plate techtonics theory or expanding earth theory

8/9/2019 Plate Techtonics Theory or Expanding Earth Theory

1/14

OSI Publications Page 1

John L Person

Nov - 2007

Ever since the human species developed the ability to retain a memory and consider a

thought, it has been interested about its origins and there has been more than one mind that has

gazed at the pinpricks in the night sky wondering about their part of the cosmos. Some have

looked back down at their feet and marveled at the round ball they stood on, all basically thinking

the same thing, where did their home come from and how long had it been here.

Current theory holds forth that our planet has been around for some 4.5 billion years, in other

words a long time. Scientists today have calculated that each and everyone of us, standing still or

laying down are moving through the Universe at 264,120 miles per hour and if you believe the

current age, our planet has moved something like 9,277,457,990,400,000,000 (9.28E + 18) miles

from its original position, as a layman in the art of geology I hold to the quote, there is only one

constant in our Universe and that is change! Even if you subtracted the rotation of earth around

its axis the number is 9.25E +18. In any account a large distance no matter how you measure it.

As the scientific world increased, the thinkers around the globe began to try and answer some

of their most basic questions not only about their existence but the existence of the universe

around them and the world they stood on as in most sciences their findings only increased their

questions, whereas one simply answer would by itself create hundreds of unopened question,

such is science.

The idea of an Expanding Earth pushed its way into mainstream science back in 1938, when

the physicist Paul Dirac suggested that the Earths gravitational constant had decreased in the

billions of years of its existence, leading Pascual Jordon (a German physicist) with a modification of

General Relativity to propose in 1964 that all planets slowly expand, recent measurement have all

but killed his proposal.

The theory of an internal expansion of the earth has a small following, this in comparison to

the well accepted theory (again a theory) of Plate Tectonics, being discredited by some pretty

heavy hitters in the geological mainstream. Although they basically depend on the same bare fact,

whereas they base their strength on the appearance of new crustal material bubbling forth from

mid-ocean ridges, with one of their big differences being the absence of subduction (reentry of the

earth) into the mantle between the plates a theory not subscribed to an Expanding Earth analysis.


2/14


There is a large school of thought, along with some evidence, that supports a fixed-size Earth

due to subduction model, thus in their minds eliminated the Expanded Earth model.

There are a number of models that have floated around in the Scientific Community over the

past few years:

A: The Earth is shrinking as it cools causing lithosphere mountain building, and compressional

changes. This was popular for a time in the 19th

century and faded after the discovery of

radioactive nuclides which cause thermal heating, but as of late it also has been discovered that

these nuclides are not evenly distributed throughout the entire body of earth, and they are only

concentrated in the uppermost crust whereas they cannot be the cause of the estimated 6000

degrees K (10,800 F) deep interior Earth temperature.

B: Earth has a constant radius with fixed and unmoving continents. This theory was the

general scientific truth for most of the 20th

century, prior to the widely accepted plate tectonic,

continental-drift theory which came about in the late 60s and early 70s.

C: A pulsating Earth. This where Earth expands to form the mid-ocean rift zone crust and

contracts to form the mountain belts, in a sense surge tectonics, this doesnt have really the mid-

ocean rifting, it has surge channels like lava-tube conduits.

D: Earth has a constant radius and has continents which are mobile and drift around,

periodically colliding and merging with each other to form super continents and then begin the

process all over again drifting in new directions, all controlled by the mantles thermal convection.

This the currently accepted theory known as Plate Tectonics (used to have a handle of continental

drift, which I imagine sounded too much like a popular dance in the late 60s). The theory is based

on the creation of new material at the mid-ocean-ridges and its eventual removal in the deep

ocean trenches, with a major hole in it, as there are only a few places on the globe that have these

deep ocean trenches, and in contrast there are far more locations of new oceanic crust

generation and the chain of events demonstrate that the required energy to maintain the

mantle convection mechanism is far too inadequate.

E: Earth is Expanding: In this the continents originally formed unbroken single plate over the

surface of a smaller Earth and as the expansion of the Earth came about, the single plate tore

apart, creating deep ocean basins, and a collection of individual plates, This expansion began to

dominate the Earth, it is believed this movement tool place over the last 200 million years, which is

only 4.44% of the Earths estimated age.

In defense of the others, especially against the widely accepted Plate Tectonic Theory, the

continental drift model has yet to clearly identify or has general opinion agreed upon a mechanism

or the horizontal plate movements. As objective geologists and many geophysicists state their

claims that global expansion does not have any identified mechanism, they also acknowledge that

the accepted Plate Tectonic and Subduction Plate Drift model is also missing anything remotely

linked to a workable driving mechanism, and are now coming to the conclusion (the objective

ones) that they cannot use this argument or reasoning to deny the existence of the Earth

Expansion theory.


3/14


In other words, Plate Tectonics is no more scientifically founded than the Earth Expansion

explanation of the geotectonism that is said to be happening to our home in the Universe. This

is the question now facing the scientific mind today, which is true, Plate Tectonics or the

Expanding Earth model?

The scientific arguments are numerous against each, Plate Tectonic and the Expanding Earth

theorieseven as person who has spend years in this field, I only understand some of them,

leaving many far beyond my comprehension as such the reader of this paper will have to bear

with me as I attempt to put to the pen what I was able to understand.

Some known facts:

During the mid-60s, deep-ocean drilling was conducted at the meeting point of the East/West

North Atlantic basin where if was found that the basaltic ocean crust adjacent to the North

American continent and to Europe was only about 140 million years old and as the drilling vessel

move along a line toward the mid-ocean-ridge the scientists observed that the rocks retrieved in

the drilling cores progressively grew younger as they neared the mid-ocean mountain range and

that the marine sediment deposits grew less and less.

Volcanic rocks from the center of the mountain range turned out to be only a few million years

old, at most! As they made their way past the mountain range the reverse was true, the age of the

material increased in age, this including the rocks and the increasing sediments.

Their conclusion was that the chain of undersea volcanoes represented areas of continuous

extended crustal rifting and the formation of new basaltic ocean crust. Recent drilling has

confirmed these finding. Another basis of fact was determined, it showed that North America,


4/14


Europe and the Asian Far East had all once been part of a single land mass, whereas North

American and Western Europe began their separation around 180 million years ago, and it also

linked the lower halves of the two, West Africa and Eastern South America. Four separate plates

had once been joined together.

Not unlike todays rush to the Global Warming bandwagon, the scientific community,

especially in the USA, fell over each other to embrace the Plate Tectonic Theory, massive funding

was made available for further research. The recently converted constant Earth state scientific

community took this money and wrote trainloads of documents on their Plate Tectonic

interpretations on every phenomenon they could think about, no matter the lack of physical

information to support their ramblings this in turn creating more non-sensical Plate Tectonic

interpretation. As today with respect to global warming, the general opinion why should anyone

go against the now popular Plate Tectonic (global warming) Theory and risk cutting off their

funding?

The result was a mass of unsupported interpretative documents that rolled forward like a ten-

ton boulder down a steep hill, moving on its own accord without any substantial evidence or

scientific true reasoning. Like other parts of our existence, the politics of research funding had in

this case circumvented the set rules of the scientific processes, throwing out the door critical

approaches to data as well as the use of any fail safe procedures such as the time honored self-

correcting, peer review, all of this clouding the issue of an accurate or sparse database to account

for Earths history.

The Western adoption of the Continental Drift theory represented the largest singular

popular change in Earth science thinking in our history and in adopting this way of thinking we

have produced many, many significant advances in our understanding of Earth, along with

generating mountains of raw data. Some feel that now is the time to examine the basis of this

theory with a more satisfactory interpretative geotectonic and a geodynamic working model.

