I am of the thought that the world wants to be the same height everywhere. 

This is a natural state and it will tend to this state however there are other forces at work here and this is why it is not that way.  If I only had liquid on the planet it would be at the same level except at the equator it would bulge as we rotate. 

The thinner the crust the more it complicated the problem.  This means that we are in a world that creates life because we have the right amount of energy and heat to produce the living organisms that make us possible. 

The problem with this is that this situation also means that the instability also can get rid of the life and start over again.  Not much room for error. 

Does it matter if they are moving up or down?

George

"Does it matter if they are moving up or down?"

You know, to make theories that fit major occurrences is easy; but to fit the details is just for the right theory. So, its on the details that we can find the "truth" . "The Devil is in the details", isn't so? 

Have you ever heard that Earth is spinning up? I bet you didn't. No one did. That is a secret. Why? Because it questions standard theories. So, for someone looking for understanding, for the right theories, the details is all that matters.

You read the stories of Poirot (Agatha Christie)? The solution of the riddles is in the details. 

When you have the right theory, than you can know the future; and knowing the future matters to everyone.

So, only paying attention to details can we aim to see the future. If you don't know the future, you can do nothing about it.

It was by paying attention to details that I have found what causes the extinctions - and when it can happen again. 

You are an action man, it seems to me; each one has his characteristics. I am not an action man; but I am the kind of guy that can discover the things that matter to an "action man"

Alfredo,

Thank you for the kind words.  By disusing this with people you too are an action man. 

Yes the devil is in the details.  But there are lots of theories that have no bases in reality and they are still the theory of the day.

The future is very important and I question standard theories all the time the problem that I always have is that even if the argument is a logical one the people that have built there careers on the old model violently object to the logical theories and vote you down or tell others that your nuts.  This makes others stop listening and you loose credibility.  I have learned to just not have bad things to say about the old ways and people that still think that logic has no place in reality. 

I am a scientist and what I discover is true, therefore I can disregard untruths and go about my work.  I have no need for recognition as they will be proven wrong in due time.  I just feel a little sad that it has to take so much time to get back to reality.

I have been working on some of my theories all my life and that is 54 years so far.  My point is that wrong is wrong and regardless of what the objections are the truth will prevail.  I may not be exactly correct but I know that is is better than mast of the theory that is excepted as it explains the parts that the old theories can not and will not ever explain.

To me the earth spinning up makes sense if the orbit is decaying like they think.  The movement in to the center would have an increasing rotational affect.  The problem fort me on this issue is that I have not pondered it enough to hake a educated talk on the issue.

Dear Haider, thanks fro you answer

The isostatic theory applies to the whole planet, does not distinguishes between continents and oceans; so, if there is as oscillatory mode, and it shall be, parts of surface go up and others go down; the ocean is not rising in relation to every continent, it is only rising in average; so, a possibility is that currently the parts of surface that are going down have more continental plates that the parts that are going up.

That is not the only possibility; Earth interior is cooling and this will imply soiidificatication of the mantle under continental plates, driving them down; and other phenomenon can be considered, like a decrease of the density of the mantle due the migration of heavier components to the bottom.

In relation the increase of the oceans volume, note that arctic ice gives no contribution to it because the ice is already in the sea, only land ice is relevant; and satellite measurements show that antarctic ice is increasing, not decreasing. This is not a surprise because, according with satellite measurements, Earth is cooling for more than a decade, driving an increase of thermal amplitudes. That is the "climate change" that is occurring.  Satellite measurements also show a decrease of oceans average temperature, so we can not explain the relative rising of oceans by climate.

But the most important is that this relative rise of oceans is detected as long as there are measurements, about a century long, and displays no correlation with possible climate variations. In no way it can be due to climate, that is not the explanation for sure.

This relative rising of oceans is important for the study of Earth inner processes - and this is important for mankind, namely for understanding earthquakes and accurately predicting the evolution of continental coasts. 

The question as to whether the land mass in certain places might be subsiding, and that this has been confused with rising sea levels, is a problem that has bothered me.

How do we know whether a land mass is stable or sinking?   What is our basic datum point?

The Australian plate, floating on a bed of molten magma, is claimed to be moving northward at a rate of between 3-7cm/year (two different published estimates).   At its northern edge, it is subducting under the plates to its North, in particular the Indian plate, leading to increasing height in the Himalayas, and also providing the Indonesian faultline with earthquakes and volcanoes, .   This might suggest that the North of Australia would be sinking, again possibly by cms/year, leading to an 'apparent' sea level rise.

Another interesting point is the variation in claimed sea-level rises, over the past century, at different spots around the world.   If the oceans are treated as a single flat lake, sea rise should be constant around the world.   Differences could be due to altered wind or current patterns, but these alterations would have to be consistent to explain many of the differences in sea-level 'rise'.   These differences would be more-easily explained by variations in the land mass level.

So how do we get an accurate measuremnt of a land mass above some fixed datum? .

George, only now I saw your answer! I apologize!

You know, what you say is exactly my experience, what I do, what I am. 

I think that was Picasso that said that painting anyone can do, but selling a painting is for a genius! In Science that's the same. I have studied what Galileu and Newton did so their work could be in some way recognized. That was the hard part of their work... Unhappily, one cannot copy them, circunstancies change... However, I must note that there is no easy alternative, because everyone makes theories and 99% are worse than the mainstream theory.

Just a note on Earth rotation: rotation speed is increasing and orbit is expanding (although that is not recognized). Current physics is not able to explain this as it is not able to explain space expansion - that is why it was necessary to invent dark matter and dark energy. I think that I have found the solution, and apparently many agree because my paper in vixra has more then 700 dowloads; but until this become recognized there is still a long way ahead. That is the way things are, and possibly they could not be other way.

Raymond. 

Yes, we analyzed the problem very well. 

I think that an important cause is the following: the mantle is a fluid and as a fluid it has oscillations; with a long period due to its plasticity. So, Earth surface has a stationary oscillation. Continental plates are not equally distributed over the planet, so the number of them that are in the going down part of the oscillation is different from the ones that are in the rising zones. This makes oceans level to change in relation to coast at a millennium scale. And also the level along oceans, which will reflect the oscillation. 

If it is so, one can analyze the data on the relative levels variations and see if it can fit an oscillatory model for the Earth surface. This is not easy because of what you say, the subduction phenomena can have great influence. But I think that it is possible. As it is not my field of knowledge, I do not even try, my goal is just to put that possibility to the consideration of specialists. 

A way to identify the phenomenon is by the level change in isolated islands; in case of an oscillation of the mantle, ocean level should not change at the coast of such a island. 

There is another phenomenon that can be relevant: Earth internal temperature is decreasing and this increases continental plates in depth because the mantle is changing state under them, besides the decrease of the dilatation of the mantle, which will affect Earth radius. However, from my calculations I think that this effect is lower than the measured variation; but I can be wrong.

An evidence that Earth is in some way shrinking  - which can be explained just by the sinking of continental plates - is that Earth rotation is speeding up; and this increase of rotation speed can be explained by a decrease of 3-4 mm of equatorial radius, which is in the order of magnitude of the apparent sea level rise.