Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Forgive me, I have seen some words that are affecting me. Ill be back at it, in a few.

While you're at it, can you explain why you keep avoiding the link between the Mariana Trench and the Islands to the West? The volcanic islands?

Not avoiding the subject, I have been quite busy reading, and some things I have read are, well, unsettling.

In order to understand that feature of the ocean floor you must have a understanding of the EE/HE theory. I'm not asking you to believe it, only understand the theories.

Yes, there are problems with both and many people have tried to explain those problems one way or another, and their is nothing wrong with one using their imaginations to help answer those issues.

Translation: you're avoiding the subject because you knew nothing about it before you made a silly claim that I have debunked.

a reply to: AngryCymraegAt this point I'm wondering if you have a set of binders on. You mean to tell me, you can't see the "Scars" to the west of the trench? One right over the other, 3 each???.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

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.

Now here is another interpretive graphic showing the ages of these "Scars".



The gray is considered as old as the continents. The reds are 10 million, the oranges, 20 million. Now how does this happen in nature? This age pattern is not consistent with ocean spreading patterns, so, "How they do that"? Interesting, don't you think?

Oh, wait, never mind.........

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Do you enjoy being humiliated?

Geologic time is so slow, chances are good that nobody will witness
Earth's expansion to any significant degree. It is possible we are
entering the pole reversal phase, but that could take millennia.
Studies of the Sun suggest it is not going to do anything dramatic,
perhaps for centuries.

Mountain and Island building require 100,000s or millions of years
in order to form. The Mariana Trough is deeper ( 7 mi.) than the
Himalayans are high.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Since a question like that is outside the scope of the subject matter, its not subject for debate. Emotions can either be acted upon, or, controlled.

Actually, I feel non, in just asking a question. And I do remember my Science teacher telling us, "The only Dumb question, is the one you don't ask. So, let me ask you this, are my emotions some concern in asking how the age of the ocean floor in this particular area, came to be?

originally posted by: Drawsoho
Geologic time is so slow, chances are good that nobody will witness
Earth's expansion to any significant degree. It is possible we are
entering the pole reversal phase, but that could take millennia.
Studies of the Sun suggest it is not going to do anything dramatic,
perhaps for centuries.

Mountain and Island building require 100,000s or millions of years
in order to form.

That is true, I find. One thing I have found is that everyone seems to think geologic time must be something that is predictable. But some realize that "Events" can happen that cause that time to speed up, or slow down. We can clearly see some major event happened some 70 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs.

In as far as expansion is concerned I agree, it may take time for it to be realized to any meaningful degree. But then again, Japan moved 8 ft. Just never know.

8 feet is a lot of movement for bedrock to shift. I agree.
On one side, the continental boundary slopes steeply the
other gradually levels off as the continental shelf. It is
hard to believe I will witness a coast shift by miles. It
seems the continents do shift, by inches per year, most
likely settling as the crust moves into the upper mantle.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

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

Do you enjoy being humiliated?

The expansion of the Earth or the Earth Expanding Theory had as one of its most important proponents , Australian geologist Samuel Warren Carey (1911-2002). He and a small number of other researchers, continued to support expansion and investigate models of the Earth. Carey coined such phrases as "Subduction is a myth," "The most likely site for error is the most fundamental of our beliefs" and "Subduction exists only in the minds of its creators" In fact, it may be noted that there is a much greater extent of linear kilometers of Mid-ocean ridge, where there is clearly expansion of the ocean floor, than linear kilometers of so-called subduction zones as suggest by the paradigm of Plate Tectonics.

Expansion of the Earth

I believe Carey is correct. And thank you in pointing out the vastness of this insanity.

Again, from Growing earth theory explains a few things

1. If the core of the Earth was hot molten core why isn't the surface of the Earth superheated as well? Why only are small areas hot?
2. Rate of expansion is interesting as well. If the Earth grew quickly at some periods of time and more slowly at others could that explain many of the supporters explanations as to why?
3. The plate movements around the globe are often viewed in one or two dimensions. The Earth is a sphere and should be looked at from all three dimensions, including expansion outward.
4. Plate rifts are actually rips. Material comes up from the interior and pushes outward. Does the material being ejected measure exactly with the "subducting" material along coastlines, such as the "Ring of Fire"?
5. There are areas on the Earth that are "hotspots". How are these explained with only Plate Tectonics?
6. Its seems perfectly logical that Plate Tectonics is accurate when combined with Expansion Tectonics, but by itself Plate Tectonics is missing a ton.
7. Finally, where is the actual data on this stuff. Lots of geologists reference that its available, but I havent been able to find any of it. Its all summaries.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
I believe Carey is correct. And thank you in pointing out the vastness of this insanity.

