Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion

From: David Ford (Nospam_at_internode.on.net)
Date: 01/01/05 

Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:34:39 +1000

George wrote:
> "David Ford" <Nospam@internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:41d51536@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>
>>George wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"J. Taylor" <jota@gorge.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>>>news:vio9t0h12h09deofjr56qguujle3q8sea2@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:53:48 GMT, "George"
>>>><george@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David Ford" <Nospam@internode.on.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:41d18181$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>George wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Bigdakine" <bigdakine@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:20041227221416.12272.00002782@mb-m28.aol.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: Earth expansion - parameters for discussion
>>>>>>>>>From: David Ford Nospam@internode.on.net
>>>>>>>>>Date: 12/27/04 4:39 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>>>>>>>Message-id: <41d0c771@duster.adelaide.on.net>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>don findlay wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>EARTH EXPANSION - Axioms on which to lay down Parameters for
>>>>>>>>>>discussion:
>>>>>>>>>>________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>1. Did the Earth once form a granitic ('continental') crust as a
>>>>>>>>>>result of differentiation (core mantle and crust) - Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>2. Did it cover the entire Earth? - Yes (Or:- how might it be
>>>>>>>>>>conceived that differentiation could occur and 'whole-Earth Crust' not
>>>>>>>>>>form?)
>>>>>>>>>>3. Was that Whole-Earth Crust what is Today called "Pangaea"? -
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, because the movement picture that breaks up the
>>>>>>>>>>continental crust in the Atlantic _ Indian - Southern Oceans and
>>>>>>>>>>exposes the mantle as the ocean floors, also applies to the Pacific and
>>>>>>>>>>exposes the mantle there too. Same continental crust, same break up,
>>>>>>>>>>same movement picture - just bigger than already accepted by plate
>>>>>>>>>>tectonics.
>>>>>>>>>>4. Are 'obducted ophiolites' 'evidence' of an earlier ocean floor?
>>>>>>>>>>No, ..because these emplacements of mantle on continental crust are
>>>>>>>>>>easily accounted for within the same movement picture as in 3. ...and
>>>>>>>>>>are anyway of orders of magnitude insignificance to be related in any
>>>>>>>>>>way to the process known as 'plate tectonics'
>>>>>>>>>>Anyone got anything else to add?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>5. Are there currently observed and identified far greater lengths of
>>>>>>>>>rifting new-crust generation zones, than merely presumed crustal removal
>>>>>>>>>zones?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>YES.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The collective length of all trench zones is ~30,000 km, about a quarter
>>>>>>>>>of the length of all spreading ridges (2 x ~60,000 km). The proposed
>>>>>>>>>Plate tectonic 'balance' of construction and destruction of oceanic
>>>>>>>>>crust is thus geometrically impossible on a sphere with these observed
>>>>>>>>>features. In order for a crustal construction-destruction balance to be
>>>>>>>>>in effect, ocean basins require co-equal lengths of assumed consumptive
>>>>>>>>>trench .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ford doesn't realize the convergence at subduction zones tends to be
>>>>>>>>faster
>>>>>>>>than the divergence at rifts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and it just isn't there, even if those trench area really did
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>represent zones of crustal resumption back into the mantle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>.but why let basic physical facts interfere with a 'good' consensual
>>>>>>>>>fiction huh? ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ford still hasn't learned what Gauss's theorem is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Incredible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Stuart
>>>>>>>>Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
>>>>>>>>Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
>>>>>>>>"To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What I find even more amazing is his assumption that the earth's crust is
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>some kind of balance or equilibrium, or that it even requires equilibrium
>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>balanced conditions in order for subduction to occur. The fact of the
>>>>>>>matter
>>>>>>>is that the crust is not in eequilibrium. That the crust is not in
>>>>>>>equilibrium conditions was amply demonstrated the other day with the 9.0
>>>>>>>earthquake that apparently has killed somewhere in the neighborhood of
>>>>>>>40,000
>>>>>>>people. But why let the physical facts interfere with a bad
>>>>>>>non-consensual
>>>>>>>fiction?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are such a goat George, for Earth's radius to be unchanging over a 200
>>>>>>mya
>>>>>>period, the generation of crust from the mantle has to equal the resumption
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>crust back into the mantle; this is a standard PT concept even a child can
>>>>>>grasp.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really? And why is that? It can't just pile up crust and create mountains
>>>>>like
>>>>>in the himalayas, which get eroded down, creating sediments in the rivers,
>>>>>lake
>>>>>and oceans, downwarping the crust, and so forth and so on?
>>>>
>>>>Gravity will be very unhappy if you create holes in the interior of
>>>>the planet. If you remove mass from the interior and place it on the
>>>>exterior you have an energy imbalance. Something defied the edicts of
>>>>gravity, not only was energy expended, but mass was removed.
>>>>
>>>>It creates an imbalance.
>>>
>>>
>>>Who said anything about creating holes in the interior? Oh right. You did.
>>>Oh, and the earth is not in balance. It is always in a state of flux, of
>>>change, of entropy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>If it was in
>>>>>equilibrium, there would be no topographic relief. Since there is plenty of
>>>>>topographic relief to be found, your equilibrium theory hasn't a leg to
>>>>>stand
>>>>>on. The fact is that the earth is ever changing and dynamic. It is no more
>>>>>in
>>>>>equilibrium than the universe is.
>>>>
>>>>Unless you are into perpetual motion, it will have to balance for the
>>>>system to continue to cycle.
>>>
>>>
>>>Perpetual motion assumes that the universe (or the earth) will last forever.
>>>As a scientist, I don't have the luxury of entertaining such fantasies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>It is a balance, or to use your word, and equilibrium of the generation and
>>>>>>the resumption of crustal rock in PT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you have a mental handicap I should know about?
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you have a valid point you'd like to make?
>>>>
>>>>Yep, balance the equation.
>>>>
>>>>JT
>>>
>>>
>>>The earth is not a balanced system. It resides in an ellipse, not a perfect
>>>circle, the rotation wobbles, and the earth's crust is highly fractured, and
>>>moves around, among a zillion other unbalanced aspects of its nature. There
>>>is nothing balanced about it, or the universe for that matter. Chaos rules.
>>>Sorry to disappoint you.
>>
>>
>>It is more than a slight dynamic imbalance as you suggest, about three
>>quarters of the length of ‘subduction zone’ required is NON-EXISTENT!
>
>
> I don't know where you got that measurement (that you've stated about a zillion
> times, and have never provided actual physical data to support that claim), but
> you didn't get it from he planet earth (oh right. You pulled it out of your
> ass).

It comes from measuring the lengths of MOR on a current geological globe
of Earth (made by Dr. James Maxlow). When you measure you find there is
double the length of MOR to assumed 'subduction' zone (Maxlow has a full
digital version of course, and it’s a piece of cake to sum the lengths
of each within it). MORs are all twinned, i.e. producing crust either
side of the MOR, but the so-called subduction zones only consume ocean
floor on one side. Consequently, you have four times the length of new
oceanic crust generation boundary, compared to the proposed site of its
destruction in 'subduction' zone boundry. QED

> And even if it were true, so what?

It is, you clearly aren't even familiar with the basic large-scale
features of our Earth; yet you pretend to speak with presumed
'authority' LMAO! ... and to castigate those who are! Call yourself a
'geologist' do you Georgie? phft!

The term geology means STUDY OF EARTH and you should try it some time.

There are three basic tenents of
> plate tectonics (four, actually). The first is that the mid-oceanic ridges are
> spreading centers, places where new crust is being formed. Then there are
> subduction zones, places where crust is being recycled back into the mantle.
> The there are collision zones, continent-continent, and continent-oceanic (other
> than subduction, otherwise known as pbduction zones). And all of this is being
> driving by mantle convection.
>
> So, if there aren't enough subduction zones to balance the out spreading
> centers, what could that possibly mean? It means that crust is piling up
> somewhere, since it isn't going back down into the mantle. And where could such
> places be where crust is piling up? FUCKING MOUNTAIN CHAINS, you moron.
> Orogenic belts.

LMAO! (this should be good!)

err ... Georgie old-boy, this oceanic 'slab' which is normally being
theoretically subducted ... it's ... well, it's nominally about 100 km
thick isn't it? ...???

So your incredible EXCUSE for why Plate tectonics doesn't have more than
a QUARTER of the assumed subduction zone it needs, is that these
MILLIONS of cubic km of ocean crust 'slab' must stack up vertically
instead!

BWAHAHAH!! ...

2004 prize of "Un-Fricken-Precedented PT Brainlessness", goes to Georgie

So then, where are these great 10,000 km high mountain belts George?
They must be around here somewhere, right? There is nowhere near enough
subduction zone ... but ... nor is there the necessarily implied
unimaginably high pan-global orogens either!

The only active pan-global orogens are all creating and spreading new
ocean crust ... MORs!!

BWHAHAHAHA!

... and you call yourself a 'geologist'?! ...

> Even Carey understood the importance of orogenisis with regard
> to the geologic history of the earth. 'Oh, but then you'd leave big voids in
> the earth because not all the material is being recycled'. Duh! Why then, do
> you think basins and huge areas of crustal subsidence exist? Because some 17th
> dimension celtic god kicked the earth's ass and make huge dents?

One wonders why you keep trying to make this ridiculous 'linkage'
between myself and 'JPT'. I'm not even a subscriber to any 'God', nor
any religion, and have no connection whatever with Mr JPT, I never have
and most certainly never will. You're playing the usual desperate
personal smear tactic thing again as you ALWAYS have rather than cope
with the topic of discussion. That's you in a nutshell George.

> The basins are
> there because of subsidence. The crust compensates for not having enough places
> for the crust to cycle back into the mantle by subsiding. Hence we have the
> ancient Appalachian, Illinois Basin, Michigan, and a zillion other basins. And
> if you look at the very bottom of those basins what do you find? Most of the
> time you find oceanic crust.

LMAO!! ... err, sorry sport, basin basement does NOT equate to oceanic
crust, I can't believe you would be so daft as to assert that it might
or could, "Most of the time you find oceanic crust". Go study some
elementary sedimentology and palaeontology of deep and shallow MARINE
BASINS old-boy; then, go look at a genuine OCEANIC sediment core and
upper basement sample, then try to tell us all how they are the same
thing, "Most of the time...", to quote you directly!

What a comedian. LMAO

> The fact that 70 percent of the earth's surface is
> below sea level is not an accident. And you don't need an ocean for a spreading
> center to form. In fact, in most cases, they started within the continental
> boundaries (i.e., the African rift valleys). The spreading centers pull the
> continents apart and create ocean basins. But as those basins subside, new
> crust is formed both wthin the spreading centers and along the subduction zones
> as volcanic arcs. I could go on, but you don't believe one word of this so I'm
> wasting my time, which I suspect was your aim anyway.

Oh really Georgie, wow, what a revelation! You mean like the Red Sea
and Mediterranean? You feel Expansionists don't quite grasp this do
you? What you have just described is in fact an integral part of Earth
expansion's fundamental notions kiddo; see this graphic of Carey's, from
my website:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/8098/Fig12.gif

>>That's not just a little dynamic-imbalance goofy, it's what’s called totally
>>IMPOSSIBLE … IF subduction were in fact a real process at all, as plate
>>tectonics merely presumes.
>
>
> Not impossible. Its happening as we speak. If you had lived in Sumatra last
> week, you likley would have died finding this out.
>
>
>>BTW, you act like geology of recent years has only found more (assumed)
>>'subduction zone' in Cascadia, but you do also realise Antarctica is actively
>>rifting ... and on top of this is also 100% surrounded by extending new crust
>>formation along the southern ocean's MORs, and by a N-S continental rift in
>>Africa, and massive extensional MOR complexes in the Atlantic and Indian
>>Oceans, and the massively fast spreading occurring in the east Pacific MOR.
>
>
> The eastern half of which is subducting beneath the western coast of South
> America, creating one of the longest mountain ranges on dry land.

