Are the planets growing?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.
Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:58 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:28 pm
Open Mind wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:48 amGET does need to prove that subduction is wrong.
Where's the proof that subduction is right?
Good question. As I understand it, from my non phd level understanding, aside from the presumption that the earth maintains a constant size, I suppose they use the volcanic activity above those regions to substantiate that there is something biasing the magma pressure in those area's. Beyond that grade school level understanding of the proposition of substantiation, if I dig for 'challenges against subduction, debate, etc' I rarely find much except very advanced discussions that are hard to grasp as they pull up a bunch of seemingly unrelated proxies restricted to only specific area's which makes them seem anecdotal at best.

All I'm saying is, I would love to see a paper or video, (or even assemble one myself if I can), that was devoted to revealing all the main idea's that subduction is relying on, and communicate how those can easily be refuted in an 'expose' that is digestible by the general public. I see that as a critical 'step one' of a movement towards promoting this idea to a wider audience, (which, if not done anonymously, would be social and professional suicide initially - GLITCH).

allynh
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:09 pm

Open Mind wrote:Main point was I'm hoping to see as much info on "How Subduction is totally wrong" because I see that as the least clarified defense of Expanding earth and I want more people to latch onto this idea.
I'll have to watch the lectures by Maxlow again, but I'm pretty sure he addresses subduction in the last video starting somewhere around time:

https://youtu.be/92j7wur0l-I?t=1720

It only takes about a half hour to show his point.
Maxlow sets out to establish a prima-firma case against established Plate Tectonics by questioning the very essence of plate theory, whereby Earth radius is constrained to a constant radius over time, and to question why this premise still has not been tested using modern geology-based global observational data.

During the 1950s, Emeritus Professor Sam Warren Carey of the University of Tasmania set about assembling the ancient Pangaean Supercontinent on a present-day Earth model in order to quantify Continental Drift theory.

From his research he went on to conclude that: The assembly of Pangaea is not possible on the earth of the present radius.

Unfortunately, with the subsequent acceptance and promotion of Plate Tectonic theory, the very important physical observations and conclusions of Carey continue to be totally ignored to this day, preferring instead to resort to cartoon-based continental reconstructions.

When physical scientific studies present a valid observation it goes without question that this observation should be taken seriously.

Ignoring Carey’s scientific modelling studies in preference to Plate Tectonic theory is therefore a blatant disregard for factual science.

Because of this disregard for factual science Plate Tectonics has now reached the point of cult status, drawn in by blind faith in the hundreds of millions of research dollars spent annually, and it would seem that no amount of factual observation will convince plate tectonists otherwise.

In this vain, Dr. Maxlow will now make an important prediction: The age of Plate Tectonics is drawing to a close and the age of Expansion Tectonics is dawning.
Is that the "How Subduction is totally wrong" that you were looking for.

BTW, Reading through your posts above again I'm still unsure what you were saying. There were a lot of words dancing around "something". I just didn't know what that "something" was. Sorry.

A fun fact, "tin foil hats" do not actually prevent Aliens from reading your mind. Quite the opposite in fact. It makes it easier for the Aliens to locate you from the other side of the world, and read your mind through the planet.

But I digress.

In looking at the YouTube page, there is a comment -- Newest first -- that echoes what you were saying, where the guy is also using the term "flat earthers" to dismiss the lecture. He clearly did not watch it.
Sitrep Productions Atlanta 1 year ago
Blind faith… otherwise known as what flat earthers have to prove their beliefs. Meanwhile, the heliocentric model has literal VOLUMES of verifiable scientific evidence to support it.
Earth is a globe.
Deal with it.
Earlier on he gets into an argument with a "flat earther", still nothing to do with the lecture.
FOOTPRINTS232 1 year ago
Sir, can you do a video about natural physics of water, how it finds and maintains level. Water dont curve. There is no way Earth could be a globe.

Sitrep Productions Atlanta 1 year ago
Level: (adj) having no part higher than another conforming to the CURVED liquid parts of earth’s surface. [Miriam-Webster Dictionary]
Earth IS a globe.
Deal with it.

FOOTPRINTS232 1 year ago
@Sitrep Productions Atlanta Only a science denier can say that earth is a globe when 70% or more of earths surface is water and the natural physics of water is that it maintains a flatness at its surface. Water at rest do not curve. I cant blame or ridicule you for you not understanding or admitting to this fact.

Sitrep Productions Atlanta 1 year ago
@FOOTPRINTS232 incorrect. The physics of water dictate that water maintains a LEVEL surface due to the force of GRAVITY acting upon it.
If you have water at rest in an environment without gravity (such as in a 0-G plane) the water actually takes on a very SPHERICAL shape… not flat at all. Therefore even you explanation of water “at rest” doesn’t work.
Additionally, the word Level is defined by the Miriam-Webster Dictionary as and adjective meaning, “Having no point higher than another, conforming to the CURVED liquid parts of earth’s surface.”
So, as you can see, I understand more about this subject than you do. Your inability to comprehend physics is not a valid argument against it.
Gravity is real and proves that earth can not be flat. So, unless you wanna tell me you’re smarter than literally every physicist in existence, because every one of them will tell you this same thing, you need to accept that objectively confirmed fact that earth is a globe.

FOOTPRINTS232 1 year ago
@Sitrep Productions Atlanta I did not deny Gravity and I said nothing about Gravity. I presented an undeniable scientific fact which is water at rest finds and maintains its level. Water must also be contained. If you are claiming that Earth is a globe then you should be able to present a curvature formula based on the circumference. This has nothing to do with Gravity and also Zero G planes. This is about being able to measure curvature over large bodies of water, for instance, oceans.

Sitrep Productions Atlanta 1 year ago
@FOOTPRINTS232 and guess what… the curve of the ocean HAS been measured.
Also, water is contained on earth… by GRAVITY.
And the phrase “water always finds its level” is incorrect, because without the force of gravity, water actually forms a relatively spherical shape… not flat and level. This can be seen when you release water in a zero-gravity environment such as in a Zero-G plane.
If you accept the force of gravity exists (which it does), then you must concede that flat earth is impossible. Flat earth can not exist along with the force of gravity.
Earth is a globe.
Deal with it.

FOOTPRINTS232 1 year ago
@Sitrep Productions Atlanta Cool
There is no way to argue with, or convince people like that, especially if they will not actually watch the lecture, or read the book.

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:39 pm

allynh wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:09 pm
Open Mind wrote:Main point was I'm hoping to see as much info on "How Subduction is totally wrong" because I see that as the least clarified defense of Expanding earth and I want more people to latch onto this idea.
I'll have to watch the lectures by Maxlow again, but I'm pretty sure he addresses subduction in the last video starting somewhere around time:
https://youtu.be/92j7wur0l-I?t=1720
It only takes about a half hour to show his point.
Earlier on he gets into an argument with a "flat earther", still nothing to do with the lecture.
There is no way to argue with, or convince people like that, especially if they will not actually watch the lecture, or read the book.


I've seen all the GET vids, or most, and find them very compelling. I'm on board.

I'm just saying that experts have too much at stake to take this seriously and give any real evidence a chance, because if anyone thinks their even entertaining this idea, they lose on all fronts, socially, livelihood, professionally, etc. However, it became 'accepted' for actual scientist to speak up about flat earth, just to put it to bed because of how much notoriety it was getting. So I was thinking that might be the 'back door' trick to engage with experts on GET.

Hence the idea of producing dumbed down content aimed at general public, but I retract the idea, now that i think about it, because the success of flat earth to rise up in the public consciousness relied on the driving force of a market of highly paranoid people pushing it based on the paranoid idea that 'the government was hiding something from them'.

I don't think anyone in good conscience could position the expanding earth in the same way to harness that explosion of notoriety. But I wish we could figure out how to get it out there enough to at least trigger the defensive reaction of actual mainstream 'experts' to 'ride in on their white horses to save the day by protect us from 'misinformation', and through that, actually engage with our best. It obviously won't be as easy to dismiss us considering GET is legitimate.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:55 pm

Open Mind wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 9:39 pmI don't think anyone in good conscience could position the expanding earth in the same way to harness that explosion of notoriety. But I wish we could figure out how to get it out there enough to at least trigger the defensive reaction of actual mainstream 'experts' to 'ride in on their white horses to save the day by protect us from 'misinformation', and through that, actually engage with our best. It obviously won't be as easy to dismiss us considering GET is legitimate.
There's little point in engaging with the mainstream, they would just label you mad and safely ignored. Below is an extract about subduction from David Pratts paper back in 2000 referencing even earlier papers. It's long known that plate tectonics & subduction etc. has failed but makes no difference. Just like most of the GR/SR nonsense, dark matter, black holes, big bang etc. Pointing out flaws, anomalies and contradictions gets you nowhere as this stuff isn't based on science, it's mostly religion.
Plate tectonicists insist that the volume of crust generated at midocean ridges is equaled by the volume subducted. But whereas 80,000 km of mid- ocean ridges are supposedly producing new crust, only 30,500 km of trenches exist. Even if we add the 9,000 km of “collision zones,” the figure is still only half that of the “spreading centers” (Smoot, 1997a). With two minor exceptions (the Scotia and Lesser Antilles trench/arc systems), Benioff zones are absent from the margins of the Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans. Many geological facts demonstrate that subduction is not taking place in the Lesser Antilles arc; if it were, the continental Barbados Ridge should now be 200–400 km beneath the Lesser Antilles (Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, 1974a). Kiskyras (1990) presented geological, volcanological, petrochemical, and seismological data contradicting the belief that the African plate is being subducted under the Aegean Sea.

Africa is allegedly being converged on by plates spreading from the east, south, and west, yet it exhibits no evidence whatsoever for the existence of subduction zones or orogenic belts. Antarctica, too, is almost entirely surrounded by alleged “spreading” ridges without any corresponding subduction zones but fails to show any signs of being crushed. It has been suggested that Africa and Antarctica may remain stationary while the surrounding ridge system migrates away from them, but this would require the ridge marking the “plate boundary” between Africa and Antarctica to move in opposite directions simultaneously (Storetvedt, 1997)!

If up to 13,000 km of lithosphere had really been subducted in circum-Pacific deep-sea trenches, vast amounts of oceanic sediments should have been scraped off the ocean floor and piled up against the landward margin of the trenches. However, sediments in the trenches are generally not present in the volumes required, nor do they display the expected degree of deformation (Choi, 1999b; Gnibidenko, Krasny, and Popov, 1978; Storetvedt, 1997; Suzu- ki et al., 1997). Scholl and Marlow (1974), who support plate tectonics, admitted to being “genuinely perplexed as to why evidence for subduction or off scraping of trench deposits is not glaringly apparent” (p. 268). Plate tectonicists have had to resort to the highly dubious notion that unconsolidated deep-ocean sediments can slide smoothly into a Benioff zone without leaving any significant trace. Moreover, fore-arc sediments, where they have been analyzed, have generally been found to be derived from the volcanic arc and the adjacent continental block, not from the oceanic region (Pratsch, 1990; Wezel, 1986). The very low level of seismicity, the lack of a megathrust, and the existence of flat-lying sediments at the base of oceanic trenches contradict the alleged presence of a downgoing slab (Dickins and Choi, 1998). Attempts by Murdock (1997), who accepts many elements of plate tectonics, to publicize the lack of a megathrust in the Aleutian trench (i.e., a million or more meters of displacement of the Pacific plate as it supposedly underthrusts the North American plate) have met with vigorous resistance and suppression by the plate-tectonics establishment.

