Are the planets growing?

[Anaconda]

StefanR:

I appreciate your points, some seem to have merit, others less so, however, you certainly have brought out interesting objections -- food for thought. I'll acknowledge there are many "in's and out's" I wasn't aware of when initially considering the issue.

Be that as it may, because it's primarily a fossil record it can never be proved conclusively one way or the other. I suspect the arguments can endlessly circle one another with no final resolution (particularly by determined interlocutors). Rather, the mega insect and animal question is only one aspect of the overall body of scientific evidence supporting the Expanding Earth theory.

I'm interested in knowing the physical reality, past, present, and future, not endless circular arguments that have no final answer.

I'm interested in your opinion regarding the facts & evidence I presented in my previous post about uplift measured after earthquakes.

So, I ask you, StefanR, the question previously put to the readers: How much uplift must be observed in earthquake locations world-wide before it becomes apparent uplifted geology in the wake of earthquakes is conclusive proof that Earth's expansion is the cause of the world's earthquakes?

[Grey Cloud]

Hmmn.

How much uplift must be observed in earthquake locations world-wide before it becomes apparent uplifted geology in the wake of earthquakes is conclusive proof that Earth's expansion is the cause of the world's earthquakes?

I don't see how this uplift is 'conclusive proof' of anything. If the Earth is growing then why should it a) grow only around certain areas (i.e. quake zones) and b) why would it only grow in spurts (quakes) rather than continuously/gradually?
Re a), one could ask why are quake zones not a lot higher than non-quake zones.

Aalso Aardwolf has me confused. He seems to be aadvocating that the Earth both grows and shrinks with his commments on variable/changing gravity. I may have hold of the wrong end of the stick there but if he is then how does that sit with growth from quake uplift, i.e. how does the Earth shrink again?

[webolife]

Be careful with loose language, Anaconda.
You don't have "uplift" from earthquakes, you have "vertical displacement". And you would need to show that overall Earth radius has increased to show earth expansion, plain and simple. There is no evidence for this, plain and simple. Of course, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.................

[StefanR]

Glad you liked the links and the video's allynh, but when are you actually going to read and watch them? If you really think you're able to state that from these links gravity has varied from 1/10th to one gravity, it seems to me you have problems with understanding what you are reading. Or did you get the 1/10th figure somewhere else? Is it in Ted Holden's book?

I'll ignore the obvious snarky statements, because I know from a previous answer that you gave upstream that you are "just teasing" by making all these strawman arguments. All the links you posted were great, I would never have found the information otherwise. They profoundly add to the discussion by showing the size variability of past animals. I encourage everyone to read those links that StefanR posted upstream, they are critical to understand the fossil evidence for Growing Earth Theory. Of course, ignore the snarky comments he made, he was "just teasing" when he made them. I cannot state more clearly how important the information in those links adds to the proof that gravity was less in the past. I'm still harvesting the sites he linked to and gaining profound insight. Thanks again.

Sorry to disappoint you allynh, but I'm not teasing there. By the way you better watch out with all those strawmen in your mouth, straw is hard to digest. Why am I not teasing? Quite simple, you are appropriating the links I gave for your idea for A Growing Earth or 1/10th level of gravity without any reason. Where does it in all honesty give place for the 1/10th figure?


I broke up the paragraph for clarity sake, it was all a bit mashed together and jumbled, but StefanR has pointed to the best example for Growing Earth Theory rather than a constant Earth with variable electric gravity.
Well I'll be damned, really?!

As I pointed out in the Atmospheric pressure post upstream, if the gravity dropped by half, most life would be wiped out. If gravity dropped to 1/10th, as the fossil evidence clearly showed, then most animal life would be killed on Earth, land and ocean, since 1/10th atm is equal to the pressure of about 50,000 feet today. If this happened on a constant Earth with gravity fluctuating up and down, there would be no life other than bacteria, etc...

Fossil evidence does not clearly show such a drop.

On a Growing Earth, starting with a planet smaller than today's Moon, at 1/10th gravity, it would take a deep atmosphere about ten times as high as today's just to match 1 atm at sea level. From the fossil evidence we know the atmospheric pressure at sea level was at least within the life range of 1 atm and 1/2 atm, otherwise there would be no life. From what Maxlow has determined, the early Earth was fairly flat with shallow seas, no high mountains or regions of high elevation.

Funny thing is, that during the Permian is even considered to be a little denser, because of the different composition of the air. Something with Oxygen I believe, but I can be mistaken.

As the planet grew, the gravity increased, which pulled the air column down, increasing the pressure, but that atmosphere would now be spread over a larger surface area, reducing the pressure.

The Earth would be growing in size over time, the atmosphere pulling in with higher gravity, but having to cover a growing surface area at the same time, so the pressure would vary over time as well. You could have big animals in the beginning because of low gravity and moderate air pressure, then have smaller animals as the gravity increased but the pressure dropped. The size of animals is limited by both gravity and pressure.

So it is about gravity and presurre that limited the size of animals?

Life would be in a constant battle with growing gravity and variable air pressure. Life was probably on the verge of extinction many times as the Earth grew, with gravity constantly rising and the atmosphere not growing fast enough at times to keep up. If we could graph animal and insect size over time, with gravity constantly going up(never down), we would see where changes in gravity and pressure(both up and down) would limit size or allow increases depending on conditions. It would not be a simple equation.

So after all those years, Ted Holden has never thought of doing graphs of such things? Are you really amending your whole idea now by adding pressure?

And why didn't plants react to these changes? Where are the 1 kilometer high trees, in your 1/10th gravity?

Classic strawman StefanR, but then of course, you're "just teasing". Now back to my fiddle.

You never have trouble with straws between the snares of your fiddle, or do you play after regurgitating?
By the way, it's nice to through all that straw at me, but I don't eat the stuff. Why don't you just give a reason
for the lack of enormous plants and gargantuan trees in the fossil record that should have been living in your lower gravity world? Plant-fossils have been found through all kinds of ages, why not those gigantic ones?

[StefanR]

Even NewScientist magazine is asking:

Why Can't Elephants Jump?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... -jump.html

elephant.jpg

Now I'm just being silly.

Pity there was no weightlifter added to it, isn't it allynh?
Just being silly as well

[StefanR]

So, I ask you, StefanR, the question previously put to the readers: How much uplift must be observed in earthquake locations world-wide before it becomes apparent uplifted geology in the wake of earthquakes is conclusive proof that Earth's expansion is the cause of the world's earthquakes?

I respect you moderative call, but I'm just discusssing something that is in this thread. No thanks for the links, I hope you will keep enjoying them.
As for your uplift, I feel it distracts a little bit too much at the moment with the subject I'm discussing with allynh and aardwolf.
Perhaps Webolife has a point, but on the other hand there is still mysterious secret of the tectonic banana :
http://tectonicbanana.org/bbb/B-Intro-1.htm
or
http://tectonicbanana.org/

[Anaconda]

Be careful with loose language, Anaconda.
You don't have "uplift" from earthquakes, you have "vertical displacement". And you would need to show that overall Earth radius has increased to show earth expansion, plain and simple. There is no evidence for this, plain and simple. Of course, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.................

webolife:

No loose language at all. If you read the quotes I provided from the links, the word used by the geologists is "UPLIFT".

If you don't like the word "uplift", then you need to contact the geologists who use the word to describe their observations & measurements.

In the examples I linked (and there are many more examples) the uplift constitutes a localized expansion, put enough of those localized expansions together and you have a secular expansion of the planet.

And you would need to show that overall Earth radius has increased to show earth expansion, plain and simple.

First, why am I not surprised you offer a comment like that. It's a dodge, a way to ignore facts & evidence, which I must say is a common tactic you employ when you can't answer specific questions about specific examples.

Second, it's a naked conclusion without any supporting reasoning. But anyhow, tell me why, in your opinion, observed & measured localized uplift has no probative value to the question of whether the Earth is expanding?

Could the Earth's surface exhibit overall secular uplift without also overall expansion?

There is no evidence for this, plain and simple.

That's a silly statement. There might not be direct evidence, such as using a specific measuring device which has the demonstrated capability to observe & measure an increase in the overall radius of the planet, but there certainly are numerous facts & evidence which form a chain of evidence demonstrating Earth is expanding.

Let me provide an example that was previously discussed in the thread: There are 40,000 miles of mid-ocean spreading ridges across the planet in the world's oceans. Even mainstream geologists acknowledge this as a fact. At these mid-ocean spreading ridges, as the name implies, new seafloor spreads out from the ridges where magma is extruded from the seafloor at the ridge line, cools and hardens into new seafloor. This new additional seafloor is added to older already pre-existing seafloor. So, in order for the Earth not to expand with addition of this new seafloor, older seafloor must be consumed or subsumed back into the body of the planet. Conventional geologists claim this does happen via so-called "subduction", where old seafloor supposedly "dives" under the continents.

I have provided several examples which contradict the so-called "subduction" model.

Huge Chilean Earthquake Raised Country's Coast, Jul 29, 2010

The Chilean earthquake that struck on Feb. 27 changed the country’s landscape by raising the ground by more than 8 feet near the coast and sinking land farther inward, a new study finds.

Chile is situated atop a hotspot for earthquake activity, so learning how this magnitude 8.8 quake moved the land will tell scientists more about what causes large earthquakes.

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/huge-ch ... oast-0388/

Physorg.com -- CSI: Pisco, Peru -- Study uncovers tectonic events behind earthquake, April 10, 2009

Three-dimensional deformation following the 2007 Pisco, Peru earthquake. The red areas show ~1m of uplift offshore and the blues areas about 50 cm of subsidence on land. The hinge-line between uplift and subsidence closely matches the location of the coastline. Credit: UM Rosenstiel School

http://www.physorg.com/news158584209.html

The "hinge-line" can also be called a pivot line.

Uplift and subsidence was observed & measured as a result of the 2004 Boxing day, Indian Ocean earthquake and tidal wave:

Comparing Pre- and Post-Quake Images (NASA):

ASTER imagery showed dramatic uplift at North Sentinel Island, shown in this pair of images from December 2, 2004, and February 20, 2005. In the 2005 image, the newly exposed coral reef appears bright white, similar to the coral at North Reef Island.

Through a combination of satellite imagery and field measurements, Meltzner and his colleagues developed a comprehensive picture of subsidence and uplift resulting from the Aceh quake. Colored dots represent estimates of minimum uplift or subsidence (sinking). The dashed line is the estimated pivot line, on either side of which the earth either rose or fell.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... /aceh2.php

Notice, in the South American examples, that the land subsided farther inland, this contradicts the idea that a tectonic plate is "subducting" or "diving" underneath the South American plate, thus, pushing up the South American plate. In the Indian Ocean earthquake and tidal wave example, we have a similar situation. The violent and sudden uplift of the Indian Ocean seafloor is what caused the tidal wave. That's why it's the Indian Ocean side of the "pivot line" where uplift is observed & measured. Notice the "pivot line" divided uplift and subsidence, which is similar to the uplift and subsidence observed & measured in the two seperate locations on the South American coast.

These observations & measurements directly contradict the "subduction" model as explained in the proceeding paragraph.

weblife, I've asked you several times to specifically explain how the instant above observations can be reconciled with the "subduction" model, and each time you've refused to provide a specific answer to my examples (or you've invoked your personal secret model). I'm getting tired of your refusal to answer specific questions, then retire for awhile, and then subsequently come back onto the thread making the same sweeping generalizations with no supporting evidence for those generalizations.

