Prove Expansion Tectonics

Invitation to Tectonics Special Project
John D. Taylor
Dec 29 9:13 PM
_The genus Pseudotsuga has species in the west coast of America and the western pacific rim
_And the palmatum group of maples genus,  Acer; These are living groups and can be explained by ocean current for present day ocean currents but not for what would have been past ocean currents with Plate tectonics to match fossil records
_Acer circinatum is the only species living outside Asia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acer_circinatum

ptolemy1022
Dec 30 3:10 PM
_Loyd wrote, "I'm open to other possible proofs as well, but matching Pacific shores seems to me to be likely the best and doable. Agree?"
_Granite foundation seas exist along east coast of Asia and Australia. These were once part of the single continent, where all seas stood on granite foundations, instead of basalt like the modern abyssal seas. Billions of cubic kilometers of striated sedimentary rocks loaded with marine fossils exist only on granite foundations. These attest to the early earth, where the shallow seas stood only on the same basement as the single continent. Thus, the shores across the Pacific (the earliest modern ocean, except for the Mediterranean inland sea), will not mesh.
_Victor

James Maxlow
Dec 30 9:58 PM
_Guys, I have reposted my attached book manuscript detailing the formation of the ancient supercontinents and modern continents. This modelling is based on global geological mapping, not speculation. For a non-geologist you can speculate as much as you like because nobody will know any better, but you can’t fool me. Fact is what drives the earth.
_Cheers, James

James Maxlow
Dec 31, 12:33 AM
_Facts = global observational data (GOD) If your speculation is not supported by empirical global observational data (geology) then it is still mere speculation. You can speculate as much as you like petal but it doesn’t mean that you are correct or even come close to reality.

Carl Strutinski
Dec 31, 4:01 AM
_We (in our group) all consider that the Earth grows, but are as different as possible in our positions as to how this happens. I, for instance, cannot accept James's assumption that orogeny merely results by modification of surface curvature and implied compression at discrete ruptures in a primordial crust. I do not even see the opportunity for those compressive forces to occur. Compression has far less importance in orogeny as usually assumed (except for the Himalayas).
_What is more important to me is motion, horizontal translational motion. You cannot explain the most complicated geological structure on Earth - centred on the Indonesia area - by assuming interaction of "rigid" plates (PT position) or compression along boundaries resulted after rupture and curvature adaptation due to Earth growth (James). There must be something (e.g. the upper mantle) flowing underneath, similarly to the flow of glaciers. This is what physical and - still more - geological charts tell us about the region. To cite Carey: Geotectonics is simpler than we thought, the gross structures stare naked from the world physical chart and things really are what they look like.
_In SE Asia deformation of the crust is extreme in plan-view and requires a substratum of particularly weak, deformable and flowing or creeping upper mantle. Deformation of the crust is linked here not with compression and crustal thickening like in the Himalayas but with advanced crustal thinning. However, along the transcurrent systems operating throughout the region folding and crumpling of rocks can take place simultaneously with thinning.
_And as regards the role of Australia and its northward migration due to the growth of the Southern Ocean: it is of course a rigid piece of crust that forced the Indonesian crust to form the Banda loop (creeping mantle from underneath forced into a whirl).
_For visual illustration I attach the structural map of SE Asia.
_Carl

James Maxlow
Dec 31, 2017
_Actually, Australia is moving south away from SE Asia. If you have spent as much time exploring outback Australia as I have you will know that the ancient sediments are carbonate-rich which means equatorial latitudes, not polar latitudes as PT insists. This is also substantiated by geophysics where the ancient equator is known to have been located in South Australia and the Northern Territory during the Precambrian (i.e. Australia was orientated north-south as my modelling shows, rather than east-west as it is now). As well as this the weathering history has been one of warm tropical climates (at least 60 million years’ worth) which has given rise to deep weathering (as much as 600m at Telfer Gold mine) and extensive laterite chemical weathering of the soils and rocks (throughout Australia). This is substantiated by hold-over tropical species of palms, pines, ferns, etc., that still grow in remote pockets throughout Australia. Over the past 20,000 years there has been a progressive drying of the interior and increasing desertification, none of which is suggestive of Australia migrating out of polar regions into tropical regions.

Neal Adams
Dec 31, 2017
_James, ... though the north is moving away from Asia ,...the SOUTH is moving away from Antarctica,...because,..say it,..THE EARTH IS GROWING!
(Look at the crustal Age Map!

James Maxlow
Dec 31, 2017
_Actually Neil, Antarctica is moving south and is crossing the south pole in sympathy with opening of the southern ocean as the earth grows.

Neal Adams
Jan 1, 1:05 AM
_James,...look at the crustal age map and at the SPREADING Antarctic ocean UNDER AUSTRALIA! In the last 60 Million Years the Antarctic Ocean has spread incredibly and Australia moves away WITH  it!
_Neal

lkindr Jan 1, 2:40 PM
_Opposite Shores of the Pacific
_Hi Everyone. I copied some of the replies to my message "Invitation to Tectonics Special Project" and I posted them on a private forum at cnps.boards.net/post/93/thread
_John D. Taylor Dec 29 9:13 PM said:
"_The genus Pseudotsuga has species in the west coast of America and the western pacific rim
"_And the palmatum group of maples genus,  Acer; These are living groups and can be explained by ocean current for present day ocean currents but not for what would have been past ocean currents with Plate tectonics to match fossil records
"_Acer circinatum is the only species living outside Asia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acer_circinatum "
_Thanks, John. That's a start.
_ptolemy1022 Dec 30 3:10 PM said:
"_Loyd wrote, "I'm open to other possible proofs as well, but matching Pacific shores seems to me to be likely the best and doable. Agree?"
"_Granite foundation seas exist along east coast of Asia and Australia. These were once part of the single continent, where all seas stood on granite foundations, instead of basalt like the modern abyssal seas. Billions of cubic kilometers of striated sedimentary rocks loaded with marine fossils exist only on granite foundations. These attest to the early earth, where the shallow seas stood only on the same basement as the single continent. Thus, the shores across the Pacific (the earliest modern ocean, except for the Mediterranean inland sea), will not mesh.
"_Victor"
_Thanks, Victor. James guessed that I'm not a geologist and that's my guess too. But I'm learning. I didn't realize that some of the former Pacific shores are on the seafloor. Can anyone tell me the best places to find the outlines of the "Granite foundation seas ... along east coast of Asia and Australia"? Does everyone here agree on those outlines as Pacific "shores" or plate boundaries? Are the trenches the boundaries? Have any ocean drilling projects gotten any drill cores from the area of granite? If so, where can the data from such cores be found? Thanks for any help.
_Lloyd Kinder

Carl Strutinski
Jan 1 2:49 PM
_James, Australia was at low latitudes in the southern hemisphere at about the beginning of the Triassic. Some Alpine facies in Timor and in Papua New Guinea attest to this. In my present opinion it was located east of India and its eastern border may have been close to Central America. This location is more to the south than you suppose. My assumption is mainly based on the idea that Papua New Guinea belonged to the equatorial globe girdling Alpine Himalayan chain and that the continuation to the East, beyond the Pacific, can be traced through Guatemala-Cuba-Haiti ... into Eurasia.
_With the onset of spreading NW of Australia during the Jurassic, Australia began to move relatively to the south (or India to the north), then to the east (the Central Indian Ridge began its activity) and finally to the north or northeast (due to spreading along the Southeast Indian Ridge). However, all these movements took place on a growing Earth and the directions assumed may not correspond exactly to reality, because we are tempted to consider them in relation to the present poles. As there is presently no spreading ridge between SE Asia and Australia I cannot follow your reason that "Australia is moving south away from SE Asia". Theoretically one could also consider that both SE Asia and Australia are moving south, only that in this case the velocity of SE Asia is faster. However it seems to me that oceans in the southern hemisphere are broadening faster than those in the northern hemisphere, which should support the idea that Australia is relatively moving north or at least in a stagnant position relative to the poles.
_Carl

Michael Clark
Jan 1 6:06 PM
_Do a Google search of Zealandiam the continent East Southeast of Australia; that is about 1/3 of the Surface Area of Australia.
_There are continental crustal blocks submerged at various locations scattered over the Pacific. Smaller continents, and crustal blocks
usually end up submerged then covered with sediment.
_The Pacific Spread started sooner, and spread farther than the Atlantic Spread, so blocks got ripped off and sank.
_Cook a glass pan of brownies, and while they are still warm, rip them apart, and see what happens at the edges.
_Then do the same with another pan, but let them cool longer, and rip them apart slowly, and see what happens.
_Mike Clark

RE: CNPS: TABLE TO COMPARE EARTH THEORIES
Monday, January 1, 2018 8:00 PM
From: mike@newgeology.us
_FYI Earth's continental crust averages 35 km thick, and of that only an average of 1.8 km is sedimentary rock.  Most of the rest is granite, which is why it has an average density of 2.7 gm/cm3.  The conventional view is that formation of continental crust began shortly after differentiation, about 4 billion years ago, and has continued growing since it floats and is not recycled.  Thus most of it is younger than the Archean 2.4 billion years you note.
_Recent geodetic measurements show that the Earth is not expanding.
_It makes no sense to say that the presence or absence of glaciation is due to the presence of a continuous land mass or sea water below an ice sheet.
_Mike Fischer

Monday, January 1, 2018 8:52 PM
From: "James Maxlow" <james.maxlow@bigpond.com>
3 Files 962KB
_The answers that I gave to Lloyd’s questions below are from my own observations and research into expansion tectonics plus my own experience as a qualified geologist (retired).  
_[Re granite crust] This is a simplistic view of crustal development which is tainted by conventional plate tectonic assumptions. On an expansion tectonic earth (Neal read that as Growing Earth) formation of continental crust began at 4000 million years ago because surface temperatures were low enough for the various minerals making up the rocks to crystallise. You cannot have crust if it doesn’t crystallise and you cannot date rocks if they have not crystallised and been preserved intact. Bear in mind that sediments are derived from the weathering and erosion of pre-existing rocks, so the pre-existing rocks must be older than the sediments.
_[Re] Recent geodetic measurements show that the Earth is not expanding. Geodetic measurements are constrained to a constant radius earth model. Geodesists do this by tweaking the maths to reflect on the assumption that earth radius is constant. That is why “when Robaudo and Harrison first established a “...global geodetic network” their calculations gave “...a Root Mean Squared value of up-down [variation in Earth radius] motions of over 18 mm/year.” In other words, the Earth was found to be potentially increasing in radius by up to 18 millimetres per year. Robaudo and Harrison “...expected that most… stations will have up- down motions of only a few mm/year,” and they went on to recommend that the vertical motion “...be restricted to zero, because [they considered that] this is closer to the true situation than an average motion of 18 mm/year.” Since then, the mathematical formulae and applied correction parameters attributed to this space geodetic data have been extensively refined which has enabled all perceived errors to be statistically meaned out to zero, precisely as recommended by Robaudo and Harrison.” (extract from my book.)
_[Re glaciation] You misunderstand. A polar ice sheet only occurs within the north and south polar regions. My modelling studies (see attached figures) show that Gondwana covered the south polar region throughout the Precambrian times and hence, during the 5 main glacial periods, had a relatively stable ice sheet. In contrast, the north polar region was covered by the Tethys Sea, which enabled warm equatorial currents to flow into the polar region and hence the ice sheet, if present, was seasonal or absent – hence the seasonal effects in the Arctic Ocean ice cap. I am not saying that glaciation is due to the presence of a land mass, all I am saying is that if a polar region has a land mass during the 5 major ice ages then it will have a stable ice sheet, and vice versa for the seas. Why periodic ice ages occur is unknown, but, as I speculate in my manuscript, the periodicity of the ice ages approximates the 226 million year galactic cycle (the time it takes for the solar system to travel round the galactic centre) which may suggest a galactic winter/summer seasonal effect.

Tuesday, January 2, 2018 4:35 PM
From: "lloyd kinder" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
To: mike@newgeology.us "'lloyd kinder'" <lkindr@yahoo.com> "James Maxlow" <james.maxlow@bigpond.com>
_At the last post on my Shock Dynamics thread at cnps.boards.net/thread/28/prove-shock-dynamics I mentioned some of the Kola Borehole data, which says a lot of the strata there are sedimentary and metamorphosed granite, so it looks like the continents could be called sedimentary/granite. The world's 3 deepest boreholes are at the Kola in northern Russia (7mi.), southern Germany (5mi.) and Oklahoma (6mi.). Both of the European boreholes are said to have a lot of fractured rock, so I wonder how the fracturing would have occurred. I don't see info yet on the Oklahoma borehole regarding fracturing, but high pressure is mentioned, i.e. 25,000 psi.
- Good Day. Lloyd

James Maxlow
Jan 1 6:00 PM
_Attached are a few images of Australia and the various oceans to mull over. Prior to the Triassic Australia straddled the equator and was predominantly located in the northern hemisphere.  India, in contrast to what you and plate tectonics say, was located against west Antarctica, not Australia. This is all substantiated by palaeomagnetic pole data which was used to located the poles and equator.

Carl Strutinski
Jan 2 1:21 AM
_James, I do not have much confidence in paleomagnetic pole data calculated by people convinced by the non-growing Earth assumption. And on geological grounds I cannot agree with your position that before spreading in the Indian Ocean Indochina lay near southwestern Australia as your images show. Indochina was a labile zone within the Alpine geosyncline already before the Jurassic whereas Western Australia was a craton. And thus the opposing continental piece of SW Australia had to be also a cratonic zone.

James Maxlow
Jan 2 5:46 PM
_Rightly so Carl. In my book manuscript I devote an entire chapter to discussing the limitations of palaeomagnetics constrained to a constant radius earth. I then modify the conventional palaeomagnetic formula to adapt them to an increasing radius earth model. Using these modified formula all magnetic poles plot as diametrically opposed north and south poles-as they should do. The attached figures show the north and south pole locations derived from the modified formula using the international palaeomagnetic dataset of McElhinny & Lock, 1996, and Pisarevsky, 2004. 

Re: Do I have your model right?
Wednesday, January 3, 2018 5:07 PM
From: "Eugene Ellis" <GeneAEllis@msn.com>
_Lloyd, Below are my answers to your questions. It is hard to shorten them without losing meaning. 
_1C  Continents formed ~ 750 MYA when the Earth’s radius was ~800 km.  The cooled solid crust cracked forming various land masses. The cracks widened and lengthened forming the ancient seas and lakes (and eventually the continental shelves).  The Pacific Ocean floor began expanding ~200 MYA.
_2S  Crustal cooling from the top down starting ~1400 MYA to present primarily caused layering. In addition, the elements in the layers are growing and heating.
_3M  Mountains likely formed ~220 MYA when 50% of Earth was heating and 50% was growing (heat + pressure) thereby increasing radius curvature, inducing crustal flattening, plus weathering.
_4F  8-elements formed into a  >800 km ball ~4500 MYA.
_Gene

[[[Answers at cnps.boards.net/post/55/thread ]]]
 
----- Original Message -----
From: lloyd kinder
To: GeneAEllis@msn.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 12:16 PM
Subject: Do I have your model right?
_Hi Gene.
_I copied your recent message about your model here: nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcnps.boards.net%2Fpost%2F91%2Fthread&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6a811df22e984565763c08d552cdc98d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636505966156026356&sdata=FV8AIfJLMieRelZHy6339hskstE6gtbwhyqizjBswG0%3D&reserved=0 .
_For the table to compare theories, I removed the question of glaciation. Here are what I have as simplified versions of your answers to the 4 remaining questions. Please let me know if I have anything wrong and how I should change the wording.
_1C. How and when did the largely granitic/sedimentary continents and the largely basaltic ocean basins form?
GM: ~200-0 Ma Ocean Basin Expansion & some Continental Expansion
_2S. How and when did sedimentary rock strata form?
GM: ~1.4-0 Ga Shallow Seas Deposition
_3M. How and when did mountains form?
GM: ~220-0 Ma Increasing Earth Radius Curvature
_4F. How and when did the Earth form?
GM: ~4.5 Ga Dark Matter Conversion

-----
Re: Mathmatical Analysis of EE Plausibility
Saturday, January 6, 2018 10:27 AM
From: "Eugene Ellis" <GeneAEllis@msn.com>
_Gene 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Nappi
To: Eugene Ellis
Sent: Saturday, January 6, 2018 10:03 AM
Subject: Fwd: Mathmatical Analysis of EE Plausibility
_Gene, Both Ray and Cameron have helped the Expansion Tectonics effort in the past, but it was only incidental. Something caught their interest related to other things they were working on. I've put them on cc: just so they will see this.
_It is more important that we include Lloyd Kinder in this. Your theory of expansion, if it captures something going on throughout the universe, upsets ALL the apple carts of physics. Lloyd can best decide how to link this paper into the ET effort, as well as the new Project 2 references.
_Thanks for this alert.
_Bruce 

-----
Begin forwarded message:
From: Eugene Ellis <GeneAEllis@msn.com>
Date: January 5, 2018 2:35:06 PM EST
To: "bnappi@a3ri.org" <bnappi@a3ri.org>
Subject: Mathmatical Analysis of EE Plausibility
_Bruce, It was noticed in the 6.2 Forum that Ray Gallucci and Cameron Ribigsol did some analysis and computations based on James Maxlow's work.
_I wonder if you could instigate a similar evaluation on the attached moon paper [[[? ? ?]]] that includes Earth data and  some supporting Earth-moon (past distances) calculations.  If there is any interest to including the sun, the link to that paper is: ionic-expanding-earth.weebly.com/ionic-growing-sun.html

-----
Fw: Mathmatical Analysis of EE Plausibility
Saturday, January 6, 2018 10:56 AM
From: "Eugene Ellis" <GeneAEllis@msn.com>
_Bruce, I don't think Growing Matter...."upsets ALL the apple carts of physics".
_I'll remind you of my closing remark of the talk at the 2016 CNPS Conference in Maryland...
_Subscribing to a theory of "everything changes" does not negate or denigrate theories based on "unchanging matter" or theories based on "unchanging time" or quantum mechanics, which is consistent with the Standard Model and special relativity.  The merits of each can co-exist like mathematical trains running on different gauge tracks.
_Gene

10186 The Opening of the Pacific
eugeneaellis
Jan 16 4:00 AM
_The key to opening the Pacific is the Antarctica-South America fit which places Australia + Zealandia close to Alaska.  With this assemblage, Venezuela joins Baja California.
_Global images are transposed on the NOAA- Age of the Ocean Floor flat map and do require some mental adjusting.  It’s not perfect, but gives a rough idea of how growing continents separated and ascended over a 200 million year period as the radius of the Earth doubled.  The ascent probably involves a quarter counter-clockwise twists.
_They say a picture is worth a thousand words.  Here are eight thousand unspoken words to start a conversation.
_Go to:  ionic-expanding-earth.weebly.com/opening-of-the-pacific.html 
_Scroll down for the slide show and click through the slides.
_Gene

Carl Strutinski
Jan 16 4:33 AM
_No, no, no! I must disappoint you. Your solution is the wrong solution. And how could you speak about  "opening of the Pacific", beginning with a first slide in which the Western Pacific already exists??? The Western Pacific is the oldest part of the Pacific and it is this part of the ocean that requires an explanation of its coming into existence. Moreover, there is not a single argument to derive Australia from a region close to Alaska. A picture may be  as well a fallacy as 1000 words.
_Carl

eugeneaellis
Jan 16 5:44 AM
_Carl, The first slide indicates Zealandia broke-up first.
_Gene

Michael Clark
Jan 16 8:53 AM
_Gene The reconstruction violates the simplified rules.
_Continents move the minimum distance allowed to seperate them.
_Continents rotate the minimum amount  during  motion.
_New Land Can form that was not there previously. ( Mexico )
_The top of South America Plugs into the Gulf of Mexico ( Texas To Florida )
_The Bulb of Africa Plugs into the Appalacian Sea Board ( Florida to Maine ).
_The right side of South America plugs into the left side Africa. ( Always the most obvious )
_The hard one to see is the top of South America plugging into Gulf of Mexico, because
you have to mentally eliminate Mexico ( and Central America ).
_MWC

eugeneaellis
Jan 16 11:41 AM
_Mike, The reconstruction violates no simplified rules.  On a smaller Earth, the continents move and rotate minimally. The note on Slide 5… ”Unfurling at the Gulf of Mexico” does not connote new land.
_The rest is answered by this response made to the CNPS group: 
_I agree that some people can’t visualize how continents fit together from flat maps. Maybe it’s because they haven’t traced the continents from a globe and reassembled the pieces to make a smaller globe. My smaller globe, made from metal insect screens, is over 25 years old and sits on a shelf above me.
The key is the Antarctica - South America fit which places Australia + Zealandia around Alaska with Venezuela joining Baja California. With this assemblage, Africa (on my flat map) does not fit the east coast of the U.S. One side fits while the other side distorts can be recognized and mentally adjusted when doubling the radius.
_If you have a different vision or version, you should present it.  I’m sure it would be welcomed.
_Gene

James Maxlow
Jan 16 6:04 PM
_Hi all, Your squabbling reminds me of plate tectonists. Reconstructions on a static radius earth model, regardless if it is a flat or round earth, is totally dependent on the number of researchers assembling the crusts. In other words, there are a multitude of plate-fit options coinciding with the number of researchers.
_What Neal and I have been trying to tell you all, but without success it would seem, is that on an increasing radius earth model there is only one plate-fit option available for each of the oceans and time frames. The plate-fit is dictated by the seafloor crustal geology and is not governed by any rules other than if you move back in time you must return intruded seafloor volcanic lava back to the mantle and close off each of the oceans precisely as dictated by the MOR geology. There are no other rules. If your plate-fits disagree with each other then it is your plate-fit that are wrong, not the MOR geology. Anyone can reconstruct the oceans using the geology on small earth models and all will come out the same – for example, Neal, myself, and Klaus Vogel have each constructed small each models independently of each other using geological mapping and each reconstruction is essentially the same.
_You can learn how to construct small earth models in my books and website at: www.expansiontectonics.com
_Cheers, James

Michael Clark
Jan 17 at 11:06 AM
_To put it more simply, the Ocean floors leave a pair of trails from the spreading ridge over to the edge of the continents.
_It is like pulling a long sheet of Fabric attached to the edge of the continents out of the spreading ridge as the planets radius increases. Or, more like two sheets of fabric  pulled out as both continents move away in oposite directions.  The continents move the minimum amount allowed ( mostly vertical ) without any significant rotations.
_The Vogel Globes, Maxlow 24, and Adams rotating globe all simulate the actual movement fairly well.
_However, Continents do stretch, especially Western North America, when they remain too close to, or are positioned over a spreading ridge.
_MWC

Gene Ellis
Jan 17 at 4:17 PM
_To all, It is more than just plate reconstructions. It is when and how one rolls back the time and knowing what is causing the expansions. The Pacific fits gets into uncharted territory. If the reconstructions and timing are wrong, or partially wrong, then finding the cause would be equally wrong. So far, the small globe models have not convinced the scientific community or the general public.
_Plate tectonics is wrong because we end up on a constant radius planet in an unexplained accelerating expanding universe. Once the Earth template is in place, the PT crowd will need to work out how to make the switch without losing their jobs, a long and time consuming process. Finding a cause for the heating and growing, both necessary for Earth expansions would hasten the process.
_Gene

Lloyd Kinder
Jan 17 at 7:07 PM
_Hi Gene. I'm afraid I disagree with Accelerating Expanding Universe theory. I believe John Kierein, Halton Arp and others have well shown that the Hubble Law is wrong and that the red shift is at least usually due to the Compton effect rather than Doppler. The high redshift quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy and Arp's finding of many similar quasars closely associated with similar galaxies disproves the Hubble Law. John says even the Sun is shown to have a Compton redshift.
- Good Day. Lloyd

1.7-Billion-Year-Old Chunk of North America Found Sticking to Australia
Wednesday, January 24, 2018 8:30 AM
From: "Eugene Ellis" <GeneAEllis@msn.com>
To: "lkindr@yahoo.com" <lkindr@yahoo.com>
_Lloyd, Some new data connecting Australia to Canada. The P-T is wrong as well as the age. The connection is what you seek.
www.livescience.com/61490-chunk-of-north-america-in-australia.html
Gene

10241Re: RE: [expanding_earth] The Opening of the Pacific
lkindr Jan 20 3:18 PM
_The quickest way I can think of to prove expansion is to show the same sort of data around the Pacific/Indian shorelines as Wegener and maybe others found around the Atlantic. I'm not trying to disprove expansion. If it's real, I want to see clear evidence. The magnetic patterns are evidence, but they're not strong evidence, since there are other theories that could also explain them. They don't necessarily indicate ages. They could have formed over short time spans etc.

10242RE: RE: [expanding_earth] The Opening of the Pacific
James Maxlow Jan 20 5:10 PM
_The ages of the magnetic patterns are determined by drilling down to the seafloor and taking samples of the rock at regular intervals across each of the ocean basins. The ages are determined by radiometrically dating the intruded basalt as well as dating the Nano-fossils from overlying sediments or sludge. The magnetic patterns record the  lava intruded along each of the mid-ocean-rift zones over intervals of time – between 1 to 14 centimetres per year, and the linear patterns record the magnetic vectors acting on the magnetite crystals of the lava prior to cooling and solidifying. Age dating is used to date the linear magnetic anomalies detected during the magnetic survey, and hence add another dimension to the data. The relevance of the dating is only relevant to an earth increasing its radius over time, and basically is not, or cannot be used to quantify plate tectonics (which was the reason why the work was carried out in the first place – to quantify PT).  
_James

10249 Re: RE: RE: [expanding_earth] The Opening of the Pacific
Carl Strutinski Jan 21 1:48 PM
_Some remarks on the magnetic patterns and the age of the oceanic crust:
The majority of magnetic anomaly data were collected through marine ship track, aeromagnetic, and helicopter surveys. They are almost  independent of  the rock samples taken from drilling. I shall give only two examples that should caution us about giving indubitable credit to these data.1) in the West Pacific it is considered mainly on interpretation of magnetic patterns, that the oldest upper crust is represented by basaltic flows of upper Jurassic age. However, on an immense area, of hundreds of thousands of square kilometers, which, according to magnetic lineations is considered to be covered by upper Jurassic MORB, in one single drilling  (801C) MOR basalts of Jurassic age were drilled. In all other drilling sites from the region that reached basalts, these gave Cretaceous ages (lower or upper Cretaceous). Thus the age chart of oceanic seafloor seems to be at best of variable believability.
_2) Not all upper oceanic crust (except sediments) consists of MORB. In many places along the Atlantic and Indian ridges so called megamullions or oceanic core complexes (OCCs) were discovered covering areas of tens of square kilometers, that consist of upper mantle rock, like peridotite or gabbro. These evidently  rose to the ocean bottom as solid rock, meaning that their magnetic minerals could not fix the time of their rising. Nevertheless, at some instances they also appear to show a magnetic lineation that can be traced continuously into the adjoining basaltic environment. So we can read in Wikipedia under the topic Oceanic core complex the following:
_"The conventional view that marine magnetic anomalies arose in the upper, extrusive layer of the oceanic crust requires a rethink because perfectly normal magnetic anomalies arise at core complexes, where the crust has been stripped away. This suggests that the lower part of the ocean crust contains a substantial magnetic signature."
_Carl

James Maxlow Jan 21 6:48 PM
_Not really sure what you are on about Carl. The examples you gave are relatively small percentages of the total areas exposed along the MORs and, of course, are interpreted and explained from a conventional PT perspective, not ET. Also, if you have mantle derived lava intruding mantle derived seafloor lava then the seafloor volcanic crust is actually exposed and quenched mantle – hence the presence of peridotite and gabbro.
_James

Michael Clark Jan 21 2:28 PM
_If there was no expansion and no additional ripping apart of the continents, then the width of each additional strip of ocean floor per equal unit of time would
increase exponentially.   The increase in the width per unit of time would be predictable.
_However, when you look at James Maxlow's graph the shape of the graph has a double ski jump in it.
_The Impact at 66 Mya had a pronounced decrease in the rate of growth of the ocean floors which took many millions of years to recover from to again look like it is an exponential growth curve.
_If this same thing occurred at 252 MYa, and 438 to 439 MYa, and at 624 to 625 Mya, then the exponential growth of the Earth had numerous interruptions, with later recoveries.
_There would have been a Maximum of 23 Primary Impact induced interruptions in the Planets growth rate. There would also be many secondary interruptions
from impacts of far lower magnitude.  Most would be too small to have any major effects.  If there was one major Impact from each passage thru arms of the Milky Way Galaxy, there would be about 24 X 8  + 3 or 4.
_There would be a maximum of 195 to 196 Impacts of significant size to rattle the Earth, and potentially slow the Growth Rate.   However, only about 5% to 10%
would be big enough to really Rattle the Earth and delay its growth rate.
_The delay in the growth rate occurs when the biggest impacts release lots of magma from inside the Earth and form flood Basalt areas that miles thick. The one at 66 MYA formed the Deccan Traps in Western India. The one at 252 Mya formed the Siberian Traps in Siberia. The Deccan Traps was enough to cover the current sized earth with a uniform layer of basalt 3 feet thick. The one in Siberia was thick enough to cover the current sized earth with a uniform layer of basalt 10 feet thick.
_Mike Clark

James Maxlow
Jan 21 6:52 PM
_Assuming, of course, that impacts had anything to do with emplacement of seafloor volcanic lava.

Carl Strutinski Jan 22 at 2:09 AM
_James, even though I do not share Storetvedt's view that magnetic lineations may have nothing to do with reversals of the magnetic poles, I am sceptical about attributing the age of the ocean floor in some parts of the world ocean exclusively on magnetic lineations. And I gave as example the Western Pacific, where a surface area almost equaling the USA is considered on magnetic lineations to be of Jurassic age (one single drilling intercepted radiometrically confirmed Jurassic basalt). The pattern of lineations (three sets of different oriented lineations) is problematic because it does not conform to the general accepted rule, that ALL oceanic crust has been formed along spreading ridges.
_I do not negate that Jurassic basalts may be present at deeper levels not reached by ocean drilling, but even in this case it is not plausible that they have formed due to the accepted model of spreading. Therefore I prefer to admit that there was a large zone corresponding to what has been addressed as Darwin Rise, that represented a mantle dome as a first manifestation of continental breakup. By the rising, which can be maintained geophysically, inside the upper part of this mantle wedge decompression melting occurred at numerous places, that gave rise to small extrusions taking place from the upper Jurassic to the late Cretaceous. These are now seen as seamounts littering the Darwin Rise, which for this reason is also known as the West Pacific Seamount Province (WPSP).
_Solid mantle pieces that ascended from beneath (diapirically?) are identified beside  MOR basalts in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans in an ever growing number. As they may have been solidified hundreds of million years before the Jurassic, it is clear that they should have nothing in common with Jurassic magnetic lineations. So I would recommend to be careful with magnetic anomalies that may have more than one valid explanation.
I have not studied in greater detail other oceanic domains, but at least I suspect that the assumption that drilling or dredging of "samples of the rock at regular intervals across each of the ocean basins" is highly exaggerated.
_Carl

GROWING MATTER MODEL

(See forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=502 )
04-07-2018, 09:21 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2018, 10:04 PM by Lloyd Kinder.)
_A. MAIN CLAIM: What is the main claim of GM theory?
There was no Big Bang. 98.8% of Earth’s matter consists of 8 elements that started the planet, heated the planet, and has doubled the planet’s radius twice in less than a billion years. Slowing of Earth's rotation is due to mass and radius increase.
_B. EARTH FORMATION: How and when did the Earth form?
(Ga = billion years ago; Ma = million years ago; ka = thousand years ago)
~4.5 Ga (EARTH formed from) Dark Matter Conversion to 8 Elements
_C. CRUST FORMATION: How and when did the largely granitic/sedimentary continents and the largely basaltic ocean basins form?
~200-0 Ma (Ocean CRUST formed from) Ocean Basin Expansion & some Continental Expansion
_D. SEDIMENTARY STRATA: How and when did sedimentary rock strata form?
~1.4-0 Ga (STRATA formed from) Crustal Cooling in Layers
_E. MOUNTAINS: How and when did mountains form?
~220-0 Ma (MOUNTAINS formed from) Increasing Earth Radius Curvature & Weathering

---

03-26-2018, 10:49 AM (This post was last modified: 03-26-2018, 10:57 AM by Lloyd Kinder.)

Hi Gene.

For peer review of your model, there are 4 requests below. The requests are part of the preliminary Summary Paper on Earth Theories at:
forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=502
Your information above may be helpful for the review after these 4 requests are answered.

FOR the GROWING MATTER Model WE REQUEST:
a. evidence of dark matter & of matter expansion via ionization potential
b. an explanation of the dark matter to matter expansion mechanism and why it's probable
c. confirmation that no other means of Earth's spin rate reduction, besides mass increase, such as electromagnetic braking, is probable
d. a map showing where present Pacific boundaries adjoined on pre-expansion Small Earth & data showing similar biology & geology on adjoining areas.


04-06-2018, 09:01 AM

Here's Gene's map.
It shows the continental boundaries for the East Pacific, but not yet the West Pacific (Indonesia to Siberia) or the Indian Ocean area.
.

upload jpg

---

04-06-18 02:09 PM

Hi Gene. As you probably noticed, I revised the Requests a little. I added the 2 Requests that I asked for all 3 Expansion models, which are a and b, but I added b later. Then c, d and e are what were labeled a, b and c above in your post.

a. a more detailed map of small Earth showing:
a1. where the original continental boundaries fit together
a2. if rock & fossil types match near formerly adjoining boundaries
a3. if trails are left on the seafloors that support the fit
a4. where the continents may have morphed and if there's evidence of such morphing
b. means to distinguish between Earth expansion & Earth morphing (See #5 ...).
c. evidence of dark matter & of matter expansion via ionization potential
d. an explanation of the dark matter to matter expansion mechanism and why it's probable
e. confirmation that no other means of Earth's spin rate reduction, besides mass increase, such as electromagnetic braking, is probable.

The purpose of the Requests, a and a1 was to prep for a2, 3 and 4.
Your map above partly answers a1, but it doesn't show much detail of where the continents all adjoined on Small Earth. It's not clear where east Asia adjoined Indonesia or where south Asia adjoined Antarctica and South America. It's also unclear how southeast Africa fit into the picture. Would you like to try using the Dymaxion world map for continental shapes to try to fit together? Here's one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map#/media/File:Dymaxion_projection.png

Regarding your last post above, do you claim that all matter starts out as dark matter? If so, do you have laboratory evidence of such dark matter? The only evidence I've heard of is the unexpectedly high velocities of stars in the outer part of the galaxy. But Charles Chandler's model of electrostatic repulsion seems to explain those velocities and almost everything else.

Regarding Earth's spin rate reduction being caused by mass increase, could you supply here a few of your most important statements on that from your paper or from anywhere?

---

04-08-2018, 11:12 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2018, 11:34 AM by Eugene Ellis.)
Gene Ellis response to Lloyd’s Growing Matter Model request.
a. evidence of dark matter & of matter expansion via ionization potential
Dark matter becomes ordinary elemental matter upon ionization for the first time. Dark oxygen existed until ~1400 mya, ionizing at 871.387 eV with a rate of decay of 1 eV/ 1.6 my (871.387 x 1.6 = 1,394 my). The IP is the measured energy level of an element having the potential to join other elements.
Matter consists of energetic elemental masses. As the intrinsic energy of an element decays at a fixed rate, the energy converts to additional mass at specific times and to heating at other times. The heating period is an anomaly where a small incremental jump between the IPs of an element suddenly becomes a large jump. Heating is attributed to the anomaly since it adequately accounts for the tremendous amount of heat necessary to melt the large amount of iron that gravitated to the core during the first 3 to 3.5 billion years of earth’s existence.
b. an explanation of the dark matter to matter expansion mechanism and why it's probable.
Dark matter cannot grow, expand, heat, or join other elements until the first time it ionizes and becomes ordinary matter. Calcium was the first element to ionize ~8800 mya and hydrogen was the last ~22 mya. Only hydrogen, and possibly helium, was able to bond as dark matter with ionized elements.
The mechanism for growing matter is the same mechanism that effects energy converting to mass in the equation E = mc2, except on a micro scale. Observing the photon is an example of pure energy at a higher level transforming to additional mass at a lower energy level.
c. confirmation that no other means of Earth's spin rate reduction, besides mass increase, such as electromagnetic braking, is probable.
The amount of energy that converts to mass to slow the spin of the earth one-half leap second per year is ~9.5 E+16 kg/yr. This translates to ~3 million electron volts per second or ~1.9 E+25 joules per second converting to ~3.3 million tons of mass per second. Similar quantities have not been demonstrated by electromagnetic breaking or any of the wave action models.
d. a map showing where present Pacific boundaries adjoined on pre-expansion Small Earth & data showing similar biology & geology on adjoining areas.

A slide presentation is here: ionic-expanding-earth.weebly.com/opening-of-the-pacific.html
Evidence for The Opening of the Pacific is here: www.livescience.com/61490-chunk-of-north-america-in-australia.html The 1.7 billion year age of zircon is probably correct, but it cannot be the age or location of molten rock of that time. Tectonic plates and water were non-existent on the planet 1.7 bya thereby debunking the P-T theory.


Additional Growing Matter items to consider:
e. the origin of water.
Upon the initial ionization of oxygen ~1400 mya, two dark atoms of hydrogen join to form water. Since then, water has been growing except when heating between 220 mya and 1200 mya. ionic-expanding-earth.weebly.com/origin-of-water-via-ionization.html
f. debunking the dinosaur paradox.
Reduced gravity of the past allows larger life sizes. At 50% gravity, the maximum dinosaur size is 24 tons. The fossil minerals that replaced the organic bone substances are growing matter. ionic-expanding-earth.weebly.com/dinosaurs.html
g. debunking radiometric dating of ancient rocks.
Radiometric dating of rocks does not involve consideration of when the rocks were in a molten state. Water formed and cooled a molten crust thereby limiting radiometric dating of archaic sedimentary rocks to 1.4 bya. No one could know the composition or location of molten rock a billion or two billion years earlier.

---

04-09-2018, 09:10 AM
Gene Ellis:
The Opening of the Pacific gets into uncharted territory. The key is the Antarctica-South America fit which places Australia+Zealandia around Alaska with Venezuela joining Baja California. This assemblage joins five of the eight continents together when the planet was roughly half its present size. Further clarifications where Asia adjoined Indonesia or where south Asia adjoined Antarctica and South America and how southeast Africa fit into the picture will follow, along with supporting evidence, once this new discovery is publicized.
a.2 see previous link: (https://www.livescience.com/61490(chunk-of-north-america-in-australia.html)
a3, a4, and b –No comment. Trails and morphing questions are better answered by geologist.
c. laboratory evidence of dark matter is NBS-34, Ionization Potentials and Ionization Limits Derived From the Analysis of Optical Spectra. Any energy exceeding the highest IP level listed indicates such element is undetectable and existed as dark matter from the time of its inception. All the elements have ionized; hence, there is no remaining dark matter when considering all matter in the universe consists of elemental atoms.
Spin rate reduction and leap seconds quantifying Earth’s growing mass are on the opening page and in the discussion on page 4 of the Growing Earth / Expanding Universe (GE/EU) paper: ionic-expanding-earth.weebly.com/growing-earthexpanding-universe.html
Jack Hohner, on page 15 of his paper: dynamicmatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/DEFICIENCIES-IN-TIDAL-FRICTION-rev1.pdf, calculates 5.68523302 E 16 kg/yr mass increases while conserving angular momentum by using a completely different method. This compares favorably to the ~9.5 E 16 kg/yr calculations using the leap second.
Some interesting points are surmised when comparing the sizes of Earth from James Maxlow’s book Beyond Plate Tectonics with the Ionic Growing Earth data.
When the radii from both are plotted as in the chart below, it is noted that the differences in size until ~250 mya can generally be attributed to the growing continents. The surface gravity and radius for the same time period can readily be determined for both without a lot of complicated math. A halving of the radius or gravity is indicated at 50%.
The differences between 250 mya and 600 mya are likely due to the size of the primordial radius, 1700 km versus 800 km, and the time when exponential expansion effectively began. A second halving of the radius is indicated on the IGE curve at 25% around 470 mya. A second halving is not possible with a 1700 km primordial radius.

---

04-09-2018, 10:15 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2018, 09:32 PM by Lloyd Kinder.)
Gene, your first link didn't work, because there was a parenthesis mark instead of a dash in it. Here's what it should be (without the space after http://www.):
https://www. livescience.com/61490-chunk-of-north-america-in-australia.html
Here's the map from that article.
img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA5Ny85MTkvb3JpZ2luYWwvc3VwZXJjb250aW5lbnQtbnVuYS5qcGc=

Here's your graph which apparently shows your and James' figures on Earth's dimensions through previous geological time periods till now.

Gene, can you tell us where this data is from?



Here's a CNPS video of Maxlow's model www.youtube.com/watch?v=P38eReiw7LU

Gene's and James' models seem to start Australia, Antarctica etc out differently.

David Noel was one of the models in the Special Project #2 and is shown in the Summary paper. Gene shows constant density during expansion. I guess James probably shows about that too. David seems to say that mass didn't increase, just volume did, via neutronium expansion. I think the first two would entail weaker gravity at the surface in the past, which is more consistent with former megafauna and megaflora. (But I think thicker atmosphere is what accounts for that.)

---

04-09-2018, 04:35 PM
Lloyd,
The graph would be under my last comment if you removed the Live Science link and map as requested. It says:
Some interesting points are surmised when comparing the sizes of Earth from James Maxlow’s book Beyond Plate Tectonics with the Ionic Growing Earth data.
When the radii from both are plotted as in the chart below, it is noted that the differences in size until ~250 mya can generally be attributed to the growing continents. The surface gravity and radius for the same time period can readily be determined for both without a lot of complicated math. A halving of the radius or gravity is indicated at 50%.
The differences between 250 mya and 600 mya are likely due to the size of the primordial radius, 1700 km versus 800 km, and the time when exponential expansion effectively began. A second halving of the radius is indicated on the IGE curve at 25% around 470 mya. A second halving is not possible with a 1700 km primordial radius.

---

04-12-2018, 10:45 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2018, 10:48 PM by Lloyd Kinder.)
POSSIBLE CAUSE OF REDUCED SPEED OF EARTH ROTATION
Nature Unbound VII – Climate change mechanisms
judithcurry.com/2018/01/21/nature-unbound-vii-climate-change-mechanisms/
Climate variations that alter the angular momentum of the atmosphere modify the speed of the Earth’s rotation, which affects the length of day (LOD). Alterations in LOD integrate different climate-affecting phenomena, and can anticipate turning points in climate.

---

Eugene Ellis
04-15-2018, 06:11 PM
The leap second represents a slowing of Earth’s rotational velocity (spin) by losing approximately one-half second over a yearly period of 31,557,600 seconds. The current mathematical model was derived from LOD (length of day) work by Stephenson and Morrison and is based upon a solar day equaling 86,400 seconds. This model wrongly attributes the slow down to tidal friction and possibly a redistribution of Earth’s internal mass, all of which presume a constant mass with some questionable transference of energy and momentum to change orbital motion. Citing climate changes as a possible cause of reduced speed of Earth’s rotation only complements the solar day model.

Buy Prednisone <a href="http://mewkid.net/buy-prednisone/">Prednisone No Prescription</a> jmd.qiws.cnps.boards.net.ilq.dx mewkid.net/buy-prednisone/