might be like a geode when the geode has no such mass or crushing pressures is ignoring the huge differences.

Even larger problems for the hollow Earth theory come from the fact we measure the density of the rocks in the crust to be typically 2-3 g/cc yet the we know from other observations like the orbit of the Earth and moon that the Earth's overall density must be 5-6 g/cc. Well if you're any good with math at all you can see that the center of the Earth must not only be filled for this to work out but it must also be filled with an even denser material than the crust, which is why we suspect a nickel-iron core as the density will work out and because we've found such materials in the leftovers from the formation of our solar system, meteorites.

So if we are going to have a discussion about logic, let's discuss the logic of first apparently not even comprehending all the evidence which disproves your hypothesis, and then even when this is explained you you, ignoring all that too.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Hydrolic force is superior to physical blocks.

I don't know what "superior" means in this case, but the fact that cars have hydraulic brakes doesn't erase the fact Eros mentioned that the pressure under a mile of 2.5 g/cc density rock is much greater than the pressure under a mile of 1.0 g/cc density of water.

So when you say things like this:

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
People may be underestimating the force the oceans poses. 1 cubic inch of water at the bottom of the Marianas trench exerts 8 tons of pressure/ weight. One Inch.... Try to imagine that on a square mile. Place one cubic inch of that pressure, on your desk, and try to pick it up. You cant? Of course you cant, it collapsed your desk and it broke a hole through your wooden floor.

You seem to be inferring water pressure is greater than rock pressure, but it's not, it's in fact less as Eros correctly pointed out.

You can go on if you want to, but the way this thread reads isn't as a case for an expending Earth theory, it's more like "This is a collection of misconceptions I have which demonstrate my scientific ignorance". I'm not saying all theories are right, they are called theories to allow for the fact they might not be. But what you don't seem to get is that when Newton's theory of gravity was finally shown to not be quite right in certain conditions, that discovery didn't invalidate the centuries of observations which confirmed his theory, they were still valid and the theory still works except in extreme cases. We understand how gravity behaves in our solar system well enough to know that planets can't be built like geodes with substantially hollow centers, so there's no logic at all in denying this. So please don't give us lessons in logic while you fail to apply it yourself.

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

You are very amusing. And also... deceitful. I point out the flaw in your photos - or rather your usage of them - and you pivot to another point.

I've noticed this tactic also...when conflicting evidence is provided, change the subject. Or say "science doesn't understand everything yet therefore I can believe whatever I want". Well surely science doesn't understand everything yet, that much is true, but the second part does not follow. We do know enough from science to rule out certain things, like a rocky object with the mass of a planet being substantially hollow.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

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

You really really don't understand any of this, do you? Oh, my aching sides...

Oh but I do...

I don't tell everything I know, it just wouldn't be proper, now would it?

The whole idea of Suduction is nothing more than a mind control program. Slip a little truth in the debate, and the questionable stuff has a greater chance of being accepted.

"Mind control"??? Erm - your own image. Mariana trench. Next to the Mariana Islands. With all those volcanoes? Get the connection?
Meh. You're not even trying.

Oh, I just saw it, I am so sorry. Believe me, I in no way meant to misinterpret the Mariana's Scars. I am so sorry if you feel I was being deceitful.

Here is a updated picture that includes latitude and longitude. I'm afraid the first picture was out of its truthful context.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

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

You really really don't understand any of this, do you? Oh, my aching sides...

Oh but I do...

I don't tell everything I know, it just wouldn't be proper, now would it?

The whole idea of Suduction is nothing more than a mind control program. Slip a little truth in the debate, and the questionable stuff has a greater chance of being accepted.

"Mind control"??? Erm - your own image. Mariana trench. Next to the Mariana Islands. With all those volcanoes? Get the connection?
Meh. You're not even trying.

Oh, I just saw it, I am so sorry. Believe me, I in no way meant to misinterpret the Mariana's Scars. I am so sorry if you feel I was being deceitful.

Here is a updated picture that includes latitude and longitude. I'm afraid the first picture was out of its truthful context.

Trench. Volcanoes. Game over.

Hydraulics are used not because there is some magical quality to liquids over solids... except the fact that liquids take the shape of the vessel they are contained within, and solids... hold their own shape.

Hydraulics work by altering the surface area over which the force is applied, and the fact that liquids are largely none compressible, and such by pushing down on a small surface area piston, a larger surface area piston can move. It isn't magical, and should be very understood.

Pushrods are useful because you can amplify forces, via knowing how moments work. So you can once again use a relatively small movement, move something else easily which would otherwise be difficult to do, via a leaver action.

Hydraulics allow for a similar thing but with much more flexibility.

Wonderful picture representation of this can be found here

picture


So yes, gives me little confidence on your theory or your support for said hollow/expanding Earth model

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
I have a feeling that everyone has stopped taking this thread seriously. Fair enough.

I was just wondering how to reconcile this thread with flat earth theory.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The possibility you propose that the Earth is hollow conflicts with numerous observations, many of which have been mentioned here, such as seismic waves traveling through the Earth which you pointed out via one of your sources, yet you chose to ignore the conflicting evidence you yourself cited.

I have posted numerous articles, links to only show one thing. There is great debate concerning what lies below our feet.

Seismology is a great science, when you allow for a great number of variables. The density of material is one of the key factors. Density and the speed at which the P and S waves travel though the crust determines the results. The densities of the lower layers are only assumptions! And as show by the following, wrong.

The study of the Earth is often largely limited to surface observations and seismic studies, but the Kola borehole allowed a direct look at the structure of the crust and put geologist's theories to the test. One of the most surprising findings was the absence of the transition from granite to basalt, which scientists had long expected to exist between three and six kilometers below the surface. Known to geologists as the "Conrad discontinuity," this transition in rock type was reasoned to exist due to the results of seismic-reflection surveys.

If the Scientists were wrong at between 3 to 6 km, can they be right about anything further down?

And this.

Though the discontinuity has been detected beneath all of the continents, the drill at Kola never encountered the proposed layer of basalt. Instead, the granitic rock was found to extend beyond the twelve kilometer point. This led to scientists' realization that the seismic-reflection results were due to a metamorphic change in the rock (i.e. from intense heat and pressure), and not a change in rock type as they had previously anticipated. And if the non-existence of an entire layer of the Earth's crust is not surprising enough, the cracks of the rock many kilometers below the surface were found to be saturated with water. As free water is not supposed to exist at such great depths, researchers believe the water consists of hydrogen and oxygen atoms that have been squeezed out of the surrounding rock by the enormous pressure and retained below the surface due to a layer of impermeable rock above.

www.atlasobscura.com...

Again, What was discovered upon direct observation destroyed the "Assumptions". And if the results overturn presently accepted theory, it will take years and years to have those results shared with the universities, and curriculum's changed.

Another assumption that is applied is that Earths crust is uniform in its layers. In other words, whats good at the Kola site, may not be accurate at the southern tip of Africa. It must be allowed that the layers may vary in depth, thickness, or even being present at all. And unless, we bore holes all over the place we will never know for certain.

So in conclusion to the science of Seismology, it has its limited uses, until more data about what lies below us comes our way.

Even more compelling lines of evidence are that there's no known mechanism which can support the weight of a planet's crust to make it substantially hollow, like a geode, so saying the Earth might be like a geode when the geode has no such mass or crushing pressures is ignoring the huge differences.

If you, have studied the hollow earth theory, you would have discovered a theory where there is a singularity, as seen in Super Novas, where there is a white ball at its center. In Novas it is debated that this may be a type of Dyson ball, but in this case, it is the white ball at the center. It does the same thing a solid core of iron ball does in the solid earth theory, and is part of the magnetic makeup of the planet. In theory, this ball is actually the bearing that rides around the Sun, and the crust is pushed in place by the energy emitted from this ball of white light, in a balanced state. You have heard of black holes, well, meet its counter part. Instead of pulling in, it pushes out. In theory. And that is why I say there may be another component to gravity, we know nothing about.

Even larger problems for the hollow Earth theory come from the fact we measure the density of the rocks in the crust to be typically 2-3 g/cc yet the we know from other observations like the orbit of the Earth and moon that the Earth's overall density must be 5-6 g/cc.

Again, Assumptions. And I have already pointed out that Newton and Halley discovered the Earth must have a void in it. The answer supplied "Oh, they were wrong". Halley, one of the greatest mathematicians, along with Leonhard Euler, both, believed the earth to be hollow. Euler picked up where Halley left off. But not one word of this is ever mention, in School!

According to a modern geological textbook: 'Geologists could be wrong about the earth's interior, but the current model of a solid rock mantle and a liquid metallic core with a solid inner core is widely accepted because it is consistent with all available knowledge. A hollow earth is not' [1]. Three objections to a hollow earth are mentioned:
1) it would not have seismic-wave shadow zones;
2) it would not have an average density of 5.5 g/cm³;
3) it would not have a magnetic field.
All these objections make the convenient assumption that current theories of seismicity, gravity, and geomagnetism are correct, but as shown in part 1, there is good reason to doubt this. The solid-earth model is based on assumption upon assumption about every parameter.
Regarding the second objection, it has already been shown that the true mass and density of the earth are unknown. The other two objections are considered below.

