Mid Atlantic Ridge - Expanding Earth - Thoughts and Theories

3rd post.

GLP Servers Suck!!!

Last Edited by ehecatl on 10/28/2012 10:33 PM

4th post.

GLP Servers Suck!!!

Last Edited by ehecatl on 10/28/2012 10:34 PM

There are problems with most theories and the expanding Earth theory is no exception. Most of the problems are explained in this article
[link to www.scientificexploration.org]
from the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

In a nutshell, from the above article

"In order for expansion to occur, the moment of inertia constraints must be overcome. An expanding Earth would necessarily rotate more slowly than a smaller diameter planet so that angular momentum would be conserved. In order for this to happen, the lunar tides would have to slow down, which would effect the length of the lunar month. Pannella (1972) studied the growth patterns of mollusc shells since the Ordovician. He derived an Earth year of 447 days at 1.9 Ga decreasing to an Earth year of 383 days at 290 Ma to 365 days at this time. However, the Devonian coral rings show that the day is increasing by 24 seconds every million years, which would allow for an expansion rate of about 0.5% for the past 4.5 Ga, all other factors being equal. According to the coral growth patterns then, 0.5% expansion of the planet is not enough to warrant a discussion, especially in terms of ocean basin opening, moving continents around, or the dispersal of Pangaea. All of these require Earth to have expanded by about 50%, or two orders of magnitude higher than the actual data show."

There are other problems as well, explained in the article.

In fact the only theory that explains everything with the least problems is that of True Polar Wander, AKA Pole shifts.
If this thread is going to continue I will post more details about this theory.

You're in MEXICO. The place is ran on shoestring and duct tape.

This is assuming that everything else remains the same, apart from the Earth expansion. Growth patterns on the shells, for instance, need not relate precisely with what one sees today. Moon's orbit speed may have changed from earlier times. All celestial bodies may expand as well.

It doesn't negate the other evidence for expansion, already discussed here.

"This is assuming that everything else remains the same"

Given the lack of any evidence to suggest otherwise then this is the only reasonable assumption

"Growth patterns on the shells, for instance, need not relate precisely with what one sees today."

Indeed, but we have no evidence to support such speculation so it is reasonable to assume they do.

"Moon's orbit speed may have changed from earlier times."

This is absolutely true but is irrelevant.

"It doesn't negate the other evidence for expansion, already discussed here."

There has not been a single piece of concrete evidence offered, only theories.

This is assuming that everything else remains the same, apart from the Earth expansion. Growth patterns on the shells, for instance, need not relate precisely with what one sees today. Moon's orbit speed may have changed from earlier times. All celestial bodies may expand as well.

It doesn't negate the other evidence for expansion, already discussed here.


"This is assuming that everything else remains the same"

Given the lack of any evidence to suggest otherwise then this is the only reasonable assumption

"Growth patterns on the shells, for instance, need not relate precisely with what one sees today."

Indeed, but we have no evidence to support such speculation so it is reasonable to assume they do.

"Moon's orbit speed may have changed from earlier times."

This is absolutely true but is irrelevant.

"It doesn't negate the other evidence for expansion, already discussed here."

There has not been a single piece of concrete evidence offered, only theories.


Well, thanks for being polite. This argument you give is just assumptions thought to be 'reasonable'. Certainly not concrete evidence at all, which you seem to require.

A real thing - concrete, would be the huge dinosaur skeleton in a museum somewhere, that couldn't have run around under present gravity. I'd be interested to hear how you would explain that.

Yes there are many problems with earth expansion theory as conventional physics would have it - however in my mind, looking at the fit of the continental crust, there is simply no doubt - the earth has expanded, as preposterous as it seems.


The earth is a living organism, along with the rest of the universe - also preposterous for conventional physics to deal with. I suspect the earth is able to regulate it's spin by electo/magnetic means - as per the 'electric universe theory'

Negative. For each rift there is a matching subduction, so the planet is not expanding, the continents recycle.

Source: Tectonics 101.

[link to www.expanding-earth.org]




CONCLUSION

As noted above, subduction fails on several grounds. The current dogma of "subduction" is a theoretical concept with no physical evidence to verify it, nor a plausible causative mechanism to support the claim that one tectonic plate dives, or is driven, beneath an opposing plate. Everything about subduction, including its origin, is based on pure hypothesis and speculation, beginning with an erroneous basic assumption that Earth’s diameter was fixed at the time of its creation.

As explained in the simple hand demonstration showing subduction's fatal flaw, if subduction did exist, the Pacific Ocean basin must eventually be swallowed in its entirety if the Earth’s diameter is to remain constant. In fact, studies of Pacific plate movements that were intended to prove subduction, unwittingly included several measurements that show the Pacific Ocean basin to be increasing in width--not decreasing in width as required by subduction.

[link to www.newgeology.us]




How do you start subduction?

..............................

What this review article shows is that when plate tectonics theory moves from the cartoon image in the mind to the real world of physics, how it could possibly have gotten started on Earth is neither simple nor elegant. One may wonder if it is even possible. The lack of progress in modeling is stunning.

"This is assuming that everything else remains the same"

Given the lack of any evidence to suggest otherwise then this is the only reasonable assumption

"Growth patterns on the shells, for instance, need not relate precisely with what one sees today."

Indeed, but we have no evidence to support such speculation so it is reasonable to assume they do.

"Moon's orbit speed may have changed from earlier times."

This is absolutely true but is irrelevant.

"It doesn't negate the other evidence for expansion, already discussed here."

There has not been a single piece of concrete evidence offered, only theories.


Well, thanks for being polite. This argument you give is just assumptions thought to be 'reasonable'. Certainly not concrete evidence at all, which you seem to require.

A real thing - concrete, would be the huge dinosaur skeleton in a museum somewhere, that couldn't have run around under present gravity. I'd be interested to hear how you would explain that.


I was merely stating the obvious in that if there is no evidence of any change happening, it is then unreasonable to make the assumption that change has happened.

In regards to evidence it was you that claimed there was some and I must confess I am unable to see it. Perhaps you could show me that which I have apparently overlooked?

Show me your Dinosaur skeleton and I'll have at it.

Sorry the quote system has failed me

The lack of progress is because any evidence that doesn't support the established model is simply ignored and the producers of such evidence are denied publication. I am not making this up.

See [link to www.ncgt.org]

This newsletter has been established purely because it's contributors have been denied publication by the leading journals in the field.

There is now a vast amount of hard evidence that disproves plate tectonics, but you'll have a difficult time finding it anywhere else.

Interesting.

One question I certainly have with the expanding planet theory is this:

How did the mountain ranges come in to being if the Earth was only expanding?

Added to favorites, no time to ask or post questions right now, but I have a few points to make and would like your thoughts.

Love the thread, many need to read it.

I think that's because I stuffed it up first in my previous reply.

You answered: "I was merely stating the obvious in that if there is no evidence of any change happening, it is then unreasonable to make the assumption that change has happened."

I would have to agree if there was no evidence, but there is. From there, it requires one only to ignore or negate what evidence there is.

We can't get past that, because you will continue to think what you think and I will do the same. You've already said you can't see that.

Show you the bones? Is that the bit you've overlooked?

Well I dunno, why don't you just pick out one of the biggest types of dinosaur and explain how that one could run around in 1G (present). Say, Allosaurus, or Tyrannosaurus. No they weren't as big as Brachiosaurus or Brontosaurus, but they were the predator species, which would have to be relatively nimble and fast, to catch prey. Considering their mass, how would they work in present gravity?

Check out the midatlantic ridge.

The outer crust is segmented (plates) and cracked (faults) and jostles about as the expansion takes place. Sometimes the magma comes up through the cracks and forms mountains and ranges, both above and below sea level. Those non-volcanic, folded ranges occur when some of the segments are compressed against each other and uplifting occurs at the cracks (eg: Himalayas). The system is always in flux, with peaks of activity at cyclical intervals.

If all planets started as gas planets (like Jupiter, Saturn and the like) Then the solid mass must have accumulated.

Expanding Earth !!!

And not just picking up meteorites and other solids, but perhaps picking up clouds of gasses such as hydrogen that has made all the Earth's water as it travels through space.

Here's a scientist who noticed that the dinosaurs were too big. Of course he's not going to get anywhere with it from the looks of things.

[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]


And here's an interesting article on the gravity problem with large dinosaurs.

[link to www.bibliotecapleyades.net]

I used to be heavily invested in the plate tectonics theory, but once I learned of the expanding earth theory, this immediately resonated with me. Why else do continents seem to be diverging, yet fit together like pieces of a puzzle?

Yep, me too. Why else indeed? Coincidence?

In answer to the T Rex thing I would guess that so long as they were more nimble and fast than their prey then that's all that matters.
As to whether they could run around in 1G well it seems that most experts in the field are happy to think they could. I know a few are argueing that they couldn't support their own weight because if they had similar muscle composition to ours then it wouldn't be possible. However I have seen a reference to a female chimpanzee probably weighing no more than 130 pounds that could bench press 600 pounds, so it's a fact that chimp muscles are very much stronger than ours and no one seems totally certain why.
What I'm getting at is that we really have no idea what Dinosaur muscles were capable of and therefore I think it foolish in the extreme to say they couldn't do something purely because we couldn't.

I plan to post more relevant stuff about Tectonics later.

re-curvature of the crust to fit an expanded diameter- accompanied by stretching of the plate boundaries - there are some good videos around that illustrate just this.


[link to www.youtube.com]

I know most 'experts' in the field are happy to think they could. Then we don't have to rewrite any old highly revered books and whole life careers are still 'worthy'.

I also know that chimps and - say gorillas have something like 9 times the strength of humans. Although insane or highly panicked humans have been known to exhibit such strength at times.

If we really have no idea what dinosaurs were capable of strenthwise, we can't confidently pronounce they could do something we can't.

It comes down to the maths. Squares against cubes. Beyond a certain point it's impossible for those creatures to even stand up - if gravity was the same back then.

You'd really need to do better than this to convince anyone of anything. At the moment, all you're doing is regurgitating what others say without any real thoughts as to what they say. You need to convince me that the 'experts' are playing with a full deck.

All the info is there in scattered pieces - to prove that gravity was less for Dinosaurs.......................only no salaried scientists are courageous enough to break the groupthink and connect the dots.






Giant Pterosaurs Couldn't Fly, Study Suggests

Tony McNicol in Tokyo
for National Geographic News
April 28, 2009


Giant pterosaurs, colossal winged reptiles that lived alongside the dinosaurs, have long been considered the heaviest animals ever to take to the skies.

But new research suggests that the notion of giant pterosaurs soaring over Earth simply doesn't fly.




Based on the weights and body sizes of modern birds, a new study finds that animals heavier than 90 pounds (41 kilograms) with wingspans greater than 16.7 feet (5.1 meters) wouldn't be able to flap fast enough to stay aloft.

The conclusion casts serious doubt on the flying ability of large pterosaurs such as Quetzalcoatlus, thought to be one of the largest airborne animals of all time.

The late-Cretaceous creature may have weighed up to 551 pounds (250 kilograms) and had up to a 34.1-foot (10.4-meter) wingspan—nearly as wide as a schoolbus is long.



............................... [link to news.nationalgeographic.com]

I had just made an enormous, detailed post when I got banned. Just long enough to lose the post. Anyhoo I'm back and I'll try to be briefer this time.

I don't really care about the dinosaur thing because it's just a distraction from the main event, which is Earth expansion (EE). So let's get to it.

Here are a few problems for EE enthusiasts to deal with.

EE theories depend on seafloor spreading just like Plate tectonics (PT) but without the subduction. Seafloor spreading is claimed to occur from spreading centres in the oceans, where new crust (Basalt) is continuously being created to allow for the expansion. The most famous of these spreading centres is the Mid Atlantic ridge, which runs through Iceland.

From New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, no. 52, September, 2009 by NC Smoot

"NORTH ATLANTIC CRUISE OBSERVATIONS

While on my recent (12 - 30 August 2009) cruise across the North Atlantic Ocean I was looking for certain things, such as a severe lack of snow and ice coupled with an active spreading margin in Iceland.
Here is what I found:

We were in Seydisfjordur on the NE quadrant of Iceland and Reykjavik in the SW quadrant. Sailing on the southern route took us past the huge (8300 km2) ice field called Vatnajokull. It appeared to be alive and well.
On our grand circle tour out of Reykjavik, we went to the region of the Thingvallir. This is the site of the
Althing, held yearly by the Vikings as early as 1000 AD. It is also the site of the spreading center for the Mid-
Atlantic Ridge, called the Reykjanes Ridge in this region.

We have been repeatedly told that the spreading rate here is on the order of 2.5 cm/yr. Giving a margin of error
of a few meters, that should have been a rupture that has widened by about 20 meters in the last 1000 years.
This is easy to measure, as the Vikings set up camp in the crack while airing their political and social
differences. This crack has not widened even one centimeter since that time."

Some other stuff;

From New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter,Issue 45 December 2007 by P James

"expanding earthers offer no mechanisms to explain the ballooning of the Earth’s solid body against the forces of gravity. Perhaps this myth-like quality is one of the reasons for its growing popularity? Like the meteorite/dinosaur myth which refuses to go away no matter what hard evidence is available to demonstrate its over-
simplicity.

Let us look at some of the assumptions behind the expansion proposal.

• The problem of the changing inertia of an expanding earth, and its effect on the rate of earth rotation, has been raised in these pages in the past. Briefly, hard evidence from fossil coral studies indicates that the rate of earth rotation has decreased from 400 days per year, 400 million years ago, to the present rate: a gentle winding down of around one tenth of a second of arc per year. Had the Earth expanded even 30% over this same period, however, we should be enjoying a rate of spin of around half the present rate.
• Expanding earthers justify their cause by being able to make a tight fit of all the continents (a Pangaea), if these are placed on an Earth with a 50% smaller diameter. But the basis for this obsession with having all the continents together at some time in the past is, itself, shaky. Palaeomagnetic studies reveal the continents were all located in the present positions back in the PreCambrian. (This obliged mobilists to declare that the continents all came together later, in the Palaeozoic, so
they could all be available for drifting apart again at a later date – and this despite the fact that path reversals are universally unknown in material behaviour beyond the elastic range.)
• If the continents did originally split up from some archetypal Pangaea, as the Earth expanded, how is it that they were able to retain their integrity as the Earth continued to expand? An original continent, 3,000 km square, sitting on the smaller Earth, would be obliged to stay intact while the lithosphere beneath it expanded to something like 4,500 km square. Surely, things like the African Rift, aligned along a PreCambrian fault line, would have spilt apart a few hundred millions years ago and would have gone on splitting. Alternatively, how would one explain major thrust faulting (compression) on a progressively expanding base?"

Don't go away there's more

You can't just say you don't care about the dinosaur thing. It's not a distraction. There are real problems with them that can't just be ignored. It seems you've never considered them in all of this.

It's not obsession to notice that all the continents fit together on a smaller globe. Do you consider that to be a mere coincidence? Your use of language is designed to denigrate and belittle and does not constitute a good argument. Both sides can do that.

Why ignore the facts about the dinosaurs but hold up some obscure study of fossil corals which 'suggests' only a slight change of rotation. How long was a day back then? How would you know?

Your last paragraph assumes that the expansion was occurring within the continents, when in fact it takes place at the mid-oceanic ridges. The rift in Africa need not have come apart at all. Upthrust would still occur in certain places.

I don't know whether I will stick around to carry on with this. I can see you're stuck in the paradigm and pride will keep you there. I was once there too, but not any more.

You say the coral study is hard evidence, but I've not seen it or the assumptions it rides upon, so I can say little more about it. The dinosaur bones are just as hard evidence, but you wish to ignore it. We can't proceed.

The only way that earth expansion ( which so obviously has occurred) works is by treating the earth as a living evolving being, within a multidimensional multi density universe.


In my opinion earth expansion is a periodic cylic affair, with the lower astral of the time condensing directly into the physical at the earths core initiating bouts of earth changes accompanied by a new 'golden age'.

The main function of organic life is to capture and transmute cosmic energies - as for the moon, it's a nursing infant.



Far too massive a paradigm jump for science to make - hence the complete failure of all their stock theories to account for what we see!

Wow, some of the posts on this thread since the last time I checked are just outstanding.

Thanks so much for helping to put all these pieces together you guys...

I love to have a lot of info compiled in threads to reference later.