Earthquakes are Proof of a Expanding Earth.

a reply to: ArbitrageurFirst, I went to your supplied link at www.annualreviews.org...

And from the Abstract I read this, in part:

The immaturity of our understanding of great earthquakes and other types of geologic hazards, etc.

Yes, I would agree, even though it isn't explicitly implied, Subduction is a very immature study. I am not going to give 32$ to read the rest of the article.

You're making an unfounded assumption that every part of the crust must undergo subduction on a certain time scale but there is no such aspect to the plate tectonics model

Maybe there should be.

No, I'm not suggesting every part of the crust should Subduct. Actually, thank you for bringing that up. We can clearly see that the continents do not Subduct, for if they did, it could be measured and annualized. What we do see is Science, or the pay to play institutions have shown us that this subduction happens in the depths of the oceans far away from anyone's eyes, tape measures. Subduction, for the most part occurre's in the ocean beds.

But your not addressing my point. The earth produces recycled materials out of the 40 - 45 thousand mile volcano at the bottoms of the oceans. Its doing it every single day, thousands of tons of regurgitated rock. It has been pushing the continents apart by thousands of miles over the course of millions of years, and the planet has not expanded one single bit???. For Subduction to be occurring it must be able to absorb all that expansion, but as you can clearly see by the date of the ocean floors, it didn't. If Subduction was a reality one would expect to see a subduction zone right next to the volcano/ rift. In that way, there would be no ocean bed older than a couple of days, and no expanding earth.

Of course you can believe anything you want,

No, not true. It has to be honest and true, and provable, not just believable. For instance, I don't believe their is a organized conspiracy of silence concerning the Expanding Earth. I do however, suspect it.

expanding earth no longer is considered plausible since there's too much evidence contradicting it. That wasn't always the case; it was considered as one possibility before we had so much evidence against it, which you seem to be unfamiliar with and/or unwilling to accept.

Who in earth made such a decision for the rest of us as to what is and isn't plausible? I must have missed that memo.

Its not that I'm unwilling to accept the theory, I at present am, unable. I have seen nothing in the way of hard scientific evidence to prove this "Theory". In fact, I have seen far more evidence supporting my position. So, I'm not going to buy into the theory for 32 $, or for all the tea in China.

Thank you for your input, it is appreciated.

Edit to delete comment, off topic.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
But your not addressing my point. ..If Subduction was a reality one would expect to see a subduction zone right next to the volcano/ rift.

I did address this point; the plate tectonics model does not predict this and for you to suggest that it does merely illustrates that you don't understand the model.

Who in earth made such a decision for the rest of us as to what is and isn't plausible? I must have missed that memo.

It's called "scientific consensus", and it's not always right, but it's the best thing we have so far. There was also a "Shrinking Earth" idea that the Earth was once molten and the mountain ranges formed as the molten Earth cooled and shrunk; that idea also was rejected based on evidence, but it was proposed and evaluated.

The history of the plate tectonics model is interesting because the scientific consensus initially rejected that model, but for the right reasons, that there wasn't sufficient evidence to support it when it was originally proposed. Eventually the evidence to support plate tectonics emerged in the 1960s, and only when that happened did the scientific consensus adopt the model.

There wasn't one "memo", rather our current understanding is based on many scientific research papers, most of which you haven't read based on the types of questions you're asking.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
I'm old enough that my Geology 101 class presented plate tectonics as a new theory, a modification of continental drift.

Since then there seems to be more data to support the theory. Not much to refute it. Science.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I'm old enough that my Geology 101 class presented plate tectonics as a new theory, a modification of continental drift.

Since then there seems to be more data to support the theory. Not much to refute it. Science.

Phage, you and I are probably close in age, and went through our indoctrination with roughly the same 101 class. Back then as a grade school er, I LOVED SCIENCE Then life happened.

Today, to change the subject somewhat, we are drowning in a sea of corruption. We like to point the finger at the corruption of some other person, organization, institution, but never point the finger at what we believe in or hold sacred. WE rarely if ever get to self examine our own, programing. In that respect, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones.

I have personally known a few scientists ( I don't call them that because they have a degree or shingle, but because they are free minded, and ask questions, and above all, honest.). And none of them ever claimed theory, as fact. In this case, Plate Tectonics and subduction, just as the earths interior is liquid rock, are all theories.

