Birth of Earth

Furthermore the East Pacific Rise is spreading at a rate far faster than the Mid Atlantic Ridge.

In order to prove subduction, the Pacific basin must rapidly decrease in size in order to accommodate the continuous growth occurring in the other oceans of the world. However, any increase in size would confirm that the Earth is increasing in diameter, surface area, and circumference. ...

The VLBI measurements also raise other questions. In order to maintain Earth’s current diameter, subduction MUST remove older Pacific Ocean seafloor at a rate equal to ALL new seafloor area added anywhere on the planet—not just the small ~25-40 mm/yr (~1 to 1-1/2 in/yr) of new seafloor added annually along the Atlantic Ocean midocean ridge. The total new seafloor growth, both E-W and N-S, along the ~65,000 kilometers of midocean ridges undoubtedly exceeds ~300 mm/yr (~12 in/yr), and ALL of it must be vectored into the Pacific Ocean basin, the only area on the planet where subduction is believed to occur.

There are other reasons to doubt the validity of subduction. One is the illogical question of why the East Pacific Rise (EPR) should generate ~80 to ~160 mm/yr (~3-1/4 to ~6-1/2 in/yr) of new ocean seafloor—right in the middle of the supposed subduction area, and simultaneously subduct a greater amount elsewhere around its perimeter, leaves one puzzled. This EPR growth is four times greater than seafloor growth anywhere else on the planet and this large amount of new oceanic seafloor does not appear to be accounted for in the VLBI measurements. Where are measurements showing the Pacific Ocean basin DECREASING IN WIDTH?

Also unaccounted for are the vast amounts of new N-S seafloor being added circum-Antarctica that are causing Antarctica to INCREASE IN TOTAL SURFACE AREA AND EXPAND RADIALLY OUTWARD FROM THE PLANET’S CENTER.

This raises the pivotal questions of HOW and WHERE subduction could be occurring because there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of seamounts or soft sedimentary debris filling the deep ocean trenches or piled up on North or South American shores, semi-liquid debris that would easily have been scraped off the top of any subducting ocean floor.

The Pacific Rim of Fire, the supposed subduction area, suffers frequent earthquakes, but Benioff zones and seismic tomography that scientists point to when trying to justify subduction, only APPEAR to support subduction because they merely provide epicenter depths of earthquakes without providing the direction or extent of movement.
Click to expand...

http://expanding-earth.org/page_2.htm
 
Last edited:
geologyrocks said:
The ridge is spreading to the east and the plate is subducting to the west.
Click to expand...
The plate cannot be subducting to the west because it is spreading away from the rise. Again I have to ask, do you know how to tell time?

2008_age_of_oceans_p1024.jpg
 
OilIsMastery said:
Furthermore the East Pacific Rise is spreading at a rate far faster than the Mid Atlantic Ridge.

In order to prove subduction, the Pacific basin must rapidly decrease in size in order to accommodate the continuous growth occurring in the other oceans of the world. However, any increase in size would confirm that the Earth is increasing in diameter, surface area, and circumference.
Click to expand...

The Pacific basin is shrinking, which is a well known fact. But, this doesn't provide proof of subduction.

That is from a number of areas, such as (but not limited to):
- benioff zones (http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~nowack/geos557/lecture17-dir/lecture17_files/image004.jpg)
- seismic imaging (http://clasticdetritus.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/nankai3dseismic.jpeg)
- focal mechanisms of subducting plates (e.g. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7178/abs/nature06521.html)
- seismic tomogrpahy (http://www.geotimes.org/july07/feature_deeper3.jpg)
- gravity signal (http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/system/files/u2/subgravanom.gif)
- volcanic activity with the correct magma chemistry expected (e.g. http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/4/1073)
- etc, etc, etc
 
OilIsMastery said:
The plate cannot be subducting to the west because it is spreading away from the rise. Again I have to ask, do you know how to tell time?
Click to expand...

Apologies, East and West mixed up ;)

The spreading is on the west of the plate, subduction is on the east (under South America).
 
OilIsMastery said:
You didn't answer either question. What mythical continents are you saying were subducted and where were they subducted? Mu?
Click to expand...

Yes I did, you however failed to understand the response.

I didn't say that any continents anywhere were being subducted, in fact i've plainly stated that it's oceanic crust, not continental crust that gets subducted, because oceanic crust is thinner, and denser then continental crust.

You're the only person here who sites things involving Mu.
 
OilIsMastery said:
Unfortunately for plate tectonics it's impossible that the Ring of Fire is subducting because it's actually spreading at the East Pacific Rise. Do you know how to tell time?
Click to expand...

So we've got a spreading ridge off to one side in an ocean that's surrounded by subduction zones.

And?

You're problem with this is what precisely?
 
geologyrocks said:
The Pacific basin is shrinking, which is a well known fact. But, this doesn't provide proof of subduction.

That is from a number of areas, such as (but not limited to):
- benioff zones (http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~nowack/geos557/lecture17-dir/lecture17_files/image004.jpg)
- seismic imaging (http://clasticdetritus.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/nankai3dseismic.jpeg)
- focal mechanisms of subducting plates (e.g. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7178/abs/nature06521.html)
- seismic tomogrpahy (http://www.geotimes.org/july07/feature_deeper3.jpg)
- gravity signal (http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/system/files/u2/subgravanom.gif)
- volcanic activity with the correct magma chemistry expected (e.g. http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/4/1073)
- etc, etc, etc
Click to expand...
None of that shows the Pacific shrinking because it's actually expanding faster than any other ocean in the world.
 
OilIsMastery said:
None of that shows the Pacific shrinking because it's actually expanding faster than any other ocean in the world.
Click to expand...

Couple of things here:

1 - go back and re-read my post. The list of things was not intended to prove the Pacific Basin was shrinking. The list is an incomplete list for the evidence of subduction.

2 - please cite the evidence (from a reputable journal articles or websites, not an expanding earth website or blog) that the Pacific Basin is growing. What is the rate of the increase of the area of the Pacific Basin? Given the Pacific Basin used to consist of at least the Pacific, Farallon, Nazca and Kula plates, the evidence I know of does not support a growing Pacific Basin.


Going back 200Ma, the Pacific Basin has been getting smaller and smaller as we approach the Recent.
http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/plates/movies/2003_PLATES_atlas_Pacific.ppt (warning 50Mb download - might take a while!)


This very recent paper has some nice insights on the tectonic evolution of the Pacific Basin:
Laurent Husson, Clinton P. Conrad, Claudio Faccenna, Tethyan closure, Andean orogeny, and westward drift of the Pacific Basin, Earth and Planetary Science LettersVolume 271, Issues 1-4, , 15 July 2008, Pages 303-310.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V61-4SCDB4F-4/2/149170f2b00e69657b7c601c4ff69b26)
 
Ok still havent received a sufficient answer to India moving from Africa to Asia. I will try to be as clear as possible.
pangea-to-present.gif


In this picture during the cretaceous period India appears to be located directly on the spreading zone located between Africa and Asia. Before this time it would have been to the LEFT of the spreading ridge, after this time it would be located on the RIGHT of the spreading ridge.

What I want to know is HOW it moved across the spreading ridge?
 
EndLightEnd said:
Ok still havent received a sufficient answer to India moving from Africa to Asia. I will try to be as clear as possible.
pangea-to-present.gif


In this picture during the cretaceous period India appears to be located directly on the spreading zone located between Africa and Asia. Before this time it would have been to the LEFT of the spreading ridge, after this time it would be located on the RIGHT of the spreading ridge.

What I want to know is HOW it moved across the spreading ridge?
Click to expand...

It didn't - as you've been told three times now! The spreading ridge formed between Africa and India (as part of a triple junction). The spreading ridge created oceanic lithosphere, moving India and Africa apart. Spreading ridge are not fixed with respect to the continents. Go and read the text book I recommended - it is very good and will help you understand this very basic concept.
 
my opinion earth is expanding on the whole uniformally only like a tree because it has biological growth only. no other route is possible for the formation of earth.
upper skin where we live or land is dead skin or bark of earth.
actually inner core and crust is deciding the moment position of bark of earth.
n i am still rigid with my theory that earth has biological growth only. for more clarification pls see the following link.i request pls see link seriously with depth only.
Core Crust

http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89059_Taxus_wood1_122_572lo.JPG



Asteroid and Plant

http://img44.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89060_Asteoid_Plant_122_731lo.JPG&loc=loc731



Seeds and Meteorids

http://img185.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89066_metseeds_122_366lo.JPG



Bark of Tree and Earth

http://img17.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89071_pic_122_801lo.JPG



Volcanoes


http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=89077_volcanoes-2_122_1119lo.JPG



SUBDUCTION ZONE OF TREE SNAPS

http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=38188_SUBDUCTION_ZONE_122_1064lo.JPG
 
geologyrocks said:
It didn't - as you've been told three times now! The spreading ridge formed between Africa and India (as part of a triple junction). The spreading ridge created oceanic lithosphere, moving India and Africa apart. Spreading ridge are not fixed with respect to the continents. Go and read the text book I recommended - it is very good and will help you understand this very basic concept.
Click to expand...
I commend your efforts to bring light to EndLightEnd, but I fear it is in vain. You are speaking with the benefit of an education in and an understanding of global tectonics. He is a confused adolescent who looks at two maps and cannot grasp how the simple principle of sea floor spreading applies to them.

The sceptics who doubted plate tectonics in the sixties fully understood what was being claimed. What they questioned was the evidence for it and mechanism by which it progressed. The former (evidence) is and was comprehensive, the latter (mechanism) does still leave some questions, but questions that are much smarter than anything ELE can muster.
 
Ophiolite said:
I commend your efforts to bring light to EndLightEnd, but I fear it is in vain. You are speaking with the benefit of an education in and an understanding of global tectonics. He is a confused adolescent who looks at two maps and cannot grasp how the simple principle of sea floor spreading applies to them.

The sceptics who doubted plate tectonics in the sixties fully understood what was being claimed. What they questioned was the evidence for it and mechanism by which it progressed. The former (evidence) is and was comprehensive, the latter (mechanism) does still leave some questions, but questions that are much smarter than anything ELE can muster.
Click to expand...
Coming from someone who believes in invisible magic conveyor belts and mantle recycling...:roflmao:
 
The conveyor belts are not invisible - they are the visible ocean floors.
The geochemistry of a multiplicity of igneous rocks in a wide variety of tectonic environments across the globe testify to the reality of mantle depletion and partial recycling.

Acting like a dickhead will only tend to confirm the belief that you are a dickehead.
 
geologyrocks said:
2 - please cite the evidence (from a reputable journal articles or websites, not an expanding earth website or blog) that the Pacific Basin is growing. What is the rate of the increase of the area of the Pacific Basin? Given the Pacific Basin used to consist of at least the Pacific, Farallon, Nazca and Kula plates, the evidence I know of does not support a growing Pacific Basin.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for this citation, OIM, by the way. Having trouble finding it?
 
Ophiolite said:
The conveyor belts are not invisible - they are the visible ocean floors.
Click to expand...
The ocean floors are growing. They are not magic conveyor belts that defy the laws of physics.

The geochemistry of a multiplicity of igneous rocks in a wide variety of tectonic environments across the globe testify to the reality of mantle depletion and partial recycling.
Click to expand...
LOL.

"To date however, there is no direct unambiguous evidence that mantle convection and/or mantle circulation actually takes place; in fact, there is some evidence to the contrary. Moreover, there is no evidence that oceanic basalt can be repeatedly recycled through the mantle without being substantially and irreversibly changed. Yet, mantle convection/circulation and basalt recycling are fundamental necessities for the validity of plate tectonics. Furthermore, plate tectonics theory does not provide an energy source for geodynamic activity." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, 2005

Acting like a dickhead will only tend to confirm the belief that you are a dickehead.
Click to expand...
Calling someone a dickhead is not a logical or scientific argument but no one expects that from plate tectonics fundamentalists so go right ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top