Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: The Expanding Earth is for sure

The Expanding Earth is for sure 15 Apr 2016 01:34 #161

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 6728
  • Likes received: 1506
rodin wrote:
Frog, its not really like glass blowing, and the egg analogy was used by Maxlow. Imagine you inject extra liquid into an egg without breaking the membrane. The land masses are 100km thick and very old, the sea maybe a fifth or tenth of than and thin. Now you make a good point, what exactly are the mid ocean ridges? Well to start with that was where the growth exuded. Easy. Now to the shrinkage

The continents would be the areas of MOST resistance, therefore the loss is going to come from the seas. You would perhaps expect a crinkling of the surface of the sea bed. I recall reading somewhere that this is seen in the Pacific. Since we do actually observe subduction, it would appear that the sea beds are being squeezed back by the continents, and in the case of North America you can see the mid ocean ridge is actually lost under Canada etc. Note that the width of time zones is greatest at the ridges and least by the continents. Either the expansion is still accelerating, and I am wrong, or some other effect is at work here. I am not a professional or even qualified geologist, so i will not attempt to "read" the rocks too deeply, just the shapes and sizes.

The current model states that subduction takes place because:
1 - oceanic rocks (mainly basalts at surface below a thin layer of ooze) are denser (~3.0 spec grav.) than continental rocks (~2.7)
2 - oceanic rocks contain more water than continental rocks and are able to "glide" underneath (it's not such a clear boundary, more of a doughy mass) the continents

The rate of sea floor spreading is not constant over the present globe nor has been in the geological past. Mawlow claims that it is a "random process", but it is widely accepted that it's because of the internal movements of the Earth, so not random, but based on geophysics.
Now i have observed that 300M years ago there is evidence for a planet with roughly twice the day length.

How have you observed that?? Which rocks or minerals or fossils register day lengths?? :O
This would correspond to about 50% greater diameter than today, and therefore about half the gravity or less.

Huh, why would gravity depend on diameter? It depends on the mass of the Earth. And how do you account for a 50% shrinking, how is that compaction done, where is the material going?

An Earth @ 300 Ma with a 50% greater diameter than today would that not mean a shrinking and not an expanding Earth?

On what basis do you draw these conclusions? :conf:
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Last Edit: 15 Apr 2016 01:35 by Gaia.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 15 Apr 2016 01:54 #162

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 6728
  • Likes received: 1506
Watching this video which is more complete:



He claims that "to make the plate tectonic model fit Europe and the Caribbean were arbitrarily split from Africa and North and South America"??

There are just many more plates than just 2, that's the whole point. It is not "made fit", yet Europe and Africa are clearly separated and move towards eachother forming the Southern European mountain ranges... Nothing "arbitrarily"? :sadno:

The current model states that the Caribbean plate moved from West to East over the last ~15 Ma, due to oblique compression producing mountain ranges in northern Venezuela and Colombia:



About India "this is totally unnecessary". It's not about necessity? It's to align the model with the observations. The observed tectonic features show that also there we have and had many more plates than just 2...?

Then around 24 minutes he presents his expanding Earth model that is demonstrably wrong:

- he does not include any movements between the continents other than the mid-oceanic ridges; where do the Alps come from? The Zagros? India up until the Cretaceous attached to Asia?
- he does not vary sea water level. The Silurian is famous for marine fossil life found deep in the continents (e.g. Poland) but his Silurian shows "Poland" completely emerged out of the ocean, there would only be an ocean on the antipode of Poland? How come we have those marine fossils of that age in Poland then?
- where is erosion? If you keep sea level restricted to the oceans and the continents would be exposed for 400+ million years, then you'd have much more erosion than in the present model? Also that would mean much more resedimentation, also not shown in his model?

He claims that "the plate tectonic model is only based on magnetics". That is not true. Then he continues that only the latitude can be constrained using paleomagnetostratigraphy and that is true.

What about:
- present day movements extrapolated back in time?
- fault lineamens showing the direction of movements also in the past?
- tectonic features along exposed fault lines (mineral growth, striae, etc.)?
- biostratigraphy, fossils found on different subcontinents or microplates?
- volcanism and especially paleo-volcanism?

Dr. Maxlow, you may have a Ph. D in geology and I see you have some knowledge of the subject, but you claim "this model both makes longitude and latitude fit". That is not a scientific method...

What a model needs to do is fit the observations and predict future ones right. If you state your model fits, because your model fits, that's circular reasoning. Where is the data, the observations to make the claim that longitude in your model is correct? How is that done?

Claim "this model has a 99% fit of the continent shapes, which is impossible in plate tectonics". Yes, that is because you keep the shapes of the continents constant through time?! Plate tectonics doesn't do that; continents reshape, converge, diverge, move around independently, not like the giant landmass you consider "true".

In plate tectonics those cycles of convergence and divergence are called Wilson cycles, but he does not take that into account apparently?

Whut? He claims that in the Permian, at the time of Pangaea there was no ocean? Only continent? Where are the marine fossils from the Permian then coming from? If there was no surface water and only land mass also the climate would have been such that there is no rain. Nowhere. Not just in the typical Permian desert sediments (in plate tectonics located indeed in a huge continental area, but bounded by ocean) but nowhere; there's no ice (it's a greenhouse), no surface waters and thus no rain? How could life even survive back then??

Oh no he claims there were "only shallow continental seas"? Well if the climate was still super hot those evaporate quickly and rain is very localised.

He also claims the Earth had a diameter of 50% of today and that "all the oceanic crust has been consumed by the mantle"? How? If there's no plate tectonics? It just appeared in the Jurassic out of the mantle but that was of a planet of ~60% the size of today? How does he get that done physically? Densities, pressures, conservation of mass, etc.?

If you only have shallow continental seas then there is no oceanic current, no circulation. That would make up a completely different climate of the world, both marine and terrestrial. Unimaginably different. Where are all the pieces of evidence to support this idea? :conf:

He goes on "we just don't know what the geology of the now covered by ice sheets Arctic and Antarctic are". Whut? Of the Arctic indeed limited as it is all oceanic, apart from the northern slopes of Russia, Norway, Alaska, Greenland and Canada, but there have been several geological expeditions to Antarctica?! A friend of mine has done fieldwork there! :ponda:

Dr. Mawlow, if you attack an established model, please make sure you have the model you attack at least right. I've seen this much more with all the other Earth topics but they are done by amateurs, you're a dr. in geology FFS!

NO, we are not "led to believe Antarctica was statically at the pole". Like all continents also Antarctica moved over geologic time.

And Greenland is suddenly 3/4 of a half-circle of the Earth (90 degrees)? So some 8000 kms long or so? That cannot be right...

Oh this Permian model was his MSc. thesis? Using "oceanic mapping" to construct "those globes"? What about all other data sources? If you only use oceanic mapping, no wonder you reject plate tectonics because the oldest oceanic crust is only Jurassic in age, older crust has been consumed in subduction zones...

But if subduction does not exist, what are those subduction zones then? How are the mountain ranges (Rockies, Central American Cordillera, Andes) produced? Where those the volcanism come from? ???