Stop and think for a moment, what real harm, intellectually or otherwise, is there in thinking, or allowing one to think of other theories?? What is the real reason we defend one over another? "Your wrong because my grade school teacher, my high school teacher, my collage professor, taught me this, or that." Yes yes, but what do you think?

None can think for themselves because they are conditioned by a corrupt system. Yes, the corruption is present in the institution of science just as much as it is in politics! This is, what I think! And I have discovered that this "Corruption" is everywhere monetary motivation is present.

In school, I was never afforded the opportunity to study the EET. It was never mentioned, nor taught, as I sat there with my science book opened to the page displaying the Atlantic oceans America and Africa outlines, glaring back at me. Oh yes, I remember the impression it left with me. They fit like a glove, but because the teacher never once discussed this most obvious comparison, it was never studied. Or even acknowledged. I had been programed to overlook the obvious. Why?? What harm could come of considering other "Theories"?

And now, I dare to cross that intellectual, institutional line and claim Earth Quakes are the result of Expanding Earth, and I am bashed back to the other side of the line. Conform I am told. Conform to the Status Que. I say, I will not. I left the Catholic Church and I'm not about to join the Church of Later day Subductionists.

There is a great deal of Science to show the Earth is expanding. The problem is, its getting no press, no money in it I guess. But in my free thinking mind, there is a far greater reason not to give the EET its day in court. Its global political ramifications, to put it mildly. The EET is being suppressed because if one is allowed to consider the EET as being valid, it would lead to more questions, and the answers to those questions are the real reason behind its suppression. In short, a solid planet can not expand! But.........

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.

www.dinox.org...

Plate Tectonics is one of the most important geophysical/structural geology subjects today. To determine the cause of the movement of the plates is the most studied problem. The first evidence for plate movement was, of course, found by Wegener in 1925. This was a result of a comparison of the continental edges of South America and South Africa. It was not until the 1950s, however, that Carey (1954) found the remarkably good fit between the continents using a modeled globe. Wegener's evidence was primarily geological and paleo-climatological.

The model of the Earth developed by the seismologists, at this time, was a liquid iron core surrounded by a solid mantle with no convection movements. When Elsasser and Bullard (1965) developed their geomagnetic field theory, postulating that there are convective motions in the fluid iron core, there was no real objection by the seismologists since the core did not transmit s-waves, indicating it is a classical fluid. It was not until the development of paleomagnetism that there was new evidence for continental drift; then later on, geophysical measurements of the ocean floor swept away most of the doubts geophysicists had about continental drift. This now constitutes part of the subject called plate tectonics.

Many theories on the mechanism for plate movement have been developed. The most popular and widely held view is that convection currents below the lithospheric plates, in the mantle, are responsible for their movement. This involves hot spots and subduction zones. The most radical view was that that developed by Carey (1954), Heezen (1959) and others, that the Earth is expanding causing the continents to break up and form plates.

www.geologynet.com...

Numerous authors, such as Egyed (1957), Cox and Doell (1961), Ward (1963), Creer (1965), Heezen (1960) and especially Carey (1954, 1970) have supported the theory that continents have moved apart because of an expanding Earth. Carey based his theory on geologic and tectonic observations while most other authors have used paleomagnetic data to supplement his initial theory. Carey (1970) proposes the Earth is made up of eight first order polygons, analogues to the lithospheric plates, with accretion occurring on all sides of each polygon. He says sea floor spreading supports his argument that new crust must be forming between continents for expansion to occur. Thus, each of them has increased greatly in area, irrespective of how much or how little swelling of crust along trenches occurred. Thus, this means the Earth has increased in total surface area by a large amount. Based on the area of oceanic crust on each polygon, Carey has calculated the amount of expansion, which has taken place, is 76%. This equivalent to a 33% increase in radius.

www.geologynet.com...

To be Continued:

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

In 1956 Laszlo Egyed, professor at the Geophysical Institute of the Etvs-University in Budapest, based on variations of the sea level in the geological past, proposed that earth was slowly and constantly growing! According to his reconstruction todays continents are the remains of the ancient crust of a smaller planet, surrounded by younger rocks generated along fractures at the Mid-Ocean-Ridges. He explained the supposed increasing volume of our planet by modifications of mineral phases in the earths interior, as minerals are known to change the crystal-structure in relation to changing heat and pressure. An even stranger explanation was suggested by German physicist Pascual Jordan in 1966 - the expanding earth was imputable to the general dilatation of the space-time continuum.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

The complex geology of New Guinea convinced Carey that complex movements of earth's crust were necessary to explain the structural geology of mountains. He developed a model with horizontal movements along the Mid Ocean Ridges and transform faults, but stated that "Subduction is a mythos!" He then explained vertical movements as superficial features of very complicated moving cone structures, reaching down to the earths core.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

"Subduction is a mythos!"

Say what???



At this point, you, can believe what you like......... Hopefully, your beliefs are not strictly based in the Status Que..

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
blogs.scientificamerican.com...

"Subduction is a mythos!"

Say what???

As I said you refuse to accept evidence. In this case the evidence against your idea is cited in your own source:

However the Expanding Earth hypothesis failed and fails to provide a convincing mechanism to explain the supposed increase of earths mass or volume over time. Also simple measurements of the circumference of earth with satellites, as even Carey admitted, could disprove or prove an increase in the radius of earth. Modern satellite measurements are accurate enough to show the movements of earths plates as proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912, however failed to find any real evidence for an expanding earth, except in the internet...

As your source suggests, accurate satellite measurements contradict your idea and support subduction, for example in the map I posted earlier of the Sumatra fault where the movements of the plates illustrated have been measured with satellites.

So we go where the evidence leads us, but instead of accepting this evidence you prefer to post a meme ridiculing it. That's your choice but it's not very convincing nor is your citation of an article that explains exactly why your idea is dismissed but then you choose to not even cite or effectively refute the punchline of the article.

So, if the earth is getting bigger, perhaps that's why the moon is slowly spireling away from the earth at 3 CM per year?
Although to be honest, I don't think the earth is getting bigger, Navigation satellites would have to constantly adjust there orbits, aircraft would take longer and longer to get from 'A' to 'B', roads would crack across from edge to edge, train tracks would stretch and break, long suspension bridges would collapse, buildings would sink, dams would crack, power lines would stretch and break, and so ad infinitum.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

As your source suggests, accurate satellite measurements contradict your idea and support subduction, for example in the map I posted earlier of the Sumatra fault where the movements of the plates illustrated have been measured with satellites.

Yes, I saw the satellite information. And you are correct, I don't give it a lot of credence. But I'm not afraid to post "Other" theories to be considered. I would be more interested in what the satellite data is from one point on the California coast, to lets say Japan. But lets not stop there, how about globally.

So, you liked the meme? lol lol.

Evidence is one thing, but evidence taken out of context is another. And since we are talking about timelines as old as 200 million years, context can be lost rather quickly.

The plate tectonics and subduction theory has a very large problem, that is growing larger every day.

If you go back to the original post, I state, Earthquakes are the result of the expanding earth. Now, if you stop and think for a moment, that statement infers that I believe in the EET theory over the Subduction theory. I have made my mind up on the subject. I could say all of your arguments are off topic because you have not once addressed the subject of the thread. You either believe their is some truth to the subject, or not, and apparently you do not. What are you trying to prove? What are you doing here?

Are you here to save the unsuspecting reader from some evil science that is out to harm them? I mean to say, what is your motivation in pushing a point of view that from the onset has been shown to be rejected. Tectonic pates and subduction has had its day..

How about this, why do you think, I mean the mechanics, of why Earthquakes are proof of Subduction. What mechanism within Subduction causes earthquakes. I want to hear what your mind comes up with rather than what you have been taught. Please share that. And while your at it, try to explain why earthquakes also take place along ALL the sub oceanic fault lines. Earthquakes are not unique to suspected subduction zones.

Thank you in advance.

originally posted by: pikestaff
So, if the earth is getting bigger, perhaps that's why the moon is slowly spireling away from the earth at 3 CM per year?
Although to be honest, I don't think the earth is getting bigger, Navigation satellites would have to constantly adjust there orbits, aircraft would take longer and longer to get from 'A' to 'B', roads would crack across from edge to edge, train tracks would stretch and break, long suspension bridges would collapse, buildings would sink, dams would crack, power lines would stretch and break, and so ad infinitum.

Some of these things actually have happened.

In the theory, present day expansion is only occurring at a rate of anywhere between 8mm and .04 mm a year. And I would think that, that rate would actually decrease over time. In the beginning of Expansion it may have been as high as feet per year, causing the uplifting of continents and the creation of land based, and ocean based pressure ridges, or mountain ranges. In the Pacific for instance, you have the a ridge that runs from Alaska to Guam. I see this ridge as a pressure ridge, or underwater mountain range. In Plate tectonics, they view it as a large subduction zone.

Edit to add:

Navigation satellites would have to constantly adjust there orbits

Actually, we don't know if this is occurring or not. Satellites belong to Governments and military's and intelligence organizations, for the most part, and the common man has very little access to them.. Or to any unfiltered data.

a reply to: pikestaff

roads would crack across from edge to edge, train tracks would stretch and break, long suspension bridges would collapse, buildings would sink, dams would crack, power lines would stretch and break, and so ad infinitum.

Please go to the following links for the photos. There are just too many to post here

www.google.com...

www.google.com...=isc h&q=earthquakes

Be warned though, no explanations are given, and some are actually rendering and art. Take them with a grain of salt, or two.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
What mechanism within Subduction causes earthquakes. I want to hear what your mind comes up with rather than what you have been taught. Please share that. And while your at it, try to explain why earthquakes also take place along ALL the sub oceanic fault lines. Earthquakes are not unique to suspected subduction zones.

Stick, slip. The stick occurs because many rocks do not slide easily against each other, whether it's a slip fault or a subduction zone. Continuing movement builds stresses in the "stuck" rocks that aren't sliding against each other until those stresses overwhelm the "sticking" forces, then there is a big "slip" and release of energy we know as an Earthquake.

There are some faults where the rocks seem to slide against each other more easily, and for these faults the earthquakes tend to be smaller and more frequent, like the northern part of the San Andreas fault. The composition of the rocks and fluid content are factors that have been cited as some reasons why rocks slide more easily in some faults.

This is supposed to be a demonstration of stick-slip and how earthquake energy is released, but I think I could make a demonstration without the connecting paper if I had the time. I guess the paper is supposed to represent the "sticking" of the rocks. My demonstration wouldn't be as dramatic though, this one shows a lot of energy being released. I guess it conveys the basic idea of how energy is released in an earthquake even if it's not the most accurate simulation of how the rocks get friction. For one thing rocks in the Earth aren't shaped like bricks with smooth sides.



In that demonstration the motion is horizontal only as in strike-slip faults, but when rocks move relative to each other in subduction zones, a vertical component is also present. The concept is similar even if the orientation is different.

As for whether replies to a post should all be in agreement with the opening post or whether opposing viewpoints are also welcomed, the latter is the policy of ATS as long as it is the ideas that are attacked and not the poster. You're certainly welcome to disagree with mainstream science if you want, but you can't seriously expect to post ideas which contradict mainstream science in a science forum and not be challenged.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Lets get this out of the way first.

As for whether replies to a post should all be in agreement with the opening post or whether opposing viewpoints are also welcomed, the latter is the policy of ATS as long as it is the ideas that are attacked and not the poster. You're certainly welcome to disagree with mainstream science if you want, but you can't seriously expect to post ideas which contradict mainstream science in a science forum and not be challenged.

Not the case at all. Challenge me on the subject. Earthquakes. I am past, way past, giving anymore time to Plate Tectonics and Subduction. We are now in the realm of the competing theory. Its not mandatory to agree with my position, but to share it. If you firmly believe the scientific community has answered the questions about the subject, in your mind, then their is no room to consider other alternative possibilities.

I don't believe the planet has remained the same size over millions of years. Regardless of new age science. Now, I have admitted that subduction does in fact occurred, but not to the depth and expanse suggested. In fact, in my mind, it was a type of subduction that created the mountain ranges, both on land, and in the seas, and the only recycling that occurre's is that which spews from volcanoes, again, on land and in seas. Subduction as the theory suggested, can not be present when expansion, as noted in the ages of the ocean beds(200 million Years), at the same time. For if the land or sea bed did subduct, there would be no oceanic spread, millions of years old. You just cant have both.

I also do not believe that the center of the earth is filled with molten rock. Yes, melting of rock occurre's, its observable and documented, and in localized events. But that is a subject I suppose for another thread.

Thank you for the video presentation and explanation.

What we see with earthquakes is that they most commonly occur near or on fault lines, Correct? As they are called continental rifts, fault lines. But Earth Quakes are not only seen in subduction zones. They are global. Why are Earth Quakes used to prove subduction. If that were the case, the earth is subducting everywhere.

So, why does the scientific community assume a earthquake is proof of subduction?

In my theory, no subduction, the earth is expanding, and the first place to adjust its radius would be the fault lines, and, later, the continents. The mechanics of the quake are the same, pressure build up. The only real difference is that I see all earthquakes having the same genesis.

Again, how do the scientist assume earthquakes are proof of subduction?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
Now, I have admitted that subduction does in fact occurred, but not to the depth and expanse suggested. ...
In my theory, no subduction...

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

Again, how do the scientist assume earthquakes are proof of subduction?

Who said they were proof of subduction? Some Earthquakes occur in subduction zones and other earthquakes occur at strike-slip or other types of faults which are not subduction.

Lets take the Dec 26 2004 Sumatra earthquake that created a large loss of life as an example, how do we know that was related to a subduction zone? In 2008 these detailed images showing the subduction were published:

Seismic Evidence...Sumatra...

The great Sumatra earthquake of 26 December 2004 was the third largest event to occur in a subduction zone in the past 50years. The rupture initiated at 30–40km depth northwest of Simeulue Island and propagated for ∼ 1,300km to the northern Andaman Islands. The earthquake was caused by sudden slip along the plate interface between the subducting Indo-Australian plate and the overriding Sunda plate....

"Figure 2 Seismic profile WG1. Interpreted seismic reflection image as a function of two-way travel time, plotted using a time-varying automatic gain control...The lower panel shows a 17-km-wide strip of bathymetry along the profile."

That shows the plate on the left subducting under the plate on the right, and it shows the accretionary wedge and other features which are indicitave of a subduction zone.

Now couple that with this map I posted earlier showing the arrows indicating the speeds at which the plates are colliding and these two images provide very strong evidence for the subduction:

www.annualreviews.org...

Note the vectors showing the relative velocities of the plates, and couple that with the seismic view of one plate subduction under the other and that's pretty strong evidence for subduction.

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. And, I have no doubt that there will be subducted crust found under some coastal area, that hasn't moved one inch in the last 10 million years..
And as you have pointed out in your Sumatra information, There is nothing to rule out some of these slabs of crust moving once again, to cause a earthquakes, and or mountain ranges. But on a global scale as to the extent and depth, as to assume this is a crust recycling agent, is, well, kind of hard to fathom. Humor intended.

As for your Seismic profile graft, I don't really see subduction, I see what I would expect to see, sub surface pressure ridges.

Now I'm going to have to share some information with you concerning your scientific community, and some of the things that has been said about it, and this subject.

The first is Sam Carly, the father of Subduction and plate tectonics.

Sam Carey taught subduction, the essence of which later became known as Plate Tectonics, decades before Johnnies- come-lately hailed it (and appropriated it) as the 'New Global Tectonics', but he discarded it as unworkable in favor of an earth getting bigger.

users.indigo.net.au...

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

"The development of plate-tectonic theory certainly warrants a Nobel Prize," said Dr. Marcia McNutt, president-elect of the American Geophysical Union. "There is no doubt that it ranks as one of the top ten scientific accomplishments of the second half of the 20th Century."
ftp.kermit-project.org...
or:-
www.columbia.edu...

However another senior figure in the geophysics world has seen fit to volunteer a description for the same state of affairs of Plate Tectonic consensus as "Massive Academic Fraud" (**), highlighting the deficiencies of the peer review process in the caption quote above and underscoring the view here that even though crewed by Teams of Prestigious Scientists Plate, Tectonics is a sinking derelict ship, and as a framework for global tectonics is long past its use-by and should be abandoned. A theory of nothing is better than one which can be represented in such widely polarised terms and claim a 'consensus'. A theory that can mean anything means nothing.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
Michael Crichton

users.indigo.net.au...

Actually I just stumbled across that a few hours ago, and it does seem to support my position that corruption has overtaken the institution of science.

Going back to my argument, you can't have expansion and subduction at the same time. And to me, that is why any subduction has gone predominately dormant.

Now, looking at the oceanic crust, this fairly light oceanic crust, 5 to 10km thick, composed of 200 million years of dead wale bone and the like, is suppose to enter the LITHOSPHERE, under pressure, that is 600 km thick, and absolutely rock hard. Now I'm thinking that is like trying to nail a wooded nail into a stone wall.

But for the sake of argument lets say it can be done. Now, the hardest materials at the bottom have successfully penetrated the Lithosphere. Where is the piles and piles of sediment that has been scraped off the top gone? Did it magically just go for the ride? It must be piled up somewhere.

Earlier in the thread, some told me I should study google earth, well I have, and ya know, I cant find one little pile anywhere. You would imagine if this were going on there should be a hell of a lot of sedimentation piled up at a 45 degree angle from the subduction zone. In fact, in the pacific near these "Subduction zones", the top 1000 meters, is sediment, ya know, whale bones, fish do do, etc. www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

So now I'm being led to believe that whale bones can penetrate solid rock, or, as noted above there is a "Massive Academic Fraud" being perpetrated against the populace. When money is involved, its not hard to see who will win.
Maybe I should rename the thread " Wale bones penetrate solid rock, and shake, rattle, and role, the world".

Sorry, it makes more logical sense to me that earthquakes are cause by radius adjustment, not subduction.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
As for your Seismic profile graft, I don't really see subduction, I see what I would expect to see, sub surface pressure ridges.

It sounds like you haven't read the paper and don't really know what you're looking at.

Where is the piles and piles of sediment that has been scraped off the top gone? Did it magically just go for the ride? It must be piled up somewhere.

I mentioned that specifically to you in my prior post but apparently you're not familiar with the terminology and many other aspects of geology:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That shows the plate on the left subducting under the plate on the right, and it shows the accretionary wedge and other features which are indicitave of a subduction zone.

The accretionary wedge is so named because of the accretion of which you speak. So you're asking there this is and it's in the picture I posted for you and clearly labeled and I even drew your attention to it, all going right over your head it seems. Maybe your confirmation bias and lack of familiarity with the topic are preventing you from interpreting the data correctly.

Regarding the diatribe about corruption in science, sure there could be some but that is hardly a compelling argument for any single piece of mainstream rejection. We really need to focus on the specific facts and as the above line of questioning indicates once again there's a more of a pattern here of you not being familiar with the science than a conspiracy. YOu're shown a picture of the accretion wedge, it's pointed out to you, and then you ask where it is when it's staring you in the face maybe because you don't know the science or the terminology.

Maybe we lack some details on other subduction zones which are harder to map than the Sumatra subduction zone but aside from some details geologists are still trying to work out for specific faults, the overall theory makes sense to me, not because academia says so, but because the model really makes sense and matches observation. Compare that with some arbitrary model of why the earth expanded that isn't supported by science and it's no contest. Even the lone scientist who proposes expanding Earth says he doesn't know the mechanism for the expansion, which of course is a gaping hole that I don't think your idea really fills in any plausible manner.

So, does the lone scientist James Maxlow who proposes an expanding Earth model have a good explanation for why the Earth is expanding? You can hear his answer at 2:37 in this video and judge for yourself:



You can also hear some alternative explanations by less qualified folks (non-scientists) in other parts of the video.

At least you don't seem to be proposing extra mass like Maxlow and others (if I understand you correctly) because you made this cryptic post which sort of infers you don't think it's a mass increase but you just beat around the bush and don't actually state the exact mechanism you propose.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So, does the lone scientist James Maxlow who proposes an expanding Earth model have a good explanation for why the Earth is expanding? You can hear his answer at 2:37 in this video and judge for yourself:

At least his answer is not fabricated, and truthful. I can respect him for that, and the fact he seems to be a man of his convictions.

So, now, I would like to thank you for stepping outside of the "institutional Box". Poking your head out and asking some pertinent questions.

You, like many others refuse to consider a expanding earth because, the mechanism that explains expansion is missing. At best, its a incomplete study, and who can blame anyone for thinking this. And as I have said a few times, Solid Planets can not expand.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein
Read more at: www.brainyquote.com...

And in the spirit of simplicity, which I believe Albert would agree, I offer this.



Here is the real problem, ignorance of our ancient history, and why it plays such a huge role in geology. Prior to 10,000 years ago it appears many cultures knew the true nature of our planet. For instance, Ancient Greeks knew the truth, for they knew hollow rocks were "Earth Like". Geod translates to Greek γεώδης - ge-ōdēs, "earthlike". And Egyptians with their "Underworld" philosophy. Even today, the Hindus still profess knowledge of Shambolia. And even the Christians speak of Edin.

The institutions of higher learning do not encourage us in this respect. In order to reassemble the past your required to study so many areas that one person could never have done, in one life time. In other words, the institutions of higher learning are "Compartmentalized".

I'm not going to argue whether their are civilizations that reside within the "Geod", But what I will say is, a solid planet can not expand.

For years, at least to me, our institutions have discouraged us from considering the possibility of a hollow planet. We are given theories that the inner world is filled with molten rock, and therefore, no one can enter. But if that were true the surface of our planet would be a boiling caldron where no life could exist. The heat would have migrated to the surface billions of years ago. It appears the inner earth is a fortress, we are forbidden to enter,physically, or intellectually.

Yes, hollow planets can expand, and do, when sufficient water, or other liquid is placed on its surface. In the HE theory our crust is 600 miles deep. Also in the HE theory there is another force within the planet, call it a anti-gravity, that pushes outward from the central anomaly called the central sun, or "Smoky God", and pushes on the inner surface.

So, our crust, a mere 600 miles, and squeezed in between. The additional weight of the surface water only adds to that squeezing effect, and as a result, just like squeezing clay, the earth expands, globally. The molten lave ejected out of the rifts has been melted by the high pressures found under the sea bed. Land based, and even the Hawaiian Island chain have a totally different trigger for producing the heat, but pressure is also part of it.

You can not have the EET without the HE theory, or just like Maxwell, you must admit the truth.

So as you can see, its a hell of a lot of, simplified" information, that might be difficult for your average, complicated, "institutionalized" person, to consider. accretion or sedimentation, yea, right, what ever. Its still just whale bones, and fish do do.

But what is not quite understood is the process of earthquakes. But, if you take the above into consideration earthquakes are simply the 600 mile thick crust, breaking, in order to fit into the newer, larger diameter.

But wait, there's more....

If given all the above is true, then that means Earth has a self life. Yep, a use before date. What was the thickness of the crust before the expansion began? In other non scientific terms, the crust is getting thinner and thinner and thinner, every day the excess water is pushing down on the crust. And will some day be so thin that its internal capillary attraction will no longer be able to support the firmament, and the very last earthquake happens. We, become the new Asteroid Belt.

So, I can understand Jordan's answer completely. Who wants to be the barer of bad news. But on the bright side, we had one hell of a run while we were here. We learned a lot, we loved a lot, and boy did we ever fight a lot. I have already commended my soul back to my divine creator.

Now, if you institutionalized rocket scientists would like to offer something in the way of, lets say, SAVING THE WORLD, you could think about how to remove the excess water. With a combined global effort, its completely doable.

No, its much easier to just stick your head back into the sand box and continue to ignore history. It will all go away, eventually........... And to justify your position you can throw insults and complicated terminology at anyone who dares to pull their head out of that sand and disagree with the "Consensus"! But as I said, it really doesn't matter in the long run, we are ALL going to be floating in the Soup.

And at present, no one will get out alive, because, we have no place to go, to. Take the excess water to Mars, and create a new Edin, at least then, we will have a fighting chance.

Earthquakes are also a warning for us, humanity, to get our collective "Fish do do" together. The sooner, the better.

If all the above is true and correct you can expect a increase in the number earthquakes. But the "Big One" will actually be very minor, it will be the last one.

In any case, time permitting, it won't do you any harm what so ever in exploring the EET and the HE theories. And their isn't anything wrong with having a WELL ROUNDED education.



I hope I haven't offended you. Much of what I share is not directed at you personally, but at the institutions that have closed peoples minds to alternative explanations.

OP you speak of scientists being closed minded but you have stated incorrectly many many times what your assumptions are of science currently.

1) The Earth is definitely not solid
2) The crust floats
3) Sound is known and proven to travel through the Earth, the nature of which has been shown to (through lots of science and evidence) indicate the Earth has a few different density zones of liquid and flowing material.
4) The crust itself is known to be rising and falling in several zones around the world... so the obsession with plates opening in places and closing in places being exactly the same length is just... bad science. You may have a 1km wide opening forming one side, and that same material being taken in at twice the rate at a 0.5km plate. You are ignoring the fact that the crust can fold upwards and downwards and not only at the plate edges.
5) citing conspiracy or mistrust for 'institutions' does not give your argument any more credit, what it actually points at is confirmation bias. Also even in the OP you open by stating and giving a name for you as being someone who is generally against establishments... that doesn't make you more right... it makes you argumentative, nothing more nothing less. Science as we know it right now, can launch a space vehicle, understanding the local gravity of the solar system to land that vehicle on a comet... after years of flight... So being this type of persona, would you still say we don't know how to do it? because an institution did it?
6) Most scientists are interested in assimilating information, you are of the opinion that 'real scientists' are not found in universities... because?... because... bias? Sorry but again it adds no credit to yourself to approach the issue with "I don't trust them because... institution"

a reply to: ErosA433

OP you speak of scientists being closed minded but you have stated incorrectly many many times what your assumptions are of science currently.

I think you might be a bit confused or maybe misread something. I believe "Institutions" have closed the minds of students. I have the greatest respect for open minded, honest, scientists, not ones that just push the consensus view.

You are ignoring the fact that the crust can fold upwards and downwards and not only at the plate edges.

No I haven't. The phenomenon is clearly documented right down the middle of the United States called the great planes. At one time the entire north American continent tilted in one direction, then the other. That clearly shows up and down movements. It was also covered with a inland sea. You can see parts of it in Arizona at the Petrified Forest National Park. They have a museum that explains much of that.

But since the subject isn't really about ancient continents, I don't offer much in that way. Its not ignored, its just not required to make my point.

Also even in the OP you open by stating and giving a name for you as being someone who is generally against establishments... that doesn't make you more right... it makes you argumentative, nothing more nothing less.

The term is "Iconoclast". And thank you for the compliment. What you have said translated is, A iconoclast is someone who is not going to bow down buy the party line. Well, when it comes to subduction, you are correct, I'm not buying it.

Science as we know it right now, can launch a space vehicle, understanding the local gravity of the solar system to land that vehicle on a comet... after years of flight.

And they do such a great job at it, too. Must be some devoted and honest people involved in the effort. Let me know when they start looking down.

Most scientists are interested in assimilating information, you are of the opinion that 'real scientists' are not found in universities

Absolutely not true, and I never inferred such a thing. Of course there are bad eggs everywhere and I don't think I have stated Higher education has more than the average. I do however draw a line when it comes to those who propose a theory that is unfounded and unobserved. Anyone can read data many different ways. And I agree with those who have stated the theory of subduction is a fraud.

I suppose when honest Scientists in the universities have to bite their tongues or loose their jobs, they too will say " I don't know".

Sorry for making this response short, have to go to live.

Thank you for your observations.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
And in the spirit of simplicity, which I believe Albert would agree, I offer this.

Also in the HE theory there is another force within the planet, call it a anti-gravity, that pushes outward from the central anomaly called the central sun, or "Smoky God", and pushes on the inner surface.

Making up this fictitious "anti-gravity" is exactly the opposite of simple. It's a complication you have to fabricate to hold your flawed model together and there's no evidence for this at all. Even Maxlow would not suggest such a thing.

If you're going to cite ancient myths for a source because you don't like science you can do that but other myths say the Earth is held up by a giant turtle. There's as much evidence for that fictitious turtle as there is for your fictitious anti-gravity, zero. So then you're just picking which myth you like not based on any scientific evidence but based on the known human flaws to tend to jump to wrong conclusions if the scientific method is not applied.

So if we are going to discuss myths instead of science you're posting in the wrong forum, and my favorite myth requires other turtles to hold up the turtle that is holding up the Earth, like this:



This is the realm of mythology we are now in, making up stuff like antigravity or turtles.

If you weren't making up stuff like anti-gravity you could easily do calculations yourself to show what the density of the Earth's crust would need to be to keep satellites in orbit, and you will find the value you calculate doesn't match observation. You don't need any institution to tell you that, you can make the same observations made centuries ago, derive the same math that Newton did for how gravity works, and apply it. But of course you won't do this because you've got an idea in your head about how you think things are and you're merely trying to support that idea, not find the truth.