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:39 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:55 pm
Plate tectonicists insist that the volume of crust generated at midocean ridges is equaled by the volume subducted. But whereas 80,000 km of mid- ocean ridges are supposedly producing new crust, only 30,500 km of trenches exist. Even if we add the 9,000 km of “collision zones,” the figure is still only half that of the “spreading centers” (Smoot, 1997a). With two minor exceptions (the Scotia and Lesser Antilles trench/arc systems), Benioff zones are absent from the margins of the Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans. Many geological facts demonstrate that subduction is not taking place in the Lesser Antilles arc; if it were, the continental Barbados Ridge should now be 200–400 km beneath the Lesser Antilles (Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, 1974a). Kiskyras (1990) presented geological, volcanological, petrochemical, and seismological data contradicting the belief that the African plate is being subducted under the Aegean Sea.

Africa is allegedly being converged on by plates spreading from the east, south, and west, yet it exhibits no evidence whatsoever for the existence of subduction zones or orogenic belts. Antarctica, too, is almost entirely surrounded by alleged “spreading” ridges without any corresponding subduction zones but fails to show any signs of being crushed. It has been suggested that Africa and Antarctica may remain stationary while the surrounding ridge system migrates away from them, but this would require the ridge marking the “plate boundary” between Africa and Antarctica to move in opposite directions simultaneously (Storetvedt, 1997)!

If up to 13,000 km of lithosphere had really been subducted in circum-Pacific deep-sea trenches, vast amounts of oceanic sediments should have been scraped off the ocean floor and piled up against the landward margin of the trenches. However, sediments in the trenches are generally not present in the volumes required, nor do they display the expected degree of deformation (Choi, 1999b; Gnibidenko, Krasny, and Popov, 1978; Storetvedt, 1997; Suzu- ki et al., 1997). Scholl and Marlow (1974), who support plate tectonics, admitted to being “genuinely perplexed as to why evidence for subduction or off scraping of trench deposits is not glaringly apparent” (p. 268). Plate tectonicists have had to resort to the highly dubious notion that unconsolidated deep-ocean sediments can slide smoothly into a Benioff zone without leaving any significant trace. Moreover, fore-arc sediments, where they have been analyzed, have generally been found to be derived from the volcanic arc and the adjacent continental block, not from the oceanic region (Pratsch, 1990; Wezel, 1986). The very low level of seismicity, the lack of a megathrust, and the existence of flat-lying sediments at the base of oceanic trenches contradict the alleged presence of a downgoing slab (Dickins and Choi, 1998). Attempts by Murdock (1997), who accepts many elements of plate tectonics, to publicize the lack of a megathrust in the Aleutian trench (i.e., a million or more meters of displacement of the Pacific plate as it supposedly underthrusts the North American plate) have met with vigorous resistance and suppression by the plate-tectonics establishment.

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:38 pm

Aardwolf wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:55 pm
Plate tectonicists insist that the volume of crust generated at midocean ridges is equaled by the volume subducted. But whereas 80,000 km of mid- ocean ridges are supposedly producing new crust, only 30,500 km of trenches exist. Even if we add the 9,000 km of “collision zones,” the figure is still only half that of the “spreading centers” (Smoot, 1997a). With two minor exceptions (the Scotia and Lesser Antilles trench/arc systems), Benioff zones are absent from the margins of the Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans. Many geological facts demonstrate that subduction is not taking place in the Lesser Antilles arc; if it were, the continental Barbados Ridge should now be 200–400 km beneath the Lesser Antilles (Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff, 1974a). Kiskyras (1990) presented geological, volcanological, petrochemical, and seismological data contradicting the belief that the African plate is being subducted under the Aegean Sea.

Africa is allegedly being converged on by plates spreading from the east, south, and west, yet it exhibits no evidence whatsoever for the existence of subduction zones or orogenic belts. Antarctica, too, is almost entirely surrounded by alleged “spreading” ridges without any corresponding subduction zones but fails to show any signs of being crushed. It has been suggested that Africa and Antarctica may remain stationary while the surrounding ridge system migrates away from them, but this would require the ridge marking the “plate boundary” between Africa and Antarctica to move in opposite directions simultaneously (Storetvedt, 1997)!

If up to 13,000 km of lithosphere had really been subducted in circum-Pacific deep-sea trenches, vast amounts of oceanic sediments should have been scraped off the ocean floor and piled up against the landward margin of the trenches. However, sediments in the trenches are generally not present in the volumes required, nor do they display the expected degree of deformation (Choi, 1999b; Gnibidenko, Krasny, and Popov, 1978; Storetvedt, 1997; Suzu- ki et al., 1997). Scholl and Marlow (1974), who support plate tectonics, admitted to being “genuinely perplexed as to why evidence for subduction or off scraping of trench deposits is not glaringly apparent” (p. 268). Plate tectonicists have had to resort to the highly dubious notion that unconsolidated deep-ocean sediments can slide smoothly into a Benioff zone without leaving any significant trace. Moreover, fore-arc sediments, where they have been analyzed, have generally been found to be derived from the volcanic arc and the adjacent continental block, not from the oceanic region (Pratsch, 1990; Wezel, 1986). The very low level of seismicity, the lack of a megathrust, and the existence of flat-lying sediments at the base of oceanic trenches contradict the alleged presence of a downgoing slab (Dickins and Choi, 1998). Attempts by Murdock (1997), who accepts many elements of plate tectonics, to publicize the lack of a megathrust in the Aleutian trench (i.e., a million or more meters of displacement of the Pacific plate as it supposedly underthrusts the North American plate) have met with vigorous resistance and suppression by the plate-tectonics establishment.
Yes, and thank you for that. I've read that before. I'm still fixated on translating all this to the general public to attract attention to this new paradigm. As were presently watching the JWST poke holes in our favorite 'mainstream solid science of the BIg Bang', maybe the public will be softened and more open to new idea's soon. So I'm critiquing this scientific presentation with respect to that goal.

Your source does seem to satisfy a compelling enough and materially significant backed up claim to reasonably expect its worthy of response, defense, or counter point in some way from mainstream Geology, and yet they don't feel its necessary to do so. Why? Because its easy to simply rest on the idea that any response to that is akin to 'engaging with a crazy person'. No one in the general public would risk disagreeing, and therefore its beneath Geology to engage. Classic roadblock, and another 100 years goes by.. So how do you deal with that? I'd suggest fighting fire with fire. These research papers need a publicly digestible translation.

For instance, the claim that with 80,000 km of mid ocean ridges, there is only 30,500 km of trench. That reads like we're even ACCEPTING that trenches satisfy criteria for a subduction zone. So someone like me immediately thinks, "ok, so (nearly half) of expansion zones are ADMITTEDLY accompanied by their corresponding plate tectonics counterparts." Do we really know the rest isn't just older 'filled in trench' and subduction happens in spurts non uniformly from localized area's like those under counter toe kick vacuum flaps?

Where are these trenches, by the way? Are all their trenches actually at the margin before continental landmass at the end of the oldest dated rock in the layers spreading out chronologically from mid ocean ridge to shore? Or are we including any and all trenches out of desperation, some not even being at the chronological margins of oceanic crust? This doesn't feel aggressively convincing enough, thus enabling the 'authorities' to feel confidence in their choice to avoid taking it seriously. Yes real experts see the dodge, but no body else does.

I think assaults against mainstream plate tectonics should be as bold, reckless, and biased as Geology. Yes, from an experts perspective that would be even easier to dismiss, but from the public's perspective, how long can they go accepting our experts 'hand waive' dismissal, without actual serious response to 'finally and permanently' end these annoying 'misinformation campaigns', as they'll position the GET movement.

For public consumption purposes, what's an 'orogenic belt'? What are 'collision zones and Benioff zones'? I'd keep it simple. A prime example I'd dwell on is the seafloor sediment scraping. This video for example does a great job of illustrating that part: (see 10:10 to 12:20)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9CQnFPnDls

Its reasonably free of huge leaps up until the 17:00 minute mark, where it takes a turn towards a specific interpretation that you can't find much support for, and yet it doesn't distinguish the tone of 'certainty' to introduce that part from the rest, which makes this video lose all its value based on that final proposition. That's a mistake for the purposes of presenting a believable case for GET.

But as for the rest, mainstream defense has to rely on "the highly dubious notion that unconsolidated deep-ocean sediments can slide smoothly into a Benioff zone without leaving any significant trace." So now I have to google Benioff zones to believe that. Nothing addressing sediment. So I google Benioff zone sediment. No one addresses it. So I have to imagine they're proposing something like this:

https://media1.giphy.com/media/iZjoLdS1 ... y.gif&ct=g

Where the rift zone stress release point is like an opening mouth taking a bite.

But beyond the sediment challenge, there's the last element of volcanic activity supposedly caused by the friction of the plate sliding beneath the earth. If there's no subduction, what's the cause of that coincidence?

allynh
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:11 pm

The Expanding Earth - an observational documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9CQnFPnDls
That is a fun video.

I can see where they think that the amount of water stayed the same, leading to an ocean planet at the beginning. Maxlow even mentions in his lecture that water levels are falling as the Earth expands. His thinking is that water production is not keeping up with growth.

The end part is fun speculation, with the concept that the Earth is "rusting" from the inside. They are trying to find a way for the Earth to "Expand" without having to create new material.

- Call this variation, "Rust Earth".

They didn't take the fossil record of the dinosaurs into account to show that gravity has increased over time.

As you say, at least they are trying to simplify the process and make it clear.

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Fri Sep 23, 2022 8:19 pm

allynh wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:11 pm
They didn't take the fossil record of the dinosaurs into account to show that gravity has increased over time.
As you say, at least they are trying to simplify the process and make it clear.
Zactly. And I'd use this vid to start out for a GET discussion as well, which is right in the simple range of comprehension:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4nDcczMoBw

And yes, they didn't get into ancient gravity, or hollow earth, or plasma core, or solar wind protons or transmutation, etc. We love that stuff, especially dinosaurs, but they're all too risky a concept to keep the 'civilian' viewer from becoming defensively triggered. I'd say the key stuff is the following:

Continents, (including their shelf's) fit together perfectly with a shrinking earth cool graphic, all views, etc
Acknowledged seafloor spreading accepted
Challenges to subduction: sediment, unobserved, coastal age, etc.
Age ranges of oceanic ridge layers
Antarctica mystery
Some quality reason for the coincidental volcanic activity in their supposed subduction regions - TBD
(probably some others I'm forgetting in the category of minimally triggering new idea's)

Leave those other triggery idea's out of the discussion as long as possible until there are worthy challenges and responses to harder questions that naturally lead into them. You know the experts aren't going to bring them up, and if GET defenses are sufficient, unleapy, and relentless, you know they'll eventually pull out the desperate 'occam's razor' wrap up. That would be a nice point to bring up gravity attacks I think.

allynh
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sat Sep 24, 2022 1:07 am

That one didn't work as well because he only focused on the Atlantic, ignoring the Pacific and the blatantly different pattern of spreading.

- Without focusing on the whole planet, you can cheat with the "evidence".

And he kept saying that the new material at the ridges was "pushing" the seafloor apart. That's like claiming that liquid oozing out would somehow push the seafloor apart.

Plus, he ignored "subduction" which is vital if Plate Tectonics worked.

So that's an example of how not to do a video.

This is what any person would face trying to convince so called "experts".

accept the fact the pharoahs of the Fourth Dynasty did not build the great pyramids
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq1RPu2aaU4

"I don't have any idea who built them."

And the jackals laugh and walk out.

The only thing that has stopped GET from moving forward is the mechanism of that growth. That's why they settled for Plate Tectonics. It didn't require a mechanism for generating new material.

To paraphrase Jackson:

"I don't know how new material is made."