The drilling activities in the Atlantic open the door to many questions, where some feel that

they can only be answered by adopting the Expanding Earth for a solid explanation of the Earths

mountains, but then again this proposal to others is even more absurd and heretical than the

previously scandalous continental-drift theory. US geoscientists in lieu of this adopted the lesser

heresy, and the theory ofPlate Tectonics Theorybecame the generally accepted framework. But

was it valid?

Western mainstream scientists as a body seemed to never bother to ask questions or check

missing data or what data they had with an equal efforts or scientific thoroughness. On the

International scene there were a few geologists who did bother to check, with most of them

persuaded by the available evidence to lean toward the Expanding Earth Theory.

These few individuals realized that Plate Tectonics was not very close to the truth, with some

claiming it was false and that a great error had been pushed off on the scientific community

unfortunately their information were met with deaf ears by the geosciences mainstream, and that

it wasnt even interested in listening to the few and their arguments, what for, they had garnered

the bulk of the research dollars, building their careers, making maps, writing papers and giving


5/14


lectures on the theory of Plate Tectonics all based on the idea that Plate Tectonics was the way to

go, and now along came a few that said they had made a big mistake, give me a break, it would

never happen. They, like most politicians today left it to later generations to clean up their mess.

If youre a graduate of High School and in some parts of this nation where you have studied

geography you have more than likely been exposed to Plate Tectonics theory and if you for the

first time are hearing about an Expanding Earth Theory you are probably surprised there was such

an idea floating around out there. I know I was about six-months ago. I revisited the concept as

I was writing a preamble for a business plan I was dibbling and dabbling with for a project in the

Arctic Ocean concerning oil.

It is well understood that the exterior of the Earth is basically make up of its outermost rocky

crust, which extends downward for around 40 kms (24.9 miles), iron and magnesium silicates are

in the upper and lower mantles; and then the liquid outer core and the solid inner core. The inner

core boundary is some 2,900 kms [1,800 miles] below the surface, which up to some recent tests

scientists have long assumed the inner core was rather featureless. Although the results of their

exploration has not be detailed as such, they have found in their detailed views more complexity

than expected.

No one has ever seen the turbulently swirling liquid iron of the outer core meeting the silicate

rock of the mantel, which is 10 times further below ground than the International Space Station is

above, with their new study researches have been able to estimate that the temperature of this

region is 5,430 C [9,806F), that is white hot. The radius of the core is estimated to be 758

miles, about 70% of what our moon is.

A little closer to the surface and in dealing with Plate Tectonic Theory we find the New Madrid

Seismic Zone (ReelfootRift)/(New Madrid Fault Line) which is classified as a major seismic zone in

the Southern United States and the Midwestern U.S. this rift zone is responsible for the 1812

New Madrid Earthquake, and some note it has the potential to produce damaging earthquakes on

an average of 300 to 500 years.

It is said that this zone (rift) was formed when North America began to pull (rift) apart during

the breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia [Pangea] in the Neoproterozoic Era (about

750,000,000 years ago), with the riftfailing to separate but remaining a scar of zone of weakness.

The region than was flooded by an ancient ocean depositing layers of sediment on the rift, the

Western Interior Seaway.

About 200,000,000 years ago (Mesozoic Era) when the Atlantic Ocean was opening in the east,

rifting was once again re-activated and intrusive igneous rocks were put in place but once again

the rifting failed and the continent remained in one piece. The natural valley formed by the

collapsed portion is part of the Mississippi embayment.

Like most of our planet today our scientists understand little about the New Madrid Seismic

Zone, whereas some seismologists claim there wont be any more earthquakes in the region, while

the USGS says it is due for a major shaking, albeit they really dont know when or how big just

major. One associate professor at the University of Missouri, Eric Sandvol states that the scary

part is the lack of movement along the New Madrids fault lines, the crazy thing is that we cant


6/14


detect any movement across the New Madrid seismic zone. We have ways to very accurately

measure the movements and we can see this really well in California. You can see the movement

of the two plates, but in New Madrid we dont see this relative motion, and yet we know there

have been earthquakes in the past we dont understand exactly why!

Arguments have been around since the theory of Plate Tectonics surfaced, mainly what is the

power that drives the movement of the plates, primarily the power used to subduct and adjacent

plate beneath another one. The theory as you and I understand says that the plates are moving

about like water droplets on a hot pan, such as the force of the India continent slamming into the

Asian plate giving birth to the Himalayas and the numerous earthquakes around the Pacific Rim

because of the slabs of ocean floor slipping beneath the mantle at deep-sea trenches, and

especially the strange ridges that wind through the worlds oceans proof of the geological

wounds showing the crust is spreading apart.

Albeit our scholars believe they have solved the mystery of the moving plates, the one great

mystery that remains is the driver behind all of these floating plates. As Richard OConnell of

Harvard has said, That this has got to be one of the more fundamental problems in plate

tectonics, and it is interesting it has stayed around for so long? The basic premise many relate

has been solved, whereas the Plates are just the upper limb of a vast, heat-driven circulation

system that stirs the planet to its depths but pinpointing where the forces that actually move the

plates are concentrate is another unsolved story. Our researchers have a fuzzy view of the Earths

interior and the (here we go again) limited ability of our computer models to simulate the

planets complex dynamics key word being complex, while some computer models today with

what data they have seemed to have strengthened the case of one of the front-running driving

forces in that models have simulated the subduction of the plates beneath one another, increasing

the theory of slab pull they still havent completed the entire picture of Plate movement.

Some point to the mantle beneath South America that the motion there seems to imply there

is a different driving force in this part of our world, where it is noted that the Andes shouldnt

be there. Most of us layman in understanding Plate Tectonics have been taught that it is Plate

Tectonics that have created the worlds great mountain ranges by slamming two continents

together, such as Europe colliding with Africa to create the Alps or India slamming into Asia and

creating the Himalayas. South America in fact is colliding with nothing more than the floor of the

Pacific Ocean, which is slipping beneath the continent into Earths interior whereas this type of

action will create a volcano here and there and not a 4,350 mile-long wall of mountains.

Scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washingtons Department of Terrestrial Magnetism

(DTM), Paul Silver being one that they found by their seismically probing deep beneath South

America seem to have the answer concerning the Andes. Whereas they say that South America is

driving westward so forcefully that the base of the continent is colliding with an unseen partner:

the viscous mantle rock hundreds of miles down under the floor of the Pacific sort of like a snub-

nosed boat driven too fast for the strength of its hull, and this fast moving continental force is

crumpling under pressure of this resistant medium (the Pacific), which is thickening the crust and

pushing up the Andes.


7/14


Albeit there is not a general consensus of the idea, Susan Beck a seismologist at the University

of Arizona says, Whether Silver and his colleagues are right or not, it sure generates a lot of

interest. Silver hasnt been discouraged by the skepticism, in fact he has put forward the same

concept to North America where in the west the broad high-country origination has long

presented a mystery in its formation, coupled with this in South America he is proposing another

un-conventional idea to explain why South America is hurrying westward in that it is being

dragged by a current of mantle rock flowing beneath the continent. This runs contrary to

conventional belief that plates drive themselves largely sinking into the Earths interior at the end

of their lifetime.

Working with Raymond Russo of the University of Montpellier in France, he and Russo applied

an emerging seismic technique for plotting mantle flow to the region west of South America

whereas they state that flow in the upper mantle tends to line up mineral crystals in rocks to

create a grain, like the grain of wood. They state that grain can split a seismic shear wave (a

wave that vibrates rock from side to side along its direction of travel) in two, because shear waves

have two components that have varying speeds along a rocks grain. Russo and Silver were able to

use this shear-wave splitting to plot the flow of the Pacific mantle where the floor of the Pacific is

diving under South America.

But, according to theory, such subducting plates carry the surrounding mantle down with

them, if so, the mantle to the west of the subducting plate should have been moving eastward

and downward, with the plate.

Russo and Silver say they saw evidence that the mantle was moving perpendicular to the

plates motion, diverging at about the mid-point of the South American coast and flowing to the

north and to the south. To explain this flow pattern, Silver and Russo tell us that South Americas

westward movement is around 1.38 inches per year, and as the curtain of descending oceanic

plate retreats westward before the advancing continent, it shrinks the space for mantle rock

beneath it. The excess mantle, they argue, flows laterally like a bow wave on a very broad ship,

whereas the ponderous bow wave finally clears the continent far to the north and south,

creating a wake, which can be seen as the swirl of small plates driving eastward off Cape Horn and

in the Caribbean. Russo and Silver are in the minority in their beliefs.

In attempting to find the driving force behind Plate Tectonics the computer models tend to

lean towards slab pull as the strongest force, but then again most scientists do not regard these

results as conclusive, in part simply because the models generally simplify things that may be

unrealistic isnt that most models do, for instance the Global Warming scenario. One assumption

is that slabs sink into the mantle they pull only on the leading edges of the plates, rather than

setting up a continuous circulation in the viscous mantel rock that would affect the plates over a

broader range.

Naturally researchers would much rather build a more realistic Earth model that can generate

its own driving forces, based on the interplay of gravity, density, mantle viscosity, and other

factors OConnell used present-day arrangements to build the 1st

such model, one that included

a circulating mantle and simulated the actual physical process of plate motion, crusts sliding away


8/14


from ridges and simulated the actual physical process of plate motion the crust sliding away from

the ridges and slabs sinking, stirring the mantle as they wenthis model than calculated the

contribution of each of the three driving forces the result, slab pull and ridge push both seemed

to work.

Those who believe in Earth Expansion have had many hurdles to overcome, a major one can

be stated as the need to prove a mechanism for expansion, just as the theory for Plate Tectonics,

what is the driving force?

Earth Expansion is the creation of new matter, or mass, in some unknown way, to create or

capture matter in the Earths interior and force it to the crust thereby increasing the mass on the

Earths service. One critical detractor is that the science of physics currently believes that all mass

was in existence at the beginning of the Universe, i.e.: the Big Bang. Thus, expansion geologists

would have to overcome the objections of physicists before walking into a classroom or court in

any case.

This being the case, the Expanding Earth belief community has within it members that have

not yet reached a consensus on growth causes, a common action in any science, whereas debate

will eventually lead to the truth.

One of the concepts that scientists must come to grip with is the Big Bang Theory, yes it is a

theory and believe it or not there are a few educated individuals who disagree with the

something from nothing synopsis.

The theory was the brainchild of George LeMaitre in 1927, basing it on the Redshift findings of

Edwin Hubble matter of fact Edwin Powell Hubble never supported the Big Bang Theory. Walk

along with me while I try to understand the common sense implications of what weve had

stuffed into our limited brain.

1st

while it may be a valid theory, others believe it is NOT the only possible theory. The theory

tells us that around 13.7 billion years ago, give or take a few days, that all matter was

compressed into a very small unit, referred to by some a period, and others say the size of an

egg or a thimble, or something else that was pretty small compared to what it gave birth to.

Somehow a trigger was applied and this object of smallness exploded and formed the entire

Universe now to set the record straight, if our present sitting President suggested this he would

be branded Fancy Nancys friend forever.

Ask yourself, can you imagine a cubic foot of Earth compressed into a thimble? Normal

people who you meet downtown America or Russia have said Yes! Now can you accept a cubic

mile of Earth? Again the same bunch said, Yes! Now, what about the entire Earth? Same bunch

shuffles their feet, stares off down the street and

rolling their eyes say, wellllll yes! How about 200

million galaxies like the Milky Way? This time without

hesitation, a resounding NO! uttered in LA is heard in

Seattle, Washington.

Well guess what, it turns out that there are a lot

more than 200 million Galaxies floating around in the


9/14


Universe, consider back in 1995 NASAs boys aimed the Hubble at a particularly dark portion of the

northern sky aimed at a very tiny space they took a time-lapse photo keeping the lenses open for

10-days, that is 240 hours folks. The photo you see is called the Hubble Deep Field North (HDFN),

3-years later they did the same process in the southern hemisphere and received the same results.

Now on this page is a picture of a Roosevelt Dime, take that dime or one from your

pocket if youre still employed and hold it at arms length, focus on the eye, this now

represents the narrow view that Hubble focused on for ten-days.

The HDFN snap shows the results from this narrow view and provides the best

estimate of the number of Galaxies in the visible Universe keep in mind that the HDFN view is

only 1/27,000,000 part of the entire sky, this is 27 millionth of one part. Scientists, with more

patience than I, counted 3000 objects in the snap with this number the estimated conservatively

that there were about 100 billion Galaxies in the Universe, each having 100-200 billion Star

systems.

For perspective, assuming that our planet has 6.78 billion people this translates into

approximately 15 Galaxies for every person, ok, ok, 14.77 what a little rounding amongst friends,

and these people would own 14.77 x 100-200 Billion star systems, now theyre beginning to

appear like Republicans, or Englishmen take your pick. In a nutshell there are four Trillion solar

systems (maybe) for each person on Earth each! Has your common sense kicked in yet?

Naturally there is even more, as it turns out there is not enough mass to create enough gravity

to hold the Universe together, the matter and energy scientists find is only 5% of what is needed

to make the Big Bang theory work so today we find a helter-skelter race to find the dark matter

or dark energy to make up the other 95%, in other words they seem to be missing 95%. In this

light, our share (4 Trillion star systems each) is 20 times bigger, or can it be it is time to keep an

open-mind and permit some discussion of other alternatives? Like maybe an increase of matter

over time? Or a conversation of something like energy back into matter?

Our scientific community creates our scientific laws based on facts we know and understand,

all except Al Gore and his apostles, which is as it should be but then being the ego maniacs we

are we assume that our laws apply to the entire Universe in other words based on our existing

theories today we should be capable of stuffing 80 Trillion Star Systems for each of us, back into

one tiny thimble. Common sense! Can it apply to our Universe or have we been conditioned to

throw it out the window when it comes to the Big Bang Theoryand walk blindly into the light not

knowing who or what is creating the light, what if it is a nuclear explosion?

Im positive that at one time or the other you have read or heard about Ockhams Razor

which in general says, All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one! In

other words if you find a man lying in the street with a 45 cal slug in his head, you would assume

the slug came from a 45 caliber bullet fired from a 45 caliber weapon. With this in mind, I will

examine the possibility in finding a simple solution for the movement of the continents and if their

movement fits into an Expanding Earth scenario.

Plate Tectonics Theory tells us that the continents moved apart on a constant size earth by

moving apart horizontally on its surface. The Expanding Earth Theorysays the Earth has expanded


10/14


from about 50% of its current diameter, and that the continents fit together with no oceans, just

some shallow seas. The Expanding Earth Theory says that primarily the continents kept their

positions relative to the core, but that the expansion

pushed them further away from the core. In doing so the

continents then moved apart. In other words their

movement were really verticalfrom the core, but on the

surface of the globe the vertical movement away from

the core appears horizontal.

One of the initial presentations that swayed the

scientific world to accept mobile continents was the one

by EC Teddy Bullard from Cambridge University of the

jigsaw like fit of the Atlantic Ocean Continents it is

commonly referred to as the Bullard Fit.

The conventional view, within the Plate Tectonics

Theory, has a hot-iron-core surrounded by a rocky crust

where interior heat is believed to be residual primordial

heat supplemented only by a small amount of radioactive decay in the crust. Earthquakes in the

upper mantle and lower crust, are said to caused by shear stress release events with slippage on

pre-existing fractures, and that volcanic activity and magmatism are attributed to the escape of

heat from the interior or to melting due to pressure effects many believe that this view is

inadequate for failing to take into account the fact of hydrogens abundance in the planetary

makeup and its astonishing properties, which are not generally understood.

The Dual Geospheres view brings

the importance of hydrogen into focus.

If the Earth primordially was entirely

dominated by hydrogen, the gradual

escape of hydrogen to space would

have led to the oxidized carapace

(crust, lithosphere) and the ocean and

oxidic atmosphere, while leaving the interior still hydrogen-dominated. Keep in mind that the

most common element in the Universe is hydrogen there is plenty of hydrogen to go around.

Understanding why hydrogen is so important, you must know that hydrogen nuclei (without

electrons) under mantle-dept pressures are able to penetrate metal atoms and thus transmute

and make them dense. In other words it is pressure reduction that leads to the escape of

hydrogen and less density. In concept it is stated that density changes with consequential volume

changes at sub-crustal levels that can be set in motion by polar shift, erosion, sedimentation,

volcanic eruptions, meteoritic or other mass shifting events which explains the frequent events of

Endogeny (changes from within) at those levels. Are you getting any of this, hang in there the

struggle to understand is really very simple.


11/14


We know that the body of primordial Earth and the primitive Atmosphere were both

dominated by hydrogen that over geological time evolved into the crust and the modern

atmosphere and our oceans (hydrosphere), this happening through process of hydrogen escaping

the gravitational field of Earth due to its small weight. This process left residual metal oxides as

a crustal shield over the hydridic (hydrogen-impregnated intermetallic) interior and residual non-

metal oxides accumulated as oceans. The molecular gases were left behind as the oxide

atmosphere.

Now well shift a bit from mainstream science whereas outside-of-the-box scholars present

the following: The modern Earth can thus be seen as having a mobile interior of highly-reduced

metal hydrides surrounded by a rigid lithosphere of metal and non-metal oxides and heavy

gases. Now, they propose that the core is NOT likely to be mainly iron, but rather a mixture of

high-pressure metal hydrides. Whereas its solid aspect being due to a phase change based

primarily on pressure, because the change from within is endothermic (absorption of heat)

chemical reactions, the crustal heat gradient CANNOT be extrapolated below the crust-mantle

contact; thus, they maintain, the core may not be very hot.

Density and densification through hydride behavior can be taken as the key to endogeny

(change from within), whereas porosity1 is usually thought of as empty space, this is never the

case rather, porosity is space that is occupied by any material that is less dense than

surrounding material. In this, a mass in the interior that becomes less dense becomes buoyant,

isostatically2

positive, and rises as a plume while the surrounding mass subsides to fill the

vacated space so, by this definition a plume volume is an example of porosity.

Plumes, under the spinning Earth forces, can ascend in the mantle and into the lithosphere

until they reach oxidizing conditions and their hydrides dissociate or oxidize with a release of

latent chemical energy, whereas they initiate magmatism, earthquakes, volcanism, with a result of

the replacement of minerals. Following effects are such as mountain building, subsistence and

surface rifting it is in this way that hydride dissociation and oxidation have created and

continue to create the lithosphere, expanding the Earth.

In other words, the lithosphere is then a global shield above a fluidic, hydridic, and steadily

degassing inner geosphere thus the lithosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere comprise al outer

geosphere that has been incrementally constructed through geological time as hydrogen escaped

into space.

Now that we understand basically the conversion of the most common element in our

Universe, hydrogen into a solid material, let us walk a bit further into this Expanding Earth Theory.

Our planet has over 40,000 miles of expansion joints, main stream science labels them the

Mid-Ocean ridges where like a cracked egg lava can be found flowing out of the seams and

1Porosity is a measure of the void spaces in a material, and is a fraction of the volume of voids over the total volume,

between 01, or as a percentage between 0100%.2

Equilibrium in the earth's crust such that the forces tending to elevate landmasses balance the forces tending to

depress landmasses.


12/14


forming ocean basins, where the ridges show where the cracks were opened and how fast the

Earth split apart, and when!

During the 1960s exploration and deep sea coring established conclusive proof that showed

that Mid-Ocean ridges exited, with lava flowing in each direction from the expanding seams,

consequently pushing the continents apart. Further exploration in the 70s and 80s only supported

the evidence found in the 1960s.

To the scientists and scholars who supported the constant size planet the discovery was as

catastrophic to their theories as to the scientists in todays world when it was exposed that the

Global Warming data sets were jerked around to fit the scenario of man generated CO rising the

temperature worldwide causing dire events for mankind even worse.

Whereas in 1963-1965 general consensus shifted from a Fixed scenario to a Mobile Continent

scenario, in fact one of the discoverers of the ridges Bruce Charles Heezen from Columbia

University said, that everything being considered the cause was due to Earth Expansion. Another

nail in the coffin for the Fixed Earth

Size crowd, the Constant Earth

crowd did not take this lying down,

they fought back with furry not seen

since the Crusades.

One explanation these scholars

came up with is the Theory of

Subduction Zones, rushing about

they quickly published in 1967, with

very limited data, and as expected

being part of mainstream science

their ideas (Theory) became widely

accepted among scientists. Their

Subduction Theory, albeit on a shaky

foundation kept the Constant Size Earth concept on the front burner. The Subduction Theorysays

that as New Curst is created, Expanding the Earth, left over ocean crust is

funneled down a chute or escalator type system in deep unseen ocean

trenches to be remelted and used again and again, keeping the Earth at a

Constant Size. They turned a blind eye toward simple physics when it came

to questions on how a lighter less dense crust must descend into the

heavier much denser than granite mantle, like Al Gores crowd it really didnt matter that truth

should prevail only that their crowd said it was so, so it must be. Inside and outside of the

Expansionist scientific circle the Subduction Theory is widely disputed, primarily because all

proofs of subduction are inferred, or based on secondary evidence, in other word there are

NO direct proofs, (defined as an object actually being subducted, directly, seen or measured, or

land features physically measured getting closer together.) In addition, NO experimental objects

have been placed, resulting with subduction being measured. Keep in mind that the Earth has


13/14


14/14


Not to worry, the stampeding herd is now flocking to CERN with a desperate hope that soon

this problem will be solved when they find what is now known as Higgs Boson, a hidden

speculated particle that has never been seen. The super large, most expensive Atom Smasher in

the world is now on its way, at CERN, Switzerland, to finding this particle by smashing atoms

together at almost the speed of light, with TEv of electricity attached, which the scholars hope will

produce this unseen particle which they say will solve the mysterious loss of the 95% were

missing. If they do find something they will then fill in the gaps with this something and tell

the world that the Big Bang Theory is all well and march on with a smile on their face, not unlike

the cat who finally caught the invisible mouse and has convinced his fellow cats that what he is

chewing on (which they cant see) is the invisible mouse and hell never have to eat again.

If they (the guys in CERN) do not find their invisible particle, science as it is today will spend

billions and more billions, spread out over the years and the Big Bang Theory will exist and be

screamed from the Bully Pulpits of dogmatic science until the Sun reaches a point where its

expansion will soon engulf the Earth and nobody will give a damn anyway.

Me, say, I just put some words to the screen with more than a bit of irony at times, and watch

as the Al Gores on both sides of this battle pitch their battle plans both at times telling stories on

each other while deep in the Earth interior whatever process is there continues, and the stars get

further away from some imaginary point in the heavens what difference does it make to the guy

in the street whether there is 100 billion Galaxies or 125 billion Galaxies, 100-200 billion stars in

each or 200-300 billion you got it! Zip! What he and I are concerned about is where will the next

meal come from, and the cost of getting around on this planet or down to the corner deli when its

necessaryand if there is anything good on the boob tube that eveningbasically were a simple

folk, if only the politicians and super-dooper scientists would give us a break from time-to-time.

Have a good day.

plate techtonics theory or expanding earth theory

Documents