Seismology
The dominant boundary in the earth's interior is believed to be that between the mantle and outer core. The vast majority of seismic waves are thought to travel through the mantle and many bounce back and forth between the earth's outer core and the surface. Very few are believed to penetrate the outer core, and even fewer pass through the inner core. The depth of the core-mantle boundary is said to be 2900 km, but this is likely to be wrong if scientists are wrong about the density distribution within the earth. As shown in part 1, seismologists are known to be making systematic errors in their interpretations of seismic data even in the outer few kilometres of the earth's crust.

Geomagnetism
A hollow earth would require a new theory of geomagnetism since it would rule out the present dynamo model -- which, as shown in part 1, is highly dubious anyway. A number of alternative mechanisms have been put forward, but none has won widespread support [2]. Magnetism is caused by charged particles in motion, and an alternative theory is that the earth's magnetic field is generated by charges in the earth's atmosphere and the crust, which are carried with the earth as it rotates. The main objection to this theory is that planets would have to have enormous electric fields in their atmospheres and there is no evidence of this. But nor is there any evidence disproving it; the earth's background electric charge cannot be measured directly from the earth itself [3].

Part 2: The Hollow Earth Hypothesis

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You can go on if you want to, but the way this thread reads isn't as a case for an expending Earth theory, it's more like "This is a collection of misconceptions I have which demonstrate my scientific ignorance".

Ignorance is not a sin, it is not a curs, and is equally distributed among all men. But, In the end, Ignorance, is only a state of mind, that can be corrected, when the decision is made. Reading, is one avenue to this end. Have you read any of my links?

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

You can go on if you want to, but the way this thread reads isn't as a case for an expending Earth theory, it's more like "This is a collection of misconceptions I have which demonstrate my scientific ignorance".

Ignorance is not a sin, it is not a curs, and is equally distributed among all men. But, In the end, Ignorance, is only a state of mind, that can be corrected, when the decision is made. Reading, is one avenue to this end. Have you read any of my links?

Yes, and they were very amusing. Also, you fail to account for the fact that Halley and Newton did not understand gravity in the way they we do now. For one thing we have a vast array of measuring devices and observations that they lacked. Case closed. Again.
No comment on the Mariana Trench / Mariana volcanoes then?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Also, you fail to account for the fact that Halley and Newton did not understand gravity in the way they we do now

I did not fail to account for the Fact, that at best, we can only make those measurements and observation by 1/2 of what might be the totality of gravity. We can only assume so deeply how gravity interacts with our planet. And I did not fail to note, your use of the English language.

And, I have not failed to note, that another Mathematician by the name of Leonhard Euler believed the earth to be hollow as well. And actually refined Halley's multiple spheres to just, one. I personally suspect it to be one as well, except it seems to have split into two cores.
Leonhard Euler - a greatest mathematician of all times

No comment on the Mariana Trench / Mariana volcanoes then?

I will address this in a following post.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

So an outward pushing 'ball of white light'

So issues... I put it in a list for no particular reason

1) The mass of the Earth would have to be contained within the crust only... otherwise gravitation doesn't work
2) How does the Earth form? if the ball of white forms first it is impossible to make a crust around it since it will push everything away.
3) All the planets should be formed in the same way... so the solar system shouldn't have planets
4) What makes the sun form as it is but the Earth and other celestials not?
5) We have observed planetary forming dust clouds around other stars, we do not see sudden bursts of bright light
6) Nova and blackholes are highly energetic nuclear processes driven largely by neutrinos... HOW you /they used that as a basis for a 'white hole' follows no logical train that i am aware of.
7) You where wrong about the hydraulics in the same way geologists might have been wrong about the borehole (citation isn't that good, to be honest because aquifers deep underground have been postulated for more than the last 10 years) so why should we trust anything you have to say about engineering?
8) Explain your theories in a consistent manner, and when challenged to support your theories... please actually support them rather than ignoring it

a reply to: ErosA433

8) Explain your theories in a consistent manner, and when challenged to support your theories... please actually support them rather than ignoring it

Thank you for the positive and helpful input. I am but one person who at times can be inundated with the vast amount of information that is required to prove or disprove one point, or another. It is not my intention to ignore anything.

My original post states "Earthquakes are proof of a Expanding Earth". It was directed to that small area of debate. It was not my intention to qualify other theories. But I see there is a great need to try and rectify misconceptions concerning these other theories. Now, in my mind it is a disservice to teach that one is correct and the other is fantasy and not worthy of scholarly effort. And now learning that Subduction is taught as fact, Is repulsive to me. And I have made myself quite clear as to the reasons.

2) How does the Earth form? if the ball of white forms first it is impossible to make a crust around it since it will push everything away.

"Let there be light".

As we sit and look at the images returning from the Hubble telescope we see light, light upon light, upon light. We see that the galaxy is the primary structure as a whole. It is the first thing we see. Each, being its own identity, its own uniqueness. Its angle related to other galaxy's is unique. Each with its own flavor and color. Galaxies are comprised of many things, Suns, planets, dust, rock, water, on and on and on. And when one is able to take in the vastness of its being one might wonder, where it all came from. Scientists even today usually end their exploration at the doorstep, of the divine. Dark energy for those of you who believe in "Evolution".

5) We have observed planetary forming dust clouds around other stars, we do not see sudden bursts of bright light

No beginning, no end. There is no factory "Galaxies R Us" that spits out galaxies. What you see is what you get. And when you reach the above doorstep you realize, they must have "self Inspired". There are no mystical dark holes floating around enticing dust and debris to form into or out of, anything. The light you are viewing was produced millions, billions of years ago. Our perception is limited to a lifetime at best and hardly enough time to see anything. It may take 10,000 years of observations to see one galaxy birth, if ever. We have no clue as to the universal time line. True, we have seen many things, but put into the above context, we know nothing. We only, think, we do.

We have observed planetary forming dust clouds around other stars

Maybe, you only think you do. You, are under, once again, the "assumption" that planets are formed by dust gathering around and somehow coagulating into a molten mass and becoming a planet. Where did the dust come from? And a still and quietness take over the conversation. But yet, the truth is staring you in the face. Where is that factory?

There is no beginning and no end because the timeline of events is outside of a human being's ability to comprehend it. The scale at which you view our universe is unimaginable compared to the time it took to create it. But certainly we can see the remains of once glorious creations, the dust and rocks and debris. So yes, there is no time frame we can put the universe into even though there are ends to individual bodies. That, may be the dust you see. And in that train of though, our very own asteroid belt may not be just material that never came together as a planet, but the remnants of a planet that once was.

3) All the planets should be formed in the same way... so the solar system shouldn't have planets
4) What makes the sun form as it is but the Earth and other celestials not?

Again, the first thing one sees is the uniqueness of the galaxies. But in each there are different classes of bodies. I personally would say their is a central Sun, star at the center of the Galaxy and from that the other stars take their places in the spirals. It may have been that all the stars came out of the central sun in straight lines and as time passed the spiraling took shape. Or, they inspired individually around their Sun. And in the same fashion of self inspiration, the planets were formed around their Sun. And in all of it, it appears as though the planet, is the fruit, of the galaxy.

What sets one heavenly body from another? Why does a sun become a sun, and a planet, a planet? Why is your foot a foot, and your arm a arm? You say, well my arm is a arm because it has DNA instructions. And I would say, very good. And that is what is meant by "Intelligent design". Why should our Heavenly "bodies" not be afforded the same? Galactic DNA.

6) Nova and blackholes are highly energetic nuclear processes driven largely by neutrinos... HOW you /they used that as a basis for a 'white hole' follows no logical train that i am aware of.

I wouldn't make any assumptions as to the process's we are witnessing, other than they appear to have created, themselves, in place. Though, I have searched for photos of "Black Holes" and have only found Artist's renditions of said, and would suspect they are made of the same stuff subduction is, here on earth.

Looking at the photo here Nebula NGC 2818 from Hubble The first thing one sees is the light, that is still emitting from the star, that is illuminating all the matter ejected from itself, and, the material (crust) that has been blown away from the planets. That appears as streamers that do not reach to the star itself, but are still trailing away from some of the planets. Inside each of those streamers at the head or place closest to the sun, you can see individual little balls of light. And it appears those little balls of light are actually what I view at the center of our own planet, and of all planets.

And for the source or power that would hold a crust at bay from its "Light Core", is really anyone's guess. I personally, would guess it has something to do with a type of magnetic repulsion and a differing electrical charge.

Where the crustal material comes from? In my mind it was ejected, or inspired from, that little ball of white light. In a liquid form, white hot, slowly getting larger and larger, coming out in an omi directional manner, until all the matter that was required was ejected. And being in a liquid form, capillary attraction started to draw like materials together, rock to rock and metal to metal, gas to gas, etc. Then, the orb of molten hot materials starts to spin, casting the heavier materials to the outside and the lighter materials to the inside, gasses, being the lightest. So a void filled with gas started to expand and pressure the liquid larger, and at some point actually broke the new planet away from its central white light, or, portal. There may even be a "Birthmark" within the interior that looks like a circular mountain range where the crust was last in contact with that light. As time past through the plastic state the expansion started to slow and eventually stop. Once the planet cooled sufficiently is was able to produce its own magnetic field, and the magnetic repulsion could now hold the crust in place, as it rotated around the Solar Sun. To be Continu