BWHAHAHAHAH!!! Very funny Georgie! (you might be a comedian after all
LMAO)

Let's briefly examine this REDICULOUS assertion a little bit; the
diminutive South Sandwich trench trends * NORTH SOUTH* ... nope,
Antarctica ain't going down that one kiddo! ... and to make things even
worse, that regional structure has an north-south trending MOR running
through the middle of its western margins!!!

The South Sandwich region is actually generating far more crust than it
could subduct (if subduction were even occurring) and it is in the wrong
orientation to resume any crust from Antarctica.

The there is the Peru to Chile trench, which is again a * NORTH-SOUTH *
trending trench! ... oops! ... it's already got its plate full trying to
deal with the staggeringly high rate of oceanic crust formation
occurring at the Central and South East Pacific's MOR(s), there's no
chance extension from Antarctica is going down that trench kid. Then
there is the * NORTH-SOUTH * trending Kermadec trench, and again, it has
it's hands full trying to swallow the crust from the Central and east
Pacific rise (and theoretically from the Atlantic, the East Africa rift
and the massive MORs in the Indian Ocean ... but that's another JOKE ...
isn't it LOL ...)

Have a look at some actual magnetic isochrons goofy:

http://gdcinfo.agg.nrcan.gc.ca/app/images/crustageposter.gif

>>The length of MOR and continental rifting in the Southern hemisphere is around
>>SEVEN times the length of the supposed 'subduction zones'.

Based upon extensively mapped and examined geophysical geological
structural reality mate. Here are some newer Earth expansion videos for
you all to view from James Maxlow's recent doctorate work (BTW, Maxlows
doctoral thesis received a triple AAA assessment from reviewer, and is
available from him on CD)

Video A3.14 Expanding Earth Archaean to Future palaeomagnetic south poles.

http://ado.qgl.org/southpole.avi

Video A3.5 Recent VLBI, SLR, GPS and DORIS horizontal plate motion.

http://ado.qgl.org/published_geodetic_vectors.mpg

Those vector arrows are scaled to published rates mate, and say it all,
Earth is clearly expanding--it's a done deal.

Obtain a large number of such videos along with Maxlow’s his doctorate
thesis on Earth Expansion global mapping from Archaean to Present, on CD
from:

Dr. James Maxlow
TERRELLA CONSULTANTS
29 Cecil Street
Glen Forrest, 6071
Western Australia

> Based on what? Did you pull out you handy dandy measuring tape and measure them
> all? I hope you used a wet suit for the oceanic parts.
>
>
>>That is not a dynamic imbalance, it's just plain IMPOSSIBLE, and incompatible
>>with the meagre amount of subduction zone.
>
>
> You haven't proven anything here. You've made a claim based on your word alone.
> You've presented no evidence that this is the case. Where's the data? Show me
> measurements, and what those measurements are based on.

The fact of the matter George is that you have NEVER read ANY of the
detailed CURRENT, and RECENT work, being done into Earth Expansion
research and its publications. That is your myopic little problem right
there kiddo. You claimed earlier in the thread that EEers keep posting
the same old stuff, well, 18 months ago, I posted full details of of
Maxlow’s Thesis here and how to obtain it, and I made recommendation of
several recent papers and books, for people such as yourself to begin to
inform themselves of the details of Earth Expansion. Did you read any
of it? Patently no! ... or else you could not possibly have remained so
astonishingly ignorant about Earth expansion, and would actually be able
to discuss it logically and rationally.

*** OBTAIN AND READ THIS BOOK REFERENCED BELOW ***

"Why Expanding Earth - A Book in Honour of Otto Christoph Hilgenberg",
edited by Giancarlo Scalera and Karl-Heinz Jacob, Instituto Nazionale di
Geofisica & Volcanologie, 2003 (465 pages).

You have absolutely ZERO excuse for being so radically ignorant and
ill-informed regarding Earth Expansion. All you have ever done is to
deny, smear and smirk stupidly, and even though you clearly do not even
understand the fundamental features of our Earth (because you don't
study Earth, you study a theory of Plate Tectonics instead) you pretend
to critique with pretentious 'authority'.

PHFT! You're no geologist George, you are just a conditioned reflexive
knee-jerk.

>>Where is all that new crust going to go Georgie old boy? It sure as hell
>>isn't going into the northern hemisphere, ... because, you guessed it! … the
>>Arctic is rifting open as well!
>
>
> Is it any wonder that the average height of Antarctica is higher than the other
> continents?

Yes, it ain't an orogen, it's called an 'ice ***' kiddo, it stands 3
to 4 km high. As pointed out above, there is abundant evidence that
Antarctica is actively rifting--extending in area.

> Have you ever thought of this - that convergent plate boundaries
> are typically in equitorial and temperate regions, while rifting occurs at both
> poles.

Well, let's see, I have my very detailed 3D geological globe right here
in front of me graphically displaying all the major continental and
oceanic chrons and structures of our Earth (<1% projection error) ...
hmmm, ... equatorial you say ... Pacific Ocean, ah yes, much better
prospects here, trench almost right around the western, northern (kind
of short this bit compared to the girth of the Ocean) and eastern
margins ... and a MASSIVE extensional MOR complex with numerous
extensional back-arc seas to keep these trenches fully occupied ... no
trenches in the Atlantic Ocean, oh wait, yes there is, there's this TINY
trench system at the eastern extremities of the Caribbean basin; it's so
small though, you could almost be forgiven for not noticing it ...
Indian Ocean, hmm, oh yes, a little better here, trench from Burma to
the Banda Arc east of Timor; but again, WAY too short to cope with the
massive MOR complexes of the Indian Basin ... Southern Ocean, yes,
there's a Southern Ocean as well, I assure you, people in the Southern
hemisphere, particularly Australia, have no doubt of this fact, and it
is partly temperate ... and ... nope, just that TINY South Sandwich
trench feature in the Southern Ocean, not quite equatorial or temperate
zone though ... but UBER extensional crustal growth pervades this ocean.

> Interestingly, the north pole is an oceanic basin that has frequent
> rift-type earthquakes while the south pole is two miles high and has virtually
> no earthquakes (except at a few locations along the coast). Antarctica is an
> important, but poorly understood piece in the global tectonics puzzle. It is
> widely accepted that active deformation is ongoing in western Marie Byrd Land
> and the Ross Embayment. These are both part of the West Antarctic Rift System,
> but rates and causes of the deformation are unknown.

LOL it's called earth expansion geodynamics. :)

> Two possible causes of the
> deformation observed in this region include tectonic extension in the Ross
> Embayment as West and East Antarctica separate and crustal uplift caused by
> isostatic rebound following the last glacial maximum. Having said that, I'll
> admit that I don't know any more about the geology of that ice-covered land than
> anyone else if you'll admit that there is not enough information avaliable for
> you to make any wild earth expansion claims based on the sparse data that exists
> for Anarctica.
>
>
>>Plate Tectonics? phft!
>>
>>The utter brainlessness of plate tectonics and its “George” types is beyond
>>the pale.
>
>
> Earth Expansion. Ego expansion. Nothing more.

You have not a clue about Earth, nor OF Earth expansion notions George,
you are abysmally impoverished with regard to both; all you know is the
little mental trench called plate tectonics, which you can’t see out of.
  ;)

I could be far more caustic, and goodness knows you deserve it, but why
bother—happy new year!