Plate Tectonics or Expanding Earth?

I can’t really do much more by way of introduction than the title: Is the earth really a series of granite platters swimming around on conveyor belts? Or….



It’s worth reading about – and hard to answer. But golly, it sure looks neat:


Images and Video by Neal Adams

Here’s some viewing and reading and further and further, and further reading.

Does subduction exist? Or is it just a thousand cartoon examples in search of a theory?

Let me know what you think…


Liam

9 Comments

  1. Will the oceans become more shallow? will we have a new land mass or will sinking oceans be all the land we get? Sinking coz the water will not increase but the area will… Are we going to have a hollow earth? All the magna will be new mantle so what will fill the core? I’m being unromantic!

    • Some argue that water is generated:

      If the planet had no major oceans (the hydrosphere) at the end of the Triassic ~200 Million years ago, then where did all of today’s ocean water come from? This is a profound question with a simple answer: The hydrosphere has been gradually outgassed from the core of the Earth via the terrestrial volcanoes and LUVs as a byproduct of core melting, which distills H²O, minerals, and other gases from the solid material that formed the planet’s original nucleus. Earth’s atmospheric envelope was simultaneously outgassed as a part of this same process, and the atmosphere grows thicker with each passing day.

      http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_13.htm

      Is it true? Who can prove it?

      If it could be accepted as a theory, astro-geologists and worldwide interested amateurs would have to test the theory by looking at other planets, figuring out where planets support life (see previous article “electric suns and pregnant planets), and looking for patterns evidencing expansion of hard rocky planets…

      And I suppose, if the ocean floor really does date itself from oldest (at the continents), to youngest (at the rifts), and there are no major subduction zones…well…that is beyond interesting.

      • I think the geological record tells us that water and mantle have been more or less equal participants in the process of the Earth getting bigger (the ‘plimsol line’ of water on the continents has been about constant). With Mars there are close similarities in that the initial extrusion on both Earth and Mars was probably water. As well, the inital rupture on Earth was a near-equatorial split, that developed into a ‘bubble’, which can be also interpreted for Mars?
        http://users.indigo.net.au/don/mars/index.html
        Proof? This sort of thing doesn’t much lend itself to proof. Makes for a good story though, and one I think is pretty right. See all those big volcanoes on Mars? = LIPS (large Igneous Provinces that heralded the onset of Pacific extrusion.

        (Just me beating a drum) (The death knell of Plate Tectonics).

  2. This idea of an expanding earth only makes sense when one considers that consciousness is always expanding and that everything is created by thought/conciousness.

    Nice meeting you at the Health Freedom Expo, Liam. Yours is an awesome website. Keep up the great work!

    You can find me on Facebook. I have a pic with Ron Paul!

    Best,
    Rosanne

  3. Earth is indeed growing, it seems. In my view, that is a consequence of the planet (as every other planet and star) scavenging interstellar matter and incorporating it into its “body”, which ends up slowly expanding.

    Interstellar matter is almost exclusively hydrogen, so much of it is transformed into water, as soon as it hits the oxygen zone.

    Some of it is transmuted into higher elements, making the rock part of our sphere grow as well, hence the drifting apart of continents. The process is slow, it takes somewhere in the order of millions of years to make an appreciable difference.

    The interstellar matter “comes in” on a huge (double) vortex entering at the poles, that is a characteristic of all rotating heavenly bodies.

    Don’t ask me how I know.

    Some more speculation in this vein on my blog:

    Star Formation: Vortex Builds Stars, Planets

    http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/12/star_formation_reverse_whirlpo.html

    • Not only is it getting bigger, the ‘biggering’ is directly related to the Earth’s rotation. Earth rotation is an aspect of global geology that (believe it or not) is entirely omitted from Plate Tectonics, founded as it is on the notion of convection, convection moreover driven by subducting slabs that are supposed to return oceanic lithosphere to the mantle. But now, everywhere we look, it’s not “subduction”, but “flat subduction”, that just dives underneath the continents and returns nothing to the mantle. So where does that leave Plate Tectonics? Up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle.

      Plate Tectonics is entirely founded on balance, destruction at subduction zones against creation at ridges, ..but with flat subduction (which is really not from the oceanic side anyway, but overriding from the continental side, there is no ‘real subduction’ at all, just ridge creation, which is ridges moving up. A great big inexorable ‘up’, where the movement of the continents is not away from the ridges; it is the movement of the ridges that is away from the continents. The space problem is obviated simply by moving up. Which is what we’ve got: a great big ridge. Obvious once you see it. All that silly business of transform faults moving the opposite way to the apparent movement is solved at a stroke. Check the rants against Plate Tectonics here:-
      http://users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/index.html

      But the issue that must be addressed is really nothing to do with the science, that in a worldful of scientists nobody with any clout will pick up and explore what is really a logical alternative. Clout means publishing and you don’t get published at anywhere near the clout-rate needed by being controversial, as you do by going with the flow, or even better, leading it. Consensus follows clout, and the whole lot is steeped in career interest, not the science. The science is obvious from a geological point of view. The “no-mechanism” argument that’s peddled is no argument at all. Physicists need to find one.

      On this one, I’m afraid the progress in science is from the bottom up. Nobody’s going to wreck their career on it, because by definition in suchlike matters, the science is not the issue.

      • Hi Don,

        Thank you for the links and information. I’ll be reading a great deal more about it.

        Do you know the work of either David Pratt or Don Choi?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *