Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Yes, taken out of context, Subduction, is impossible, and yes, I know that......

Now you're just trolling, you already admitted subduction has happened so by now saying it's impossible you're contradicting yourself.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So you've admitted that subduction occurs but your theory has no subduction. That's a little hard to follow frankly.

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

So you've admitted that subduction occurs but your theory has no subduction. That's a little hard to follow frankly.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I should of said, has occurred, in the past. And, this type of subduction has gone dormant.

Yes, minor subduction has occurred, that crated mountain ranges. Yes, I agreed to that, but not to the point of recycling crust. If it were true, by this time there would be no original crust left and we all would be living on super volcanoes.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

If it were true, by this time there would be no original crust left and we all would be living on super volcanoes.

Not really, no.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Yes, Peter is definitely on to something. This, and the second video he and Andrew did on Explaining the Expanding Earth are as close to any answer I've found in three years of looking.

Add to this the Electric Universe theory, and the production of planets and suns in Berkeland Currents, negates the necessity of a gravity based accumulation of matter. Check out the Purple Dawn theory too, which says we originally were part of the Saturn system before it was captured by the sun.

a reply to: Jetson63

Add to this the Electric Universe theory, and the production of planets and suns in Berkeland Currents, negates the necessity of a gravity based accumulation of matter. Check out the Purple Dawn theory too, which says we originally were part of the Saturn system before it was captured by the sun.

Thank you for your reply.

I realize that knowledge is more like a continual work in progress, being added upon as new information is revealed. We, ALL, are a part of this adventure, in one way or another. So many people in the past have contributed in one area or another and it is difficult sometimes to give way to that thought. We can only work with information, we discover personally, or are given by others. Its a jig saw puzzle... where the right background color, shape and size must fit in its appropriate location. Plus the major complications, its 3 dimensional, and changes over time.

At the core of the puzzle is How are planets held in their positions from the Sun. Titius–Bode law gives us a hint about this puzzle. We have spacing, but what power, force actually holds the planets at this spacing? I'm thinking its a form of electromagnetic frequencies, that is unique to each planet. I am one that believes the asteroid belt was in fact a planet that failed, but of more interest is its remnants still rotate in the planets solar orbit, with some exceptions. The same is true for the Kui·per belt.

In each belt there are what science calls "Dwarf Planets", Pluto and Ceres. I contend these two are not Dwarf planets, but the remaining planet cores, of the planets that were there. They hold that spacing that Titus-Bode predicts. And I believe they hold their respective positions, with, or without the outer crust of the plant they once were. They, are unmovable from their respective orbits. If you tried to move a planet, you would only move the crust, and if you persisted, the central core would not move. And if you moved the crust too far, it would begin to break up, into a asteroid belt. The Core and the crust play a delicate balancing act. You can change the speed of rotation, the angle to the Sun. You can reverse rotation and speed, but you cant move the planet from its orbit. The crust rotates on its internal bearing, core, or, central Sun. It is very similar to how a maglev operates. Any imbalance is equaled out by adjustments in the form of Earth Quakes and Crustal shifting. It is the core of the planet that is tied to the Solar Sun, not the crust we live on..

So I would strike out any notion that planets (true plants) could be moved, or reassigned another sun, location.

There actually has been accreditation in large amounts, but in no way has it influenced the overall size of the planet. That has been done by the crushing weight of the added water some 70 million years ago. But as the planet grows larger, the crust is also getting thinner, under the ocean beds. The crust is not subducting at the mid ocean rifts or continental boundaries, It is liquefying at the ridges, creating new ocean beds. Planet Earth did not have massive oceans prior to 70-80 million years ago.

If you note, many dinosaur beds discovered showed multi species intertwined as though gathered like logs in a flood. And that, is exactly what killed them. A flood, not a meteorite... We just have to deal with the ramifications...

Again, thank you for your input.

Was this the video you referred to?