Expanding Earth Theory - WTF???

MattusMaximus said:
For one thing, how about the video which shows the ocean water appearing apparently out of nowhere? It starts out covering practically 0% of the Earth and magically expands to cover about 70% as it does today. I'd say that making such a bald-faced assertion without justifying it would count as bogus.

The mechanisms that the EETs propose for this weirdness are... well, let's just call them "special" in that they completely violate known laws of physics :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So how does plate tectonics account for where all this water has come from?
 
Holy crap, expanding Earth theory. Yes, I've seen it before. I actually spent a few days arguing with Neal Adams himself on one of the youtube videos on the hypothesis, and needless to say, the man has no understanding of what he's talking about. He thinks subduction somehow violates conservation of momentum, that gravity is due to magnetism, and that Newton's third law somehow requires a universal repulsive force to exist to counteract gravity. His theory of prime matter, while riddled with all sorts of problems, can be knocked down with one simple objection: he predicts a single photon can create an electron-positron pair, when in reality at least two are necessary (conservation of momentum, you see: something Neal Adams doesn't quite comprehend, in spite of appeal to the law in other places). And there are hundreds of problems on top...
 
MattusMaximus said:
Plate tectonics, to my knowledge, never makes any such claim. The origin of water on Earth is believed to be due to other geophysical processes - linky.
Click to expand...

Well the only reason i asked that was because you felt it necessary for him to account for where the oceans "magically" appeared from. When you asked that, i felt assured that Plate Tectonics had somehow accounted for this in its theories. Yet, since you claim the origin of water on earth is due to "other geophysical processes", why cant EET make the same claim?

Basically, why did you ask EET to account for the ocean appearing in the video? Could it not just be the same process as Plate tectonics?

Also, why have most of the oceans on earth only been dated to being around 9.5 million years old?
Another good chunk of the oceans if i remember correctly were dated at around 80-100 millions years old, and the oldest being something like 160 million?

I have heard some say that the reason is because of plates going under one another, and the oldest of the Ocean floors have been lost forever to the underbelly of the earth. Im not sure how plausible that is, mainly because i dont know enough about the topic. If someone here has some good insight to this topic then please post, i would love to hear some good arguments from both sides.
 
OneShotKi11 said:
I have heard some say that the reason is because of plates going under one another, and the oldest of the Ocean floors have been lost forever to the underbelly of the earth. Im not sure how plausible that is, mainly because i dont know enough about the topic. If someone here has some good insight to this topic then please post, i would love to hear some good arguments from both sides.
Click to expand...

The process of sea floor destruction is called subduction, and is well understood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction

http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/structure/dynamicearth/subduction/index.htm

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/subducvolc_page.html
 
Last edited:
OneShotKi11 said:
Well the only reason i asked that was because you felt it necessary for him to account for where the oceans "magically" appeared from. When you asked that, i felt assured that Plate Tectonics had somehow accounted for this in its theories. Yet, since you claim the origin of water on earth is due to "other geophysical processes", why cant EET make the same claim?

Basically, why did you ask EET to account for the ocean appearing in the video? Could it not just be the same process as Plate tectonics?
Click to expand...

The expanding Earth model presented by its proponents shows ocean water appearing between the continents. The plate model does no not. PT claims that the oceans were there at least at long as the continents.

Also, why have most of the oceans on earth only been dated to being around 9.5 million years old?
Another good chunk of the oceans if i remember correctly were dated at around 80-100 millions years old, and the oldest being something like 160 million?

I have heard some say that the reason is because of plates going under one another, and the oldest of the Ocean floors have been lost forever to the underbelly of the earth. Im not sure how plausible that is, mainly because i dont know enough about the topic. If someone here has some good insight to this topic then please post, i would love to hear some good arguments from both sides.
Click to expand...

Check out seafloor spreading.
 
Last edited:
I had the sad experience of seeing Neal Adams make a complete idiot of himself trying to peddle his crackpot science at a Comic Book Convention.
The guy is one of the all time great Comic Book Artists..IMHO the best Green Lantern artist ever and right up there with Bob Kane and Frank Miller as a Batman artist..but a complete and total disaster when he dabbles in science.
 
OneShotKi11 said:
Well the only reason i asked that was because you felt it necessary for him to account for where the oceans "magically" appeared from. When you asked that, i felt assured that Plate Tectonics had somehow accounted for this in its theories. Yet, since you claim the origin of water on earth is due to "other geophysical processes", why cant EET make the same claim?

Basically, why did you ask EET to account for the ocean appearing in the video? Could it not just be the same process as Plate tectonics?

Also, why have most of the oceans on earth only been dated to being around 9.5 million years old?
Another good chunk of the oceans if i remember correctly were dated at around 80-100 millions years old, and the oldest being something like 160 million?

I have heard some say that the reason is because of plates going under one another, and the oldest of the Ocean floors have been lost forever to the underbelly of the earth. Im not sure how plausible that is, mainly because i dont know enough about the topic. If someone here has some good insight to this topic then please post, i would love to hear some good arguments from both sides.
Click to expand...

What Matilda and KingMerv said. I suggest you take some time to read up on the links provided to you before you ask any more questions, as it seems that a lot of what you're curious about is contained in those links.
 
dudalb said:
I had the sad experience of seeing Neal Adams make a complete idiot of himself trying to peddle his crackpot science at a Comic Book Convention.
The guy is one of the all time great Comic Book Artists..IMHO the best Green Lantern artist ever and right up there with Bob Kane and Frank Miller as a Batman artist..but a complete and total disaster when he dabbles in science.
Click to expand...

Neal Adams is obnoxious.
End of story.
:boxedin:
 
Somewhere in there, he mentions "Marsupials like the duck-billed platypus", showing that his knowledge of zoology is just about as good as his knowledge of geology and physics.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
How does plate tectonics explain the young sea floor in comparison to the old continents?
Click to expand...

Honestly, if you're unable to answer this question, you do not have nearly the understanding required to think of challenging expert, scientific consensus. I don't mean this as an insult. It just doesn't make sense to question scientific consensus if you don't yet understand scientific consensus.

But, to answer your question: subduction. As has been previously explained, sea floor is constantly generated in rift zones. This material, often referred to as Mid Ocean Ridge Basalt (MORB), is far more dense than that of continental crust, and so as it smashes into continental crust, it tends to be pushed downward, under the continental crust, where it sinks back into the mantle. This is a very well understood process supported by mountains and mountains of evidence (har har). Seismic data even reveal subducted slabs sinking downward in subduction zones, which means we literally observe subduction.

nimzov said:
I agree that this theory is not widely accepted in geology but it is certainly not as ridiculous as some suggest.
Click to expand...

In the face of contrary evidence, it is. If we were just starting fresh, however, with no data, it would be a fine theory to consider.

Those rocks are older because it takes more time to get pushed up that high. Crustal material is made on the sea floor (as well as a few other places such as Iceland).
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Continental rocks are older because they don't tend to be destroyed through subduction. Where oceanic basalt does get pushed up onto continental plates, it happens very quickly, geologically speaking. Material is scrapped off subducting oceanic basalt, where it can form accretionary prisms. If a rather large chunk is scrapped off in tact through a process called obduction, it forms an ophelite. But, again, these materials are formed from subduction, which means that they form at about the same rate as that of subduction. It's not so much that continental rock is older; it's that oceanic basalt dies so young.

JEROME DA GNOME said:
How did the land mass Pangaea form according to the accepted theory?
Click to expand...

Oceans open and close, which causes continents to bump around. There's not a terribly great deal of room in which these continents can roam, so now and then they all end up moving toward the same location. Really, this concept isn't that complicated. It's pretty basic. The real question is why they ever tend to break apart once they come together. Prior to Pangaea, before the Cambrian explosion over half a billion years ago, the continents came together to form Rodinia. Evidence of this collision can be seen in the Appalachians. But, by the Cambrian explosion, it was breaking apart, and before too long, Pangaea had formed. Why?

The Earth is radioactive. It generates heat. When all the continents come together, they form a very large landmass. This mass acts as a blanket, which reduces radiation of heat. As time goes on, the temperature beneath the mass increases, until things get hot enough that upwelling melt forces itself to the surface, creating spreading centers. These are the births of oceans. The supercontinent cycle is the cycle of the opening and closing of oceans. It is referred to as the Wilson Cycle. And it's totally awesome.
 
Last edited:
Ok, im having a problem grasping the huge difference in the age of the Oceans and how Tectonics account for it with Subduction.
Now i am no expert, but from my reading and reviewing of this Oceanic map... (http://geology.about.com/library/bl/maps/blseafloorage.htm)

I cant for the life of me understand how these reds zones and green zones came to be no older then 120.4 Mil years old, and as young as 9.7 Mil years old.

In my unscientific thought process shouldnt one side of colliding/separating Tectonic plates differ in age then the opposing side its colliding/separating from? An example i am looking at of what i mean can be seen in the chart provided above. By glancing at the chart it appears as if the Pacific Plate is moving away from the Scotia plate, Nazca plate, Cocos Plate and Noth American Plates. I say this because of the difference in age with the Oceans residing on the Pacific plate and all plates stated above. The Scotia, Nazca, cocos and North American plates all seem to have much younger Oceans, which to me suggest these plates are moving apart by coming out from underneath the Pacific plate revealing new and much younger oceans.

My question now is, why for 1,500+ miles does the Pacific plate have new younger oceans coming from its fault line with the "North American Plate" ect. heading westward (Towards Japan)?

Shouldnt one plate be immediately much older from another at there fault lines depending on which one is going under or coming out from the other? I see this strange affect at just about every Tectonic Plate Fault line on the map. I thank you, ahead of time, anyone who is able to give me an answer to this question.
 
Yes, I was amazed to suddenly open his thread and see Jerome back. My mind began to wander,... you get the idea.

One of the real problems in resurrecting a thread like this one that was a year and a half gone in limbo is that the same cast of characters is no longer waiting to throw a live one back in. Thus it is with Jerome, death by mod about a year ago. Requiem in Pace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom