4th Revolt - Dennis McCarthy - Lopsided Hemispheres

[wokenup100]

Really interesting theory, but I still support Maxlow's Expanding Earth thesis as the explanation to the ocean floor topography and age. But hey, I'm just a random YouTube watching proletarian so I'll go hide behind the sofa as the anti Earth Expansionist ridicule begins against me.....

[R181183]

@wokenup100 Try researching "Whole Earth Decompression Dynamics" which deals with the unification of PT and EE. You might have a better standpoint arguing from there because it does not require any added mass while still promoting the idea of an expanding (decompressing) earth.

As I understand, it gets rid of all problems EE and PT have while combining the observable hard facts of both theories.

[grinvaldsjanis]

Cracks not always at the bottom of ocean. Landmases also expanding. Theres also missing explored regions on northen hemisphere. In some places earth expanding also differently, not always in splits, but also as stretches.

Also must be kept in mind that southern arctics has antarctic crust which doesent expand, but southern arctis has splits.

[euripideesshreds]

This is just brilliant.

[cusanusnicolas]

The Big Bang is also part of a bag of half baked nonsense, that includes relativity, used to work around the fact that the 2nd Law actually does work in reverse as the other side of a cyclic process between matter and energy.

[Krackonis]

Living in an electrically active universe completely invalidates the big bang universe. As you can study the effects of Plasma in a lab and even emulate plasmoids and other high amperage discharge phenomenon. Look up 'Terrella' and 'Birkeland' and you can see clearly some of these effects (made over 100 years ago in the lab)

[KaylinJH]

@cusanusnicolas dont forget dark matter, that fudge factor they used to get the equations to work. 99% of the universe is made of a substance that cant be seen, convenient..

[cusanusnicolas]

@KaylinJH ha! thanks! i've been succumbing to alsheimers :)

[Krackonis]

@KaylinJH It is simply a fudge factor because they are trying to make gravity the power sources for everything. Gravity is pathetically weak and so you must add hidden mass to keep galaxies and such together. However, if you include EM and Plasma Science then all that simply goes away. Plasma Cosmology (many videos I favorited) is the answer to this riddle.

[RythymJunkie]

Krackonis... I can't understand why the expansion of the earth is dismissed so readily. The earth is supposed to have coalesced out of a huge cloud of gas and dust in the first place. So for scientists to state quite explicitly that it ceased its expansion 4.5 billion years ago I find mind boggling! EE sceptics ask where all the water came from? Well, the question still stands for tectonic theory. So come on, tell us, where did the oceans come from? Don't the sceptics know how water is formed?

[Krackonis]

@RythymJunkie I believe (but cannot prove) that Water and Oil both are extruded from the planet. This planet was not made like many others, it was made of iron-like balls coated in silica which were ejected from a planet or star which were then compressed by a Bennet Pinch into one ball. Silicates were still under the crust. Then it got a crustal coating again. This disharmony of internal composition I think is a precursor to such substances and perhaps life itself.

[euripideesshreds]

I found this convincing, though some of the terms were over my head. Thank you... MB

[Krackonis]

It's not my work, but thank you. I am glad to post it.

[RythymJunkie]

This is like listening to paint drying! MJZ bangs on about EE not being a theory and makes ridiculous comments about EE making assumptions which are not theories...I find his lack of understanding of the words he uses laughable considering he is supposed to be "educated"!

Some synonyms for the word "hypothesis" are; conjecture, guess, possibility, speculation and theory. Types of "hypothesis" are; "ASSUMPTION", model, framework, conjecture etc, etc.... messiah'z, buy a dictionary....!

[FyreWyngz]

Simply an EXCELLENT job!!!

[fraustrated]

EE is a fact: we will have to accept it; non acceptance and denial retards scientific progress. We have to rethink

We have to take a serious look at sea level: the real culprit. Sea level datum is a myth it does not exist. The failure to recognise this aberration is holding back acceptance of the EE reality.

Establish that seas recede and we will have to accept that the earth expands. What other cause could there be? Sea level has been the agent of deception for too many years. Look at it.

[peterhent]

This is a very 2-dimensional approach to plate tectonics. The movement of continental masses is not a simple North / South.

Antarctica is not the primary control over plate motion. The Tharpe map illustrates the huge volumes of sima production in the Pacific Ocean basins and majority lateral movement of continental lithosphere. The very lack of N/S extensional regimes in, for example, South America, but the presence of vast continental compressional regimes (Andes) doesn't help your argument.

[Krackonis]

Well, interesting nature, plasma, finds it easy to make balls with electricity. It also shows geodes and other concretions that seem to have expanded from the inside and broke their silicate coating (crust) into segments, pushing them apart. if you cannot see that all of the oceans are under 200 million years old, (Via any ocean crust dating map)I really can't prove it to you any better than Dennis McCarthy.

[addictfan]

hella sweet vid man, Im starting to be very convinced of the earth expansion theory. if the universe is expanding why not the earth in relation to the greater universe right? theres still some some things im not too sure of about expansion theory, but thats just little speculations ive got. as for the great question about earth expansion, any thoughts about the force that is expanding it? where does this energy or force come from? and where is the material coming from? and how do did we get seas

[Krackonis]

I would recommend looking up Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe. Since all stars are powered by large filaments of intergalactic plasma, this same movement of electrons does enter into our poles aswell. Our magnetic field is generated by this movement of electrons and I am of the opinion a plasma focus exists at the center of our world which collects protons and ions as time passes. Volcanos are the plasma being pushed up and out of this "oven". (this is just my speculation)

[addictfan]

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll look up those subjects and see what else can be learned about this.

