Maybe you'll be interested

[C1ay]

Clay,

 

Incredible when you think about it, isn't it.

No. I've seen nothing yet to explain how rifting and spreading would drive the volcanic activity along plate boudaries like Mt. St. Helens. Ultrasound and seismology have shown such systems to be driven by subduction and you have not shown any scientific proof that discredits the science behind these measurements. Can you prove the methods and conclusions of the geologists and volcanologists wrong?

 

Just to say that the two sides of a gulley match up with each other does not prove any spreading either. If you carve a fixed width gash across a surface the sides will have the same shape that they could be matched up with each other, even though the division between them was not caused by spreading. How can you prove that the Grand Canyon was not carved by erosion?

[Erasmus00]

Tormud,

 

back then, I discovered a group of geologists who pressed for the clear and obvious theory that the earth grew and the continents didn't move about, but simply stayed within their portion of under-sea oceanic plate and didn't actually move at all. This made much more sense. And matched the known facts, if not the theory. I always looked upon our old "creation of the solar system theory" with suspicion. You know a whole bunch of stuff was floating out there and along comes gravity to gather it up into moons, planets and suns.

 

Within all the sciences are clues to a growing earth. So very many. Didn't matter those geologists were simply geologists and their geology might have been good, their physics wasn't, they couldn't prove HOW the earth grew.

 

There is just as much science pointing to an Earth that stays the same as there is an Earth that is expanind, perhaps more. If this expansion is a change of structure, and no new mass is formed, then gravity would DECREASE with time, which hurts the whole dinosaur conjecture. Now, if mass actually increases as you say, then wouldn't the moment of inertia of the Earth increase? Wouldn't it, therefore, slow down its rotation?

 

That it grew, was was self-evident. My videos show this and suffer extreme examination, and I invite it every day. As for the physics of it. Well that took many years. Since I'm tired and it needs alot of absorbing and discussing back and forth, I can give you some guiding principles before I sack out.

 

Well, post the physics of your growing Earth theory if you want us to accept it. Untill you do, I remain skeptical. You still haven't shown why all the science that demonstrates the reality of subduction is flawed.

 

Since then, we have discovered particles out the wazoo.

 

But this makes no sense. The logic is that it gets simpler and simpler as we get closer to the truth, not that we get to 25 or 35 things, but that we get to 2 then, if possible, to one thing.

 

This is indeed an oft used attack against the standard model, and I wouldn't be surprised if more fundamental particles are one day discovered. However, you were discussing an expanding Earth, not particle physics. I don't see how this is relevant.

 

Two: Solar systems, galaxies and all that seem to have a structure, and it must have a meaning like everything else.

 

Suns are 90% hydrogen and 10 % helium. There's some heavier stuff, but condsidering stuff crashing into the sun, it could be that.

 

Yet solar systems have many, many, different kinds of atoms with many particles. How does this make sense.

 

If you just have a sun first. How do you get planets and moons and stuff. Ah, yesss, there was already "stuff".

 

But where did this stuff come from? If there was gravity, why didn't if just collect the stuff?

 

Or was there a process that made the stuff...From say, helium and hydrogen?

 

There is indeed such a process. It happens in the cores of stars. Then the stars go nova, spewing out these elements. Gravity collects it, and over time heavier elements are forged in stars. Thats why all those scientists say we are made of star stuff.

 

Then along came Carl David Anderson.

 

The guy who discovered the positron? More particle physics. I'm still concerned that you haven't shown any flaws in the scientific evidence for subduction.

-Will

[Tormod]

Tormud,

 

NAdums,

 

Suns are 90% hydrogen and 10 % helium. There's some heavier stuff, but condsidering stuff crashing into the sun, it could be that.

 

This is actually wrong. The ratio of helium to hydrogen increases as the hydrogen burning in the star progresses (ie, as the star ages). There is no fixed ratio - your quoted figures are those for the Sun at the current point in time. Spectral analysis of other stars show different ratios (and also different trace elements).

 

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961112a.html

[C1ay]

Five to seven billion years ago, Earth may have begun with space debris (debris? Big area, not now,) but in time growth became crystalline (all silicate is crystalline) pushing out like a geode but in time, matter must have been created inside the planet as it is apparently on the Sun and the Earth , like all other planets and reasonable sized moons (Gaynemede for example) produced matter on the inside which pushes outward, because silicates are straight sided and can’t push in, so must push outward again like a geode.

So you disagree with the law of conservation of mass/matter? We'll look forward to your proof.

[Tormod]

I am sensing that this thread is heading for the Strange Claims forum...

[C1ay]

I am sensing that this thread is heading for the Strange Claims forum...

Me too unless he has some rigorous proofs deserving of a Nobel Prize......

[NAdams]

TeleMad

 

If I say “I’ve experienced this before” and someone says “Oh, that’s déjà vu,” and everyone nods knowingly, nothing has been said and no explanation has been given.

 

The phenomenon is still extraordinary and remains unexplained… though named.

 

Today’s gravity is too strong for dinosaurs by fourfold.

 

There was no ice at the poles. There were nearly no mountains on Earth. Dinosaurs likely migrated hemispherically ‘cause there was no grass even when many plants became seasonal. Shallow seas covered 2/3’s of the continental plate, making the water level, if the Earth was the same size it is today, a mile and a half higher around the world! Something to conjure with, eh?

 

Wonder what happened to all that water. That’s not quite half the water on Earth…. Gone. That ain't déjà vu.

 

Or else there were no shallow seas and science is all wrong!

 

Stars? No, that’s what old science says. Could be right. Could be wrong. It’s theory, nothing more, and any cosmologist will tell you so. We don’t know. We have heard so much theory our ears are plugged.

 

I’ve heard the litany since I was a kid. The emperor has no clothes. Time to think again.

[Tormod]

No, that’s what old science says. Could be right. Could be wrong. It’s theory, nothing more, and any cosmologist will tell you so. We don’t know. We have heard so much theory our ears are plugged.

 

But *your* views are of course not theories and as such is worthwhile?

 

Moved to the Strange Claims forum. Get a grip.

[NAdams]

TeleMad

 

If I say “I’ve experienced this before” and someone says “Oh, that’s déjà vu,” and everyone nods knowingly, nothing has been said and no explanation has been given.

 

The phenomenon is still extraordinary and remains unexplained… though named.

 

Today’s gravity is too strong for dinosaurs by fourfold.

 

There was no ice at the poles. There were nearly no mountains on Earth. Dinosaurs likely migrated hemispherically ‘cause there was no grass even when many plants became seasonal. Shallow seas covered 2/3’s of the continental plate, making the water level, if the Earth was the same size it is today, a mile and a half higher around the world! Something to conjure with, eh?

 

Wonder what happened to all that water. That’s not quite half the water on Earth…. Gone. That ain't déjà vu.

 

Or else there were no shallow seas and science is all wrong!

 

Stars? No, that’s what old science says. Could be right. Could be wrong. It’s theory, nothing more, and any cosmologist will tell you so. We don’t know. We have heard so much theory our ears are plugged.

 

I’ve heard the litany since I was a kid. The emperor has no clothes. Time to think again.

Gents,

In the sixties, scientists faced with the potential of what tectonics implied, now that it was proven as a fact (layers, animals, and plants) decided to measure the ages of the ocean floor. Private and US Navy ships took core samples of the oceans across the world.

To their utter shock and amazement they couldn’t find an area of the oceans floor, anywhere, older than 70 MYA.

Imagine if you will, their reaction. The dinosaurs became extinct 63-64 MYA.

Subsequently they found areas of the ocean floor older than this, smaller areas and some patches that went back to 180 MYA. They are shown in the Rainbow Maps in deep blue. This was a coincidental time of mountain growth and great changes.

Not one square mile, not one square yard, is older than this. Not my facts!

Then the theory of subduction was suggested and took hold. No one person, in particular, is credited with it.

It saved the day! With subduction, geology and science in general didn’t have to face having science turned upside down with the implications of a growing Earth, (and they are massive).

Research ended for the most part on tectonic matching of the continents, Australia to Central America, etc. we’re ignored …Too bad, huh?

Too bad the work didn’t go on. Sort of like we have our likely killer … no need to look for other suspects. Still, clues pop up and are quickly squelched.

Some get through.

Recently, dinosaur bones found in Antarctica are from dinosaurs formerly found only in North America. Plants and whole forests found only in North and Central Canada, exactly, match the forests in Northern Asia. (Can’t be, according to accepted theory.) The list is getting longer and longer. My maps are only one piece of the puzzle.

And always, always, some odd and desperate explanation is proffered to explain it, until the explanations contradict each other, like is the Tyrannosaur a scavenger or hunter, cause at that size it couldn’t possibly RUN? (Not run? Sorry.) Hey, Spielberg.

This particular train is slipping off its tracks. It happens. Evolution. Sun going around the Earth, etc.

I can explain the theory that explains it after we settle this tectonic thing. Otherwise, I’m sure you’ll agree I’m wasting my time.

I’ll be glad to describe why subduction doesn’t exist in detail, but please, stop throwing generalities at me, and twisting what I say profits no one.

 

Neal

[Chaos]

what a pathetic display by this site's moderators. i thought this place would be opened minded but i guess not. you guys may like science, but you are so pro-establishment it makes you look rigid, close-minded, and sad. i'm opened minded and skeptical, you guys just seem skeptical.

 

many of the theories we have today have not totally been verified. einstein's relativity seems correct, but do we KNOW for sure it is? newton's calculations seemed correct at the time, too.

 

and then you go and demote his thread to "strange claims forum", which is next to the chess forum, as if it is not worthy of the other forum. the only thing different about this guy's opinions and opinions mentioned in the other forum is that his are less well known. it's not like he's claiming he saw a ghost.

 

you guys are like jesus worshippers burning witches who disagree with your establishment thinking. let's act childish together since we're all establishment thinking mods, gang up on him, then move his thread. yea that's cool. maybe it makes you guys feel powerful.

 

does anyone really think the earth was always this size????? does anyone really think the earth always had it's current gravity??? get a clue guys. we know the universe is a dynamic place, things are always changing. many great discoveries were just theories before people worked on them for a long time.

 

i had been telling people about this site, but after the way this poster/thread was treated i think i'll stop now.

[Tormod]

To their utter shock and amazement they couldn’t find an area of the oceans floor, anywhere, older than 70 MYA.

 

I wonder - did it ever occur to these undoubtedly fine scientists that the ancient seafloor was no longer on the seafloor? Anyway, that is the entire point of the rebuttal here - there is no "missing" seafloor. Seafloor either is recycled - as is observed on the Pacific US coast and at the Himalayas, for example.

 

Remains of ancient seabed can be found elsewhere on Earth - but not in the oceans.

 

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/earthsysflr/cambrian.html

http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/Earliest%20Piece/Earliest.html

 

And a piece of seafloor 2.5 billion years old:

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Science/Oldest%20Rock.html

 

Early water on Earth

http://www.auburn.edu/~lewisrd/newsitem.htm

 

World's oldest rocks

http://www.4to40.com/qa/index.asp?counter=23&category=science

[Tormod]

i'm opened minded and skeptical, you guys just seem skeptical.

 

Yes, thank you. That is why we spend hours every day to run a public forum, free of charge, where people can voice their opinion and publish their thoughts. However, we get to choose which criteria to use when we move things around.

 

many of the theories we have today have not totally been verified. einstein's relativity seems correct, but do we KNOW for sure it is? newton's calculations seemed correct at the time, too.

 

I think you have misunderstood a couple of things about Einstein and Newton - we still use Newton's three laws, for example.

 

One reason why Einstein revolutionised the world of physics is not because he made strange claims. It is because he was able to make predictions that could be tested. And so far relativity is on the money. It doesn't mean *everything* Einstein ever wrote was a work of genius.

 

and then you go and demote his thread to "strange claims forum" as if it is not worthy of the other forum.

 

1) His theory is not new

2) It is a strange claim

3) The original poster fails to respond to basic questions about the theories

 

So it belongs here.

 

the only thing different about this guy's opinions and opinions mentioned in the other forum is that his are less well known. it's not like he's claiming he saw a ghost.

 

Wonder *why* they are less known? Because they are strange claims. That is what the strange claims forum is for.

 

you guys are like jesus worshippers burning witches who disagree with your establishment thinking. let's act childish together since we're all establishment thinking mods, gang up on him, then move his thread. yea that's cool. maybe it makes you guys feel powerful.

 

Yes, I feel the power now. Did you notice that nobody censored anything? We didn't burn anything either, come to that. Recently we even opened a new forum for theology, to give room for all the those members who want to discuss it.

 

does anyone really think the earth was always this size????? does anyone really think the earth always had it's current gravity???

 

1) Yes, most scientists (I would say basically all of them) think so. The only huge event we know that had an impact on the mass of the Earth was the formation of the Moon.

 

2) Yes, the same gravity follows from 1).

 

get a clue guys. many great discoveries were just theories before people worked on them for a long time.

 

Yes. Yet *most* theories that were worked on for a long time were wrong.

 

Feel free to turn this into a discussion about how our forums are moderated - but I would recommend that you do so in our Feedback forum.

 

You are of course also free to leave our forums and go somewhere else entirely. Up to you, really.

[C1ay]

get a clue guys. we know the universe is a dynamic place, things are always changing. many great discoveries were just theories before people worked on them for a long time.

 

i had been telling people about this site, but after the way this poster/thread was treated i think i'll stop now.

Hey, guess what? This is a science forum. If you make claims you are expected to back them up. If you want to challenge the leagues of geologists and volcanologists the world over by saying that there is no such thing as subduction then you need to provide hard, rigorous proof that you are right and they are wrong, not just some link to some homemade movie you've pieced together in Photoshop. NAdams has all the opportunity in the world to prove his point. Proof is what the forum rules call for, not just, "you should believe it just because I know that's the way it is". That is actually against the rules.

[Tormod]

Chaos, before you run off thinking that we are talking about "new" theories here, have a look at this site:

 

http://www.futureworld.dk/tech/gravity/gravityt.htm

 

It happens to hit on two of the current strange claims: growing earth and pushing gravity.

 

Note how the author ends up discussing astrology.

[Erasmus00]

I can explain the theory that explains it after we settle this tectonic thing. Otherwise, I’m sure you’ll agree I’m wasting my time.

I’ll be glad to describe why subduction doesn’t exist in detail, but please, stop throwing generalities at me, and twisting what I say profits no one.

 

Fine, describe why subduction doesn't exist, AND also show why all of the scientific data supporting sudduction is flawed. Also, you still haven't described how your theory increases the mass of the earth without violating well established physics principles, why if the mass increases the earth doesn't slow down in its rotation...etc. If you want your claim to be taken seriously, please answer these direct questions about your theory.

-Will

[NAdams]

Fine, describe why subduction doesn't exist, AND also show why all of the scientific data supporting sudduction is flawed. Also, you still haven't described how your theory increases the mass of the earth without violating well established physics principles, why if the mass increases the earth doesn't slow down in its rotation...etc. If you want your claim to be taken seriously, please answer these direct questions about your theory.

-Will

 

Glad to-not my facts.

 

The continental plate is composed of mostly granitic rock, which is 2.5 times the density of water (a simple measurement) and some basalts, which is 3.0 times the density of water, and numerous lobes of granitic rock, again 2.5, also periodite, eclogite, olivine, spinel, garnet, pyroxene, perovskite and oxides.

 

The reason these two materials are on the surface is they are lighter than the material below. While there are rising and cooling pods of both granitic rock and basalt in the athenosphere, it is generally agreed by geologists that the athenosphere starts and 3.3. and may go down to 4.0 and perhaps denser according to iron content, but we’ll just use 3.3. for the model.

 

There are several arguments about subduction. You notice I didn’t say “for subduction,” but you judge for yourself.

 

Certain arguments go, basalt in time will harden and become denser to become periodite. If and when this happens it becomes 3.3 and, geologists say, will subduct into the athenosphere, or it becomes equally as dense as the athenosphere.

 

(I would argue that this relative denseness is sensible because it came from material or floats above material that is similar to it’s denseness unlike the much denser mantle, no problem here.)

 

Then we find the ocean floor is not only made up of basalts but also hardened granitic rock, at again 2.5, (a cork.) But further, and for this I go to Don L. Anderson, Geophysicist Emeritus Ph. D at Cal Tech, who reminds us, not all basalts are the same and some are poor basalt/eclogite, while others can dense into periodite.

 

Archimedes Law would have to be violated for this sea floor to “sink into the magma.” I use that archaic phrase but in fact geology has established that only a small portion of the upper athenosphere is molten. Most is solid, or a very slow moving solid to allow S waves.

 

So this lighter solid must push into this heavier solid.

 

Then we have the time question. Typically, oceanic crust pushes out from a rift for tens of millions of years. When does this portion of basalt become periodite? Pressure and time does it. How much time? No one knows, but subduction doesn’t happen at a particular time but when it’s said it reaches a subduction zone, which, in some areas, can be 170 million years old and in some 40 million years old according to the zone line, having nothing to do with it’s age.

 

So what force pushes the sea floor down?

 

Force from the rift?

 

Actually no, there is no recognized force “from” the rift. In fact, the rift spreads apart peaceably, peacefully. It spreads, magma fills the gap, it spreads again and so on. Call it opposite of volcanic. No force what-so-ever. Then, what force pushes across the ocean bottom pushing outward at millions of square miles of thick rock to drive it’s far edge back down into the Earth with a force hard to imagine.

 

Nothing! I bid you look it up. There is no force from the rifts (to me, mind numbing.)

 

There is currently a debate or discussion relative to this problem perhaps an incredible discussion, certainly in my eyes. “Is the sea floor being pushed outward, or being pulled down?”

 

If you think I am misstating this discussion, check it out.

 

There is no “force” doing this “work” if I may resort to physics.

 

At the subduction zone, the big one in the Pacific, this area has many, many high projections, undersea mountains, plateaus, and the like (there are good maps for this.)

 

If subduction did exist, these plateaus, projections, etc. would be sheared off over millennium and left piled up at the subduction zone. I guess I don’t have to tell you there’re not there!

 

On the continental plate if there is compression. Two sides rise up, sometimes three, and form pyramidal mountains. The physics axiom says for any action there is an equal and opposite reaction, yet on the undersea plate when compression forces slow collision, do both sides rise up or both sides plunge down?

 

No? One side dives under the other. I’m afraid that is against physic’s law. Both up or both down, no exceptions. Try any experiment.

 

Let’s say a zone is at an unequal break, continent and sea floor, which geologists are abandoning as a concept. The continental plate goes down into the athenosphere, straight down for at least twenty miles. It’s a giant plug root into the athenosphere. The oceanic crust is only, say, four miles deep, it’s like a dog trying to swim under a hippo.

 

Can’t go!!

 

You’ve seen the drawings on TV and in books. I used to draw some of them. I study mechanics but even without that I would say to my clients “don’t these pieces break straight down? Yes. Not at a slant? Yes. And they’re up to four miles thick? Yes.”

 

Well how do I draw this four-mile thick phone book edge sliding down four miles on the straight side of the other side. That’s straight down. They’d look at me blankly and say, “Don’t draw it happening, draw it already underway and sliding into the magma.”

 

Well, it can’t slide four miles straight down because it must displace the magma under it to move at all. If it can’t displace it the space adds to the weight and it must weight twice it’s own weight (or force.) And if tremendous force were applied, magma would gush up, fill the void and seal it back up again. Mechanically that’s the only way it could work. Try any example.

 

We look at the beach as it knife edges into the water and then we look at Discovery’s subduction demos and the one side sliding under the knife edge of the other side and it looks okay, to us, we’ve seen the beach.

 

It’s not like that down there. It’s four miles thick straight down and it obeys all the physical laws and its not that it doesn’t subduct, it can’t subduct!

 

-Neal

[Erasmus00]

All well and good, but you still haven't refuted any of the scientific evidence for subduction. But, more importantly (from my standpoint as a student of physics) you haven't begun to explain how the Earth could be mysteriously gaining mass.

-Will