I Love The Video Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics explores the inner earth and its surface. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the Mount St It Can Increase My Knowledge
Steady I Really Like This Video explores the inner earth and its surface. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the Mount St. Helen's volcanic eruption are explained and illustrated through narration and spectacular
Good, I like that you share this video explores the inner earth and its surface. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the Mount St, I wish success always
Nice Video explores the inner earth and its surface. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the Mount St. Helen's volcanic eruption are explained and illustrated through narration and spectacular historical footage That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You
I Really Like The Video Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics explores the inner earth and its surface. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the Mount St. Helen's volcanic From Your
@KINGxTROLL Don't mix hypothesis' and theories. This is a scientific theory, which makes it the highest assessable truth available through empirically gathered evidence.
Hi all, just trying to spread the word about a new project that's being put together - a community website based around our planet. It's at earth-forums (dot) com, so maybe check it out if you get a chance! :)
Hi, apologies for the random comment, but we have just started an ambitious new community website based around our planet, and wanted to let people know who might be interested. It's at earth-forums (dot) com. We hope you like it!
If you think THIS is interesting then you need to consider what the Impact and Exit Event theory has to say. The theory is a facinatingly new concept which adopts and refines Plate Tectonics while acknowledging the possibility of some of what is in the above video. In my opinion the impact and exit event has expanded our understanding of what causes plate tectonics, and what is likely to happen to Earth in the future. Well worth a read.
@loveisanoption yes the magma is formed by hydratation of peridotite(water comming from metamorphism of the hydrated oceanic plate), this causes the solidus to get smaller and the peridotite to melts...
A good program. However, I do not agree with the time frame. Even the scientists do not 'all' agree. Pangeae took place 'biblically' in the Old Testament (which means only a few thousand years ago in the days of Peleg ) shortly after Noah took his boat ride. Check out KJV Genesis and Doctrine and Covenants 133 (which is a cannon book of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints). The name Peleg means 'division'.
@dyzet13 shut up with your god and religious theories... How comes people stil believe in god... that's just disgusting, don't you think religions have caused enough deaths, enough retard in scientific discoverys... It's time to stop this stupid lie... You know what I pissed on a jesus statue and it feels very good and I'm stil alive and I have a happy live, how comes? Because god doesn't exist, open your eyes now, then I'm gonna be nice to you... ok? :)
@dyzet13 its disgusting that you think Pangaea only existed a few thousand years ago just because you read a bible. Its also disgusting that you refuse to listen to proven scientific facts just to stay with your bogus religion because "god" told you to.
magma has nothing to do with magnetism. Our magnetic field comes from the outer core swirling around the inner core. Liquid iron around solid iron. When the poles reverse, the affect on the planet is minute. Were it to happen tomorrow we wouldn't even notice unless we were holding an old compass, and even then the arrow would wobble for a few hours and settle on the south pole. Research even shows that migratory birds wouldn't even be affected.
Thats not evidence its an observation of the behavior of lava, which is quite different from Magma and extremely different from the lithosphere. Just because rocks appear to be solid does not mean they cannot flow. You can see rock folded in the rockies. I am wondering what evidence there is for an expanding earth? Continued...
@jeans1515 (need to go to video to see all reply... If there are no plates and the earth is solid, what causes two flags posted at opposite sides of a strike slip are sheared away from each other after a decade (they are shown to move 10 centimeters). That shows plate movement, these flags can and have been places all along the Californian boundary. If they are moving past each other definitively here they are colliding and moving apart elsewhere. cont....
@jeans1515 have you been responding to me? anyways as an answer to your magnetic pole shifting.. since we are currently experiencing magnetic pole shifts, it appears evident that pole REVERSAL is a somewhat lengthly process of certain parts of the Earth become MORE magnetically focused than others, ending in the calming and unifying of the inner magma. If the Earth was as chaotic as we think then why would it have this collected process of reversing it's poles?
know one actually knows this. The world's longest hole is built by an Oil company so for any of this to be proven our resources need to be diverted away from Capitalistic enterprise and into honest human discovery. Scientific theoretics are becoming a habit... instead of diving into discoveries we choose to use irrelevant experiments that "represent" actual nature. We know next to nothing about how the Earth ACTUALLY works.
@storyb23 Actually by taking very precise images of other planes in our solar system, and moons such as Titan we have more direct knowledge of planet formation and makeup than ever before. And as for whats inside the Earth, by tracking the waves of Earthquakes as they ricochet around within our planet we can calculate the internal makeup and density quite easily, like how sonar works, but on a bigger scale. The work has already been done for you, to deny it is delusional.
@jeans1515 oh buy I wasn't denying that. I just like pointing out that our astronomy sources tend to be biased (NASA).. and that our understanding of HOW the Earth moves is minute... but I agree that our understanding of what the Earth is composed of is probably pretty accurate.
when you watch a ball of magma flow out of a volcano (AKA lava) you notice that as it touches air it cools.. once then happens there is a cool layer that is pushed away from the point in which the magma is bulging out
@jeans1515 I am limited on my space but anyways as I was saying the lava rolls itself out, and that very type of movement is exactly what the Earth is doing, the magma is bulging out and creating these new plates, the new plates don't move under old plates... they can't do that if this theory is right because they're connected rigidly. This is the "Expanding Earth" theory.
@storyb23 Now... how do you explain the paleo-magnetic reversals along the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. All originating from the center of the ocean and mirroring their size and contour all the way to the coast of Africa and South America. They have clearly and unquestionably moved apart (the continents) If they are to move apart without old material being destroyed in subduction zones, the Earth would be twice its current size.
@storyb23 Yes, its relatively unchanged from today. I can infer this because there is no evidence that the earth has ever been another size. The onus of proof is on you here. Can you explain how paleomagnetic reversals occur in the manor I spoke of earlier?
REAL Free energy technology exists!But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,take part in the revolution!
@DeathAngleZoe Do you still need this information and why? Plate tectonics is the motion of the plates over a plastic mantle. At spreading ridge zones (sea floor spreading) the plates are created, at convergent boundaries the plates are recycled into the earth. Any time plates move, or stress in the plate is relieved, its an earth quake. Volcanoes typically occur above convergent plate boundaries, and Mountains are a result of plate convergence. If you want more, you'll need to email me.
So, hmmm, earth expansionist theorists are trying to take over this discussion again. Well, too bad that empirical evidence still does not show the earth expanding. We have thousands of lasers, GPS systems, satellites, and about a hundred other types of measuring devices that we use, and to date, we have not seen the earth grow one inch larger. Please take your fantasies elsewhere, leave the science to the scientists, religion to the religious, and fantasies to the writers. Nuts...
the plate on the left is carrying the ocean baisin is sinking in to magma 4 times as dense as solid rock! NOT POSIBLE OK, so the world must be expanding
Hold on - are we talking 10 years, or ten million years until these devastating eruptions? I hear the plates move about as fast as your fingernails grow :)
why or what would make the 'plate caring the ocean basin' heavier?
should it be the other way around? the mountains are heavier then the ocean, wright? Why are the continents expanding every year (I think it's 1 inch)?
Expanding earth has the answer, the more you look in to it the more it will make sense.
@marktsheppard Due to the weight of the water and all living organisms in there, the crust of the earth under the ocean is thinner and way more dense. It's also because the ocean, as you know, is really deep as mountains are really high. So oceanic crust naturally goes underneath continental crust.
@Hippie heMmy ...so the ocean is heavier then the mountains?, I don't think so, if we were to do a science experiment and collided two imaginary plates, the plate with the water would get pushed up and over the one with the mountains, plates expand and in some places collide creating mountains, very simple
@marktsheppard The oceans are deeper than the mountains are, and it depends on what plates. Anyways, i'll just copy and paste this from somewhere else, i'm a little lazy today :
"Oceanic crust is also denser than continental crust owing to their different compositions. Oceanic crust is denser because it has less silicon and more heavier elements ("mafic") than continental crust ("felsic"). "
@marktsheppard The continents are expanding? where did you get that information from? Look up the "Wadati-Benioff zone", a zone of earthquake activity which can been seen defining the down-going plate at any subduction zone. you can actually see the subducting plate. Oceanic plates are made of Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalt which is denser than continental crust, Mountain belts forms in continent-continent collisions because both plates are too buoyant to sink. Volcanic arcs form over subduction zones
@marktsheppard: You don't think so? What evidence do you have for your "think"? A YT video that shows the Earth getting bigger, like a balloon being blown up? Impressive.
@puncheex ...well ...if you don't want to look in to why expanding earth is so interesting then it's your loss, just keep believing in the "sliding on a greased skillet" theory and don't even bother to question why the freakin continents fit together like a puzzle, all the way around completely, when the earth was 1/2 the size, "expanding earth" it's ingenious in it's simplicity, REAL common cents, NO scientific hocus pocus ...science is about observation, 'EE' observes facts NOT book knowledge
@marktsheppard: Mark, Mark. When I went to school the only theory out there was the wrinkling of an apple's skin. I managed to follow the entire pathway of plate tectonics from almost it's start through to today, and the path has been a wondrous journey, with so much else being explained along the way: hot spots, cross-continental anomalies, ring of fire, Hawaii. Old geologists wondered what power could move continents, and doubted such, only to loose.
The simplest problem is that you are requiring the Earth to have changed mass or density by a factor of 8. The expansion leaves no particular reason why the ring of fire exists, or the Hawaii seamount chain exists, or why the Himalayas or the alps exist. I've watched the animations, and they're striking, but I wonder how well the Pacific would just "come together" without help from the animator? And where did the water in the ocean's come from? You aren't channeling Kent Hovind for that, I hope?
@puncheex your talking about 'small potatoes', boring stuff that never made any sense, for example-India just going of by itself and crashing in to Asia(the only continent to do so), the plates sliding/forcing over one another causing earthquakes? ...think about it, if the continents did that we would experience devastating earthquakes on a weekly or monthly basis, if you ever move furnisher you'll see my point, any way, there is book knowledge and then there is real life observation...
@puncheex "the only thing certain is change" add billions of years to the quote and there is half the answer, earth along with the sun has a life cycle, we don't really know what's deep underground, we can only observe the evidence and make logical conclusions, some kind of force made the earth expand, there can be a number of reasons, our earth is like outer space, the more we find out-the more questions arise, scientists make new discoveries every day, rewriting the history books, 'change'...
@marktsheppard: So, in other words, you have no refutation of what I said, no explanations for those things explained just fine with plate tectonics. Further, you don't know where the extra mass comes from, you don't know where the water comes from, all you have is a mystical life cycle that explains nothing, or "a number of reasons". Yes, science is all about change, but change from evidence, not change because it seems exciting.
@puncheex the water was always there in shallow seas, all the dinosaur sea creature focils are found on land, as for the question of mass, it could have always been there but at a different density and heat level, plus different depths of the earths core carried different elements, as time went on there could have been resettlement of metals which react differently(viscosity) to extreme heat and pressure, keep in mind that we are talking about forces that are beyond belief, hard to even imagine
@marktsheppard Why resort to a theory that requires forces "beyond belief" when there is a perfect theory that already explains everything in a quantifiable way? Why would this mysterious mass be changing density on its own and at such a slow pace? Why was it so compressed to begin with? it just doesn't add up. The animation may look nice but there is just no evidence for it that can't be explained perfectly by continental drift and there is so much evidence against it.
@78nacnud why question science? because asking questions is what real science is all about, some people believe what their told and are happy, if you want to live like a hamster and accept what your told then that's your choice, I live in the real world, if book knowledge satisfies you then just keep running in place like that hamster
@marktsheppard: Ah, that's it. When the analytical arguments fail, go for the emotional ones; that always works. Call them sheeple when they are convinced by the evidence. If that is the best argument you can produce, then please keep it to yourself, and we'll all be emotionally happier.
Do yourself a favor - go read the wikipedia article on "expanding earth". You'll find better arguments if you continue to choose to go with this; of course, you'll also find why the theory is wrong.
@puncheex As far as 'refutation' and analytical arguments go, I'm not here to debate you, I'm just bringing up interesting facts that people like you just can't explain or just ignore, what ever strong points I'll make you'll just ignore them and fall back on wikipedia(witch explains tectonics), your argument against me is that I don't know where the extra mass comes from and so on...
'EE' brings up and answers interesting questions/facts, you on the other hand bring up wikipedias answers
@marktsheppard: Ah, I see. It's "interesting" that you're looking for; something novel that gets all these stick-in-the-mud realists upset. So far, I've heard no "interesting facts that (I) can't explain"; all I've heard is "could" and "could have", and misuse of viscosity, and an expectation that density can increase 8 fold through heat levels. Sorry about your dislike of wikipedia; I've found it quite good on technical subjects, and one can always follow their references for first hand data.
@puncheex I am being realistic, 20 to 50 years from now our understanding and theories will progress and change, see... you think your smart because of wikipedia and your use of expensive words will some how humble me in to thinking you have a deeper understanding or some other bullshit, your understanding of life comes from books, my observations of the physical world comes from work, where on a daily basis I would see different materials fail, brake, stretch, etc. witnessing the impossible
@marktsheppard You have completely failed to address the evidence that everyone has put in front of you and we're still waiting for your "interesting questions/facts" that can't be answered by tectonics and continental drift... do you have any?
@78nacnud I can make the same statement against you, I have already made my points and brought up facts but you just ignore them, your just trying to piss me off, you can NOT disprove EE, I'll challenge you to disprove EEs strongest points, but no... your just going to weasel out and make anol exuses, bringing wikipedia in to the argument is NOT working to your favor, instead of having a logical conversation you want to argue and debate like if we have a relationship, I don't care what you think
@marktsheppard Ok, here is the evidence for plate tectonics: The Benioff Zone, Polar wander, Ocean floor Magnetostratigraphy, Volcanic arcs, Igneous petrology of arcs, back-arc spreading, Thrust wedges, Megathrust earthquakes, Volcanic chains, Ocean trenches, GPS data, fore-arc bulges and trench roll-back. That's just off the top of my head. You should actually look into some of it. None of this can be explained by EE. Where is your evidence?
@marktsheppard If you want me to disprove EEs strongest points you will have to tell me what they are... The fact that the continents fit together is not disputed and is not evidence for EE. It is explained far better by Continental drift which does not require a change in curvature of continents due to their expansion (which would require a lot of normal faulting). As for my recommendation that you take a look at wikipedia, I just thought that it might be simple enough for you to understand.
@marktsheppard When you respond please just answer my questions and provide evidence to back up your claims. I'm not interested in your opinions on how closed minded I am. In the face of all my evidence, it's irrelevant.
@marktsheppard when you respond, please just answer my questions and provide evidence for your claims. I'm not interested in how closed-minded you think I am. In the face of all my evidence it's irrelevant.
looking back at all of the scientifically populars beliefs in the past-which later were proven to be wrong, I see a pattern of ignored fact and unanswered questions, by standing up for wikipedias answers, your not being scientific at all, standing up for popular beliefs takes no skill, being argumentative also takes no skill, scientific theories change and new discoveries are made, the EE is fascinating but if you think it's all boring BS then it's your loss... I feel sorry for you
@marktsheppard: No, can't happen. The "shallow" seas expanded out to become the Pacific? The average depth of all the world's oceans is well over 2 miles; if that were all pushed out to cover the existing land surfaces only, not even Mt Everest would poke through it; where would those dinosaurs be living, not to speak of all the other land species that came before?
The mass "could" be in different densities? 8x more dense? That's denser than solid U238, and that's the average.
@marktsheppard Please look up Wadati-Benioff Zone on Wikipedia. Also, the European Alps formed the same way the Himalayas did, with Italy crashing into Europe. Another example is the Southern Alps in New Zealand which formed when the buoyant Chatham Rise collided with the South Island. If the earth is expanding then why is there any volcanism? Removing mass from the earth would make it shrink, unless you replace it at subduction zones!
@78nacnud there are tectonic theories and then there is the power of volcanoes, 2 separate phenomenon, the expanding continents twist and fold the crust, some parts separate more then others cousin mountains regions, etc. As continents separate, some parts will expand faster then others, like a growing fruit, causing irregularities, what also can change expansions path is the gravity fields and the earths axis, plus the sun exerts it's influence as well, SO MANY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, I love EE
@HippieEhMey dear the oceanic crust is heaver is not because of water or living thing in it,,,,it is hevear because of its lithalogy,,,,having basic lithalogy...
@marktsheppard: They are heavier because they are generally basaltic (sg 2.8-3.0), while continental plate is lighter granitic (sg 2.4-2.6). Continental plate is thicker, and therefore stiffer, then oceanic plate. Any granite that happens to be floating on a descending plate is usually scraped off and changes "sides". There are examples of inversions in Labrador for one, but they are limited. Continents don't expand; your figure is for plate movement in general. Expanding earth is a crock.
@marktsheppard: No, not right. In the classic meeting of a sea floor plate and a land plate there are no mountains; they come later. Continents aren't expanding at all - why should they? Your argument is nothing but a huge strawman. All you have is "suppose", "maybe", "should".
The thing that makes the ocean plate densier is that it is made of densier rock. Granitic "felsic" rock, based on silicon and aluminum, and especially sedimentary rock, is lighter than basaltic "mafic' ferrous rock.
@jeans1515 Techtonic Plates move at the same speed as your finger nails grow, so there is definitely no satelite which ''tracks'' anything which moves that slowly, even over 10ys. This video says that the subduction occurrs because the plate beneath the ocean is heavier and therefore dives under the plate under the land. BUT the plate under land is obviously carrying more weight from the land above sea level, so explain why the plate under the land does not dive under the plate under the water ?
@arcanacelestia Actually OUR plate moves slowly but the pacific plates can move by almost a foot each year. And yes, there are satellite measurement of movement made all the time. I studied the mechanics and science involved in such measurements in my University geology classes and trust me, if my iPhone can be located to whithin' three feet by gps, a precise satellite measurement is down to the millimeter, especially when there is a ground-based receiver. Maybe read a book on the subject.
@jeans1515 So if you have studied geology, why haven't you answered my question . . . ''This video says that the subduction occurrs because the plate beneath the ocean is heavier and therefore dives under the plate under the land. BUT the plate under land is obviously carrying more weight from the land above sea level, so explain why the plate under the land does not dive under the plate under the water ?''
@arcanacelestia I think the little animation is confusing, it has the proportions of the mountains out of whack, if you have ever flown above the ground you know that mountains aren't like that. Mountains only extend the size of the land a small fraction of whats underneath, watch other videos or research plate thickness and composition. See, the composition of the oceanic plate may contain more Iron or other heavier components. Mountains are relatively light sedimentary rock. Cont...
@arcanacelestia ..cont... But really it is simply that if you were to cut the actual plates and look at them in cross section, the ocean is a slim strip and mountains are a slim bump in the actual crust. Does this answer your question. The animation is stylised because its old. There are many good CGI representation. And I will agree that the narrators line is not explained fully. But because one narrator doesn't explain it well, doesn't make it untrue.
@arcanacelestia Perhaps you need to learn what the word theory means as you obviously come from a failed education system. Sorry to be rude, but to not believe in this is irrelevant there is 150 years worth of evidence on subduction from millions of people smarter than you or I. What I recommend you do, is read an actual book on the subject. A question though... what causes a marked increase in volcanism along subduction lines then? If there were no plates and no subduction, why aren't... cont.
Respond to this video... ...Why arent volcanoes and earthquakes equally spread across the globe? If your an expanding earth proponent where does all the extra mass come from to fill in the expansion of the lithosphere? And Why does the lithosphere show no signs of growing in size? If you don't "believe" in any continental drift... Why? What makes it so hard to understand, and with so much evidence to the contrary how do you convince yourself that so many people are wrong?
Let me also add... the earth is not expanding (apart from the few hundred tons of dust falling from space, adding to earth's mass a very tiny amount). We actually have proof of continental drift, subduction, strike faults, etc. We've measured it as it is actually happening. Duh.
@DaMatta11 india along with africa detached due to continental drifting, drifting can be either way ie depends on the flow of molten particles underneath the plates
Try to pull apart a scale model of two adjacent ocean plates. It cannot be done .The transform faults are frequently out of parallel causing a lack of line of draw. Plate tectonics is a simple straight forward physical impossibilty. It will be dead and gone before the end of the century.
@jimmy9041 absolutely correct. growing earth theory should be taught as fact. do the balloon-test and you will feel a fucking fool for believing the pandora continent theory even for a little bit.
Neil Adams ideas come from reading a bunch of science books and misunderstanding 90% of what he read and then when questioned by people that actually know a thing or two he retreats behind "look,im not a scientist". He also thinks that when you take +1 and put it with a -1 that you get 1 instead of zero. His model also starts with basically no water on the entire small earth but then as it expands huge deep oceans just magically appear.That and a million other things that dont make sense.
Yes,Im very fimiliar with both of them. And Ive probably seen anything you want to link me too already,but feel free to send them to me in a massage anyways. Ive also heard an interview of Neil talking about it and any real science question he was asked he ducked and said he "wasnt a scientist" and he was "not there to get in an argument" and that for him to be right,he believes that +1 and -1 equal 1 as he explains electrons and positrons come together to create matter.
Ok so you are familiar with both of them good. I haven't looked at the +1 -1 = 1 to be honest I will though.
The expanding earth "effect" also appears on so many other bodies in the solar system and using Occam's razor ??? well it's the simplest explanation. Besides how else can you explain the fit of the Land masses and the sea bed dates ? along with the lack of a trace for the movement of India ??
Tectonics explain land mass fit,sea bed dates and the movement of India,expanding earth just dismissed subduction and many other processes that are well established out of hand. EOT ignores siesmic data which lets us actaully physically see subduction happening. Its not a guess,it 100% is true and they just say nu uh. Watch Neils part about India.Its childish. He says we say India detatched from the earths crust and floated on the ocean into Asia. Its silly babyish strawman arguments.
It doesn't quite (imho) however what about the lack of craters in the lunar mares, the Spreads on Ariel, Miranda, Oberon and Titania ? your're not going to suggest there is subduction going on on those bodies Surely ???
Is Australia "floating" on the ocean? It is an island surrounded by water, but it is part of the Indo-Australia tectonic plate moving North-East, subducting under the Pacific plate.
@borderraven tectonic plates float on molten rock due to circulating currents just like a boat floats in ocean due to ocean current. The tectonic plates are like a swimming pool itself made of concrete whereas the ocean is the pool of water filling it.
@1one1republic, I believe I repeated an earlier question, then answered it. But, you will need to read my entire post in order to fully comprehend my entire thought, before jumping to a conclusion.
@Aaron518 the earth is cooling. the sun was a lot smaller early on in life too. a red giant is when a star has burnt off most of it's fuel. do you think liquid or ice is the only way water comes about?
Not really understanding your points or your question... Yes,red giants expand.What does an expanding star mode up of gases have anything to do with earth?I don't see your point. Do I think liquid or ice is the only way water comes about? As opposed to what? I have no idea what you're trying to ask here.
The Sun, now about 4 billion years old, is expanding and predictably the temperatures humans live in will, in a billion + years exceed our comfort, if not succeeded by extinction of food plants, or by natural/man-made over-pollution of the atmosphere. Humans generally have 40 years in their lifetime to make a difference. But, naturally occurring changes can take millions and billions of of years to happen. Enjoy the Cosmic ride.
Wow! this is an old video, The understanding of the mechanics of Plate Tectonics is a bit better understood. The subducting plate does not simply melt as this video suggests, but there are melts that result from it.
Desification of the solid MORBs along different pressure and temp gradients cause some ions withing the affected area to move faster than others. This desification process then introduces the waters and ions into the surrounding mantle or rock, allowing them to melt. The melts that result are a direct result of the chemistry. More iron and magnesium results in mafic melts, where as less iron and more silica results in a felsic melt.
The mantle convection currents suggest rising magma (hot) where plates diverge (mid ocean ridges) and descending magma (cool) under continental plates. If you stick a cold oceanic plate into an already descending, low pressure and already cool mantle won't it just further cool it and make it even less likely to become a hot spot and volcanic eruption zone?
When oceanic crust is subducted under an continental plate trapped moisture is released under pressure. The trapped moisture acts as a flux and causes surrounding rocks to melt at a lower temperature, as those rocks melt and form magma it expands decreasing its density and then rises. Some reaches the surface as an igneous extrusion to form fast cooling rocks like basalt while other cools slowly under the surface as igneous intrusions forming plutonic rocks like granite.
Essentially true, however, rock type has to do with melt chemistry. Basalt comes from mafic chemistry where as granite comes from more silicious felsic melts.
For the rest of you, water brings the melting temperature of any material down so that under the same pressures and temperatures, a rock with water in it will melt when a dry rock will still be solid. As many of you may or may not know, liquids are less dense than solids (water is the only exception), so melted rock rises.
I made a mistake here, Water is not the only exception. Gallium, Bismuth, Germanium and Silicon are also solids that are less dense as a liquid. But the fact remains that the rest of the minerals are more desnse as a solid, and thus the liquid forms will be less dense and have a tendancy to "rise" due to surrounding compression.
Well buster27, there you are incorrect, I have looked into it quite extensively. I understand the arguments quite well. I find extreme fault with the idea (I will no longer call it a theory) of an expanding Earth. So, before you start supposing what I may or may not know or understand, why don't you simply ask?
I never assume that my knowledge is complete, or for that matter correct. I constantly challenge what I read and what I know to be sure that the theories I back are the most correct and complete.
@oicurageologist how do you explain the sea floor is younger than the plates? The earth grew...Therefore we add time every year as it expands. There is no subduction.
Costa Rica earthquake on the 8th and on the 20th and in Bodrum-Turkey on the 23th of January 2009 has been predicted.You will see more than 500 earthquake prediction for 2009.
See what earthquake happened in Colombia on the 31st of January 2009.For Colombia or Costa Rica:31st of January 2009,16h25min
/UTC/.Boyko Iliev/Consultant by earthquakes in Bulgarian bTV,"Seismograph"/
Yeh well we nerds will probley have a lot better future than people like you that like to mess around and do things that will deffenetly wount make your life good or better =]
GROWING EARTH theory is NONSENSE!!!! Where is that matter coming from??? Why isn't "g" changing??? (hint hint, we've got ULTRA sensitive gravitometers now...) Why can you _detect_ the plates subducting? And so on, and so on...
All the extra matter (mass) is coming every day when meteors (falling stars) enter the earths atmosphere..as for why the gravtometers are not registering the increase because they only measure gravity increases on a very small area not planetwide..Questions answered
There's not enough meteors to do that, and that would pile stuff on from the outside, whereas to make tectonic drift (i.e. so the continents get basins in between them), you would need it to come in from the _inside_, down _under_ the crust. Plus, given the required size increase in 250 Ma, if you assume that a similar expansion is still ongoing, you can calculate the rate of "g" change. It's in the measurable range.
Try this the earth is like a big vacume cleaner sucking up every ounce if space dust and debris that enters it's gravity feild and it has been doing so for as far as science can explain some 4.6 billion years and probably a lot longer than that :-)
As for the drift Have you heard on convection currents in the mantle and the mid ocean ridges where the magma produces new see floor ( see the earth is expanding )
There's way too little of it to do what you need. I've heard something like 30,000 tons per year, max. Over 250 million years that adds up to around 7,500,000,000,000 tons. Seems like quite a bit, but the Earth is some 800,000,000,000 times heaver still. Drop in the bucket.
Why is PT still so well-accepted, if "Growing Planets Theory" is so much better? Hint: IT'S NOT!!!
What is with the BOT comments... they are all exactly the same! and its copied from the description...
AndersonFirearms 4 days ago
I Love The Video Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics explores the inner earth and its surface. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the Mount St It Can Increase My Knowledge
Kricardose 3 weeks ago
Steady I Really Like This Video explores the inner earth and its surface. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the Mount St. Helen's volcanic eruption are explained and illustrated through narration and spectacular
bebeheuy 3 weeks ago
Good, I like that you share this video explores the inner earth and its surface. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the Mount St, I wish success always
Mjhond 3 weeks ago
Nice Video explores the inner earth and its surface. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the Mount St. Helen's volcanic eruption are explained and illustrated through narration and spectacular historical footage That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You
AntoMelta 3 weeks ago
I Really Like The Video Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics explores the inner earth and its surface. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the Mount St. Helen's volcanic From Your
willamricard 3 weeks ago
Your Video Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics explores the inner earth and its surface. The 1906 San Francisco earthquak Is Very Useful Sharing
imegatrone 3 weeks ago
Just visit
WORLD - EARTHQUAKES . COM
worldethq 6 months ago
remeber is only a theory!!!!
KINGxTROLL 6 months ago
@KINGxTROLL Don't mix hypothesis' and theories. This is a scientific theory, which makes it the highest assessable truth available through empirically gathered evidence.
kazath 6 months ago
@KINGxTROLL troll
greenmatthews 4 months ago
Hi all, just trying to spread the word about a new project that's being put together - a community website based around our planet. It's at earth-forums (dot) com, so maybe check it out if you get a chance! :)
hoppimike 8 months ago
Hi, apologies for the random comment, but we have just started an ambitious new community website based around our planet, and wanted to let people know who might be interested. It's at earth-forums (dot) com. We hope you like it!
EarthForums 9 months ago
Thats me cumming at 0:57
dracula19148914 9 months ago
why would I purchase this video when I can just watch it here? Fail.
JOOPISH1 9 months ago
1:24 that isn't of a volcano, it looks like it is film shot of Tunguska.
visini14 9 months ago
Ûhm_ÀñyÔÑe_wáÑnä_chat_with_mê_ì_fëÈl_só_lØñélY_t0Ðaý┌
SupaiShontaae651 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you think THIS is interesting then you need to consider what the Impact and Exit Event theory has to say. The theory is a facinatingly new concept which adopts and refines Plate Tectonics while acknowledging the possibility of some of what is in the above video. In my opinion the impact and exit event has expanded our understanding of what causes plate tectonics, and what is likely to happen to Earth in the future. Well worth a read.
cwoods191 10 months ago
I would imagine the tsunami from Japan that reached the West Coast also had an effect on the ocean floor as the water rushed along it.
Janice11353 10 months ago
@Janice11353 no, tidal waves only happen on the surface, they do not effect the ocean floor at all.
samuriguy909 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I learned alot from this short video
smoshysuperfan 10 months ago
this seems like a vry old video...have any of the theories been updated since then?
loveisanoption 11 months ago
@loveisanoption yes the magma is formed by hydratation of peridotite(water comming from metamorphism of the hydrated oceanic plate), this causes the solidus to get smaller and the peridotite to melts...
deluchka 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmmm. A far better explanation for 'Continental Drift' (forget plate tectonics) is The Impact And Exit Event. Google it.
cwoods191 11 months ago
HU!!
onegreenenvy 11 months ago
A good program. However, I do not agree with the time frame. Even the scientists do not 'all' agree. Pangeae took place 'biblically' in the Old Testament (which means only a few thousand years ago in the days of Peleg ) shortly after Noah took his boat ride. Check out KJV Genesis and Doctrine and Covenants 133 (which is a cannon book of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints). The name Peleg means 'division'.
dyzet13 1 year ago
@dyzet13 shut up with your god and religious theories... How comes people stil believe in god... that's just disgusting, don't you think religions have caused enough deaths, enough retard in scientific discoverys... It's time to stop this stupid lie... You know what I pissed on a jesus statue and it feels very good and I'm stil alive and I have a happy live, how comes? Because god doesn't exist, open your eyes now, then I'm gonna be nice to you... ok? :)
deluchka 10 months ago
@dyzet13 its disgusting that you think Pangaea only existed a few thousand years ago just because you read a bible. Its also disgusting that you refuse to listen to proven scientific facts just to stay with your bogus religion because "god" told you to.
samuriguy909 10 months ago
en anglais ras le bol on est en france
jadedecreuse 1 year ago
magma has nothing to do with magnetism. Our magnetic field comes from the outer core swirling around the inner core. Liquid iron around solid iron. When the poles reverse, the affect on the planet is minute. Were it to happen tomorrow we wouldn't even notice unless we were holding an old compass, and even then the arrow would wobble for a few hours and settle on the south pole. Research even shows that migratory birds wouldn't even be affected.
jeans1515 1 year ago
Thats not evidence its an observation of the behavior of lava, which is quite different from Magma and extremely different from the lithosphere. Just because rocks appear to be solid does not mean they cannot flow. You can see rock folded in the rockies. I am wondering what evidence there is for an expanding earth? Continued...
jeans1515 1 year ago
@jeans1515 (need to go to video to see all reply... If there are no plates and the earth is solid, what causes two flags posted at opposite sides of a strike slip are sheared away from each other after a decade (they are shown to move 10 centimeters). That shows plate movement, these flags can and have been places all along the Californian boundary. If they are moving past each other definitively here they are colliding and moving apart elsewhere. cont....
jeans1515 1 year ago
@jeans1515 have you been responding to me? anyways as an answer to your magnetic pole shifting.. since we are currently experiencing magnetic pole shifts, it appears evident that pole REVERSAL is a somewhat lengthly process of certain parts of the Earth become MORE magnetically focused than others, ending in the calming and unifying of the inner magma. If the Earth was as chaotic as we think then why would it have this collected process of reversing it's poles?
storyb23 1 year ago
OR IS IT?
know one actually knows this. The world's longest hole is built by an Oil company so for any of this to be proven our resources need to be diverted away from Capitalistic enterprise and into honest human discovery. Scientific theoretics are becoming a habit... instead of diving into discoveries we choose to use irrelevant experiments that "represent" actual nature. We know next to nothing about how the Earth ACTUALLY works.
storyb23 1 year ago
@storyb23 Actually by taking very precise images of other planes in our solar system, and moons such as Titan we have more direct knowledge of planet formation and makeup than ever before. And as for whats inside the Earth, by tracking the waves of Earthquakes as they ricochet around within our planet we can calculate the internal makeup and density quite easily, like how sonar works, but on a bigger scale. The work has already been done for you, to deny it is delusional.
jeans1515 1 year ago
@jeans1515 oh buy I wasn't denying that. I just like pointing out that our astronomy sources tend to be biased (NASA).. and that our understanding of HOW the Earth moves is minute... but I agree that our understanding of what the Earth is composed of is probably pretty accurate.
when you watch a ball of magma flow out of a volcano (AKA lava) you notice that as it touches air it cools.. once then happens there is a cool layer that is pushed away from the point in which the magma is bulging out
storyb23 1 year ago
@jeans1515 I am limited on my space but anyways as I was saying the lava rolls itself out, and that very type of movement is exactly what the Earth is doing, the magma is bulging out and creating these new plates, the new plates don't move under old plates... they can't do that if this theory is right because they're connected rigidly. This is the "Expanding Earth" theory.
storyb23 1 year ago
@storyb23 Now... how do you explain the paleo-magnetic reversals along the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. All originating from the center of the ocean and mirroring their size and contour all the way to the coast of Africa and South America. They have clearly and unquestionably moved apart (the continents) If they are to move apart without old material being destroyed in subduction zones, the Earth would be twice its current size.
jeans1515 1 year ago
@jeans1515 You have proof of Earth's original size?
storyb23 1 year ago
@storyb23 Yes, its relatively unchanged from today. I can infer this because there is no evidence that the earth has ever been another size. The onus of proof is on you here. Can you explain how paleomagnetic reversals occur in the manor I spoke of earlier?
jeans1515 1 year ago
Thanks alot. I'm trying to past my sol test on Monday!
misshollywood10001 1 year ago
THANK YOU!!! I have a test tomorrow :D
videorecorderman5 1 year ago
REAL Free energy technology exists!But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,if you want a real Free energy Magnet Motor, get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,take part in the revolution!
intermitrj 1 year ago
How are earthquakes volcanoes, mountains, sea floor spreading and plate tectonics all related? PLEASE REPLY! I NEED AN ANSWER SOON!
DeathAngleZoe 1 year ago
@DeathAngleZoe Do you still need this information and why? Plate tectonics is the motion of the plates over a plastic mantle. At spreading ridge zones (sea floor spreading) the plates are created, at convergent boundaries the plates are recycled into the earth. Any time plates move, or stress in the plate is relieved, its an earth quake. Volcanoes typically occur above convergent plate boundaries, and Mountains are a result of plate convergence. If you want more, you'll need to email me.
oicurageologist 1 year ago
So, hmmm, earth expansionist theorists are trying to take over this discussion again. Well, too bad that empirical evidence still does not show the earth expanding. We have thousands of lasers, GPS systems, satellites, and about a hundred other types of measuring devices that we use, and to date, we have not seen the earth grow one inch larger. Please take your fantasies elsewhere, leave the science to the scientists, religion to the religious, and fantasies to the writers. Nuts...
oicurageologist 1 year ago
Comment removed
ophiuchus1130 1 year ago
the plate on the left is carrying the ocean baisin is sinking in to magma 4 times as dense as solid rock! NOT POSIBLE OK, so the world must be expanding
lamboclutch 1 year ago
This is a little old. The subducting plate melts due to pressure and heat caused by water in the rock. That is what finds it's way upward.
MindAndMarzipan 1 year ago
Hold on - are we talking 10 years, or ten million years until these devastating eruptions? I hear the plates move about as fast as your fingernails grow :)
makenna88 1 year ago
Dude, there are mountains on the sea floor too! Not just on the continent! So the ocean is heavier!
davieandashie 1 year ago
why or what would make the 'plate caring the ocean basin' heavier?
should it be the other way around? the mountains are heavier then the ocean, wright? Why are the continents expanding every year (I think it's 1 inch)?
Expanding earth has the answer, the more you look in to it the more it will make sense.
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@marktsheppard Due to the weight of the water and all living organisms in there, the crust of the earth under the ocean is thinner and way more dense. It's also because the ocean, as you know, is really deep as mountains are really high. So oceanic crust naturally goes underneath continental crust.
HippieEhMey 1 year ago
@Hippie heMmy ...so the ocean is heavier then the mountains?, I don't think so, if we were to do a science experiment and collided two imaginary plates, the plate with the water would get pushed up and over the one with the mountains, plates expand and in some places collide creating mountains, very simple
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@marktsheppard The oceans are deeper than the mountains are, and it depends on what plates. Anyways, i'll just copy and paste this from somewhere else, i'm a little lazy today :
"Oceanic crust is also denser than continental crust owing to their different compositions. Oceanic crust is denser because it has less silicon and more heavier elements ("mafic") than continental crust ("felsic"). "
HippieEhMey 1 year ago
@marktsheppard The continents are expanding? where did you get that information from? Look up the "Wadati-Benioff zone", a zone of earthquake activity which can been seen defining the down-going plate at any subduction zone. you can actually see the subducting plate. Oceanic plates are made of Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalt which is denser than continental crust, Mountain belts forms in continent-continent collisions because both plates are too buoyant to sink. Volcanic arcs form over subduction zones
78nacnud 1 year ago
@marktsheppard: You don't think so? What evidence do you have for your "think"? A YT video that shows the Earth getting bigger, like a balloon being blown up? Impressive.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex ...well ...if you don't want to look in to why expanding earth is so interesting then it's your loss, just keep believing in the "sliding on a greased skillet" theory and don't even bother to question why the freakin continents fit together like a puzzle, all the way around completely, when the earth was 1/2 the size, "expanding earth" it's ingenious in it's simplicity, REAL common cents, NO scientific hocus pocus ...science is about observation, 'EE' observes facts NOT book knowledge
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@marktsheppard: Mark, Mark. When I went to school the only theory out there was the wrinkling of an apple's skin. I managed to follow the entire pathway of plate tectonics from almost it's start through to today, and the path has been a wondrous journey, with so much else being explained along the way: hot spots, cross-continental anomalies, ring of fire, Hawaii. Old geologists wondered what power could move continents, and doubted such, only to loose.
puncheex 1 year ago
The simplest problem is that you are requiring the Earth to have changed mass or density by a factor of 8. The expansion leaves no particular reason why the ring of fire exists, or the Hawaii seamount chain exists, or why the Himalayas or the alps exist. I've watched the animations, and they're striking, but I wonder how well the Pacific would just "come together" without help from the animator? And where did the water in the ocean's come from? You aren't channeling Kent Hovind for that, I hope?
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex your talking about 'small potatoes', boring stuff that never made any sense, for example-India just going of by itself and crashing in to Asia(the only continent to do so), the plates sliding/forcing over one another causing earthquakes? ...think about it, if the continents did that we would experience devastating earthquakes on a weekly or monthly basis, if you ever move furnisher you'll see my point, any way, there is book knowledge and then there is real life observation...
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@puncheex "the only thing certain is change" add billions of years to the quote and there is half the answer, earth along with the sun has a life cycle, we don't really know what's deep underground, we can only observe the evidence and make logical conclusions, some kind of force made the earth expand, there can be a number of reasons, our earth is like outer space, the more we find out-the more questions arise, scientists make new discoveries every day, rewriting the history books, 'change'...
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@marktsheppard: So, in other words, you have no refutation of what I said, no explanations for those things explained just fine with plate tectonics. Further, you don't know where the extra mass comes from, you don't know where the water comes from, all you have is a mystical life cycle that explains nothing, or "a number of reasons". Yes, science is all about change, but change from evidence, not change because it seems exciting.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex the water was always there in shallow seas, all the dinosaur sea creature focils are found on land, as for the question of mass, it could have always been there but at a different density and heat level, plus different depths of the earths core carried different elements, as time went on there could have been resettlement of metals which react differently(viscosity) to extreme heat and pressure, keep in mind that we are talking about forces that are beyond belief, hard to even imagine
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@marktsheppard Why resort to a theory that requires forces "beyond belief" when there is a perfect theory that already explains everything in a quantifiable way? Why would this mysterious mass be changing density on its own and at such a slow pace? Why was it so compressed to begin with? it just doesn't add up. The animation may look nice but there is just no evidence for it that can't be explained perfectly by continental drift and there is so much evidence against it.
78nacnud 1 year ago
@78nacnud why question science? because asking questions is what real science is all about, some people believe what their told and are happy, if you want to live like a hamster and accept what your told then that's your choice, I live in the real world, if book knowledge satisfies you then just keep running in place like that hamster
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@marktsheppard: Ah, that's it. When the analytical arguments fail, go for the emotional ones; that always works. Call them sheeple when they are convinced by the evidence. If that is the best argument you can produce, then please keep it to yourself, and we'll all be emotionally happier.
Do yourself a favor - go read the wikipedia article on "expanding earth". You'll find better arguments if you continue to choose to go with this; of course, you'll also find why the theory is wrong.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex As far as 'refutation' and analytical arguments go, I'm not here to debate you, I'm just bringing up interesting facts that people like you just can't explain or just ignore, what ever strong points I'll make you'll just ignore them and fall back on wikipedia(witch explains tectonics), your argument against me is that I don't know where the extra mass comes from and so on...
'EE' brings up and answers interesting questions/facts, you on the other hand bring up wikipedias answers
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@marktsheppard: Ah, I see. It's "interesting" that you're looking for; something novel that gets all these stick-in-the-mud realists upset. So far, I've heard no "interesting facts that (I) can't explain"; all I've heard is "could" and "could have", and misuse of viscosity, and an expectation that density can increase 8 fold through heat levels. Sorry about your dislike of wikipedia; I've found it quite good on technical subjects, and one can always follow their references for first hand data.
puncheex 1 year ago
@puncheex I am being realistic, 20 to 50 years from now our understanding and theories will progress and change, see... you think your smart because of wikipedia and your use of expensive words will some how humble me in to thinking you have a deeper understanding or some other bullshit, your understanding of life comes from books, my observations of the physical world comes from work, where on a daily basis I would see different materials fail, brake, stretch, etc. witnessing the impossible
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@marktsheppard You have completely failed to address the evidence that everyone has put in front of you and we're still waiting for your "interesting questions/facts" that can't be answered by tectonics and continental drift... do you have any?
78nacnud 1 year ago
@78nacnud I can make the same statement against you, I have already made my points and brought up facts but you just ignore them, your just trying to piss me off, you can NOT disprove EE, I'll challenge you to disprove EEs strongest points, but no... your just going to weasel out and make anol exuses, bringing wikipedia in to the argument is NOT working to your favor, instead of having a logical conversation you want to argue and debate like if we have a relationship, I don't care what you think
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@marktsheppard Ok, here is the evidence for plate tectonics: The Benioff Zone, Polar wander, Ocean floor Magnetostratigraphy, Volcanic arcs, Igneous petrology of arcs, back-arc spreading, Thrust wedges, Megathrust earthquakes, Volcanic chains, Ocean trenches, GPS data, fore-arc bulges and trench roll-back. That's just off the top of my head. You should actually look into some of it. None of this can be explained by EE. Where is your evidence?
78nacnud 1 year ago
@marktsheppard If you want me to disprove EEs strongest points you will have to tell me what they are... The fact that the continents fit together is not disputed and is not evidence for EE. It is explained far better by Continental drift which does not require a change in curvature of continents due to their expansion (which would require a lot of normal faulting). As for my recommendation that you take a look at wikipedia, I just thought that it might be simple enough for you to understand.
78nacnud 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marktsheppard When you respond please just answer my questions and provide evidence to back up your claims. I'm not interested in your opinions on how closed minded I am. In the face of all my evidence, it's irrelevant.
78nacnud 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marktsheppard when you respond, please just answer my questions and provide evidence for your claims. I'm not interested in how closed-minded you think I am. In the face of all my evidence it's irrelevant.
78nacnud 1 year ago
@puncheex
looking back at all of the scientifically populars beliefs in the past-which later were proven to be wrong, I see a pattern of ignored fact and unanswered questions, by standing up for wikipedias answers, your not being scientific at all, standing up for popular beliefs takes no skill, being argumentative also takes no skill, scientific theories change and new discoveries are made, the EE is fascinating but if you think it's all boring BS then it's your loss... I feel sorry for you
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@marktsheppard: No, can't happen. The "shallow" seas expanded out to become the Pacific? The average depth of all the world's oceans is well over 2 miles; if that were all pushed out to cover the existing land surfaces only, not even Mt Everest would poke through it; where would those dinosaurs be living, not to speak of all the other land species that came before?
The mass "could" be in different densities? 8x more dense? That's denser than solid U238, and that's the average.
puncheex 1 year ago
@marktsheppard Please look up Wadati-Benioff Zone on Wikipedia. Also, the European Alps formed the same way the Himalayas did, with Italy crashing into Europe. Another example is the Southern Alps in New Zealand which formed when the buoyant Chatham Rise collided with the South Island. If the earth is expanding then why is there any volcanism? Removing mass from the earth would make it shrink, unless you replace it at subduction zones!
78nacnud 1 year ago
@78nacnud there are tectonic theories and then there is the power of volcanoes, 2 separate phenomenon, the expanding continents twist and fold the crust, some parts separate more then others cousin mountains regions, etc. As continents separate, some parts will expand faster then others, like a growing fruit, causing irregularities, what also can change expansions path is the gravity fields and the earths axis, plus the sun exerts it's influence as well, SO MANY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, I love EE
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@marktsheppard dear it is not because of wtaer but the oceanic crust is because of basic lithalogy which is hevear then the felsic lithalogy,,,
ashrafgeo 1 year ago
@HippieEhMey expanded your name just like earth expands the plates, 'spell check auto fix'
marktsheppard 1 year ago
@HippieEhMey dear the oceanic crust is heaver is not because of water or living thing in it,,,,it is hevear because of its lithalogy,,,,having basic lithalogy...
ashrafgeo 1 year ago
@marktsheppard: They are heavier because they are generally basaltic (sg 2.8-3.0), while continental plate is lighter granitic (sg 2.4-2.6). Continental plate is thicker, and therefore stiffer, then oceanic plate. Any granite that happens to be floating on a descending plate is usually scraped off and changes "sides". There are examples of inversions in Labrador for one, but they are limited. Continents don't expand; your figure is for plate movement in general. Expanding earth is a crock.
puncheex 1 year ago
@marktsheppard: No, not right. In the classic meeting of a sea floor plate and a land plate there are no mountains; they come later. Continents aren't expanding at all - why should they? Your argument is nothing but a huge strawman. All you have is "suppose", "maybe", "should".
The thing that makes the ocean plate densier is that it is made of densier rock. Granitic "felsic" rock, based on silicon and aluminum, and especially sedimentary rock, is lighter than basaltic "mafic' ferrous rock.
puncheex 1 year ago
@marktsheppard only the mafic oceanic lithalogy of oceanic crust make the oceanic crust heavier....
ashrafgeo 1 year ago
You would have to be sooooo stupid not to subscribe to plate tectonics. Like unbelievably stupid! Satellites track the motion for crying out loud.
jeans1515 1 year ago 2
@jeans1515 Techtonic Plates move at the same speed as your finger nails grow, so there is definitely no satelite which ''tracks'' anything which moves that slowly, even over 10ys. This video says that the subduction occurrs because the plate beneath the ocean is heavier and therefore dives under the plate under the land. BUT the plate under land is obviously carrying more weight from the land above sea level, so explain why the plate under the land does not dive under the plate under the water ?
arcanacelestia 1 year ago
@arcanacelestia Actually OUR plate moves slowly but the pacific plates can move by almost a foot each year. And yes, there are satellite measurement of movement made all the time. I studied the mechanics and science involved in such measurements in my University geology classes and trust me, if my iPhone can be located to whithin' three feet by gps, a precise satellite measurement is down to the millimeter, especially when there is a ground-based receiver. Maybe read a book on the subject.
jeans1515 1 year ago
@jeans1515 So if you have studied geology, why haven't you answered my question . . . ''This video says that the subduction occurrs because the plate beneath the ocean is heavier and therefore dives under the plate under the land. BUT the plate under land is obviously carrying more weight from the land above sea level, so explain why the plate under the land does not dive under the plate under the water ?''
arcanacelestia 1 year ago
@arcanacelestia I think the little animation is confusing, it has the proportions of the mountains out of whack, if you have ever flown above the ground you know that mountains aren't like that. Mountains only extend the size of the land a small fraction of whats underneath, watch other videos or research plate thickness and composition. See, the composition of the oceanic plate may contain more Iron or other heavier components. Mountains are relatively light sedimentary rock. Cont...
jeans1515 1 year ago
@arcanacelestia ..cont... But really it is simply that if you were to cut the actual plates and look at them in cross section, the ocean is a slim strip and mountains are a slim bump in the actual crust. Does this answer your question. The animation is stylised because its old. There are many good CGI representation. And I will agree that the narrators line is not explained fully. But because one narrator doesn't explain it well, doesn't make it untrue.
jeans1515 1 year ago
@jeans1515 Subduction is a theory. There is is no evidence that subduction actually occurs.
arcanacelestia 1 year ago
@arcanacelestia Perhaps you need to learn what the word theory means as you obviously come from a failed education system. Sorry to be rude, but to not believe in this is irrelevant there is 150 years worth of evidence on subduction from millions of people smarter than you or I. What I recommend you do, is read an actual book on the subject. A question though... what causes a marked increase in volcanism along subduction lines then? If there were no plates and no subduction, why aren't... cont.
jeans1515 1 year ago
Respond to this video... ...Why arent volcanoes and earthquakes equally spread across the globe? If your an expanding earth proponent where does all the extra mass come from to fill in the expansion of the lithosphere? And Why does the lithosphere show no signs of growing in size? If you don't "believe" in any continental drift... Why? What makes it so hard to understand, and with so much evidence to the contrary how do you convince yourself that so many people are wrong?
jeans1515 1 year ago
@arcanacelestia Where'd you go. Can you Re-butte my statements?
jeans1515 1 year ago
Let me also add... the earth is not expanding (apart from the few hundred tons of dust falling from space, adding to earth's mass a very tiny amount). We actually have proof of continental drift, subduction, strike faults, etc. We've measured it as it is actually happening. Duh.
pimpb0tt 1 year ago
heelll yeh!
TechtonicPlatesTTP 1 year ago
this vid helped me!!thank yuh "phoenix film and video"
bindus619 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video was made after 1980?!
AmanIsDude 1 year ago
Comment removed
AmanIsDude 1 year ago
Comment removed
AmanIsDude 1 year ago
Comment removed
AmanIsDude 1 year ago
Watch my video. It will blow your mind away!
fridaysabtu 1 year ago
I have a question when did all this first happen like the converget,diverget and strikeslip.
MiN4meIzJay 2 years ago
Why would India detach and drif away in the oposite way? silly theory!
DaMatta11 2 years ago
@DaMatta11 why the hell don't you shut up, you know, there are lots of question we'd like answering
888Xenon 1 year ago
@DaMatta11 india along with africa detached due to continental drifting, drifting can be either way ie depends on the flow of molten particles underneath the plates
1one1republic 1 year ago
gay
ADUMMMMMMHOBO 2 years ago
Try to pull apart a scale model of two adjacent ocean plates. It cannot be done .The transform faults are frequently out of parallel causing a lack of line of draw. Plate tectonics is a simple straight forward physical impossibilty. It will be dead and gone before the end of the century.
jimmy9041 2 years ago
@jimmy9041 absolutely correct. growing earth theory should be taught as fact. do the balloon-test and you will feel a fucking fool for believing the pandora continent theory even for a little bit.
tiggstah 2 years ago
@tiggstah, you are ignoring plate tectonics and subduction. You obviously lack an understanding of geology.
borderraven 1 year ago
does this relate to the Snowball Earth Hypothesis?
phanquockiet 2 years ago
I take it you guys Haven't watched James Maxlows Presentation on the Expanding Earth theory then.... Or Neal Adams either for that matter....
outofbubblegum 2 years ago
Neil Adams ideas come from reading a bunch of science books and misunderstanding 90% of what he read and then when questioned by people that actually know a thing or two he retreats behind "look,im not a scientist". He also thinks that when you take +1 and put it with a -1 that you get 1 instead of zero. His model also starts with basically no water on the entire small earth but then as it expands huge deep oceans just magically appear.That and a million other things that dont make sense.
Aaron518 2 years ago
Have you actually looked at all of Neal adams Videos ?? What about James maxlows presentations ? I'll send you a link if you wish ... Peace
outofbubblegum 2 years ago
Yes,Im very fimiliar with both of them. And Ive probably seen anything you want to link me too already,but feel free to send them to me in a massage anyways. Ive also heard an interview of Neil talking about it and any real science question he was asked he ducked and said he "wasnt a scientist" and he was "not there to get in an argument" and that for him to be right,he believes that +1 and -1 equal 1 as he explains electrons and positrons come together to create matter.
Aaron518 2 years ago
Ok so you are familiar with both of them good. I haven't looked at the +1 -1 = 1 to be honest I will though.
The expanding earth "effect" also appears on so many other bodies in the solar system and using Occam's razor ??? well it's the simplest explanation. Besides how else can you explain the fit of the Land masses and the sea bed dates ? along with the lack of a trace for the movement of India ??
outofbubblegum 2 years ago
Tectonics explain land mass fit,sea bed dates and the movement of India,expanding earth just dismissed subduction and many other processes that are well established out of hand. EOT ignores siesmic data which lets us actaully physically see subduction happening. Its not a guess,it 100% is true and they just say nu uh. Watch Neils part about India.Its childish. He says we say India detatched from the earths crust and floated on the ocean into Asia. Its silly babyish strawman arguments.
Aaron518 2 years ago
It doesn't quite (imho) however what about the lack of craters in the lunar mares, the Spreads on Ariel, Miranda, Oberon and Titania ? your're not going to suggest there is subduction going on on those bodies Surely ???
outofbubblegum 2 years ago
Is Australia "floating" on the ocean? It is an island surrounded by water, but it is part of the Indo-Australia tectonic plate moving North-East, subducting under the Pacific plate.
borderraven 2 years ago
@borderraven tectonic plates float on molten rock due to circulating currents just like a boat floats in ocean due to ocean current. The tectonic plates are like a swimming pool itself made of concrete whereas the ocean is the pool of water filling it.
1one1republic 1 year ago
@1one1republic, I live near the San Andreas Fault and know a lot about plate tectonics, volcanoes, and calderas.
borderraven 1 year ago
@borderraven ok i see, but i thought u were asking whether australia floats in the ocean
1one1republic 1 year ago
@1one1republic, I believe I repeated an earlier question, then answered it. But, you will need to read my entire post in order to fully comprehend my entire thought, before jumping to a conclusion.
borderraven 1 year ago
@Aaron518 the earth is cooling. the sun was a lot smaller early on in life too. a red giant is when a star has burnt off most of it's fuel. do you think liquid or ice is the only way water comes about?
tiggstah 2 years ago
@tiggstah
Not really understanding your points or your question... Yes,red giants expand.What does an expanding star mode up of gases have anything to do with earth?I don't see your point. Do I think liquid or ice is the only way water comes about? As opposed to what? I have no idea what you're trying to ask here.
Aaron518 2 years ago
The Sun, now about 4 billion years old, is expanding and predictably the temperatures humans live in will, in a billion + years exceed our comfort, if not succeeded by extinction of food plants, or by natural/man-made over-pollution of the atmosphere. Humans generally have 40 years in their lifetime to make a difference. But, naturally occurring changes can take millions and billions of of years to happen. Enjoy the Cosmic ride.
borderraven 2 years ago
your animation is misleading for the subduction related volcanic erruption: from a geologist
igunvalue 2 years ago
how so?
spread0the0disease 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The tectonic plates NOT makes the earthquakes.See more than 3000 world earthquake forecasts.
BOYKOILIEV2008 2 years ago
what is your theory?
gggreggg 2 years ago
What are you talking about?
oicurageologist 2 years ago
What makes them then?
oicurageologist 2 years ago
Wow! this is an old video, The understanding of the mechanics of Plate Tectonics is a bit better understood. The subducting plate does not simply melt as this video suggests, but there are melts that result from it.
oicurageologist 2 years ago
Really? So what are these 'melts that result'?
gmhots 2 years ago
Desification of the solid MORBs along different pressure and temp gradients cause some ions withing the affected area to move faster than others. This desification process then introduces the waters and ions into the surrounding mantle or rock, allowing them to melt. The melts that result are a direct result of the chemistry. More iron and magnesium results in mafic melts, where as less iron and more silica results in a felsic melt.
oicurageologist 2 years ago
i love earth science
:D
nickloveselizabeth 2 years ago
0:20
Sikringsskap 2 years ago
James Maxlow has some very interesting videos in relation to this topic..........
spoonogsback 2 years ago
Comment removed
mat1122334 2 years ago
hmmmmmmmmmm ................
musicrockz123 2 years ago
im not a nerd but i have to do it
for a science project. Do the work
do an ok life. im in 8th grade.
HOMEWORK SUCKS!
ccjp08 2 years ago
The mantle convection currents suggest rising magma (hot) where plates diverge (mid ocean ridges) and descending magma (cool) under continental plates. If you stick a cold oceanic plate into an already descending, low pressure and already cool mantle won't it just further cool it and make it even less likely to become a hot spot and volcanic eruption zone?
pddwatch81 2 years ago
When oceanic crust is subducted under an continental plate trapped moisture is released under pressure. The trapped moisture acts as a flux and causes surrounding rocks to melt at a lower temperature, as those rocks melt and form magma it expands decreasing its density and then rises. Some reaches the surface as an igneous extrusion to form fast cooling rocks like basalt while other cools slowly under the surface as igneous intrusions forming plutonic rocks like granite.
frosty2500 2 years ago
Essentially true, however, rock type has to do with melt chemistry. Basalt comes from mafic chemistry where as granite comes from more silicious felsic melts.
For the rest of you, water brings the melting temperature of any material down so that under the same pressures and temperatures, a rock with water in it will melt when a dry rock will still be solid. As many of you may or may not know, liquids are less dense than solids (water is the only exception), so melted rock rises.
oicurageologist 2 years ago
I made a mistake here, Water is not the only exception. Gallium, Bismuth, Germanium and Silicon are also solids that are less dense as a liquid. But the fact remains that the rest of the minerals are more desnse as a solid, and thus the liquid forms will be less dense and have a tendancy to "rise" due to surrounding compression.
oicurageologist 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
False...
it's stretching that and growing of the earth that cause this.
check it out look up earth growing,
just take a look.
buster27 2 years ago
Hahaha, good one! The classics are always best. Hilarious stuff.
Naeddyr 2 years ago
There is no such thing as Expanding Earth. Its also not flat, and not the center of the solar system, galaxy, or universe.
oicurageologist 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ha,you know i don't think that the earth is flat,but i guess to throw my opnion
and curiosity to the dumpster
you must associate me with that,
remember you know nothing
you are just figuring out
what your wrong about,
i know you haven't looked into it
yourself and by not looking at
you only dis-credit yourself
always challenge your thought.
buster27 2 years ago
Well buster27, there you are incorrect, I have looked into it quite extensively. I understand the arguments quite well. I find extreme fault with the idea (I will no longer call it a theory) of an expanding Earth. So, before you start supposing what I may or may not know or understand, why don't you simply ask?
oicurageologist 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well great as long as your still open
to challenge what you know.
buster27 2 years ago
I never assume that my knowledge is complete, or for that matter correct. I constantly challenge what I read and what I know to be sure that the theories I back are the most correct and complete.
oicurageologist 2 years ago
@oicurageologist how do you explain the sea floor is younger than the plates? The earth grew...Therefore we add time every year as it expands. There is no subduction.
haolejohn 1 year ago
north america is pushing towards asia at the pace of a fingernail growing.
NYbeerdude 2 years ago
Costa Rica earthquake on the 8th and on the 20th and in Bodrum-Turkey on the 23th of January 2009 has been predicted.You will see more than 500 earthquake prediction for 2009.
See what earthquake happened in Colombia on the 31st of January 2009.For Colombia or Costa Rica:31st of January 2009,16h25min
/UTC/.Boyko Iliev/Consultant by earthquakes in Bulgarian bTV,"Seismograph"/
BOYKOILIEV2008 3 years ago
u really have no life looking up this crap and this is all info. to all you nerds.
Jkells5 2 years ago
go live in a cave
jungleman68 2 years ago
Well, None of us "nerds" have time to look at your neanderthal Comments.
That's right we're nerds. What Ya ganna do about it?
nlwood96 2 years ago
Yeh well we nerds will probley have a lot better future than people like you that like to mess around and do things that will deffenetly wount make your life good or better =]
wiggaza 2 years ago
GROWING EARTH theory is NONSENSE!!!! Where is that matter coming from??? Why isn't "g" changing??? (hint hint, we've got ULTRA sensitive gravitometers now...) Why can you _detect_ the plates subducting? And so on, and so on...
mike4ty4 3 years ago
All the extra matter (mass) is coming every day when meteors (falling stars) enter the earths atmosphere..as for why the gravtometers are not registering the increase because they only measure gravity increases on a very small area not planetwide..Questions answered
vince38curious2 3 years ago
There's not enough meteors to do that, and that would pile stuff on from the outside, whereas to make tectonic drift (i.e. so the continents get basins in between them), you would need it to come in from the _inside_, down _under_ the crust. Plus, given the required size increase in 250 Ma, if you assume that a similar expansion is still ongoing, you can calculate the rate of "g" change. It's in the measurable range.
mike4ty4 3 years ago
Try this the earth is like a big vacume cleaner sucking up every ounce if space dust and debris that enters it's gravity feild and it has been doing so for as far as science can explain some 4.6 billion years and probably a lot longer than that :-)
vince38curious2 3 years ago
As for the drift Have you heard on convection currents in the mantle and the mid ocean ridges where the magma produces new see floor ( see the earth is expanding )
vince38curious2 3 years ago
ever heard of dust?
imarchello 3 years ago
"ever heard of dust?"
There's way too little of it to do what you need. I've heard something like 30,000 tons per year, max. Over 250 million years that adds up to around 7,500,000,000,000 tons. Seems like quite a bit, but the Earth is some 800,000,000,000 times heaver still. Drop in the bucket.
Why is PT still so well-accepted, if "Growing Planets Theory" is so much better? Hint: IT'S NOT!!!
mike4ty4 3 years ago
Sorry, that should be 800,000,000 not 800,000,000,000 times :) But still, drop in the bucket.
mike4ty4 3 years ago
woohoo. so glad i found this video.......i have a test tomorrow! [lol] :]
mariesMOVIES 3 years ago
U mean Illuminatti and New World Order suckers? So what is going to happen in 2012?
AqualinespiritPL 3 years ago
hope your not in the west, Midwest, hell the east when Yellowstone blows.
DonHoraldo 3 years ago