[peterhent]

"Since all stars are powered by large filaments of intergalactic plasma"

Are they really?

[Krackonis]

Yes. The new paradigm (EU) basically correct Eddingtons assumption:

"Since nuclear fusion is the only possible power source that could maintain the sun for billions of years..." He assumed it was internally powered when now one can see the mountainous surface, (in the iron spectrum) and it is a solid ball of likely metallic rock. (perhaps partially hollow, like the earth, since it has a magnetic field, not just an electric field)

[Krackonis]

"The idea of an earth which is constant and unchanging has been restated so often throughout history that it has now become established as a firm fact. It needs no proof -- which is lucky since there is none." -- Stephen Hurrell, engineer, April 2006

[Krackonis]

"The causal understanding of Earth expansion is not yet fully understood, but the empirical processes involved are confirmed by such numerous and different sets of data that this should be considered fact." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005

[Krackonis]

"When studying the history of the creation and formulation of plate tectonics one can come to the conclusion that it is, and was at best only a hypothesis. A hypothesis, which uses an assumption at its basis. This is the assumption that the Earth has retained a constant size during its geological evolution. This assumption however is not supported by facts." -- Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005

[Krackonis]

Basically sir, your paradigm is old, and wrong. Based on gravity and 'space time warping' It's been reinforced a million times by Sci-Fi television. It's a fallacy and space is not empty. The CBR is not from the big bang and this whole concept of nuclear fusion has not been borne out by observations of the heliosphere. Birkeland Currents, cellular structures and magnetic fields are not "frozen in" they are powered by something. That is the way electromagnetism works.

[Krackonis]

... Right... Not a theory. But has been in peer reviewed papers since 1986.... (Actually there are references to a growing earth as far back as 1830). I have a theory that you are a closed minded fool who would rather bury uncomfortable facts and push institutional dogma. Perhaps you would like to tell Hannes Alfven that his theories are not theories (He won the Nobel prize for his work in 1970) he is a founding father of Plasma Cosmology itself. His mechanisms make EE very plausible.

[Krackonis]

"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents. Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over large or very large distances. The currents often pinch to filamentary or surface currents. The latter are likely to give space, as also interstellar and intergalactic space, a cellular structure." Hannes Alfven 1974

[messiahjonz]

From the more info section:

"With a new Theory comes new advances. An explanation for the disproportionate amount of landmass from the Northern to Southern Hemispheres. Never before has it been explained."

EE is not a theory, plain a simple.

[Krackonis]

He can't see the big red spot in the middle of the pacific ocean is young crust. I can't imagine why he can't see it. but it's like there is a blinder there in his mind.

 Hegemony is a powerful force.

[messiahjonz]

This video cites data well explained by Plate Tectonic Theory.

[sadunkal]

I don't know so much about plate tectonics but the expanding earth theory seems extremely plausible to me, especially when it comes to the age of the sea floor. I can't imagine how plate tectonics can explain it so elegantly. I'd be glad if you can present information to the contrary.

Other than that, as far as I can see the main reason why people react harshly to the expanding earth theory is because it is against the common assumptions, and not because it doesn't make sense or ath. like that.

[messiahjonz]

You said it at the start of your post...

"I don't kow much about plate tectonics"

In the absence of fact (not assumptions)...people will believe anything.

As for the sea floor age, subduction explains this.

And the reason people react "harshly" to EE, is because it is horseshit.

[sadunkal]

Yes I said it and I can also say that I don't know so much about the expanding earth theory either. So that's irrelevant. Before I learned about the expanding earth theory I was assuming that the plate tectonics theory was correct without questioning it.

> "As for the sea floor age, subduction explains this."

So does the expanding earth theory. Why should I believe in plate tectonics instead of expanding earth? That's what I'm trying to find out but it seems you are hesitant to help...

[messiahjonz]

Help? I was not aware I was in the tutoring business.

Ok class, sit and listen...

EE was discounted a a theory decades ago, because it is not supported scientifically.

PT on the other hand is well supported. Paleoglaciation, Paleoclimatation, fossils, Subduction zones, the Wadati-Benioff zone, P and S waves, Paleomanetism, Accretionary trenches, GPS, Sea floor coring...

If you want, I can list more items for you to research...since this is my class, I expect you to do homework!

[sadunkal]

As far as I understand not everybody agrees with those points you list.

"...because it is not supported scientifically."

What do you exactly mean by that? Can it be that people said the same thing for plate tectonics a 100 years ago?

[messiahjonz]

I never claimed that everyone agrees with anything.

Yet, PT is supported scientifically, and EE is not.

PT has been published for peer review and has stood up to professional scrutiny...EE has not. EE has been publish in books and DVDs and made into kooky cartoons on outube...not for peer review.

PT was not around 100 year ago...OOPS!

Get back to me when you have bothered to read concerning the topics I previously posted. Until then, you are ignorant on the subject. You asked me for help

[sadunkal]

Ok. But PT owes its existence to Wegener's efforts from the early 20th century. If people hadn't outright denied that his theory may be possible at the time, scientific progress would've probably been much faster. The evidence which forced the scientists to become open minded came years after his death.

I perceive similarities with the current situation. Visual evidence and fossil evidence is pretty clear for EE I think. What lacks is some hardcore evidence, which may not come anytime soon.

[messiahjonz]

Visual evidence (I assume you are referring to the continents shapes) and fossil evidence (which is explained more accurately by PT, mainly due to EE claiming no oceans prior to 200 mya)

EE claims no subduction. Subduction is well documented...therefore, EE is discounted. Simple as that.

Please, youtube cartoons by a cartoonist lends nothing toward scientific advancement. EE was discounted decades ago by the scientific community. The only ones keeping it alive are on youtube and are fools.

[sadunkal]

I'm not sure if all EE theorists claim that there is no subduction at all, and I'm not sure about how well subduction is really documented. But those areas will be my focus when I can find some time to look into this deeper. Thanks.

There is much more to EE than what's on youtube by the way, plus only Neil Adams is a cartoonist and he uses the information form other EEers I think (actually irrelevant). You might also want to do some more research and try to be more objective about this. Cheers.

[messiahjonz]

I did not claim ALL EE supporters make this claim, but I note that adams does, and did Carey.

You assume that I have not researched this topic... I wonder why?

It seems that if I do not agree with your view I must be ignorant concerning the topic.

Kooky.

You might want to look into why EE was discounted as a theory decades ago. Until something comes along to challenge PT, PT remains the theory that explains best.

EE cannot do that, it excludes observable phenomena.

[sadunkal]

You seemed to imply that EE was being only defended by youtubers. I thought that you were either ignorant or unobjective, or both. Pick the scenario that suits you most.

I'll look into it as I said.

I also want to say that evidence supporting a theory is hard to gather if nobody wants to believe in it. I think it's more healthy to assume that a certain theory can be right, then look for evidence for/against it, and then decide. Discarding something due to a lack of evidence is irrational.

[messiahjonz]

Unfortunately, that is not how science and scientists work. To assume that every possible senario is correct is insanity.

Science is he study of nature, so to assume things not observed , not modeled and not theorized leads nowhere.

"Discarding something due to a lack of evidence is irrational." I guess by this "logic", or lack thereof, purple gnomes underground cause earthquakes.

You have the process backward, the evidence leads to a conclusion, not searching for evidence for your agenda

[sadunkal]

What I said was "to assume that a certain theory CAN be right", not that it IS right.

If you think that discarding a theory due to a lack of evidence is rational, then you're exactly like one of those people who'd have ridiculed Wegener and other original thinkers like him and you would be responsible for preventing the scientific process. Your mindset is anti-scientific. Science requires an open mind. Think about it.

[messiahjonz]

Again, that is not how science works. If you understood what a theory is, then you would understand that it has evidence to support. Wegner did not have a theory, he had an idea at that time. EE is an idea, ot a theory. A theory may be tested and repeated.

Scientists do not come up with a theory, then seek evidence to support it...it is he opposite. Evidence is collected, and a theory is proposed, tested and confirmed or retested. I guess the scientific model requires a link to the right.

[sadunkal]

Let me get this right... you approve of how scientists approached Wegener's theory/idea back then? You believe that they did the scientific thing to do? Because his idea was not a theory according to you?

And you seem to somehow miss the point that the reason EE exists is because of the evidence and observations, just like the reason for the existence of the "idea" of pangea was due to observation and evidence. People don't just make these things up, it's not philosophy.

[messiahjonz]

I understand why you made this post...you simply do not understand scientific method.

The "evidence" that EE claims is explained by PT.

Tell me...what causes/caused the Earth to expand? If you cn answer this quesion, and support it scientifically, then EE is a theory. Since no one has to date, it is a discounted idea.

There is a process called peer review, I suggest reading up on that.

[sadunkal]

Even though the answer you'll give became a little more clearer I'll repeat the questions so that there is no misunderstanding:

"Do you approve of how scientists approached Wegener's theory/idea back then? Do you believe that they did the scientific thing to do?"

I'm afraid you are exactly the kind of person who would have ridiculed and dismissed Wegener. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[messiahjonz]

Yes.

I am the kind of person that follows scientific method and the peer review processes.

This is what occurred with Wegener, since continental drift is slightly different from PT, it was not acepted initially.

Again, simple google search and some reading will provide you with answers.

[sadunkal]

If what you perceive as the "scientific method" is slowing down the progress of Science then I'm afraid you got the whole thing wrong. The purpose of it all is to understand and explain what's going on as efficiently as possible. You seem to care more about the rules humans made up than you care about discovery and understanding.

That's a real shame. It shows that we humans still couldn't learn to learn from our past mistakes because of our stubbornness.

[messiahjonz]

The scientific method was set in place so that others may duplicate findings. Apparently you do not understand the scientific method. You cannot ave discovery and understanding of science and nature without it.

Wegener's idea was dealt with appropriately at the time. Data was not confirmed until years after his death. his is how science works, you do not assume.

A smaller Earth without oceans would not yield marine fossils.

continued

[messiahjonz]

If this was the case, then there would not be marine fossils older than 200mya...yet there are fossils that date to 3.8bya. And again, nothing indicates a mechanism for the Earth expanding. PT accounts for the continents shape, size and fit.

I have read Scalera, as well as others. Since you bothered to use wiki, did you bother to read the portions that mention how and why EE is discredited as a theory? If so, why do you ignore the scientific community?

[sadunkal]

I think you're confused about the purpose and meaning of science. When and what evidence caused the scientific community to confirm that the earth's size is constant? How's that not an assumption?

"...why do you ignore the scientific community?"

I do not. I'll look into it deeper but my point was that there are arguments against PT. Is there an opposite equivalent of Scalera's work?

"..fossils that date to 3.8bya"

What kind of fossils? And where were they found?

[messiahjonz]

Science:

"In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research."

Notice this mentions utilizing the scientific method and knowledge gained.

This is the purpose of science.

continued

[messiahjonz]

Arguments against PT fail, this is why PT is a theory, and others are not.

No "opposite to Scalera's work", just PT.

Sorry, "cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old." Trilobites are 540 mya.

The Age of Fishes

The Devonian Period is known as the Age of Fishes. It is famous for the thousands of species of fish that developed in Devonian seas. The Devonian was from 417 mya to 354 mya. Explain how fish existed without seas.

Google yourself.

[sadunkal]

I don't think that anybody is saying that there were no seas. I don't know what gave you that impression. All the old fossils you're talking about are found on these old continents as far as I know, so they're not evidence against EE.

And all the arguments of Scalera against current PT/subduction...are they meaningless? If so, how do I know that if it didn't get any response from your community? How do I know that you know what you're talking about if you don't defend your PT?

[messiahjonz]

adams and others claim no oceans. If the continents covered the entire Earth, and water came from the rifts, where were the oceans? adams also claims that mountains were formed during this expansion, so the Earth was flat and featureless. A small amount of water would cover a great expanse of area. Deep oceans are in evidence.

EE is nonsense.

Discredited as a theory and lacking evidence to support.

PT requires no defense, for nothing challenges it.

Google responses to Scalera.

[sadunkal]

This is Adams' argument about the seas:

"...when there were no deep seas on the earth, there were, what were called shallow seas covering two-thirds of the land. This process from one to the other was gradual and evolutionary."

What exactly is your evidence for seas as deep as they are today?

[messiahjonz]

You did not bother to cite your source...where does adams make this claim?

Anyway...I will state two bits of evidence against this "no deep seas" nonsense.

1. Fossils of some life prior to 250mya are from deep seas (deep seas being 200 m to 3000 m)

2. adams' cartoon does not show any seas on a reconstructed smaller Earth...why is that. In fact, if you bother to research, you will find that he added landmasses to make it work.

[sadunkal]

"where does adams make this claim?"

On his website, just google the words.

>"1. Fossils of some life prior to 250mya are from deep seas"

Reference?

>"2. he added landmasses to make it work. "

Could be, I'm not so sure. But stop focusing on Adams so much, there are enough non cartoonists who also proposed models for a smaller earth. If you have problems with Adams' models, then look fo better models.

[messiahjonz]

LOL, there are no "better" models!

I did find this on adams' site:

"There is no subduction. No plates subduct. Subduction is unscientific and untrue..."

This is completely false.

I also found this:

"Now granitic rock isnt very heavy. It wont subduct, even if you talk to it nice. But its gone. Sure as hell gone. But it had to have been there 5 billion years ago, hot like it was."

adams does not even understand the Earth is 4.56 bya, ad did not cool to form crust millions of years after

[messiahjonz]

As for reference for marine fossils, I guess you failed in your attempt at googling.

Devonian bivalves are deep ocean fossils.

adams claims this:

"Shallow seas on the land. Mostly fresh water. Didnt have deep saltwater seas."

Yet fossil after fossil are shown to be of a marine (salt water) origin.

It is not difficult to pick apart a cartoonist pretending to have scientific knowledge..

[sadunkal]

Thanks for the information you so far provided. I'll look into it when I finally get some time.

I can still keep arguing with you, I still disagree with many things you say, but I don't think it'll get us anywhere. You still insist on what I perceive as ridiculous "arguments" and in addition you're also arrogant enough to be immune to change.

I agree to disagree with you on some points and I won't continue this anymore. Because I'm busy. Maybe we'll see each other later in the future one day.

[messiahjonz]

When having a discussion with someone that clearly has no understanding of what they are speaking about I suppose that I would seem arrogant.

As for being immune to change...that is your uneducated opinion on this topic.

Have fun, and do bother to read some of the information I have provided, as well as others. There are volumes of information concerning this topic (PT) out there. It is clear that you have not done so to date, but keep asking questions.

Maybe a college course?

[sadunkal]

But still...

>"Devonian bivalves are deep ocean fossils."

Do you have any reference specifically for this claim? What I just found out was that bivalves also lived in shallow seas, freshwater etc. What's the source of your claim that they're deep ocean fossils? And what are those other fossils you're talking about?

Please with proper references so I can verify what you say.

[messiahjonz]

If you have access to jstor you may it there, as well as many other scientific research locales.

[messiahjonz]

You stated this:

"What I just found out was that bivalves also lived in shallow seas, freshwater etc."

This does mean that bivalves, as you have found, were in deep marine environments.

I am puzzled by your continuing questions on this matter.

[sadunkal]

"This does mean that bivalves, as you have found, were in deep marine environments."

Umm... huh?

Are "shallow seas, freshwater etc." considered deep marine environments?

I am more puzzled.

And for clarification; our disagreement lies directly at the point where you insist on the mainstream assumption while I insist on being open-minded and exploring further, testing new theories etc. I think you have a little to much faith in the current PT paradigm, you believe your faith is justified.

[messiahjonz]

I will quote you yet again, because you appear to not understand what you type:

You stated this:

"What I just found out was that bivalves also lived in shallow seas, freshwater etc."

See, when you used that little word "also", it means that you found them as being deep marine as well.

As for being pen minded...again, you simply do not unerstand how cience and the scientific method works. It is sad that you keep returning to this. Finally educae yourself on this topic.

continued

[messiahjonz]

I see now...you are a believer in faith, You keep claiming that I am assuming, and I keep correcting you. sorry you do not get it. You explore nothing. You test nothing. If so, cite your explorations and tests. You have refused to read anyting I have posted. As for faith, I have none. Faith = belief without evidence. You do not even understand what a theory is. Tell me, why would you test a new theory? Rhetorical questions. This is a total waste of time I will not respond further

[sadunkal]

Oh and I gotta ask this:

Do you also believe that in the past (e.g. ca. 1600) it would have been a more scientific thing to do to insist on a geocentric model and to claim that beliefs in heliocentric ideas are against the scientific method because there was no testable proposal for a heliocentric mechanism when Copernicus' book was published?

What's your take on that?

I don't see much difference with this EE situation: We don't know how or why but an expansion seems pretty likely.

[sadunkal]

The fact that you believe that the way the scientific community approached Wegener was perfectly scientific says it all about your understanding.

As I said, I don't think this dialog will get us anywhere either. But I'd still like to clarify one point:

"...it means that you found them as being deep marine as well."

Yes. My question was why you assume that specifically those fossils must have been from deep seas when they can easily be also from shallow seas or freshwater. Got evidence for it?

[sadunkal]

The purpose of science is gaining knowledge through the scientific method according to that definition. So we can simply apply the scientific method to the theoretical framework of EE and check what we'll find out. Just as they could've used the SM to find out more about a potential Pangea back then, instead of dismissing it.

Instead of using the assumption that the earth's size is constant, we can try the assumption that it size is not necessarily constant for a while. That would set us free.

[messiahjonz]

Why asume something not in evidence?

There is absolutely no evidence that the Earth has expanded...none! If you want to make assumptions, go right ahead...but that is not within the framework of the scientific method, and therefore not considered.

continued

[messiahjonz]

You cannot expect scientists to bastardize science to perpetuate a

an agenda. Evidence collected leads in a direction...which is PT.

Scientists do not assume EE is true, then seek evidence to prove it. This is not science, and not how science or the scientific method works.

Bother to understand that, for once you do, you may obtain the answers you are seeking.

If you do not want to understand the scientific method, then I guess we are finished,

[sadunkal]

You insist on misinterpreting. It's not about an agenda, it's called open-mindedness. It's not scientific to cling to assumptions you have no evidence for and didn't even bother to properly investigate. I'm just saying that we SHOULD investigate without making ANY assumptions that can limit our receptivity.

The way all the continents fit on a smaller planet and other things like that indicate that EE may indeed have a solid foundation and is worth investigating.

[messiahjonz]

Again, educate yourself concerning the scientific method, for it is the pinnacle of open mindedness. To consider something not in evidence is insanity.

I can do nothing more than beg you to please educate yourself concerning the scientific method.

As for EE being investigated...it was, and found to be discredited.  I am not sure why you refuse to understand this.

[sadunkal]

The assumption that the size of the earth is not necessarily constant is perfectly safe no matter how you look at it. It is a reasonable assumption since we have no evidence that the earth was and always will be the same size as it is today.

Considering how active the universe is, and considering that the earth reached its current state after a very long process, in my opinion it becomes rather unlikely that the size of planets can be constant. It's unrealistic.

[messiahjonz]

The scientific method does not work on assumptions...end of story.

What you saying is that I should consider a rock...and then assume it was smaller in the past for a reason unknown. No evidence indicates it was smaller, I should just think about it...INSANITY!

As for your opinion...lol, oh well, you do not understand the basic priciples of science, your opinion is moot.

[sadunkal]

No read again please. That's not what I'm saying at all. I do not say "We should assume that the earth was smaller" I say "We shouldn't assume that the earth wasn't smaller."

We should simply get rid of the assumptions which block scientific investigations for other possibilities. If we get rid of that assumption, then we can freely investigate a possible EE phenomenon.

I don't know what you won't get this.

[messiahjonz]

Making this assumption goes against the scientific method...again, please educate yourself in this respect.

[messiahjonz]

The scientific method was utilized on EE, and EE failed decades ago. I do not understand why you refuse to understand this fact.

Pangeae is considered a correct finding.

The Earth ha been considered a constant size because there is no evidence to the contrary. This is not an assumption. You are seeking evidence in a backwards non scientific method fashion.

I guess people believe any cartoons they see online.

[sadunkal]

What I do not understand is what is wrong with the arguments Scalera presents. You can't point to any flaws with it, but you still dismiss them because you believe PT is right. Why do you believe that PT is right if you can't come up with counter arguments to Scalera's work? You're like a child insisting on what you want to be true, totally ignoring reality. Also your language is disturbingly unscientific.

[messiahjonz]

Scalera's flaw is:

1. He does not provide a mechanism for expansion.

2. He assumes that EE only explains the fit of the continents (PT does this)

3. EE does not allow for deep oceans in Scalera's model (PT does this, and evidence of deep oceans fossils older than 200mya supports PT)

4. Scalera questions the Wadati-Benioff zone. This is clearly in evidence and supports PT and subduction zones.

If you understood what you read you would realize these points.

continued

[messiahjonz]

As for my language, I must speak so that the uneducated may understand.

Seriously, have you bothered to read anything on this topic other than watching cartoons and the ramblings of nut jobs?

It is helpful to read those that critize those you cite as a source. Many people disagree with Scalera and others, but you seem to ignore them...why?

It seems because you want so badly for this to be true.

[sadunkal]

"Many people disagree with Scalera and others, but you seem to ignore them...why?"

I'm not ignoring anyone. I don't know who or where those people you're talking about are. Is there a anti-EE website? Or at least a compact source where arguments against EE can be found?

"Making this assumption goes against the scientific method."

This is getting boring. Explain how it is against the scientific method to not assume that the earth's size is constant.

[messiahjonz]

Google for yourself concerning critics.

Yes! I agree, it is getting boring. Having to repeat over and over that the scientific method does not make assumptions.

Allow me to type this one last time...the scientific method does not make assumptions! To do so goes against it. Understand now? This is why I have begged you to educate yourself concerning this topic.

For my part, I am finished, I can help you no further...I cannot help someone that is unwilling to help themself.

[sadunkal]

Fascinating.

You're the one insisting the whole time on the assumption that the earth's size is constant. You do not realize how you're contradicting yourself.

According to your logic it would be unscientific to consider 500 years ago that mobile phones can exist one day, or that there was a Pangea once, because we wouldn't have had any evidence for such possibilities. That's just ridiculous. That's not science, that's just hindering scientific exploration.

[messiahjonz]

The fascinaing, and sad thing is that you want me to assume something not in evidence, such as a smaller Earth. It is in o way an assumption for me to consider the Earth's size as stable, because there is no evidence to the contray.

Again, learn how science, and scientific method works.

[Krackonis]

1. I have provided a mechanism for expansion under a new and complete paradigm.

2. PT does, for some. for others, not so much.

3. Since fossilization is not fully understood (burying things in the ground does not turn them to stone) perhaps you are missing something. And I doubt fossils dated by apparent age are dated all the way out to the middle of the pacific.

4. It should be questioned. It's earthquakes along an area where two "chunks of planet" rub against each other.

[Krackonis]

Google image :

"Concretion, Genessee Shale"

The first link will show you a Concretion which accurately reflects a new vision for the earth. Complete with ridges and rifts.

We are examining the evidence differently and can back up our "preposterous claims".

Now, wait till I tell you how it was formed ;P

[messiahjonz]

"armchair scholar"...lol, enough said.

When you bother to get an education, please let me know.

[Krackonis]

You do more to prove your ignorance than your point. I have put forward direct argument, I have produced documents and models. You give nothing and even when I put forward arguments taking subduction into account you simply belittle peoples intelligence.

You are an elitist sir, and a poor debater.

[Krackonis]

You live in a world not unlike that of Ptolemy. You cannot see the epicycles you have put in as adhoc inventions to prevent the failing of your theory. You cannot see because your mental world will not allow it. I recommend you start studying electromagnetic forces, the functions of Plasma (magneto-hydrodynamics) and "Telluric Currents" before you shoot your ill informed mouth off again.

The universe is much more interesting than your gravity based paradigm allows.

[messiahjonz]

I do not accept advice from "armchair scholars"... Hardly an ad hoc, since you labeled yourself this on your profile.

As for debate... I do not debate online. Debate is structured... online is discussion.

I still suggest you obtain an education in that which you are trying to discuss.

Seems to me all you want to do is whine and make claims of achievement.  When you publish these so called models and mechanisms... let me know.

As for "my theories"... I have none.

[Krackonis]

I am very well educated, thank you.

AdHoc is in reference to any theory in which you refuse to change the conclusion, you simply add more and more assumptions on top. Aka the Ptolemaic system. Why are you speaking to me if I am whining? I am expressing counterpoints to your discussion. We are at the stage where you cannot refute with any logic and so attack my character and my apparent brainpower. That's called an ad hominem argument. I'm sorry if you think I'm stupid.

[Krackonis]

If you wish to discuss things on their merit and would stop attacking me like a Fox News anchor I would gladly even speak by telephone or even in person would you be local enough. I am interested in seeing logical counter arguments not "it's just silly and it can't be that way" dismissive statements. Subduction is interpreted from the data. You and I are using the same data sets I assume. I wish to debate the interpretation, and I will bring in my paradigms views as you will yours.

[Krackonis]

After reading your bio. I realize you may think of me as a Biblical Creationist or something of the sort. If that is where this hostility is coming from, I would like to tell you I have no such beliefs.

I notice your comment on Mythology as well. I don't subscribe to Jung's interpretation of Myth and Metaphor. I think that's a glossing over of literal transcriptions which bear scientific scrutiny and too often are thrown aside as "gobblygook".

[Krackonis]

Take an opportunity to look up Anthony Peratt's paper "Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity" If you note he speaks directly relating Rock Art with known plasma instabilities.

I used to think very much like you, it took me a long long time to discover answers to truly boggling questions that did not end in statements referring to God I feel we are very similar in our displeasure with dogmatic religions.

[messiahjonz]

I have no displeasure with religions... how you can pretend to know me and compare yourself to me is insanity.

You claim I have hostility... yet I have indicated no hostility at all. I wonder what the purpose of trying to demean my character would be?

The Fox News reference is lost on me, I have never watched it, yet I take it you were trying to insult me.

IEEE, yet another way to circumvent the peer review processes.

I never mentioned the Ptolemiac system.

More nonsense.

[Krackonis]

Wow. I read your bio. I think it's clear.

Insulting tone doesn't even cover it. The IEEE are Engineers. They build things, not talk about fitting round pegs in square holes. You take care and try and have an open mind. Even when trying to bridge the gap and extend an olive branch I have never been so met such an ignorant bore who would rather spit in the face of someone who doesn't think as they do.

Take care and seriously, seek help.

[MyOtherBeaver]

sorry dude I know its none of my business but I noticed your little "discusion" about EE theory (in which I believe absolutely) with messiahjonz he is the most argumentative asshole in the world yet he knows absolutely nothing. I tried having a "discussion" with him too and just gave up. Im sorry theres no point to this really it just angered me a bit to see him say he doesnt debate online.....

.....but hes been arguing about this theory for a year now. very badly lol.

[Krackonis]

Thanks Beaver, I tried to be civil but ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies persisted. I am often surprised that those who claim to be educated show so little actual willingness to explore possibilities. Others have made assumptions for them and they will never see that the choice was made. I would stress Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions') which hopefully will help correct some of these dogmatists which turn scientific challenge into a religious food fight.

[Krackonis]

@MyOtherBeaver I do what I can.

[messiahjonz]

"Stupid"? Notice that is your word...not mine.

As for ad hoc...EE is not a theory. I do not debate such things online, for most have no clue how to debate. I have discussions.

As for your education... I observed where your articles were published. Seriously, do you believe that forming a publication and publishing in that publication is apart of the peer review process? It simply reeks of malscience and creationist peer review circumvebtion.

I take no advice from "armchair scholars"

[sadunkal]

A little hindsight reveals that the way Wegener's ideas were handled was far from optimal. Immediately more research should've been directed towards finding out more about a possible "Pangea", and Wegener should also have been supported and praised. Because his claims were obviously making some sense. To dismiss it all because he didn't provide a testable explanation for it is idiotic and didn't do any good.

[sadunkal]

Google this if you have a little time and interest:

"The expanding Earth: a sound idea for the new millennium"

You'll find a lengthy paper by an italian geologist from 2003, it covers many issues. I found a link to it through the Wikipedia entry of Expanding Earth.

[sadunkal]

>"The "evidence" that EE claims is explained by PT."

The question is which provides a better explanation. Plus, you're simply ignoring how well the continents seem to fit together from all sides on a smaller earth. You have to interpret it as "just a coincidence". Forgive me for being willing to consider the alternatives.

>"What causes/caused the Earth to expand?"

There are many different theories and it may be a combination of many factors. We won't know if we don't look for it.

[messiahjonz]

PT obviously provides the better explanation of the two.

EE is not a theory, it is not testable.

PT is testable, and has been for decades. It has been observed and documented as well.

The continents do not fit together on a smaller Earth. That is fantasy on youtube in cartoons. It is sad that people believe this non scientific nonsense online.

[sadunkal]

"The continents do not fit together on a smaller Earth."

I bet they said similar things about the Pangea in the past. And again you're either ignorant or too unobjective to be accurate; the EE claims existed long before youtube did. You can find smaller earth models older than 50 years old, perhaps even 100, not sure. The reason that people built those things is because there is a remarkable situation with regard to the continents' shape and size.

[sadunkal]

"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as ` conceptual necessities, etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors. It is therefore not just an idle game to exercise our ability to analyze familiar concepts..."

Nice quote I say, fitting to the assumption that earth's size doesn't change.

[messiahjonz]

Irrelevant, as you like to say.

[Krackonis]

I'm very sorry for you having "well it has to be this way because" and then mention some assumption that is built into your institution. Wegner did not get vindicated until 30 years after his death. He died knowing he was right. It was OBVIOUS by the basis of the landscapes. But someone from an institution said "That can't be, the planet is solid and cannot move, how absurd!" How are you saying anything different? Your basis is that subduction zones are somehow visually proved.

[messiahjonz]

Incorrect...Wegner's idea was not considered a theory due to a lack of a driving process. Same as EE. The EE proponents make claims, but cannot support it with evidence. If evidence is revealed that indicates that he Earth has expanded...then that will be considered. Until then, it is a discounted idea.

If you cannot bring yourself to read the data concerning subduction zones, then I cannot, and will not, continue to spoon feed you.

[Krackonis]

Sir, Messiahjonz, you are the one assuming the earth must be the same size. We arn't assuming anything. It was this lack of assumption that brought us to this conclusion. I never watched this on youtube first. I read papers on it.

[messiahjonz]

Krackonis... there is no assumption scientifically, when there is no evidence to suggest the Earth has expanded,

This is shocking to me that others believe this... Upon further consideration... I do see how having little to no education on this topic, and science in general, might skew one toward this end, however immature and nonsensical it is.

[Krackonis]

Thats very nice of you to use such a nice argument. I like that you assume my education level.

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

Any other attacks?

[Krackonis]

Don't you have some people to burn as heretics to your religion?

[CVPTV]

Excellent video!

[spoonogsback]

Hi guys spoonog here I have been doing my homework on this theory.

I have been looking for someone with a theory that could apply to this and I believe I have found TWO. Please seek Marko Rodin and Nasseim Harrimen.

I dont know if I can quite go with the whole Plasma core thing but perhaps a plasma core with a shrinking "blackhole" to ballance the expansion. I say as ballance because from what I can tell everything in nature has opposites so expansion should ballance with contraction ?

[Krackonis]

Blackholes are mathematical constructs created by the same assumptions of math that lead to the Big Bang theory, and in turn makes this whole "growing planet" theory impossible. I have also located evidence as to the actual composition of the earth using earthquake data and it looks completely different than the Inner Outer core model. In the new model, where the outer core starts the density decreases until there is a void where the inner core would be.

[spoonogsback]

Please look at Nassim Harrimen I dont mean black hole in the same way as you may think.....I

[uturniaphobic]

one thing I've come to notice while entertaining this theory is the size of the pacific ocean is much larger than the atlantic. AND the west coast of america is mountainous as is the east coast of asia, implying this side of the globe stretched more than the other side.

this idea is interesting. thanks for the show

[TREMILBERG]

Convection cells leave a specific signature, a pattern. In general you have spreading areas where the rising matter spreads out in all directions.

This would give a round spread only bordered when met by another cell. (You can study this in your kitchen if you boil soup etc.)

With many convection cells you would get many spots surrounded by thin border lines. This is the opposite of what we see! The spreads we see are all long spreading lines.

[TREMILBERG]

In fact, the way I see it when studying the crustal age map of the Pacific, for the explanations to make any sense, one would

have to turn the datings "upside down",making the oldest blue areas into a fresh spread zone and the red rift zone into a...

I don´t know... subducting plate zone?

Sorry, I am just twisting my mind trying to understand how they think!

I have had this Small Earth idea for more than 30 years, so to me this makes perfect sense. Final challenge: what are the mechanisms?

[Krackonis]

Well firstly, there is none if you assume that the big bang universe is correct. I do not. I study Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe. In that paradigm, we are immersed in a sea of charged particles coming from the sun, the sun is part of a circuit, and each planet is connected. We can see these connections via the northern lights etc. Imagine how many protons/electrons are in the void between the sun and the Heliopause. That alot of potential between an anode and a virtual cathode.

[messiahjonz]

Tremilberg, sorry, but as one of those geologists that you claim to be wasting their time, and you knowing better than, I can easily see that you cannot think in context.

Take all of this data, and now apply it to a sphere (an oblate spheroid) yes, a 3 dimensional figure! Now go study geometry and find your answers.

It is sad to read these posts. It is a good thing that people want answers and ask questions, but when the uneducated believe they know more than those with degrees, it is sad.

[Krackonis]

I have been dealing with scientists who claim this knowledge and cannot explain it. Throwing a degree like a badge in my face. It's not appropriate. You think the sun is powered by a nuclear reaction because of Einstien. you believe in an expanding universe because of Hubble. Einstien did thought experiments and Hubble never witness quasar redshifts. You do not know the mechanisms of the planet and believe that magnetic fields are "frozen" in the planet. I realize you need electricity..

[Krackonis]

.. to maintain a magnetic field. Period. In plasma magnetic fields form cells, vortexes and currents. This is the world the earth "floats" in. There is an enormous amount of energy in this situation, compared to the "vacuum only" model. You are seeing the universe and the world in isolated gravitational equilibrium. It isn't. It's in a dynamic electromagnetic situation, where the plasma cells and magnetic fields interact. I would be glad to explain it to you any time.

[messiahjonz]

I too deal with scientist, in fact, geologists, as I am one myself.

This, PT, is explainable and easily found online.

Too assume that the idea, not a theory, of EE is supported is folly. EE claims no subduction zones. These are observable every day and well documented. If you require information concerning subduction zones, or what they are, please feel free to respond and I will hold your hand through the searches.

[TREMILBERG]

I have done some reading on this subject, and I have concluded that the accepted theory of subduction as an explanation for the observed data, is based on the false assumption that the Earth must have had a constant size. So the observations have been interpreted to fit.

Geologists have been so blinded by this that they at present are unable to see that their explanations are inconsistent with logic and simple geometry in several places if not all. I.e. the spreading around Antarctica...

[TREMILBERG]

The spreading around Antarctica is just not possible on a constant size Earth, subduction or not! Strange looking convection cell, encircling a continent and spreading both outwards, pushing all other continents north, and inwards.

A rising mantle under a continent would be unstable, rifting the continent apart or pushing it to one side. If at all, one would expect the rift zone to follow the continental borders.

On a growing planet however...

[TREMILBERG]

On a growing planet however, what we see is exactly what would be expected!

It is like the IQ test with square and round pieces made to fit in holes in a box. The geologists have spent the last 50 years trying to fit the squares into the round holes.

You might say that subduction has been to the geologists what the epicycles were to the astronomers from Ptolemy to the time of Copernicus!

[Krackonis]

It's been my experience that assumptions are the biggest bane to science. Only from outside orthodoxy will new advances be made. The assumptions become part of the institutions of thought. They become too rigid.

[spoonog]

So ok I can see where this guy is comming from. but! and it's a biggie.......What force is he suggesting is driving or pushing the land up towards the pole?

where are the subduction zones in the northern hemisphere. please tell me and i'll try to look them up, because quite frankly I think he is trying to pull the wool partly over your eyes dear viewer. There are no subduction zones for a true and plausable explanation watch ALL of NEAL ADAMS VIDEOS....Peace

[Krackonis]

He states that it must be over the amounts subducted. Which is logical. Even if there is only marginal subduction, it is there.

 The force that is driving the plates away from Antarctica is the "expanding balloon" Just Antarctica just happens to be on the southern pole atm. And Neal Adams is great, but I'm a plasma cosmologist, we are already examining mechanisms. In a Einsteinian clockwork universe, this should not happen, but in Plasma cosmology, it's expected.

[spoonog]

I comprehend the "expanding balloon" Force. and as far as I can see there are a number of factors that could be collectively responsible. But Subduction as far as I can tell is not possible if expansion is.

please comment

[Krackonis]

Well, no. Because the plates were made to fit on a smaller globe. Note that the middle of North America is an elevated plateau, much like in China. In the Center of large land masses it is elevated, and I would assume that it buckles from time to time as it was on a smaller globe. In those points of buckling, there is often water, and I would say, some subduction is possible. But I mean even the Marianas Trench is a sloping grade, not an actual trench.

[Krackonis]

I love you too. Actually I love anyone who attempts to "see with eyes unclouded" or "open minded and unbiased"

[EskolainenKarma]

I love you!