You are where I was 13.5 years ago. Your observation of geology and

geophysics do not support the concepts of plate tectonics, and its necessary

partner Subduction.

Not only is energy not present to initiate subduction, but the required energy

to sustain subduction is not available. The rigidity of the materials

or lack of a necessary rigidity does not allow

materials of density 3.0 to be forced down through materials of density 2.67.

Convection cells in materials of differing density are not possible especially if the

higher density materials are already in the lower level.

I want you to envision a planet of a 3434 km radius approximately 252 million

years ago transitioning to a planet of 6371 km radius, now. The prior radius

was approximately 53.9 % of the current radius, the planets surface area,

Pangaea, was about 103 km in thickness. The surface area was about

29 % of what it is now, and the oceans covered much of what we now

call continents.

During the transition from a planet of 3434 km to one of 6371 km radius,

the continents thinned from 103 km thickness to about 38.8 km thickness

while supplying materials from below the continents to feed the spreading

ridges. The surface of the ocean floors rose faster than the surface of the

continents as the planet gained radius, and the material at the interface

between the rising sea floor, and the rising ( but thinning ) continents

bends down thus creating the illusion of subduction.

The mathematics of the process involves the height of the materials

multiplied by density of the materials in each half of the equilibrium equation.

Ignoring the weight of the water for simplicity.

The height of the Basalt ocean floors multiplied by the density of the

basalt ocean floors is equal to the height of the continental granitic

materials multiplied by the density of the continental granitic materials.

Since Basalt is denser than granite, the height of the Basalt is less that

the height of the granite, so continents are taller than oceanic Basalt.

The Planet is undergoing active material redistribution isostacy.

In reality it is necessary to convert the water to equivalent basalt

with 1/3 of the current ocean depth converted to basalt at a density of

3.0 to solve the equation.

If anyone shows an interest I will go through the rest of the math.

I now move to the middle of continents to explain fold and fault

mountain ranges.

in the transition form a smaller radius to a larger radius, the surface

of the planet, the crust must undergo a change in shape to fit from

a planet with a tighter radius, and surface curvature to one with a

more gradual surface curvature. The material stretches at the

perimeter of continents, and undergoes compression in the middle

of continents. The stretching is evidenced by the widening river valleys

that are widest at the coasts ( maximum stretching ).

The mountain ranges are lateral compressional wave forms with

both mountains ( vertically unconstrained ) , and basins, ( vertically

constrained ). Semi - parallel rivers occupy the centers of basins and

are recognizable y their alignments parallel to the mountains.

The Ganges River is a prime example of a parallel basin occupied

by a parallel river in the basin next to the mountain's front.

The margins of continents are under water because they have supplied

more materials radially toward the spreading ridges. The middle of continents are higher because they are farther from the spreading ridges and have supplied

less materials toward the spreading ridges.

the spreading ridges themselves are a record of the changes in the depth of the oceans. The magma in the fractures rises to the level of the equilibrium pressure

created by the weight of the water above, and the density of the rising

liquid magma. Thinning oceans means the magma can rise higher in the

fracture before cooling and hardening. Thinning oceans implies that the

planet is increasing its surface area faster than the rate that it is releasing

juvenile water from inside the planet.

This is a sufficient introduction to growing planet tectonics. It explains more

large scale Earth observations than Plate tectonics, without creating impossible motions of materials inside the planet.

Growing Planet tectonics only relies on gravity, and gravitational self compression,

which is the same thing that makes it a sphere, and it require differential

motions of material rates of flow internally to the planet created by torsion s

in the planet.

In a strict sense, plate tectonics is not more than a simple and very elegant kinematic concept: the Earth´s outermost layer consists of a number of rigid, non-deforming plates whose motions can be described through Euler poles and angular velocities. Space geodesy has shown that this model quite accurately describes large areas of our planet, but not deforming regions such as rifts and mountain belts. The most obvious "failure" of plate tectonic theory therefore occurs whereever plates deform, particularly in plate interiors. With any other inconsistencies or knowledge gaps you must ask if they are an integral part of plate tectonics. Subduction initiation is just one example that the link of mantle convection and plate motions remains poorly understood (some people might disagree).

A straight-forward and succinct outline of some of the most basic problems of the plate tectonic theory was presented by Prof. Cliff Ollier from the University of Western Australia (Ollier, C.D., 2006. A plate tectonics failure: the geological cycle and conservation of continents and oceans. Annals of Geophysics, 49, Supp. 1, 427-436). If it's not available online, send me a message, and I'll send it to you.

The palaeomagnetic record shows us that the conditions for comprehensive global operation of Plate Tectonics have only operated in Phanerozoic times. Before that Lid Tectonics was the dominant process. I have described the evidence for this in a recent paper in Tectonophysics (589, 44-56 (2013)).

Dear All,

Thank you very much for the contributions made. Dear Matt and John, could you please send me the papers you mentioned to my e-mail, [email protected]

Thanks.

Hi Matt Rowberry,

Could you please send me the Annals of Geophysics paper you mentioned?

My email is [email protected].

Thank you!

Ana

Hello, Matt Rowberry,

I am very interested in that paper, too. Could you please send it to [email protected] as well?

Thanks a lot for your offer!

Belén

Dear all,

Yes, I'll send that paper, along with a couple of others on the same theme by the same author, using a file transfer website - they'll be with you shortly. His arguments are underpinned by the idea that we live on an expanding earth - while not everyone will agree, the points he raises are valid and shouldn't be ignored.

Best wishes,

Matt

Belén, on an unrelated subject, I do a lot of in situ fault displacement monitoring and I'm looking for potential monitoring sites in caves in the mountains around Madrid - would you or any of your colleagues be interested in collaborating? If so, send me a message, and we can talk about it in more detail.

Dear Matt,

Thank you very much for sending the papers you mentioned.

With Best Wishes!

Keerthi Perera

Hi there,

Beside the funky theories, we know thqt plate tectonics explain well oceanic plate behavior (few large and rigide plates), and "less well" continental plates (with models requiring quite a lot of small blocks. Have a look -for instance- there: http://www.colorado.edu/geolsci/faculty/molnarpdf/1988Nature.ContinentalTectonics.pdf

At times I keep thinking whether Plate Tectonics failed to leave behind definitive evidence of its finger print to mark its presence in the Archaean or Precambrian at large. Despite that many scientists believe in Archaean Plate Tectonics or a different variant of Plate Tectonics in the Precambrian (see A. Kroner, 1984, Editor – Precambrian Plate Tectonics, Elsevier). It is also possible that finger prints it left behind were modified by itself during later cycles of Plate Tectonics, thus, it was not a failure on its part, but as scientists we have failed to see through those modifications to recognize those finger prints. Therefore, one has to be careful not to attribute failures of scientists as failures of Plate Tectonics.

At last, I've found my Nirvana - a scientific site that has an answer that actually made me laugh out loud! A 539% increase in volume over 252my with no change in mass? That's 3635 cubic km gained per year, on average! Put another way, that' change in volume is about 15 times the volume of the planet Mercury. How small was Earth 4 billion years ago? Reminds me of 'Back To The Future" except in reverse - Dr. Emmett Brown: There's that word again. "Heavy." Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull?. Or even better, George McFly: I am your density...

Rapha's very diplomatic assertion that differing points of view should be given almost equal respect does not stand up to scrutiny when one of those points of view is bunch of made-up gobbledygook that has no basis in any form of science. I just hope that impressionable young minds at NMSU aren't having it proposed to them that this Growing Earth garbage has any credibility. Why not teach Creationism and Intelligent Design while you're at it?

Your Math is way off. The change in mass of the Earth is only 1.3 x 10^15 Kg per year.

The total mass is between 5.97 and 5.98 x 10^24 kg, so the change is about

5.975 / 1.3 = 4.596 ( E 24 / E 15) = 4.596 E 9 which is just about the age of the

Earth.

Briefly, the change in the mass of the Earth ( per Year ) is one over the age of

the Earth ( One part in 4.6 Billion ). If you distribute this mass change over

the entire surface of the Earth it is a fraction of one millimeter increase in thickness

each year, which does not account for the LUNAR Laser Ranging change in the

Earth radius of between 4.1 mm and 4.2 mm per year ( Net change in the radius ).

In short the redistribution of materials inside the Earth accounts for the excessive

increase in the radius. That is lighter materials migrate slowly toward the

surface while denser materials migrate toward the core. Since the Earth is

roughly 80 % lighter materials, it gradually expands due to mass increase,

compression, internal retention of heat, longer distance to remove the heat

as the radius increases, greater friction due to greater internal motions

of materials.

The expansion has some benefits.

1) The water which covered nearly all of the planet has moved from the

surface of the continents to the newly forming ocean basins. The Basins

are no more that 252 million years old. Most are less than 180 million years old.

2) The expansion are rifted the continents and allowed species diversification

on the newly separated continents.

3) The expansion is an ongoing process where material from under the

continents feeds the oceanic spreading ridges. This continents settle,

while sea floors rise, thus the bending moment at the edge of the continents

at the margin between the thicker continents, and thinner ocean floors,

that bends in an " S " shape creating the illusion of subduction. The actual rate

of Planet increase in radius would be over 23 mm per year, but continents

settle downward between 18 and 19 mm per year, thus the net change in the

radius where we do the measuring is the difference

between the increase and the settlement ( 4.1 to 4.2 mm ).

NMSU was a place I studied at to get a structural engineering degree

between 25 to 30 years ago.

The planet is simply a structure that has forces, motions, plastic deformations,

movement of materials, temperatures, pressures, and time, lots and lots of time.

Planets are spherical, because the materials that make up planets move to

create spheres when the radius is above approximately 500 km.

When a planet get above a Mars sized planet, the gravitational self compression

becomes sufficient to segregate materials inside the planet into layers

of stratified densities ( Like Earth ). Mars is just starting this process.

The four gas giants are well advanced into this process.

This makes Earth, a transitional planet which is changing gradually

from a Mars sized planet toward a gas giant. Fortunately this process

takes hundreds of millions of years, maybe in excess of 1 billion years.

We are roughly 630 million years into this transition process.

The global water level peaked twice. Once about 250 million years ago

in the reef forming era ( Permian ), and again about 92 million years ago

when the Western Interior Seaway reached a max elevation.

So far the highest reef elevation that I have found is in Bolivia at around

10,000 foot elevation - look at the SALAR DE UYUNI in Google Images.

The hints that the planet gradually grows and expands are there, but

we have always looked at the earth from the local ( micro-scopic )

view. If you look at it from the extra - global ( macro-scopic ) view, it

is simply a 4.6 billion year old puzzle, the all of the puzzle pieces

need to fit back together in all of the disciplines simultaneously.

In addition your concepts ( Theories ) should not be Physically

Impossible, like subduction that has only 5% of the necessary

energy to push solid rock down through solid rock.

When you put a nail point down on your desk, it does not subduct

itself down through your desk. It requires a very large energy

source like a claw hammer accelerated by your arm to drive the

nail through the desk.

Rock of density 2.9 to 3.0 can not subduct itself through rock of

density 2.65 to 2.7. This is not physically possible, but it can bend

just like the pages of a thick telephone book laid on an uneven surface.

Your reading is way off - I specifically said "no change in mass". I watched my four year old son push a piece of cardboard, of unknown but relatively smaller density, under a rug of relatively higher density, the other day. By your last paragraph, this is not physically possible. However, just like a mid-ocean spreading ridge, something else was in the mix - force. Debunking the rest of this garbage is similarly trivial, but I don't want to waste my energy on it any more.

Please send us a list of all the structures you have evaluated - I'll put the on my "Don't Go There!" list...

With one thick telephone book, and one thin telephone book, and

and old style equal arm ballance

Try again:

With one thick telephone book, and one thin telephone book, and

an old style equal arm balance you can simulate the illusion of

subduction.

Inter-leaf the two phone books, and set them on the balance, the

thick one will move down, and the thin one will move up, and the

thin one will bend downward where it is inter-leafed with the thick

one just as the thinner ocean floor bends down where it is attached

to the thicker continent.

The balance motion is the fluid pressure of the magma lifting the

ocean floor upward, while the continent settles downward.

This is the action of isostacy where fluid and or plastic rock moves

to equalize the vertical, and horizontal pressures based on the difference

in thickness, and density of the two types of crust.

Isostacy is an ongoing process that moves toward equilibrium, but

can never fully achieve equilibrium when the planets radius, volume, mass,

and surface area are all gradually increasing.

At the oceans spreading ridges, they preserve a memory of the depth of

the ocean at the time the new magma was added. Each added pair of

stripes of hardened magma rose to the elevation of equilibrium pressure,

before cooling and hardening. When the oceans were deeper, and the planet

a bit smaller, the magma cooled at a deeper elevation. As the planet has increased

its surface area, the oceans have become thinner, and the magma cools and

hardens in stripes at a sequence of higher, and higher elevations, it records the

gradual thinning of the oceans, and the gradual decrease in the over-burden pressure of the water as the oceans become less deep, and cover more surface area.

Of course it is not that simple, as the thinning of the oceans also makes the

ocean floors rise, and the continents sink fairly uniformly over vast areas

that are thick enough to sustain some rigidity and transfer forces over

large areas with minimal bending. Thus as the oceans thinned, the

abyssal plains rose fairly uniformly, while most continental areas

settled fairly uniformly. Where the two are connected, the thicker

continent bends upward, and the thinner oceanic layers bend downward.

The current average depth of the ocean is about 12,082.2 FT ( 3682.2 M ).

The question then becomes, how deep was the ocean when the planet

was smaller, and what was the maximum elevation of ocean's surface, and

what was the prior volume compared to the current volume ?

A partial answer can be found in the Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia where there is

a reef sticking out of the middle of a salt flat at between 10,000 and 12,000

feet above the current sea level. I have also been trying to find the

remnants of wave cut benches on the mountains in Bolivia that ring the Salar

de Uyuni, and the elevation of the wave cut benches.

They should be the maximum water elevation of the prior oceans, except for

all of the differential vertical motions of continents, and ocean floors.

Wow, I've been on ResearchGate for just a few days, and it is the first "social network" I have ever joined. I have been posting on Earthwaves.org for two decades, where there has been a mix of active and retired earth scientists, good, smart amateur scientists, and some people who are deluded into thinking they are doing short-term earthquake prediction.

But almost right away I run into expanding earth here. I agree with Neil Moloney. As for Michael, what happened before 252 million years? The earth is dated to 4.5 or 4.6 billion. Ok, the oldest dated rocks are about 4 billion; the solar system is dated from meteorites at about 4.6.

How do you explain subduction earthquakes? The plate motions are really well known from GPS, as is the spherical geometry. And, there are areas where plates are converging at rates that balance the sea floor spreading.

As for Rapha saying we should respect other opinions, I think there are times where posts do not deserve respect. We don't have to go too far to "flame" people though.

I think Bill Nye (the "Science Guy") said it best for things like this: you can believe what you want (no human global warming, no evolution), but don't teach your children this. I hope that Michael is not in a position to teach this nonsense to students.

Chris

Hi Everybody,

I would like read that paper Matt was mentioned ( from Ollier, 2006), Could you please send me a copy of that.

[email protected]

Thanks

If our concept of a Tectonic System is unique to one planet ( Earth ), then thatconcept is not correct. Tectonics should be applicable to all smaller rocky planets,so when we find a system that works with all planets, then it is far more likely to be correct.

Disagree. Composition and thermal structure and other things control whether there will be anything like plate tectonics, or whether the type of plate motion and how it is accommodated is similar to earth or not. Is not similar to earth on Venus, and Mars is pretty much dead for tectonics. I know they have old volcanoes on Mars but I don't know whether there is evidence for earth like tectonics billions of years ago. Probably not.

Actually, if you look closely at the impacted surfaces of Mars and the distribution of the sizes of the impact craters you will see that  Mars has old Southern Surfaces and younger northern surfaces.  In Plate Tectonic, we would say that  the " Continents " moved toward the Mars South Pole, while on Earth, the continents are 70 % in the Northern Hemisphere.

The Trouble with both Mars and Venus is they do not have any useful " Moon " to help them redestribute materials inside the planet by pumping the planets surface up and down twice each day.  It is the interaction of both Sun and Moon that gives Earth a strong helping hand in the tectonics department.

The Earth is the Lucky Planet, Lot of Iron, ( Magnetic Shield ), Several big Impacts with Uranimum filled space rocks especially the ones that hit us 252 MYA, and 66 MYA.  28 large diameter " Plumes " ( 400 to 800 km across ).  Sun and the Moon Kneeding the surface of the planet up and down ( helps redestribute materials internally ), lots of water and gasses making it to the surface where the magnetic shield protects the gasses from the solar wind.

Venus and Mars do not have the magnetic protective shields.  Venus is too hot, and Mars is too cold, and neither have useful Moons, or feature hiding rains.

Sorry Christopher, but you need to get out of Beautiful lush Santa Barbara, and go visit Nevada, Utah, Arizona,  New Mexico, and Colorado, where water rips away natures nice green blankets.

Prior to 252 MYA the Earth had plates but they all attached, or semi-attached to one another. The

usual term is Pangaea ( one Earth, or one Plate for want of a better concept ). The Crustal Plates are highly deformable when enough forces are applied. This is why we have mountain ranges, and basins, and Ranges. The Plates deform from lateral compression ( mountains ), and they deform by tension from below ( basin and ranges ), or ( grabben and horst ). This also occurs in the far thinner and younger slabs of oceanic crust. These slabs are subject to differential vertical movements, thus we

observe the " Illusion of Subduction " created when materials flow out from under continents to supply materials the spreading ridges. Sea floors rise, while continents fall, and the sea floor bends at the interface between the two locations ( thick continents, and thinner sea floor ). This bending creates the Illusion that the sea floor is being subducted, but Subduction would require approximately 20 times the available force to initiate, and a mechanism to keep the sea floor from folding up like taffy. In short, you can not make a sheet of paper or several sheets of paper subduct down through the top of your desk, but you can create the illusion of subduction by interleafing a magazine and a thick book, and then hold them out at arms length. The Book will sink, and the magazine will rise as your arms get tired, and the illusion of subduction will be obvious as the pages of the magazine bend.

If there is anything that the History of Science teaches us, it is that our understanding of geophysics is ALWAYS rudimentary. And present theoretical possibilities promise more of the same going forward.

Arguably, the most fundamental question in the Theory of Plate Tectonics is: What drives the lateral motions of plates?

A current constraint in planetary physics is not so much rightfully considering Earth’s geodynamics as an open system, including its astronomical context, but in the difficulty of imagining quantitative methods by which to measure geodynamic effects. The RG preprint linked below provides quantitative methods and spectral evidence that should move geodynamics closer to a solution to this long-standing conundrum of what drives plate motions. The second link provides mean-pole data from the IERS website that may be used to replicate this intriguing result. After calculating mean-pole acceleration, the spectral analysis should take your statistics practitioner less than two hours. Are you ready for a surprise? Please share your thoughts and results, if you try it.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322666165_Spectral_spatial-statistical_and_graphical_evidence_that_gravitational_interaction_with_the_Moon_assists_in_driving_Earth's_tectonic_plates-Part_1

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/eop/eopc01/mean-pole.tab

Plate-Tectonics has been developed based on a model of unaltered dimension of the globe throughout the past geological ages and seems to consider presence of oceans since the primordial stage of the planet; The concept can not throw light on interior of the earth, formation of a fluid geosphere in the planet's interior and supports the wrong notion that there is a convection current that operates through the mantle which is a solid geosphere.