It gets crazier. He claims that over 75% of Earth's history this "expansion" was only 100 mu per year (the thickness of a hair).

Mister, you are a mining geologist. It cannot be that during the day you are working with error margins on those Pilbara cratonic ores which are big, to the frustration of managers and engineers, but at night you make a model where you claim you can nail something down over billions (!) of years with a precision smaller than a human hair. This is completely unscientific...

WHATT?? "Within 300-500 million years the Earth will reach the same radius as Jupiter" ? HOW? Which process causes this and where is all that extra mass coming from?

And why don't we see this on the well-studied surface of the Moon (not by fake Apollo, but by telescopes). The ages for those craters are estimates, but if the Moon would have grown at the same pace it would need to show on her surface??

"The Earth is in an intermediate stage between rocky and gaseous planets"? How did you come up with that?

"The Earth will develop an enormous gaseous sphere". But still a rocky core, so not "just like Jupiter and Saturn"... :yerright:

Hey James, that little hand waiving (no animation, model?) about that "gravitational collapse" you talk about... super elevations of 580 kms? Whut? What does that mean for our atmosphere? Paleoclimate? And finally, after 36 min you talk about erosion... The amount of erosion of a 580 km elevated continent bounded by a hugely deep sea is enormous. Do we see evidence for this in the geological record? Those extremes are not seen in the last 300 Ma since your Permian 50% globe Earth...

Whut, the Red Sea an example of your model? The Red Sea is a good example for plate tectonics, not against it...

Huh, Greenland grows over time (when going back, so shrinks in reality) from 3/4 of a quarter circle to now more than 90 degrees latitude in the Neoproterozoic?? :O

He claims that fitting continents back in time in the plate tectonic model is impossible and that continents moved "at random". No, it is not impossible to reconstruct the paleocontinents only if you already assume only your own model of constant continents. :iitm:

Continents are thought to move according to large-scale movements in the mantle, not "at random"....
rodin wrote:
And another thing.....

If Earth was about half the diameter with 1/4 of today's gravity so that dinosaurs could exist,

Why does the Earth need a smaller diameter in order for dinosaurs to exist?
Where is all that material then? If the Earth would only have 1/4 gravity of now, where is that ~75% mass gone to? :conf:
how would it manage to hold onto a life supporting atmosphere?


It's the other way around; life is reactive to its environment, not "life is a given and how do we shape the Earth to support life" but "how does life adapt itself to (changing) environments?".
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Last Edit: 15 Apr 2016 03:22 by Gaia.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 16 Apr 2016 14:37 #163

  • rodin
  • rodin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Spam Killer
  • BELIEF IS THE ENEMY OF TRUTH
  • Posts: 4920
  • Likes received: 1827
First up let's get the model straight.

The older continental crusts fit together to form a sphere absent the younger oceans. The fit is not only in shape, ie pieces of a jigsaw puzzle fitting together. It applies also to geology, minerals, rock types etc. In other words a geological picture emerges once the pieces are fitted together, just as a picture emerges once a jigsaw puzzle is solved. This is impossible under the "wandering supercontinent" model.

SO - the Earth was just over half today's diameter in the distant past.

What's more, Neal Adams, who has a dog in this fight, made some excellent animations using images of the surface of the Moon, and other solar objects suggesting the expansion evolution mechanism was perhaps common across the entire Solar System.

nealadams.com/science-videos/

The above videos used to be available free on you tube, some still are.

CONCLUSION : The geometrical/geological evidence says : Earth, Moon and many other bodies in the Solar System show signs of expansion post crust formation.

As I said there is evidence from other sources, namely TIDAL RHYTHMITES, when analysed without bias, that show fewer days in the month around 300,000 BC, indicating LONGER days/SLOWER rotation. There is also evidence (standard model) that young Earth rotated at 4 times the present rate.

CONCLUSION : If the above evidence can be corroborated, the suggestion is that Earth underwent a non-linear expansion event, and even beyond its present diameter, before relaxing back to its present size.

What other evidence supports the claim of Expansion followed by Contraction leading to an Earth presently about twice the diameter of the original?

1. The Mid Pacific Ridge, which should, under the plate tectonics paradigm, should lie midway between large land masses, instead disappears en masse under the North American continent, indicating that much of the Pacific has been subducted. This observation is consistent with an expanded Earth now relaxing back in size.

2. The dinosaurs and giantism in general would flourish under lower gravity and perhaps slower Earth rotation (more gentle atmospherics). Such an environment would be present in an expanded Earth.

(Note that by expanded, I do not mean having accreted more matter to do so. I mean as in a phase change, such as we would have if a small limp of solid CO2 was inserted into a balloon. As the CO2 warmed, it would turn to gas, and the balloon would expand. Its mass however would not change.)

To recap : There is large scale FORENSIC evidence for a nonlinear event that caused a gas to be produced deep within the Earth that "blew up" the globe. There is evidence that this phenomenon is perhaps universal for all larger solar bodies (Earth, Moon, Planets and larger Moons, and maybe even the Sun.) There is also evidence that some of this gas was either bound back into non-volatile compounds, or escaped into space, thus reducing pressure within the mantle, allowing for some relaxation of diameter to follow expansion.

Now the question becomes - is there a viable mechanism to account for observed Earth and other heavenly body changes? The answer is yes, and there is also a commercial/control motive for keeping this information away from the public as it turns out.... In fact a supremely elegant (simple) self-consistent model satisfies measured geology, known physics, and an awareness of conspiracy modus operandi....

More later
To understand who rules over you look to whom you tube can't criticise

The media isn't there to cover the news
It's there to cover the news up

All establishment lies pass through three stages
First, they are accepted as being self evident
Second, they are exposed by diligent research
Third, they are enforced

"Communism is the bloodiest, most difficult and the most terrible way from capitalism to capitalism" from Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 16 Apr 2016 14:56 #164

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20433
  • Likes received: 7957
If the earth was expanding, this theory should hold true for the concave earth model, too, shouldn't it, rodin?

This is no provocation, but a serious question.


.
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 16 Apr 2016 15:16 #165

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 6728
  • Likes received: 1506
rodin wrote:
First up let's get the model straight.

The older continental crusts fit together to form a sphere absent the younger oceans. The fit is not only in shape, ie pieces of a jigsaw puzzle fitting together. It applies also to geology, minerals, rock types etc. In other words a geological picture emerges once the pieces are fitted together, just as a picture emerges once a jigsaw puzzle is solved. This is impossible under the "wandering supercontinent" model.

It does not apply to the geology, that's the whole problem of it.

The plate tectonic movements are modeled based on the presence of marine environments vs terrestrial environments. In this expanding Earth model it is impossible to get marine rocks high up in the mountains. They should be static. So that model needs to explain all the observations. How do those marine rocks end up in the Alps, the Andes, the Zagros and many more mountain chains?

Another point is obduction. Obducted rocks are oceanic sediments (ooze) and the upper layers of oceanic crust (basalts, gabbros) obducted (the opposite of subducted) to get exposed at surface. A famous example is Oman but there are more. Cyprus is another good example.

Under the expanding Earth model how is the presence of those deep water oceanic rocks at surface explained? If subduction doesn't exist, then also obduction doesn't. So how did those rocks end up there?
SO - the Earth was just over half today's diameter in the distant past.

Whoo, not too fast. You're jumping to a conclusion without addressing all of the observations that are now explained with the plate tectonic model. That is impossible and that is what James Mawlow did too; he left out so many methods other than "oceanic mapping" that shows he is not approaching the problem from an open-minded scientific point of view, yet back-reasoning; starting with a model and see how you can fit certain observations in there and just ignore the rest...
What's more, Neal Adams, who has a dog in this fight, made some excellent animations using images of the surface of the Moon, and other solar objects suggesting the expansion evolution mechanism was perhaps common across the entire Solar System.

nealadams.com/science-videos/

Thanks, will check it out.
As I said there is evidence from other sources, namely TIDAL RHYTHMITES, when analysed without bias, that show fewer days in the month around 300,000 BC, indicating LONGER days/SLOWER rotation. There is also evidence (standard model) that young Earth rotated at 4 times the present rate.

You were talking about 300 MILLION years ago and now it's 300 THOUSAND? That is 1000th of it.

The analysis of sediments is not 100% watertight. You cannot just take a sequence of laminae and say how many days there were in a month. The factors contributing to the differential thicknesses are far too big to draw those firm conclusions.

Weather (storms, rains), changing river flow, tectonic events in the hinterland, etc. affect the deposition of those sediments.

That is irrespective of a model, it's a given of geology; the Earth is changing all the time.
CONCLUSION : If the above evidence can be corroborated, the suggestion is that Earth underwent a non-linear expansion event, and even beyond its present diameter, before relaxing back to its present size.

Even if you take 1 sequence of some cms as firm evidence, then it's impossible to base your whole hypothesis on that. If all the other tidal sequences deposited in different times of the geological record ALL show that and you can calculate the number of days in a month from all of them and when they plot they line up exponentially, then you have a serious investigation at hand.

Just cherry picking 1 tidal sequence and use that to conclude your model is right while at the same time ignoring all the others is not science.
What other evidence supports the claim of Expansion followed by Contraction leading to an Earth presently about twice the diameter of the original?

1. The Mid Pacific Ridge, which should, under the plate tectonics paradigm, should lie midway between large land masses,

No, why should it be "midway"? Because the Atlantic Ridge is more-or-less midway between Africa and South America? That only means that the spreading rate to both sides in the Atlantic is roughly equal, that doesn't mean that that needs to be the case always?
instead disappears en masse under the North American continent, indicating that much of the Pacific has been subducted. This observation is consistent with an expanded Earth now relaxing back in size.

Not only under North America. On either side of the Pacific Plate (or "area" in the expanding Earth idea) there is subduction; the Eastern side the Aleuts until Tierra del Fuego, along the Rockies, Central American range and the long Andes and the Western side from New Zealand via the Marianes and Japan to the Kurils.

If subduction "doesn't exist" under the expansion Earth model, then what are all those troughs and trenches then? How come the profile from the continent to the ocean shows a bulge and deep trench? What is happening there if it's not subduction?
2. The dinosaurs and giantism in general would flourish under lower gravity and perhaps slower Earth rotation (more gentle atmospherics). Such an environment would be present in an expanded Earth.

Yes, but that is not scientific reasoning; it is back-reasoning. I am no expert on physiology but there might be other explanations for the giantism of dinosaurs. More oxygen in the atmosphere I think of first. So metabolisms are affected, etc.

The atmosphere rotates with Earth so that factor shouldn't be important.

Also, if giantism is your argument to support the idea that a slower, smaller Earth would produce (or rather allow for) giant animals and a faster Earth rotation and bigger Earth smaller, then how do you explain the Pleistocene megafauna? Mammoths, giant sloths, giant rhinos, deer, etc.?
(Note that by expanded, I do not mean having accreted more matter to do so. I mean as in a phase change, such as we would have if a small limp of solid CO2 was inserted into a balloon. As the CO2 warmed, it would turn to gas, and the balloon would expand. Its mass however would not change.)

But is there any evidence that there are these phase changes happening? The interior of the Earth consists of solids and liquids, not gases. The volumetric increase of a gas is way bigger than the capacity for liquids and especially solids to do the same.
To recap : There is large scale FORENSIC evidence for a nonlinear event that caused a gas to be produced deep within the Earth that "blew up" the globe. There is evidence that this phenomenon is perhaps universal for all larger solar bodies (Earth, Moon, Planets and larger Moons, and maybe even the Sun.) There is also evidence that some of this gas was either bound back into non-volatile compounds, or escaped into space, thus reducing pressure within the mantle, allowing for some relaxation of diameter to follow expansion.

But then we should see, in our time where the expansion is set at a -constant, universal?- 22 mm per year an enormous amount of gas escaping from the Earth. Do we see that? I don't know of those observations. Gases are escaping from the Earth for sure (both in oceanic environments; black and white smokers and in continental; natural gas (methane) for instance), but on such a scale that it would allow a huge volume increase (22 mm * Earth surface area per year)??
Now the question becomes - is there a viable mechanism to account for observed Earth and other heavenly body changes? The answer is yes, and there is also a commercial/control motive for keeping this information away from the public as it turns out.... In fact a supremely elegant (simple) self-consistent model satisfies measured geology, known physics, and an awareness of conspiracy modus operandi....

More later

This latter message is what I heard from Flat Earthers, Hollow Earthers, Concave Earthers, Young Creationist Earthers, etc. That is not an argument in physical science. I agree that many conspiracies are around, it's silly to deny that, but in science it is about observations vs models.

If the expanding Earth model really is "the best model explaining all the observations" then those observations need to be explained using the model and better than with plate tectonics. Not just take a few examples which hint to support your model and just ignore the rest.

In the meantime I have watched this short series of two videos (10 and 12 minutes) which is presented (by an amateur?) much better than the video of Mawlow:




In the video the author "explains" the process behind the expansion not in detail but says it is because of positrons. I didn't catch why that process would produce such an expansion and it is contradictory to your idea of phase changes...?
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 16 Apr 2016 15:29 #166

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 6728
  • Likes received: 1506
James Mawlow stated in his video (I think it was 2005?) that:
- the Earth is expanding with 22 mm per year
- that process is exponentially increasing
- during the Archean this process was very much reduced with just 100 mu ("the thickness of a human hair") per year

I don't know his formula for the exponential increase, but taking that 22 mm for 2005, it means the volume of expansion is:

Earth surface area: 510,072,000 km2 * 22 * 10-6 km = 11,221.6 km3 of yearly expansion

This statement of "22 mm per year" also becomes questionable because it would not be universal; the Earth is covered with so many different materials with different properties that this increase would be different according to the crustal thicknesses, rock types and densities, amounts of fluids in pore space and minerals, etc. etc.

Only on a homogeneous Earth this process can be universal; equal amounts of expansion everywhere, just like the "egg example" he uses. But the Earth is far from homogeneous?!
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 16 Apr 2016 18:55 #167

  • rodin
  • rodin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Spam Killer
  • BELIEF IS THE ENEMY OF TRUTH
  • Posts: 4920
  • Likes received: 1827
Gaia wrote:
It does not apply to the geology, that's the whole problem of it.

The plate tectonic movements are modeled based on the presence of marine environments vs terrestrial environments. In this expanding Earth model it is impossible to get marine rocks high up in the mountains. They should be static. So that model needs to explain all the observations. How do those marine rocks end up in the Alps, the Andes, the Zagros and many more mountain chains?

Oh yes it DOES apply to geology. Mineral deposits across the gaps in the smaller sphere match up as well as the physical shapes. As for mountain fish, tectonics cannot explain. However a SMALLER EARTH could easily have been submerged in water, especially during the initial stages of the redox reaction I am about to re-reveal to you.
Another point is obduction. Obducted rocks are oceanic sediments (ooze) and the upper layers of oceanic crust (basalts, gabbros) obducted (the opposite of subducted) to get exposed at surface. A famous example is Oman but there are more. Cyprus is another good example.

Under the expanding Earth model how is the presence of those deep water oceanic rocks at surface explained? If subduction doesn't exist, then also obduction doesn't. So how did those rocks end up there?

expansion = obduction I guess

contraction = subduction (along lines of least resistance)

Explained!
Whoo, not too fast. You're jumping to a conclusion without addressing all of the observations that are now explained with the plate tectonic model. That is impossible and that is what James Mawlow did too; he left out so many methods other than "oceanic mapping" that shows he is not approaching the problem from an open-minded scientific point of view, yet back-reasoning; starting with a model and see how you can fit certain observations in there and just ignore the rest...

A conclusion borne out by the jigsaw puzzle solution for the continents + shelves. And furthermore supported by the standard model which says young Earth days were 1/4 of today's. This fits my model of phase change expansion v accretion, exactly what you would expect from angular momentum calculations
What's more, Neal Adams, who has a dog in this fight, made some excellent animations using images of the surface of the Moon, and other solar objects suggesting the expansion evolution mechanism was perhaps common across the entire Solar System.

nealadams.com/science-videos/

Thanks, will check it out.
You were talking about 300 MILLION years ago and now it's 300 THOUSAND? That is 1000th of it.

My error
The analysis of sediments is not 100% watertight. You cannot just take a sequence of laminae and say how many days there were in a month. The factors contributing to the differential thicknesses are far too big to draw those firm conclusions.

Weather (storms, rains), changing river flow, tectonic events in the hinterland, etc. affect the deposition of those sediments.

I am aware of this, I chose data with quiescent weather over lunar months, suggesting also larger diameter, slower rotation, gentler weather etc.
CONCLUSION : If the above evidence can be corroborated, the suggestion is that Earth underwent a non-linear expansion event, and even beyond its present diameter, before relaxing back to its present size.

Even if you take 1 sequence of some cms as firm evidence, then it's impossible to base your whole hypothesis on that. If all the other tidal sequences deposited in different times of the geological record ALL show that and you can calculate the number of days in a month from all of them and when they plot they line up exponentially, then you have a serious investigation at hand.

Just cherry picking 1 tidal sequence and use that to conclude your model is right while at the same time ignoring all the others is not science.
What other evidence supports the claim of Expansion followed by Contraction leading to an Earth presently about twice the diameter of the original?

1. The Mid Pacific Ridge, which should, under the plate tectonics paradigm, should lie midway between large land masses,
No, why should it be "midway"? Because the Atlantic Ridge is more-or-less midway between Africa and South America? That only means that the spreading rate to both sides in the Atlantic is roughly equal, that doesn't mean that that needs to be the case always?

Pretty obvious why it should at least be comparable wrt west coast USA as mid atlantic is to africa/europe
Not only under North America. On either side of the Pacific Plate (or "area" in the expanding Earth idea) there is subduction; the Eastern side the Aleuts until Tierra del Fuego, along the Rockies, Central American range and the long Andes and the Western side from New Zealand via the Marianes and Japan to the Kurils.

If subduction "doesn't exist" under the expansion Earth model, then what are all those troughs and trenches then? How come the profile from the continent to the ocean shows a bulge and deep trench? What is happening there if it's not subduction?

Subduction as said before is consequence of shrinkage
Yes, but that is not scientific reasoning; it is back-reasoning. I am no expert on physiology but there might be other explanations for the giantism of dinosaurs. More oxygen in the atmosphere I think of first. So metabolisms are affected, etc.

The mechanics of dinosaurs do not stack with g
The atmosphere rotates with Earth so that factor shouldn't be important.

Of course it is, think jet stream
Also, if giantism is your argument to support the idea that a slower, smaller Earth would produce (or rather allow for) giant animals and a faster Earth rotation and bigger Earth smaller, then how do you explain the Pleistocene megafauna? Mammoths, giant sloths, giant rhinos, deer, etc.?

Scaling back from much larger scale,. not quite current levels
But is there any evidence that there are these phase changes happening? The interior of the Earth consists of solids and liquids, not gases. The volumetric increase of a gas is way bigger than the capacity for liquids and especially solids to do the same.

Loads of evidence
But then we should see, in our time where the expansion is set at a -constant, universal?- 22 mm per year an enormous amount of gas escaping from the Earth. Do we see that? I don't know of those observations. Gases are escaping from the Earth for sure (both in oceanic environments; black and white smokers and in continental; natural gas (methane) for instance), but on such a scale that it would allow a huge volume increase (22 mm * Earth surface area per year)??

No, the violent changes are over, in the past, but were responsible for the creation of life, at least provided the chemistry to enable it.

As I said

Now the question becomes - is there a viable mechanism to account for observed Earth and other heavenly body changes? The answer is yes, and there is also a commercial/control motive for keeping this information away from the public as it turns out.... In fact a supremely elegant (simple) self-consistent model satisfies measured geology, known physics, and an awareness of conspiracy modus operandi....

More later
This latter message is what I heard from Flat Earthers, Hollow Earthers, Concave Earthers, Young Creationist Earthers, etc. That is not an argument in physical science. I agree that many conspiracies are around, it's silly to deny that, but in science it is about observations vs models.

Conspiracy angle is corroborating not forensic evidence, I base models on forensic.
If the expanding Earth model really is "the best model explaining all the observations" then those observations need to be explained using the model and better than with plate tectonics. Not just take a few examples which hint to support your model and just ignore the rest.

True, but what trumps the Jigsaw? That is the key starting point, just as WTC7 serves for unravelling 911
In the meantime I have watched this short series of two videos (10 and 12 minutes) which is presented (by an amateur?) much better than the video of Mawlow:




In the video the author "explains" the process behind the expansion not in detail but says it is because of positrons. I didn't catch why that process would produce such an expansion and it is contradictory to your idea of phase changes...?

My idea is nothing like that. During accretion phase matter is ionised, note helium does not hang about because it is noble gas, and in any case cannot ionise to free proton and electron, hence would not be caught up in the electromagnetic flux of the accretion phase which was most likely plasmatic to some extent due to energies involved. But HYDROGEN WOULD BE especially being 75% of the universe.... would be the dominant element either as plasma or in solution or compounds

Interesting that hydrogen is super soluble in Fe at HTP, we are talking of a trend towards delocalised protons and electrons, hence density can massively increase.
To understand who rules over you look to whom you tube can't criticise

The media isn't there to cover the news
It's there to cover the news up

All establishment lies pass through three stages
First, they are accepted as being self evident
Second, they are exposed by diligent research
Third, they are enforced

"Communism is the bloodiest, most difficult and the most terrible way from capitalism to capitalism" from Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina
Last Edit: 16 Apr 2016 18:59 by rodin.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 16 Apr 2016 19:26 #168

  • rodin
  • rodin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Spam Killer
  • BELIEF IS THE ENEMY OF TRUTH
  • Posts: 4920
  • Likes received: 1827
PFIZIPFEI wrote:
If the earth was expanding, this theory should hold true for the concave earth model, too, shouldn't it, rodin?

This is no provocation, but a serious question.


.

The concave earth model is derived by inverting all the maths so yes it would. Also if you were to go up into space (like those amateur rocketeers did) the concave earth model predicates that you should appear to see a ball earth ie convex horizon as light need to follow curved paths in this model.

You never understood this, hence your belief made you not see the curve that was so apparent to everyone else.

What really challenges concave Earth is

1. Equatorial bulge, explained by centripetal force exerted by spinning ball
2. Occam's razor
3. Mechanism for expanding concave Earth - what could it possible be? Wheras for concave Earth mechanism is both elegant and would be worth suppressing by the energy industry which is why it has been
To understand who rules over you look to whom you tube can't criticise

The media isn't there to cover the news
It's there to cover the news up

All establishment lies pass through three stages
First, they are accepted as being self evident
Second, they are exposed by diligent research
Third, they are enforced

"Communism is the bloodiest, most difficult and the most terrible way from capitalism to capitalism" from Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 16 Apr 2016 20:25 #169

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20433
  • Likes received: 7957
rodin wrote:
yes it would


Thanks for a clear answer!

I mean it.


.
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 18 Apr 2016 08:10 #170

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 6728
  • Likes received: 1506
rodin wrote:
Oh yes it DOES apply to geology. Mineral deposits across the gaps in the smaller sphere match up as well as the physical shapes.

Any evidence to back this claim up?
As for mountain fish, tectonics cannot explain.

Not only fish, mainly microbial life forms such as foraminifera, but yes plate tectonics is very well able to do so.
However a SMALLER EARTH could easily have been submerged in water, especially during the initial stages of the redox reaction I am about to re-reveal to you.

The point is that Mawlow states that there were no oceans, as he takes the 180 Ma age of the oldest oceanic crust as "proof" there was none before...
expansion = obduction I guess

contraction = subduction (along lines of least resistance)

Explained!

Trolling is not going to help you. If you've got no clue of geology then better stay away or learn something. :facepalm:
A conclusion borne out by the jigsaw puzzle solution for the continents + shelves. And furthermore supported by the standard model which says young Earth days were 1/4 of today's. This fits my model of phase change expansion v accretion, exactly what you would expect from angular momentum calculations

I don't understand a word of what you say. It's just putting terms in sequence and thinking you've explained anything. Well, you haven't.
I am aware of this, I chose data with quiescent weather over lunar months, suggesting also larger diameter, slower rotation, gentler weather etc.

Huh? You don't KNOW it was "quiescent weather". Nobody has been there when those sediments were deposited.

"Gentler weather" is impossible to conclude from a mere sequence of tidal deposits.
Pretty obvious why it should at least be comparable wrt west coast USA as mid atlantic is to africa/europe

"Pretty obvious", and that's your "scientific" answer?? :larf: :larf: :larf: :larf:
Subduction as said before is consequence of shrinkage

Huh? Subduction doesn't exist according to Expanding Earthers. And "shrinkage"? I thought you defended expansion, which "shrinkage"?
The mechanics of dinosaurs do not stack with g

Is that a fact? Why not? They may have been large with same g, just with other factors (e.g. higher O2-amounts).
Of course it is, think jet stream
The jet stream has no influence on life on Earth, why should it matter?
Scaling back from much larger scale,. not quite current levels
There are 60 millions years in between. When we had terror birds, the biggest snake on Earth, huge crocodiles and turtles, etc. Your argument for giantism in the time of the dinosaurs (~200-65 Ma) was "the Earth was smaller and rotated slower". If that was the case, then how to explain giantism at only 1 Ma?
But is there any evidence that there are these phase changes happening? The interior of the Earth consists of solids and liquids, not gases. The volumetric increase of a gas is way bigger than the capacity for liquids and especially solids to do the same.

Loads of evidence

Yet none given... :ponda:
But then we should see, in our time where the expansion is set at a -constant, universal?- 22 mm per year an enormous amount of gas escaping from the Earth. Do we see that? I don't know of those observations. Gases are escaping from the Earth for sure (both in oceanic environments; black and white smokers and in continental; natural gas (methane) for instance), but on such a scale that it would allow a huge volume increase (22 mm * Earth surface area per year)??

No, the violent changes are over, in the past, but were responsible for the creation of life, at least provided the chemistry to enable it.

As I said

Now the question becomes - is there a viable mechanism to account for observed Earth and other heavenly body changes? The answer is yes, and there is also a commercial/control motive for keeping this information away from the public as it turns out.... In fact a supremely elegant (simple) self-consistent model satisfies measured geology, known physics, and an awareness of conspiracy modus operandi....

More later
This latter message is what I heard from Flat Earthers, Hollow Earthers, Concave Earthers, Young Creationist Earthers, etc. That is not an argument in physical science. I agree that many conspiracies are around, it's silly to deny that, but in science it is about observations vs models.

Conspiracy angle is corroborating not forensic evidence, I base models on forensic.
If the expanding Earth model really is "the best model explaining all the observations" then those observations need to be explained using the model and better than with plate tectonics. Not just take a few examples which hint to support your model and just ignore the rest.

True, but what trumps the Jigsaw? That is the key starting point, just as WTC7 serves for unravelling 911
In the meantime I have watched this short series of two videos (10 and 12 minutes) which is presented (by an amateur?) much better than the video of Mawlow:




In the video the author "explains" the process behind the expansion not in detail but says it is because of positrons. I didn't catch why that process would produce such an expansion and it is contradictory to your idea of phase changes...?

My idea is nothing like that. During accretion phase matter is ionised, note helium does not hang about because it is noble gas, and in any case cannot ionise to free proton and electron, hence would not be caught up in the electromagnetic flux of the accretion phase which was most likely plasmatic to some extent due to energies involved. But HYDROGEN WOULD BE especially being 75% of the universe.... would be the dominant element either as plasma or in solution or compounds

Interesting that hydrogen is super soluble in Fe at HTP, we are talking of a trend towards delocalised protons and electrons, hence density can massively increase.
[/quote]
If the Earth would expand then in "young" archeological finds we would see that.

A 22 mm expansion per year taken over 5000 years (pyramids) would mean 110 meters uplift! That creates an enormous bulge and thus should lead to cracking. That is not observed.

Same for Roman roads, etc.

Every rock >300 Ma on Earth would have been cracked to pieces with an uplift of 6370 km.... not observed though...

Really, this "model" is complete bullcrap. Don't get caught up in it, it does not fit the most basic of observations...
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 18 Apr 2016 13:10 #171

  • rodin
  • rodin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Spam Killer
  • BELIEF IS THE ENEMY OF TRUTH
  • Posts: 4920
  • Likes received: 1827
Gaia wrote:
rodin wrote:
Oh yes it DOES apply to geology. Mineral deposits across the gaps in the smaller sphere match up as well as the physical shapes.

Any evidence to back this claim up?

Yes, look at the way the pieces interlock. Bear in mind there is no dispute that the East coast of America was once joined to the West coast of Europe/Africa, that is the Pangea model also.



Now look just at silver and gold deposits for starters. See the seams that cross the PACIFIC divide? Like Au thu Alaska across the Bering Strait? I did a map of multiple minerals and hgeology and found the correlation across the Pacific matches the KNOWN correlation across the Atlantic.
As for mountain fish, tectonics cannot explain.

Not only fish, mainly microbial life forms such as foraminifera, but yes plate tectonics is very well able to do so.

I do not think Tectonics CAN explain this, since here the molten magma circulates UNDER the older crust plates which float ON TOP.
However a SMALLER EARTH could easily have been submerged in water, especially during the initial stages of the redox reaction I am about to re-reveal to you.

The point is that Mawlow states that there were no oceans, as he takes the 180 Ma age of the oldest oceanic crust as "proof" there was none before...

Who gives a fuck what Maxlow says? I am only interested in the geometry work, the jigsaw puzzle. I do not subscribe to Neal Adam's thoeries either. I have my OWN model.
expansion = obduction I guess

contraction = subduction (along lines of least resistance)

Explained!

Trolling is not going to help you. If you've got no clue of geology then better stay away or learn something. :facepalm:

See later
A conclusion borne out by the jigsaw puzzle solution for the continents + shelves. And furthermore supported by the standard model which says young Earth days were 1/4 of today's. This fits my model of phase change expansion v accretion, exactly what you would expect from angular momentum calculations

I don't understand a word of what you say. It's just putting terms in sequence and thinking you've explained anything. Well, you haven't.

Go read up on angular momentum, consider the spinning ice skater.... Not my fault you do not know that angular momentum is related to mass x radius squared
I am aware of this, I chose data with quiescent weather over lunar months, suggesting also larger diameter, slower rotation, gentler weather etc.

Huh? You don't KNOW it was "quiescent weather". Nobody has been there when those sediments were deposited.

"Gentler weather" is impossible to conclude from a mere sequence of tidal deposits.

I beg to differ, see examples in this thread (assuming the images still show)
Pretty obvious why it should at least be comparable wrt west coast USA as mid atlantic is to africa/europe

"Pretty obvious", and that's your "scientific" answer?? :larf: :larf: :larf: :larf:

Yes obvious. You have a mid ocean ridge, active, on a static diameter Earth, it should remain mid-ocean.
Subduction as said before is consequence of shrinkage

Huh? Subduction doesn't exist according to Expanding Earthers. And "shrinkage"? I thought you defended expansion, which "shrinkage"?

Read the thread for fuck's sake!
The mechanics of dinosaurs do not stack with g

Is that a fact? Why not? They may have been large with same g, just with other factors (e.g. higher O2-amounts).

There are four problem areas illustrating why the largest dinosaurs and pterosaurs present a paradox to science:

Inadequate bone strength to support the largest dinosaurs

Inadequate muscle strength to lift and move the largest dinosaurs

Unacceptable high blood pressure and stress on the heart of the tallest dinosaurs

Aerodynamics principles showing that the pterosaurs should not have flown

www.dinosaurtheory.com/big_dinosaur.html

Note that in my model there was much lower gravity and very different atmosphere back then
Of course it is, think jet stream
The jet stream has no influence on life on Earth, why should it matter?

Earth rotation has huge impact on weather. Get over it, to argue this point shows what a troll YOU are.

Rest of your post I may comment on later
To understand who rules over you look to whom you tube can't criticise

The media isn't there to cover the news
It's there to cover the news up

All establishment lies pass through three stages
First, they are accepted as being self evident
Second, they are exposed by diligent research
Third, they are enforced

"Communism is the bloodiest, most difficult and the most terrible way from capitalism to capitalism" from Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 18 Apr 2016 15:32 #172

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 6728
  • Likes received: 1506
rodin wrote:
Yes, look at the way the pieces interlock. Bear in mind there is no dispute that the East coast of America was once joined to the West coast of Europe/Africa, that is the Pangea model also.

Yes, that's my whole point against the Expanding Earth, it's simplistic. It only takes into account the Earth as a jigsaw puzzle. There is much more complexity.

The East coast of America was connected to Greenland (clear rift between Greenland and Canada), Iceland and continental Europe.

But Expanding Earth (EE) says that Europe and Africa were 1 piece all the time while Plate Tectonics (PT) says that they were separated during most of the last Wilson cycle (since Pangea) and joined in the Alpine compressional phase.

If you hold EE as truth, how do you explain:
- the numerous earthquakes in southern Europe
- the volcanism in southern Europe (SE Spain, Italy, Greece)
- the presence of oceanic crust in the Mediterranean
- the obducted oceanic crust on Cyprus


Now look just at silver and gold deposits for starters. See the seams that cross the PACIFIC divide? Like Au thu Alaska across the Bering Strait? I did a map of multiple minerals and hgeology and found the correlation across the Pacific matches the KNOWN correlation across the Atlantic.

Ores like silver and gold are not well equipped for those correlations; their formation is due to different processes so if in Alaska gold veins are found they may be completely unrelated to those in Eastern Russia.

Sediments and fossils are much better to correlate.

But the key is also time. If you compare a silver vein in Canada to a silver vein in Siberia and the age of both is completely different, you're comparing apples and pears.
I do not think Tectonics CAN explain this, since here the molten magma circulates UNDER the older crust plates which float ON TOP.

That's geodynamics, the larger scale processes much deeper.

I was talking about compression and mountain building, processes that take place in the Earth's crust. The tectonic model is very well constrained with marine deposits in the Alps, Pyrenees, Carpathians, Rockies, almost every mountain chain in the world has marine sediments high up in the mountains.

In Italy for instance you have Eocene nummulite limestones high up in the Appennines. In EE that would be impossible. In PT it makes sense; African plate pushing against the Eurasian plate and pushing the once marine sediments up till 2000 m high.
Who gives a fuck what Maxlow says? I am only interested in the geometry work, the jigsaw puzzle. I do not subscribe to Neal Adam's thoeries either. I have my OWN model.

Fine, but then your OWN model needs to explain all the observations, not just the puzzle.
Go read up on angular momentum, consider the spinning ice skater.... Not my fault you do not know that angular momentum is related to mass x radius squared

I know that, but you start at the end. You assume a spinning ice skater and then try to fit things to that. The spinning ice skater should be the end result, the conclusion of a well-constrained model...
I beg to differ, see examples in this thread (assuming the images still show)

No, it's a given, it doesn't depend on images. Weather is too short to be concluded from sediments. There are proxies possible (tree rings, charred wood preserved indicating lightning and thus forest fires, certain fossils as insects enclosed in amber, etc.), but mostly weather is much too short to conclude from sediments. Climate is longer-term and better constrained but still depends on proxies, you cannot directly measure a climate from a sedimentary sequence.
Yes obvious. You have a mid ocean ridge, active, on a static diameter Earth, it should remain mid-ocean.

No, because the spreading zone is already not mid-ocean. Then we have the different densities, rigidity of the continental masses (the overriding plate in PT), etc. It is not a jigsaw puzzle, it's a puzzle that is much more complex than that.

The question also becomes; if subduction is not the process by which oceanic crust is consumed, then what are subduction zones that are researched mostly with seismic?



There are four problem areas illustrating why the largest dinosaurs and pterosaurs present a paradox to science:
1 - Inadequate bone strength to support the largest dinosaurs
2 - Inadequate muscle strength to lift and move the largest dinosaurs
3 - Unacceptable high blood pressure and stress on the heart of the tallest dinosaurs
4 - Aerodynamics principles showing that the pterosaurs should not have flown
www.dinosaurtheory.com/big_dinosaur.html
Note that in my model there was much lower gravity and very different atmosphere back then

1 - the bone strength is hard to measure from fossils; they are by definition altered. Different chemical composition of the atmosphere (and thus biosphere) may account for stronger bones with equal volumes than today
2 - muscles are not found; they decayed. So again it may well be the result of different atmospheric chemistry
3 - do we know the thickness of the veins? No we don't, we only have present day reptiles to compare it to. Stress on the hearts is even more impossible to conclude as we haven't found hearts
4 - that may be, they look like much more built (at least in the current interpretations) for gliding, not flying. Like an eagle more than a hummingbird.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 18 Apr 2016 15:47 #173

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 6728
  • Likes received: 1506
How does EE explain the different seismic profiles?

Under PT we have 1, 2 and 3; 1 and 2 are opposite passive margins (both sides of the Atlantic, Brazil and Angola respectively) and 3 is an active margin (Sumatra):

1:

Offshore Brazil - West Atlantic - passive margin
2:

Offshore Angola - East Atlantic - passive margin
3:

Sumatran subduction - active margin
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 19 Apr 2016 14:22 #174

  • rodin
  • rodin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Spam Killer
  • BELIEF IS THE ENEMY OF TRUTH
  • Posts: 4920
  • Likes received: 1827
How does EE explain the different seismic profiles?

Under PT we have 1, 2 and 3; 1 and 2 are opposite passive margins (both sides of the Atlantic, Brazil and Angola respectively) and 3 is an active margin (Sumatra):

How does PT explain your different profiles? According to PT, convection produces magma flows that are subducted at continental shelves. All shelves should show geological activity. However, take the USA. It is the WEST COAST that gets hit, just as the "Mid Pacific Ridge" ploughs under California. Now in my EE > SE Model, the bulk of the expansion took place in the Pacific region, this apparently being the majority path of least resistance to internal core pressure. Being the thinnest, most rapidly expanded area, it was prime candidate for shrinkage when the pressure dropped (due to Hydrogen escaping into space)

Now we have a hangover from the post-dinosaur shrinkage, who knows whether we are still shrinking, hard to measure. Even at the most active periods of expansion, the diameter would be changing by under a meter a year on average. Today, post the drama, we might see a hundredth of that on average.

Why would EE be a bit lop-sided, namely biased to Pacific side? Well, why not? Wherever the crust offered least resistance there would be the first breach, and once a breach was initiated, further breaching would follow through the weakened surface. Another possibility is that the pressure was relieved by an impact event.

Now, for some reason we are told the Atlantic is widening. Maybe 1cm per annum lol. Yeah, that is sure going to quieten down those boundaries...
To understand who rules over you look to whom you tube can't criticise

The media isn't there to cover the news
It's there to cover the news up

All establishment lies pass through three stages
First, they are accepted as being self evident
Second, they are exposed by diligent research
Third, they are enforced

"Communism is the bloodiest, most difficult and the most terrible way from capitalism to capitalism" from Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 20 Apr 2016 17:37 #175

  • rodin
  • rodin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Spam Killer
  • BELIEF IS THE ENEMY OF TRUTH
  • Posts: 4920
  • Likes received: 1827
However the real dealbreaker for plate tectonics is... why are there continental islands in the first place? What creation process caused differentiation between denser/younger oceanic lithosphere and the much older continents?

Expanding Earth provides the perfect answer. Otrherwise a planet of same size throughout its evolution would have a similar surface all over....
To understand who rules over you look to whom you tube can't criticise

The media isn't there to cover the news
It's there to cover the news up

All establishment lies pass through three stages
First, they are accepted as being self evident
Second, they are exposed by diligent research
Third, they are enforced

"Communism is the bloodiest, most difficult and the most terrible way from capitalism to capitalism" from Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 25 Apr 2016 18:06 #176

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 6728
  • Likes received: 1506
rodin wrote:
However the real dealbreaker for plate tectonics is... why are there continental islands in the first place?

What are "continental islands"?

There are many processes causing islands:
1 - tectonics alone - Cyprus, Cuba, etc.
2 - tectonics + sea level fluctuation - Crete, Malta, other mediterranean isles
3 - sea level fluctuation alone - see the British isles, Indonesia
4 - hotspot volcanism - Hawaii, Galapagos, Rapa Nui, Reunion and many many more
What creation process caused differentiation between denser/younger oceanic lithosphere and the much older continents?

Different mantle mechanics, different rock types causing different volcanism, different forces over the highly variable globe, density itself, tectonic movements, rate of seafloor spreading to name a few.
Expanding Earth provides the perfect answer. Otrherwise a planet of same size throughout its evolution would have a similar surface all over....

Backreasoning from an impossible statement again. "B must be true otherwise X", while X is nothing necessary to follow from (geo)physics.
rodin wrote:
Seeing as this thread is trolled into oblivion anyway, might as well ask why you are not posting on the EE thread any more? After all, it was you resurrected it....

There's nothing to discuss anymore imo. You stick to your "model" (without full explanation of how it would work and addressing the millions of geological, hydrological, archeological -decreased curvature over the "recent" 5000 years @ 22 mm/year- and all other observations).

Also no explanation on how a planet could increase gravity with 300% in 300 Ma adding 50% of Earth's mass out of nowhere. Gas expansion may increase volume, but that doesn't increase the mass which is the base unity for gravity.

The long history of the Earth is an interesting puzzle of uncountable complexity and inter-related factors, not a simple "jigsaw puzzle" just based on geometries alone.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 25 Apr 2016 18:44 #177

  • rodin
  • rodin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Spam Killer
  • BELIEF IS THE ENEMY OF TRUTH
  • Posts: 4920
  • Likes received: 1827
I have an explanation for the entire process, as per the start of this thread etc. However, to recap

1) Mass essentially remains same apart from loss of generated hydrogen into space

2) Early gravity driven accretions of mass (eg bodies in the Solar System forming from gas clouds) involved high energies and pressures.

Lets look at this. At low temperatures and atmospheric pressure
Hydrogen solubility in pure iron and iron based binary alloys have been measured in the temperature range 20 to 500° C under hydrogen at atmospheric pressure. For pure iron, hydrogen solubility decreases as the temperature decreases until about 300° C and then increases reaching maximum at 80° C. The maximum solubility at this temperature was about 0.9 ppm.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01033843

ie not very soluble at all, merely impurity level. But start increasing the pressure and temperature and look what happens...
(a) iron hydride stability extends
to high pressures (∼75 GPa) and temperatures
(∼2000 K) and therefore, it could form in a primitive
mantle and core
We may conclude that the core
could be a dominant reservoir of hydrogen on the
planet, with as much as 100 hydrosphere of hydrogen
present in the high-pressure iron-alloy

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.556.8692&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Note the above researchers are not really considering the fact that the Universe is 75% Hydrogen, 24% Helium and 1% everything else, and so if hydrogen could be sucked into the formation of the Earth by some "densification" process such as a delocalised proton and electron plasma soup, or even as free neutrons, then a high % of Earth mass could be/have been hydrogen or hydrogen derivative. Speculating on free neutrons at early Earth core conditions is not so outlandish, given that on the Earth surface a free neutron has a measurable half life of 10 minutes suggesting that by altering conditions the equilibrium could be reversed in direction. So there is a very reasonable model for having a vast reservoir of condensed matter derived from hydrogen in the core. Now, as Earth cools, the conditions change, and if energies drop then the equilibrium involved, be it n <-> p + e, or simply the solubility of free p and e in Fe, or some other mechanism, whatever, then we will see a recombination of Hydrogen atoms from elemetary particles with commensurate massive gas expulsion and volume increase. The Hydrogen would then permeate the mantle and expand the planet, en route causing some very interesting reduction reactions......

We can still see the echoes of these reduction reactions in hydrothermal vents, volcanoes etc

TBC
To understand who rules over you look to whom you tube can't criticise

The media isn't there to cover the news
It's there to cover the news up

All establishment lies pass through three stages
First, they are accepted as being self evident
Second, they are exposed by diligent research
Third, they are enforced

"Communism is the bloodiest, most difficult and the most terrible way from capitalism to capitalism" from Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 25 Apr 2016 22:37 #178

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 6728
  • Likes received: 1506
Not even if every page of this topic would have been yours and 500 kb long you would have covered allllll the observations on Earth and its history to be able to present a reliable scientific model.

I got interested because the guy proposing this whole thing is a geologist and even has a PhD. That is very exceptional for people presenting "alternative" "models" on YouTube.

The Earth allegedly has a mass today of 5.97237×1024 kg. Your proposal is that 300 Ma ago the radius was 1/2 of today (let's say 3700 km).

Today's average density is 5.51 kg/m3. That means with half the radius and "a similar mass" (your proposal) the density would have been 11... Was the Earth made of lead back then? :conf:

Gravity is directly dependent of mass. So if your proposal says that gravity was only 1/4 of today's, then how can that happen if the mass would be the same?

Hydrogen is present in the Earth in the majority of minerals. Where have you seen hydrogen-producing processes? Not hydrothermal vents or volcanoes as those are simply fissures in the surface allowing for gases to escape, not a process of hydrogen-production.

That you say "it is a fact the Universe is made of 75% He, 24% H and 1 % other" is completely unproven. It is an estimate at most; we know very little of the Universe in all its astronomically huge size. Not a "fact" at all.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 26 Apr 2016 05:56 #179

  • rodin
  • rodin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Spam Killer
  • BELIEF IS THE ENEMY OF TRUTH
  • Posts: 4920
  • Likes received: 1827
No - you have not read correctly or thoroughly

My proposal is that 300 mya Earth was larger than today, having expanded from just over 0.5 today's diameter, subsequently shrinking back to its current size as hydrogen was lost to space

Hence :

4 BYA Earth had a BIT more mass and was spinning 4 times as fast with >4 times present gravity (varies as inverse square of radius x integral of density)

300 MYA Earth was losing hydrogen to space and was spinning approx 0.5 times as fast with lower gravity than today (varies as inverse square of radius x integral of density). As per Conservation of Angular Momentum considerations this would suggest approx 1.5 times today's radius and 0.5 times today's gravity. In 0,5 times g one would expect larger life forms. With slower rotation one would expect calmer weather enabling the development of large flying insects, whose filigree wings would be shredded by today's climate.

Now we still have active geology, and quite possibly a plate tectonic-type effect will be the end result of a cracked older shell floating on top of a larger Earth. But as for the Rodinia/Godwana/Pangaea narrative, that simply does not compute.
To understand who rules over you look to whom you tube can't criticise

The media isn't there to cover the news
It's there to cover the news up

All establishment lies pass through three stages
First, they are accepted as being self evident
Second, they are exposed by diligent research
Third, they are enforced

"Communism is the bloodiest, most difficult and the most terrible way from capitalism to capitalism" from Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Expanding Earth is for sure 26 Apr 2016 06:08 #180

  • rodin
  • rodin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Spam Killer
  • BELIEF IS THE ENEMY OF TRUTH
  • Posts: 4920
  • Likes received: 1827
Gaia wrote:

Hydrogen is present in the Earth in the majority of minerals. Where have you seen hydrogen-producing processes? Not hydrothermal vents or volcanoes as those are simply fissures in the surface allowing for gases to escape, not a process of hydrogen-production.

That you say "it is a fact the Universe is made of 75% He, 24% H and 1 % other" is completely unproven. It is an estimate at most; we know very little of the Universe in all its astronomically huge size. Not a "fact" at all.

To answer these remaining questions

1) The hydrogen escaping from the mantle is in the form of methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide. Suggesting that the mantle is being reduced by reduction reactions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox

2) Space is 75% H not He, Why no He in Earth? Because it does not form compounds, and more importantly it cannot be oxidised into elementary particles hence cannot readily become "super dense". It was lost to space early on in evolution.

Look to stars and gas giants, there you will see the effects of higher gravity. Stars - mostly hydrogen, then helium, everything else a trace

spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/elements/elements.html
To understand who rules over you look to whom you tube can't criticise

The media isn't there to cover the news
It's there to cover the news up

All establishment lies pass through three stages
First, they are accepted as being self evident
Second, they are exposed by diligent research
Third, they are enforced

"Communism is the bloodiest, most difficult and the most terrible way from capitalism to capitalism" from Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina
Last Edit: 26 Apr 2016 06:11 by rodin.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2018 - May 2019, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 265 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 340 - Raised
( £ 265 GBP )
donation thermometer
100%
Updated
30th November 2018

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.