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Sat Sep 24, 2022 1:16 pm

allynh wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 1:07 am
That one didn't work as well because he only focused on the Atlantic, ignoring the Pacific and the blatantly different pattern of spreading.
- Without focusing on the whole planet, you can cheat with the "evidence".
And he kept saying that the new material at the ridges was "pushing" the seafloor apart. That's like claiming that liquid oozing out would somehow push the seafloor apart.
Plus, he ignored "subduction" which is vital if Plate Tectonics worked.
So that's an example of how not to do a video.
This is what any person would face trying to convince so called "experts".
accept the fact the pharoahs of the Fourth Dynasty did not build the great pyramids
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq1RPu2aaU4
"I don't have any idea who built them."
And the jackals laugh and walk out.
The only thing that has stopped GET from moving forward is the mechanism of that growth. That's why they settled for Plate Tectonics. It didn't require a mechanism for generating new material.
To paraphrase Jackson:
"I don't know how new material is made."
Well, it was specifically focused on seafloor spreading, which meant it wasn't going to get into subduction, which is why it felt like a safe and careful way to open a doc style vid on the introduction to GET, because it starts with 'accepted science' to lull the viewer in. I also thought about that idea of the supposed 'pressure' that pushed apart the plates. Def felt like a leap.

I didn't watch your vid, but my guess is, based on the quote, that it was the opening scene from Star Gate? lol, (did I nail it?)

"The only thing that has stopped GET from moving forward is the mechanism of that growth."

I agree, and its an advanced concept above the ability for a regular non scientific person to actually identify or comprehend. But I picture experts leaning on that as their 'mic drop' end of discussions, and then see it parroted by the masses, only really comprehending an oversimplified scope of the size of that question.

Its similar to the geologist catastrophist J Harlen Bretz who identified the signatures of massive flooding in the mid western north American continent below the margins of the ice age glaciers, and his opponents all leaned on the challenge of comprehending what mechanism could generate that much energy to melt that much water, and Graham Hancock always refers to Bretz's position as "Not my problem". As reasonable a response, it doesn't help the case.

Appreciate this discussion. I've narrowed down to focusing now on the challenge of explaining the curious coincidence of volcanic activity that Plate Tectonics uses to exemplify the process that's happening under the earth in their theories in those regions. Do you think there's an equally reasonable explanation for that without the influence of the concept of subduction?

I'm wondering if its reasonable to suggest that those supposed regions of subduction are also accompanied by volcanic activity because they're natural 'fold points' for curvature adjustment during expansion, because of the far thicker crust of land masses in stark contrast to the seafloor levels, and that fold point naturally weakens the crust at that point to allow the mantle migration up in those area's. If that were possible, I wonder if there might be a correlation of increased volcanic points in regions of higher rates of rise in continental shoreline elevation abruptly next to the lower seafloor margin. Meaning the faster the rise in elevation off the coast, the more it becomes a more predictable 'fold point' vs a shoreline that remains low elevation farther into the continent. A more gradual rise in shoreline elevation might not direct forces straight to one point, and might 'bend' more, which would decrease the crust folding 'snap' that makes those magma channels. It might correlate with the occurrence of mountains in those points, which we might assume is a result of earth curvature, while 'relaxing down' post expansion as a means of curvature compensation, could be how those mountain ranges might form.

allynh
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:46 pm

The last two paragraphs need to be focused.

I think that you are trying to explain the Pacific Ring of Fire.

Plate Tectonics and the Ring of Fire
https://education.nationalgeographic.or ... -ring-fire

Remember, the Pacific grew faster than the Atlantic. It opened North to South as Australia moved from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. The Ring of Fire corresponds to the youngest sea floor.

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age ... plates.jpg

The map is from the NOAA site.

Marine Geology and Geophysics
Images of Crustal Age of the Ocean Floor
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustalimages.html
geologist catastrophist J Harlen Bretz
I harvested the Wiki page on Bretz. That was another useful example of how the jackals act when something new is proposed. I remember a Nova episode about that.

Mystery of the Megaflood 2005
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HWXHH_jWsY

MYSTERY OF THE MEGAFLOOD
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcrip ... afloo.html

What is more likely, rather than a flood, the landscape was sculpted by Electric Discharge Machining(EDM).

That would be ironic to have one unacceptable process replace another.

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Sun Sep 25, 2022 12:14 am

allynh wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:46 pm The last two paragraphs need to be focused.

I think that you are trying to explain the Pacific Ring of Fire.

Remember, the Pacific grew faster than the Atlantic. It opened North to South as Australia moved from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. The Ring of Fire corresponds to the youngest sea floor.

What is more likely, rather than a flood, the landscape was sculpted by Electric Discharge Machining(EDM).

That would be ironic to have one unacceptable process replace another.
damn, I thought I might be onto something there. Yes, basically the ring of fire, only since it seems to be where most of the subduction is supposed to have occurred. Back to the drawing board I guess.

So the younger land around the ring of fire is how they substantiate subduction because its older landmass bordering far younger seafloor. So as that north American spreading center travels north, it merges more closely to the coast of the the landmass. Why do you suppose it only spread in one direction? Its like north america's jet boat motor.

Here's an interactive link that you can control the growth back and forth, as well as orient the planet to watch movement from any point.

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ ... h-demo.htm

By the way, on the above map, Austrailia doesn't travel the path you suggest. Have a go at it and see. It looks like it swings under the south pole.

I'm intrigued by the electrical scaring idea with spots like the grand canyon, where those seeming tributaries go up hill at points. And the chevrons is interesting. I'm all over the moon cratering ideas too.

But on the southern margin of the ice sheet, I think catastrophist geology got it right with those cataracks, pot holes, current ripples, and stranded shorelines. Thinking that stuff is legit.

allynh
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sun Sep 25, 2022 4:02 am

No, that's wrong from the start. The plates are in the wrong place from the start. Nice software, but wrong position. You can tell that it's wrong by the white gaps on the smallest globe. When the placement is right, there are no white gaps between the plates. That's the whole point.

Run this video back and forth. Notice that Australia was between China and North America. They know this because the geology and fossils match.

Expanding Earth Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqF-vvi5uUA

The Pacific opens downward, like a seed pod splitting open.

The Ring of Fire exists because so much new seafloor was created that the edges are still hot.

This is why Venus is 900 degrees. It grew so fast that it is still hot from the growth.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:54 pm

allynh wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 1:07 am The only thing that has stopped GET from moving forward is the mechanism of that growth.
That was before they could measure things like this;

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... 0oct_ftes/
A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.
High-energy particles also known as potentially very high speed protons.
The portal takes the form of a magnetic cylinder about as wide as Earth.
Surely more than enough mass to grow the Earth over time.

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Open Mind » Tue Sep 27, 2022 2:17 am

Aardwolf wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:54 pm
allynh wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 1:07 am The only thing that has stopped GET from moving forward is the mechanism of that growth.
That was before they could measure things like this;

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... 0oct_ftes/
A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.
High-energy particles also known as potentially very high speed protons.
The portal takes the form of a magnetic cylinder about as wide as Earth.
Surely more than enough mass to grow the Earth over time.
Interesting. Hard to visualize it as they describe it. But I've read from others that the solar wind transfers protons to earth, and while it seems like very little when thinking about the diameter of the earth as a receiving area, if you consider the far larger magnetic field around the earth as the receiving and capturing surface, Its orders of magnitude more.

But in your article they're saying: "Earth's magnetic field presses against the sun's magnetic field. Approximately every eight minutes, the two fields briefly merge or "reconnect," forming a portal through which particles can flow.". If Earth's magnetic field strength is shrinking, then I'm assuming the reach of our field is shrinking and pulling back from the sun's magnetic field. So based on my understanding, it would seem the effect they're describing must be experiencing far less occurrences because the 'vin diagram intersection' of ours and the suns magnetic fields are pulling apart. Wouldn't that be reducing these occurrences?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest