Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

and generally made a complete fool out of yourself.

If my foolishness inspires one person to start using their hat rack, then my sacrifice will have been worth it.

deny clear evidence of subduction

That's just it, there is none. You expect me to believe 180 million years of growth of the sea floor(as if the sea bed is not anchored to the crust below it) is being eaten up on a daily basis, by a conveyor belt mentality, and earthquakes are the proof of subduction?. EARTHQUAKES HAPPEN EVERYWHERE. You show me a seismology chart showing earthquakes over a period of years, that does not show direction of travel, and you expect me to be convinced its more than just a crustal boundary??

Well, lets just look at the Peer Review process and see what it really does. It keeps all the nut cases and wacko's from taking center stage. I wonder how Nicola Tesla felt about the Royal Society and peer review. All it does is keep people from considering other possibilities. So someone comes up and states their are turtles down there. What harm can it do? I'm sure the boys in the local temple will get a good laugh from it, because it was probably them that started it.

Common sense dictates that if subduction were true, all the energy and tension tied up in the boundaries, would relieve itself by subducting. You would not have mountains, or for that matter, earthquakes, because their would be no built up stress, because of subduction! You would not have 180 million years of growth of the ocean beds!

The most dangerous part of this whole mindset is forgetting the past geologic movements and how violent they were. Mountain ranges overnight. Entire continents tilted and uplifted. Rifts hundreds of miles wide. You think the Earth is not growing, and is done with its growing pains? Earthquakes are not proof of Subduction.

You might be able to stop me, but you will never be able to stop the idea that people have their own minds, and are free to use them.

EARTH

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You keep ignoring volcanoes. I wonder why? Is it because their existence prove that subduction is occurring? Mariana Trench. Mariana Islands.

And with that my work is done.

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

You keep ignoring volcanoes. I wonder why? Is it because their existence prove that subduction is occurring? Mariana Trench. Mariana Islands.

And with that my work is done.

Oh, now subduction is proven by volcanoes???? Local Chemical reactions and excess pressure! There are volcanoes everywhere, not just islands, or subduction zones, previously know as plate boundaries.. The ocean beds are over heated by pressure, and when the rocks liquefy, it flows.
At the bottom of the Marianas trench the pressure is 1152 tons per square foot. I wonder what the pressure under that foot is 10 miles down? 200 miles down???

I thought Volcanoes were suppose to prove the earth is filled with molten hot lava..............

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Please keep posting. You keep proving how utterly wrong you are. Go look at a map. Then correlate the volcanoes with the plate boundaries. Volcanoes are not 'everywhere'. There are no active or dormant volcanoes for example in the UK. You want to know why? No plate boundaries nearby. No subduction occurring. You want to know where there are volcanoes for example? On the Mariana Islands, west of... what was it again? It's on the tip of my tongue... oh yes, the Mariana Trench. What a co-incidence! Oh, wait...

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

Please keep posting. You keep proving how utterly wrong you are. Go look at a map. Then correlate the volcanoes with the plate boundaries. Volcanoes are not 'everywhere'. There are no active or dormant volcanoes for example in the UK. You want to know why? No plate boundaries nearby. No subduction occurring. You want to know where there are volcanoes for example? On the Mariana Islands, west of... what was it again? It's on the tip of my tongue... oh yes, the Mariana Trench. What a co-incidence! Oh, wait...

Volcanoes of Russia

Volcanoes of South America

Volcanoes of Africa

Australia's volcanoes are not related to the subduction zones

Volcanoes of France

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Due diligence isn't a strong suit I see. From your own citation regarding extinct French volcanos-

Southern Auvergne is part of the Massif Central, a Hercynian massif that was formed at the end of the Paleozoic Age and covers 15% of France

And what this actually means-

The Variscan or Hercynian orogeny is a geologic mountain-building event caused by Late Paleozoic continental collision between Euramerica (Laurussia) and Gondwana to form the supercontinent of Pangaea.

So was your point meant to actually agree with AngryCymraeg's points regarding subduction zones? If so, splendidly done. If your intent was to counter AngryCymraeg's points, better luck next time sport.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

Please keep posting. You keep proving how utterly wrong you are. Go look at a map. Then correlate the volcanoes with the plate boundaries. Volcanoes are not 'everywhere'. There are no active or dormant volcanoes for example in the UK. You want to know why? No plate boundaries nearby. No subduction occurring. You want to know where there are volcanoes for example? On the Mariana Islands, west of... what was it again? It's on the tip of my tongue... oh yes, the Mariana Trench. What a co-incidence! Oh, wait...

Volcanoes of Russia

Volcanoes of South America

Volcanoes of Africa

Australia's volcanoes are not related to the subduction zones

Volcanoes of France

Do you even read your sources? Because you just underlined my point. And then highlighted it. You do realise how this thing works... don't you?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

Please keep posting. You keep proving how utterly wrong you are. Go look at a map. Then correlate the volcanoes with the plate boundaries. Volcanoes are not 'everywhere'. There are no active or dormant volcanoes for example in the UK. You want to know why? No plate boundaries nearby. No subduction occurring. You want to know where there are volcanoes for example? On the Mariana Islands, west of... what was it again? It's on the tip of my tongue... oh yes, the Mariana Trench. What a co-incidence! Oh, wait...

Volcanoes of Russia

Volcanoes of South America

Volcanoes of Africa

Australia's volcanoes are not related to the subduction zones

Volcanoes of France

Do you even read your sources? Because you just underlined my point. And then highlighted it. You do realise how this thing works... don't you?

The links were offered to demonstrate your incorrect assumption concerning the global nature of volcanoes. I did not quote from the sources.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

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

Please keep posting. You keep proving how utterly wrong you are. Go look at a map. Then correlate the volcanoes with the plate boundaries. Volcanoes are not 'everywhere'. There are no active or dormant volcanoes for example in the UK. You want to know why? No plate boundaries nearby. No subduction occurring. You want to know where there are volcanoes for example? On the Mariana Islands, west of... what was it again? It's on the tip of my tongue... oh yes, the Mariana Trench. What a co-incidence! Oh, wait...

Volcanoes of Russia

Volcanoes of South America

Volcanoes of Africa

Australia's volcanoes are not related to the subduction zones

Volcanoes of France

Do you even read your sources? Because you just underlined my point. And then highlighted it. You do realise how this thing works... don't you?

The links were offered to demonstrate your incorrect assumption concerning the global nature of volcanoes. I did not quote from the sources.

In which case you failed to see that your own sources destroyed your own position???

You do know how this 'source' thing works... don't you?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Volcanoes are not 'everywhere'.

Getting back on the present topic, yes they are.

Volcanoes of Russia

Volcanoes of South America

Volcanoes of Africa

Australia's volcanoes are not related to the subduction zones

Volcanoes of France

I did not quote anything from the links, but I do see where someone else did, as a diversion. You were and are quite wrong, Volcanoes are not associated with theoretical subduction zones exclusively. And if you notice in the above, the volcano in Australia has nothing to do with a subduction zone. But rather than address this fact, you want to divert to something that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
the volcano in Australia has nothing to do with a subduction zone.

That's true but the same link you posted about that also points out that volcanoes do occur at subduction zones so that undermines your claim that there are no subduction zones and that they aren't associates with volcanoes. Your Australia source says this:

Australia's volcanoes are not related to the subduction zones that produce volcanoes in New Zealand, the Kermadec Islands, Tonga, Samoa, and Indonesia. The "teeth" (black triangles) are on the over-riding plate at each subduction zone.

Do you see why posting a source that says subduction zones are producing volcanoes in New Zealand isn't helping your claim that they aren't?

I didn't hear anybody specifically claim the Australia volcanoes were caused by a subduction zone.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, you stated Volcanoes are only associated with Mythical, err, theoretical, subduction zones. They are not. Volcanoes do not prove subduction, they only prove hot spots.

What really really upsets me and I find to be absolutely intellectually dishonest is Subduction zones are treated as fact, when they have never been prove. And to just say Volcanoes and earthquakes are proof, well, I can say earthquakes are proof of a expanding earth. At least there is verifiable proof to that.

The Variscan or Hercynian orogeny is a geologic mountain-building event caused by Late Paleozoic continental collision between Euramerica (Laurussia) and Gondwana to form the supercontinent of Pangaea.

And again, this is only theory that these two continents collided and created a new continent. But at any rate a mountain building event is in no way proof of subduction. Show me the cave man that witnessed, observed, this event. If you can't, its just a theory.........

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

No, you stated Volcanoes are only associated with Mythical, err, theoretical, subduction zones.

Remind me where I said that. Hint: I didn't say that. So we'll add bad memory and/or reading comprehension to the reasons why you're having so much difficulty understanding the mainstream subduction model.

You're apparently also immune to the point I made about your own source confirming subduction zones causing volcanoes east of Australia. Apparently your attitude is "yes it says that but I'm going to ignore the part that contradicts my claim and bring up hotspots, which are a different phenomenon that subduction zones".

If there is no subduction, how do we explain the associated gravity anomalies?

www.csr.utexas.edu...

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
If there is no subduction, how do we explain the associated gravity anomalies?

www.csr.utexas.edu...

First, stop associating gravity anomalies with "Subduction".

Studying the chart it appears as though these higher gravity anomalies are actually highlighting compression points and zones, and are lacking in the traditional (suspected) subduction zones. Virtually all the "Red" areas are experiencing earthquakes presently. Central Alaska for instance is not known as a "Subduction" zone, but is known for Mountain building.

Another hot area is Turkey and Greece, not known for Subduction, but high in gravity, and I observer because of compression. The same can be said for the Himalayan region, no subduction, but known for mountain building.

If there is no subduction, how do we explain the associated gravity anomalies?

As a error of judgment. You can not build on a theory that has no observable evidence to support it. Gravity anomalies do not prove subduction anymore than volcanoes or earthquakes do.