Under those circumstances, readers should give little or no credibility to your comments. It would be reasonable for readers to chalk up your failure to be responsive to those questions about specific examples because of your faith-based belief in a biblical "young earth" which is fundamentally incompatible with the Expanding Earth theory because, while exact geolgical time can't be known, the Expanding Earth theory certainly takes more time to unfold than a biblical "young earth" belief system allows for.

Your ideas are not based on empirical scientific observation & measurement.

[Anaconda]

Hmmn.

How much uplift must be observed in earthquake locations world-wide before it becomes apparent uplifted geology in the wake of earthquakes is conclusive proof that Earth's expansion is the cause of the world's earthquakes?

I don't see how this uplift is 'conclusive proof' of anything. If the Earth is growing then why should it a) grow only around certain areas (i.e. quake zones) and b) why would it only grow in spurts (quakes) rather than continuously/gradually?
Re a), one could ask why are quake zones not a lot higher than non-quake zones...

All one needs to do is research the number, frequency, and location of earthquakes by looking at earthquake maps world-wide. There are many, many more earthquakes than most people know about. And earthquakes happen all over the place. Most do happen in areas where quakes are frequent, but you'd be surprised by how many earthquakes, both large and small, happen outside of quake zones in areas that have little or no history of prior earthquakes. Yes, many quakes are small, cause no property damage, or injury, so they go unnoticed by the general public, but likely still result in small amounts of uplift.

It's harder for Science to measure uplift than most people appreciate, the smaller the uplift, the harder it is to measure -- quite possibly nobody even tries to measure this small uplift -- obviously, the bigger the earthquake, the larger the uplift and the easier to observe & measure, and the more scientific interest to measure it.

Likely, even small earthquakes cause small, almost imperceptable uplift, which manifests itself closer to what could be characterized as "continuously/gradually" uplift.

Take notice of the 20 foot uplift reported on the coast of Alaska where there was no earthquake at all.

And, perhaps, although I didn't research for it, there is gradual uplift in many more areas than is commonly understood or recorded by Science (I limited my search to uplift measured after earthquakes).

Also, remember rock is rigid, so when expansionary forces press upward, often, instead of gradual uplift (although that does happen to some degree, it's called seismic creep) stress builds up in the rock structure until the stress overcomes the strength of the rock structure and the stress, energy, is released all at once, hence, "spurts" of uplift are the result.

one could ask why are quake zones not a lot higher than non-quake zones...

In many instances, the quake zones are a lot higher, the quake zones are called mountain ranges.

The Himalayan mountain range is constantly uplifting and is constantly subject to earthquakes as just one example.

Now I did ask how much uplift by itself would constitute "conclusive proof" of Earth's expansion, in retrospect, that likely was an overly bold statement, for it need not be the sole evidence of Earth's expansion, as there are other lines of evidence, which these comment pages give abundant testimony to. But observing & measuring uplift provides a "real time" vehicle for obtaining evidence of Earth's expansion -- not just historical evidence, but geologic evidence of events that are happening in the near past, present, and future.

Whether the Earth is expanding can be an ongoing scientific quest to investigate and gather evidence.

That's the best kind of science.

[Aristarchus]

Anaconda,

Thanks for the links, and for adding the geophysical aspect once again into the topic. However, for the topic of animal size and gravity, I thought this was intersting, and my pardon if it had already been linked and mentioned:

Evolution of Movement Design is Deterministic

A single unifying physics theory can essentially describe how animals of every ilk, from flying insects to fish, get around, researchers at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering and Pennsylvania State University have found. The team reports that all animals bear the same stamp of physics in their design.

The researchers show that so-called "constructal theory" can explain basic characteristics of locomotion for every creature -- how fast they get from one place to another and how rapidly and forcefully they step, flap or paddle in relation to their mass. Constructal theory is a powerful analytical approach to describing movement, or flows, in nature.

They said their findings have important implications for understanding factors that guide evolution by suggesting that many important functional characteristics of animal shape and locomotion are predictable from physics.

The force generated by the muscular "motors" of runners, swimmers and fliers also conforms with surprisingly little variation to a universal value dependent only on muscle mass, Marden said. Why this relationship should be so had remained mysterious, he said.

In the absence of a unifying theory for such design features, biologists had looked to mechanical constraints for an answer, the researchers said. Many authors have suggested that effects of scale in locomotion stem from biomechanical safety factors: the need to avoid premature failure, for instance.

Marden said he first stumbled across the problem in the 1980s when studying the variability in flight performance of insects and other flying animals. He attached weights to them and got a "strange universal result." All the organisms he tested -- birds, bats, insects -- could all lift approximately the same amount of weight in relation to the size of their flight muscles regardless of their many other biological differences.

[Aardwolf]

But if gravity is determinate for size, why is it so strange to ask if insects without that impediment grow larger?

Ok, where’s the research for muliti generation insect growth (or lack of) in space?

If you wish to know, look up one of the links or read about how trachae work and how its function is different to mammalian or bird respiration. As for how dragonflies fly, if you do not know that, how can you say that Meganeura didn't fly? I'm hesitant to give you an explanation or a link to any such information, as you have the habit of not reading what is offered to you. Why don't you look it up if you do not know? Hint: Dragonfly wingbeat is a special kind among insects, go see!

So you can’t establish why dragonflies can fly without 35% oxygen. Ok.

Do you really think it is that simpel? Nature is not a mathematical equation, I thought you knew that coming here at TB. And all those big Beetles all fly, irrespective of their weight.

Close enough for a ball park figure. And adult beetles do not exist over 45 to 50 grams no matter how many times you say they do. I find it hard to believe that someone who presents themselves as knowledgeable is unable to discover the flying weight of an adult Goliath Beetle. Your error has been spotted, admitting you are wrong is the mature course of action.

And for pterosaurs a quadrupedal take-off is seen, and an insect can fly away from vertical planes, like trees and such. By the way, why do you ask me how that ornithopter of 600 grams? Have you not checked the link? Movies are present.

A qurdrapedal take-off is assumed not seen. A dragonfly can hover, fly backwards and need to hunt and carry prey away yet you think it’s ancestor needs to climb a tree and jump off. What nonsense. I know how these ornithopters take off, they are thrown by hand to achieve enough forward momentum to initiate flight. As I said “Getting in the air is the problem for nature, not maintaining flight once there”. However, is that replicated in nature? It must be as far as you are concerned as you want to compare it.

A right I see. I think we were talking about the same thing. Paleontologists, biologists and engineers sure do know about that Law. They are not hiding it.

Yes paleontologists acknowledge it then proceed to ignore it’s consequences. For something 10 times the height, width and length it’s circa 1000 times the weight.

I was comparing the focussing on one parameter in a complex system.

Weight is the single most important factor unlike CO2.

There are two sentences in that bit of quote, you focus on the first and forget the second.

There is a diminishing return. As they progressed the increase becomes less significant. As such they could never get to 1000 times the size no matter how much time they have.

Indeed and they have shown experimentally, that oxygen is for insects one of the main limiters of size.

Obviously its a limiter. Still doesn’t prove it was the only cause. It’s just the favoured one by them because it avoids awkward questions.

But the research experiment had as only variable factor oxygen, not gravity. And still there was significant size increase over several generations.

Significant for you keep your beliefs intact but not enough to enlarge to the required size due to diminishing returns. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe increased oxygen was a factor for size, but it cannot explain the ability to overcome the weight in flight and bone and muscle strength problems (for dinosaurs). I would like to see the oxygen experiments done in lower gravity to see if there is an amplified effect. I suspect there would be.

So insects are preserved as well as , birds, pterosaurs, dinosaurs, mammals. Even plants, big and small, have been preserved, why not these huge plants? They must have existed in this low gravity, according to your idea.

Just give me one example of how a couple of hundred meters long plant fossil is to maintain intact or where you could possibly find an intact impression etc. The absence of finding something does not prove it didn’t exist, especially when you consider the size of the vehicle thats required to contain or present it.

Quadrupedal take-off. Quadrupedal take-off. Quadrupedal take-off.
Waving with Ockham at this stage is a sign of desperation. Hanggliders by weight equal the heaviest pterosaurs.

Yet again, if you want to compare to nature, how does a hang glider get in the air? Remember;

“Getting in the air is the problem for nature, not maintaining flight once there”

I asked for examples, specific examples. And birds are not equal to the pterosaurs in body make-up. There lies a big difference. Both do fly and they share certain principles in that activity. Like the tail fin of a whale is different from a fish, though both use it for propelling through water. Again, why is being big an advantage for prey?

There are many advantages for prey. Being small can help as well. However, if you are a predator you do not chooses to lose flight. If you do you die. How many flightless predators are there? Any bird that lost flight needed to become a scavenger. Birds became flightless because they had no choice and altered their feeding habits. If this is not the case why no large predators? According to you they should still be able to fly at least up to 500lb.

But we are discussing specifics, or do you mean principles?

I’ll discuss specific but I am not going to respond to your BAUT tactic of posting reams of paper to prove you win.

Maybe you should not be too indiscriminate in rejecting science. I use papers and references to show you that I'm not making things up. Maybe you should get more intimately acquainted with some research papers, at least it would give you better understanding of nature as it is studied. Independent thinking is good indeed, but if one never interacts with others than one can also give way to misconceptions and a closed mind.

Unfortunately you do appear to be making things up. Where’s the paper discussing 100 gram flying insects? And I don’t have the closed mind, you are arguing from mainstream, not me. I am willing to accept the mainstream view if it had any supporting evidence or proof but it doesn’t. There are many papers with many conclusions but they are so full of assumptions as to render them useless, or at best showing different possibilities but certainly none ruling out GET.

You only have to look at the circus that supports Big Bang theory. Hundreds of thousands of papers supporting something that is frankly nonsense and requires so many additions and compromises that has made if full of contradictions and errors dressed up as phenomena. This kind of activity is rife throughout the establishment. Read papers. Use independent critical thought and you too will realise the limitations and house of cards many are built upon. Too many scientists have a position to protect and unfortunately this has been true for centuries. It’s human nature and the reason why so many new thoughts and discoveries and from outside of the establishment. Not all, but more than should be, considering the weight of “expert” opinion is always within the establishment.

Have you looked at the link I gave? No, otherwise you would not be so silly asking.

Yeah I did and there’s nothing natural about that take off. Unless of course you are proposing that Pterosaurs had a symbiotic relationship with ancient primates.

[Aardwolf]

Even NewScientist magazine is asking:

Why Can't Elephants Jump?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... -jump.html

elephant.jpg

Now I'm just being silly.

Maybe if they had more oxygen they would be bounding around like kangaroos......

[Aardwolf]

Hmmn.

How much uplift must be observed in earthquake locations world-wide before it becomes apparent uplifted geology in the wake of earthquakes is conclusive proof that Earth's expansion is the cause of the world's earthquakes?

I don't see how this uplift is 'conclusive proof' of anything. If the Earth is growing then why should it a) grow only around certain areas (i.e. quake zones) and b) why would it only grow in spurts (quakes) rather than continuously/gradually?
Re a), one could ask why are quake zones not a lot higher than non-quake zones.

There are on average 20,000 detected earthquakes every year. Probably a lot more go undetected but thats still over 2 every hour. That's pretty gradual.

Aalso Aardwolf has me confused. He seems to be aadvocating that the Earth both grows and shrinks with his commments on variable/changing gravity. I may have hold of the wrong end of the stick there but if he is then how does that sit with growth from quake uplift, i.e. how does the Earth shrink again?

I have never said or intimated anything of the kind.

[allynh]

Maybe if they had more oxygen they would be bounding around like kangaroos......

Yes! I can see it now. Instead of an elephant stampede, you have a wave of elephants bounding toward us.

You know, that really is a scary thought. Yikes! Run away.....

[Anaconda]

A couple of issues to clean up:

In regards to the Chile earthquake, there is an additional observation & measurement which contradicts the so-called "subduction" model where oceanic tectonic plates supposedly "dive" under the continents.

For the sake of argument, according to the Continental Drift, Subduction Model of plate tectonics, the oceanic Nazca tectonic plate "subducts" or colloquially "dives" under the South American tectonic plate. The oceanic tectonic plate moves toward and pushes against and then is forced under the South American plate resulting in uplift of the South American tectonic plate and is partially expressed by the Andean mountain chain that runs the length of South America.

So, according to the "subduction" model, if the South American tectonic plate was to move in any direction (according to "subduction", continents "float" on the mantle and "drift" around on the mantle -- thus, it's also referred as the continental drift model), it would be in the direction the continental plate is being pushed by the oceanic tectonic plate as it "dives" underneath it -- in this instance, toward the East.

But that's not was observed & measured in the 2010 Chilean earthquake: Instead the exact opposite happened, the South American tectonic plate move to the West!

The massive magnitude 8.8 earthquake that struck the west coast of Chile last month moved the entire city of Concepcion at least 10 feet to the west, and shifted other parts of South America as far apart as the Falkland Islands and Fortaleza, Brazil.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132043.htm

This would seem to be a complete contradition of the Continental Drift, Subduction Model's predictions of how the tectonic plates should behave. So, unless & until "subduction" proponents can reconcile these observations with their model, it has been falsified.

Let's turn to another example which shows how extensive this uplift can be where you wouldn't expect:

The '94 Northridge earthquake in the Los Angeles area was the result of the San Andreas fault shifting, which is a transform fault where two tectonic plates slip horizontally or laterally past each other -- "subduction" is not even alleged to happen on this particular fault.

Yet, the observed & measured uplift covers a 4,000 square kilometer area:

The Northridge earthquake significantly deformed the Earth’s crust over an area of about 4,000 square kilometers. In general, the earthquake caused uplift throughout the San Fernando Valley and adjacent mountain areas.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/ofr-96-0263/mainshk.htm

So, this is not a limited area of uplift, rather, it's a 4,000 square kilometer region-wide uplift.

Considering this is a transform fault where no "subduction" is even alleged to happen, it begs the question: What caused this uplift? Where did it all come from?

Expanding Earth theory provides an explanation.

[allynh]

And you would need to show that overall Earth radius has increased to show earth expansion, plain and simple.

This is from the post I made far upstream when I posted my version 3.0 of Growing Earth Theory.

Everybody forgets, that the GPS system shows constant growth of the planet. When I worked at the Highway Department we were setting up base stations at each District office. They were at known survey coordinates, and constantly recorded the day to day divergence from "true" that the GPS satellites measured. Those divergences were sent to the USGS all day long so that surveyors could enter a "fudge factor" to "correct" their survey. The USGS and NASA are trapped in the concept of a static diameter Earth, so each day, the oceans get bigger, and the continents appear smaller.

Accuracy enhancement and surveying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps#Accura ... _surveying

GPS augmentation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_augmentation

Error analysis for the Global Positioning System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_anal ... ing_System

Wide Area Augmentation System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_ ... ion_System

BTW, I found the five string violin that I want to get, but I'll wait until they offer it with Perfection Planetary Pegs.

Siren Acoustic Violins
http://www.bridgeinstruments.co.uk/acou ... siren.html

I cannot work with wooden pegs. I find them impossible to tune. The fiddle I found had the Perfection Planetary Pegs factory installed, and it was a great price for just having fun learning to play.

I want the Siren Five string, drool, drool. Back to my fiddle lesson.