To me this type of data, and this is just one example of a huge dataset, proves that Carey is wrong, and that the subduction model is real. Even if maybe our understanding isn't perfect and we don't have all the details worked out since you like to point those things out, I don't see any other way to explain this graph except by subduction. In fact these types of datasets give us a three dimensional view of the interaction between the plate subducting and the plate it's rubbing against where all these earthquakes are created, in a downward sloping pattern that matches the subduction model. If it's not evidence of subduction how did Carey or how do you explain this clear pattern matching the subduction model?:

Explorations in Earth Science, Page 17 (doc)


www2.usgs.gov...

the depths of earthquakes gives us important information about the Earth's structure and the tectonic setting where the earthquakes are occurring. The most prominent example of this in in subduction zones,where plates are colliding and one plate is being subducted beneath another. By carefully plotting the location and depth of earthquakes associated with a subduction zone, we can see details of the zone's structure, such as how steeply it is dipping, and if the down-going plate is planar or is bending. These details are important because they give us insight into the mechanics and characteristics of the deformation in the subduction zone.

Of course it takes a certain amount of cognitive ability to understand the data in the manner the USGS is describing, but the graph above paints such a clear picture that it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see the subduction pattern in the earthquakes. The blue dots on the lower left are the deeper earthquakes, the shallower earthquakes are in red on the upper right.

In some sense these earthquake depths paint a 3-dimensional "picture" of the interface between tectonic plates at the subduction zone. I find this evidence extremely compelling falsification of Carey's claims of subduction being a "myth".

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In some sense these earthquake depths paint a 3-dimensional "picture" of the interface between tectonic plates at the subduction zone. I find this evidence extremely compelling falsification of Carey's claims of subduction being a "myth".

First, thank you for being targeted on the subject matter. Some members tend to apply school yard bullying tactics, and when they still cant get submission they use emotional insults. Those tactics do not prove subduction, they prove immaturity.

Dr Maxwell who is a Expansion Geologist also concludes the same as Carey. And in his lecture he points to the reshaping of the curvature of the growing planet. I have only gone one step forward in that when the crust reshapes itself, by very small increments, or larger ones, the earth is going to shake, and break, to reshape itself to the larger newer radius. Earthquakes. Dr Maxwell as far as I know does not support any mechanics that lead to expansion.

There is this Assumption, and a rather large one, that states their is a zone of molten lava below our feet that extends to the center of the earth. For subduction to even be possible, that zone, must, be there. Subduction is a theory that is only built on assumptions. And as I said before, its a theory where evidence is forced into it.

The graph above does not prove a theory correct, it proves the shape of the rift. And for lack of better terminology, I would call it a pressure rift. Not a subduction zone. Yes, it only shows the interface of the rift. It can not show direction of travel, it can not show movement. Viewing the graft in that manner, is yet another assumption.

In as far as lave is concerned, I see that the lava is produced by extreme pressures in the oceanic ridges and in essence is a hydrolic jack, jacking the two plates apart. I do not see the lave as a global condition.

For subduction to be proven, it must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that their is actually a place for the subducted slabs, to go, a molten core. And to date, no evidence has been presented to conclusively prove the core of the earth is molten.

And again, all seismic charts are highly interpretive.

Thanks again

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Yes, it only shows the interface of the rift. It can not show direction of travel, it can not show movement. Viewing the graft in that manner, is yet another assumption.

The earthquake graph shows the shape of the subduction zone. You haven't explained why it looks like it's a subduction zone if it's not one.

While that graph by itself doesn't show the direction of travel, you have to remember we have lots of interlinking evidence to consider. The speed and direction of travel of the plates with respect to each other is measured with fairly good precision, so you get that information from other sources such as satellite measurements. I posted an example of the direction measurements plotted, back on page 2. Consider both the direction of movement of the plates and the earthquake graph and you have evidence of subduction with still no plausible alternative explanation from you or anybody else I've heard.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The earthquake graph shows the shape of the subduction zone. You haven't explained why it looks like it's a subduction zone if it's not one.

The graph, shows only, a Zone of earthquakes.

I would have to prepare some drawings to illustrate the "Hinging" effect at these zones. But basically, when the earth decides to "Let Go", it will be in the form of a mountain range. Hinging the materials upward as there is very little resistance in that direction. To hinge downward is only a temporary period. Eventually, the plate will break somewhere producing a upward movement, then releasing the downward area. Centrifugal force does play a very large role in the crust movement with this respect.

But in its most basic concept, the radius that is present in the graph denotes, hinging. A crushed area because of the constant pressure pushing against it. And sometimes even the earth, becomes unhinged.

When large sections of the crust break you can have a dive at one end, or a lift at the other, and to us may appear to have just fallen down, because we can not see the other end of the crust, at the same time.

www.google.com...

I'm not suggesting the earth has no plates, or large semi ridged areas, it does, and they do interact with one another. This is not the argument. The argument is that expansion has been proven scientifically, especially by the work of Harry Hess. But at the end of his theory is "recycled". You must believe, all, some, or none, of his theory. Scientifically, spreading has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. But that is no reason to accept "Recycled", it has not been proven, at all.

And again, using logic, if subduction were in action, there would be no mountain ranges, because the energy it took to build them, would have been "Subducted".

Give me time to draw some ideas.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I really, really, don't think that you understand the theory of plate tectonics. And once again I ask you about the clear connection between trenches and volcanoes. Which you keep avoiding or wilfully misunderstanding. Because none of your 'theories' are even remotely plausible.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

My original post is about expanding earth, not plate tectonics. So, I really, really, don't think you understand the Expanding Earth Theory.

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

My original post is about expanding earth, not plate tectonics. So, I really, really, don't think you understand the Expanding Earth Theory.

That's because no serious scientist at present believes in the expanding Earth theory. There's a reason for that. well two reasons. A) there's no proof and b) it's hilariously silly. Mariana Trench & Islands by the way. Volvanoes in the latter, subduction in the former.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

That's because no serious scientist at present believes in the expanding Earth theory.

So what your telling me is that because everyone else thinks one way, you will too? Are you telling me you allow others to do your thinking for you?

Edmund Halley, Leonard Euler, seem to be very serious scientists to me.

Harvard?

Harvard Scientists: There May be an Ancient Earth Inside... Earth

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

That's because no serious scientist at present believes in the expanding Earth theory.

So what your telling me is that because everyone else thinks one way, you will too? Are you telling me you allow others to do your thinking for you?

Edmund Halley, Leonard Euler, seem to be very serious scientists to me.

Harvard?

Harvard Scientists: There May be an Ancient Earth Inside... Earth

No, I'm saying that all the available evidence says that the Earth has a bad case of plate tectonics and that there is diddly / squat evidence for an expanding Earth. None whatsoever. You keep shouting about Edmund Halley (and now you've added Euler, which is confusing because he never talked about an expanding Earth other than a thought experiment) but you keep getting wrecked on a simple fact: Halley didn't have access to modern information and wasn't a geologist as we would now understand the term. If he had, then he would have dropped his theory. He didn't know about subduction, had not the faintest idea about ocean trenches and had no clue about magma chambers.
You obviously haven't read your link, because if you had then you'd realise that it has nothing to do with an expanding Earth, or indeed the even sillier hollow Earth, theory.
By the way, I note that you keep avoiding the link between subduction and volcanoes. I wonder why?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

None whatsoever

Maybe, because, your not looking?

One of the longest running and most controversial theories in geology is the Expanding Earth theory. From the earliest school classes to the most advanced university geology lectures we are all taught that the size of the Earth has been constant and unchanging for thousands of millions of years, so virtually everyone is astonished when first presented with evidence for an Expanding Earth.

Some people are so shocked by the array of observations supporting an Expanding Earth model they simply deny there is any evidence for expansion. This rejection of the observations can become very animated at times but a few people are sufficiently curious to carefully investigate the facts indicating that the Earth has expanded over geological time. Some of the more well known investigators into the Expanding Earth theory are professors of geology and other sciences, who continue to examine the supporting evidence and report the results of their observations in various scientific papers and books. This history of the Expanding Earth theory is still developing today as these new scientific observations are examined and debated.

The most widely known geological evidence for Earth expansion is a simple reconstruction of the ancient continents and ancient ocean floor like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The continents are ancient and some regions have existed for more than 3,800 million years but in geological time scales the ocean floor is relatively young and ranges from only about 200 million years old at the continents to areas at the mid-ocean ridges that are still forming today. When the dinosaurs first evolved none of today's ocean floor existed.
This ancient ocean floor and the continents can be rejoined together by placing them on a smaller diameter Earth. They all fit together neatly in one continuous shell.

www.dinox.org...

Not a geologist but I was taught that earthquakes were unique to Earth, and that the crust was basically shattered when the moon collided with earth in the early formation of the solar system.

I assume this could basically happen to any planet under the right conditions.

Anyway, not a scientist here, just saying that was my understanding of them. And of course the hollow earth Mormon 13th tribe probably causes earthquakes too. Obviously.