How can the North Atlantic rift be a expansion, and a subduction zone at the same time?? Gravitational anomalies is only proof of gravitational anomalies. But does appear to highlight areas of high crustal pressure

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

As you seem to be desperately lashing out and telling everyone that only you are correct and everyone else is wrong, I think that this thread is now pointless. You refuse to accept cites that explode the ludicrous theory that the Earth is expanding, you keep saying that volcanoes are not linked to subduction zones when your own cites say otherwise and you have nothing that is even remotely credible in place of geological facts on the ground.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

desperately lashing out

? Really? Lashing out? In what manner am I lashing out? Can you site a example? I believe I have been quite professional in my mannerisms and approach. I do not make snide remarks pointed at any individual. Though, I do voice my stiff opposition to turning a improbable assumption filled theory, into fact. I don't really see myself as "Desperate", compared to those who are trying to find monetary gain from the creation of fiction. They, might be desperate...

geological facts on the ground

That is all you have to show me, facts. Indisputable, observable, facts. That, is all you have to do.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

telling everyone that only you are correct and everyone else is wrong

I don't believe I have ever taken that position, in that manner. It may be an assumption on your part that "Everyone" believes subduction is a reality.

What I have stated very clearly is, I agree with Australian geologist Samuel Warren Carey.

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.

Unconventional Geology

So naturally I view those who believe in subduction, which has no verifiable evidence, to be misguided. Those who know of its folly but still insist its a reality, are morally and intellectually bankrupt, in my humble opinion.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

No, you've ignored cites, misrepresented cites, failed to understand cites, failed to understand your own cites and generally displayed a staggering ignorance of basic science. The fact that you kept shouting 'HALLEY!!!!' and then ignoring those who pointed out that Halley lacked the kind of information that we have now, was wondering telling. The fact that you now keep shouting (desperately) that subduction doesn't exist also flies in the face of the evidence. We have ocean trenches and we also have volcanoes. They tend to be intimately linked. You then tried (and failed) to blur the issue by mentioning the fact that volcanoes are found elsewhere. Yes, they are, because of volcanic hotspots. From mantle plumes. I'm not sure if you have an explanation for volcanoes, but I seem to vaguely remember you saying something about chemical reactions or something a long way back.

So in other words this thread is a waste of time - you have an agenda based on misrepresentation and wilful ignorance.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

but I seem to vaguely remember you saying something about chemical reactions or something a long way back.

It is now established as a fact, you do read my words. Party time.... ......... ........

an agenda based on misrepresentation and wilful ignorance.

Not established as fact, but a lot of circumstantial evidence to support, that SOMEONE does! My only agenda is getting at the truth.

Now in my search for the truth, knowledge, if at all possible I will leave no stone un turned, no old story unread, no opinion ignored. I will check as many sources as humanly possible. And I have been at this for 38 years. And that is not a reflection of my intelligence, but of my diligence.

and generally displayed a staggering ignorance of basic science

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Science

I hope we can agree that mother earth, is in our universe.

Builds and organizes knowledge. Can you share with me how one might form testable explanations of subduction zones, FROM KNOWLEDGE?

From what I have seen, and gathered is, that in this subject, subduction, the methodology is reversed. Testable explanations are being used to try and establish, knowledge. But isn't knowledge suppose to exist first? And far as I know, no one has any direct knowledge of subduction being a reality.

The following abstract demonstrates quite clearly what I am referring to.

Australia's paleogeography is known to have been profoundly affected by mantle convection processes.

How they know that? Assumptions?

Eastward passage of the Australian plate over subducted slab material induced negative dynamic topography in eastern Australia, causing widespread time-dependent subsidence and formation of a vast epeiric sea during a eustatic sea-level low

Your kidding me, right?

Although there is a considerable amount of geological evidence for active convergence between Australia and the paleo-Pacific at this time, the exact location of the subduction zone has remained elusive.

So, what your telling me is, your lacking, knowledge? Geological evidence? Or, circumstantial geological evidence.. They lost an entire subduction zone lol lol

To constrain the location of subduction we tested two end-member models, one with the subduction zone directly east of Australia's reconstructed continental margin, and an alternative model with subduction translated 23° east.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that like rigging the game to get the results you want to see at the end????? The computer simulator software is like any other, garbage in, garbage out......

Simulations with subduction proximal to the coast resulted in accelerated basin subsidence delayed by 20Myr compared with tectonic subsidence from well data. However this timing offset was reconciled when subduction was shifted eastward

Lets just move the game pieces, so we win. Shall we?

Basic Science I assume dictates knowledge first, then theory. Not theory, then knowledge. The Science of Subduction is Backwards, upside down, and inside out, of true science.

Is there a cycle of crust extruding from volcanoes? I believe their is. But its not from subduction. I suspect its from Over pressure and venting in the oceans, and on land, over pressure via chemical reaction.

Can compression melt rock? Why not? The pressure being supplied by gravity and the weight of the water, compresses the underlying rock, to its critical point. Wala, lava coming out of a volcano, under pressure...... But that is just my opinion...