## 5 comments on “A comprehensive rebuttal to the Expanding Earth Theory: Part 1”

1. What it comes down to, is this … at the beginning, the earth was nothing. Then it accredited into the mass it is today … assuming that you adher to some scientific fact, that the Universe evolved into it’s current state. Then you must accept, that the earth also grew into it’s current state …

Anything else you say, is just a moot point … nonsense really. Because what you are trying to state, is one of two things.

A. The Universe has stopped evolving. And you and I, are evidence to the contrary of that.

B. All the cosmos, was born in it’s current state … which means you are a creationist, and therefore can be ignored.

This is basically what it boils down to … the rest are mere arguments of what mechanisms are at work in our time and space. In which case, you adher to the “subduction” of matter, of which there is no empirical proof. There is empirical proof of matter being erupted from the inner of the earth, there is NO empirical proof of it being subducted in equal time and space. This does not exclude subduction of some sort, it merely states that you are adhering to a non-empirical evidence, for the favor of your beliefs, rather than being open minded.

First, think of it this way. It doesn’t matter, which approach you prefer. That the earth originally accredited from meteorites from Big Bang or other event. Or that it spewed out from the sun, as a small ball of fire, and then grew into it’s current form and size. Whichever you prefer, the earth DID EXPAND, period. Saying anything else, is utter nonsense … now, this doesn’t suggest that the Expanding Earth theory is correct … but it does state, without a doubt, that plate tectonics is NOT correct.

It is therefore not a question of which theory you want to follow … be it “earth is still expanding”, or “earth has always been a constant size”. It is a question of your fundamental beliefs. Do you believe, that GOD created the heavens and the earth, and that it is all a constant size.

If that is it, ok … fine, but don’t come and try and argue Science, because you’re not talking anything logical. You are talking a belief system. Because you fail to prove, that the Universe has stopped evolving … which you must,if you are to show that the earth has remained constant for the last 4 billion years.

The only other alternative, is that the Earth grew to it’s current size, and the Universe is evolving or de-evolving, and that the earth and everything else, is still a part of this evolution.

The rest is just moot points ..

• I find it funny that you can say there is “no empirical proof of (the crust) being subducted” when I have given such proof in the article plus the citations. So if you want to ignore proper scientific findings, that’s your prerogative, but that empirical evidence exists, so you’ll have to reconcile that in your head somehow. When you say that there is proof of matter being erupted from the inner of the Earth, this is just false unless you’re counting the asthenosphere as the “inner” of the Earth, in which case I would really love for you to explain to me volcanoes that do not appear upon the plate boundaries as these should not exist in your expanding Earth model.

When you state:

“A. The Universe has stopped evolving. And you and I, are evidence to the contrary of that. “, this is just pure nonsense. The theory of plate tectonics does not imply that at all, and is in fact a proof of it. Things get born, get old, and then die. The planet is an example of that as the driving mechanism of plate movement (the thermal differential) will at one point cease, so the planet will die at some point. Materials get used many times over and we can see that there is material recycling through the scattering of elements by stars when they die. Plate tectonics has nothing to do with the universe evolving or not, it’s in fact merely a result of it.

Also:
“B. All the cosmos, was born in it’s current state … which means you are a creationist, and therefore can be ignored.” Again, this is just pure nonsense and drivel. The fact that you come to such conclusions leads to to understand how you can think the Earth is expanding. Until you can come up with a more based statement that says WHY this cosmos has to be created at one point for plate tectonics to occur, I’m not going to waste my time rebutting this.

“First, think of it this way. It doesn’t matter, which approach you prefer. That the earth originally accredited from meteorites from Big Bang or other event. Or that it spewed out from the sun, as a small ball of fire, and then grew into it’s current form and size.” This isn’t what happened in EITHER theory. We know that the Earth didn’t come from the sun because we know the chemical composition of both. That’s akin to saying ” I just cut this orange in half and one part of it turned to cheese.”.

Basically all I see here are the inane ramblings of a person that has done absolutely no research, doesn’t know even know the basics of either theory, and is unwilling or unable to grasp the concepts of either. If you had a basic understanding of either theory you would be able to come up with a more coherent comment than you have.

In part two I will go into the specifics of what happens when you have rigid plates with a certain arc angle (starting off on a smaller sphere) and how they HAVE to react when the diameter of that sphere becomes larger. This is something that, unless you would like to change the laws of physics, cannot be reconciled with the Expanding Earth Theory.

2. Hi geoman, I am a geology student currently studying PT, and familiar with James Maxlow’s work on EET. I appreciate your effort raising these points and would like to discuss them with you, in the name of science. To make it clear from the outset, my stance is impartial and my goal is simply to learn.

I have been interested in EET for some time, and as part of my research, trawl the web for rebuttals and debunkings of EET to challenge my own ideas and thoughts on the matter. So far, I must confess, you have not raised any points that seem to discredit EET. I will reply to your points briefly:

1: Coastlines of the continents must remain constant in order for the EET to function.

The coastlines you use as examples are on a small scale compared to the continental scale. It is quite obvious where sedimentary delta deposits occur, and should be disregarded when reconstructing continental margins, whether for PT or EET. Both theories are concerned with the large continental land masses and the surrounding oceanic crust, interacting on a planetary scale, not so much on the deposits of estuaries.

2: The rate of expansion in the present-day is 22mm increase of radius per year “ John Maxlow”

If your calculations are correct, Maxlow’s estimate is out by approximately 0.292 km2/year. I would suggest this remainder could be accounted for by subduction processes, which are described slightly differently by Maxlow’s theory. He certainly does not deny the existence of subduction.

3: Subduction does not exist.

Neal Adams makes this claim in his video, but he is not a geologist, and is only interested in the visual presentation. Furthermore, the only part of his video that should be regarded is the portion that uses the NOAA ocean floor data, and should be viewed on mute for a number of reasons.

Maxlow, who has slightly more knowledge of geological processes, realises that subduction is a real phenomenon, and can be explained on an EET globe quite simply: As the radius of the Earth increases, the surface curvature flattens. The thick continental crust deforms plastically due to gravity, with the continental coastline riding over the oceanic crust, forcing in down underneath the continental crust. If you are familiar with Maxlow’s written work you should have a good understanding how mountain-building, volcanics and other geologic processes could manifest on an expansion tectonic model.

The P-wave tomography clearly shows dense oceanic crust descending below the continents. However, I find it interesting that the descending crust appears to terminate at a consistent level. It would be interesting to find out how old the descending crust is at the apparent termination. This could lead some credence to EET, which predicts that no oceanic crust is older than 180 million years.

I am looking forward to part 2, and hope to get a good discussion going. My only suggestion would be not to waste your time with the Earth shedding off the Sun bit. A solid review/rebuttal of Maxlow’s claims would be the most constructive course of action.

Cheers

Black Sheep

• Hello Black Sheep! Sorry about taking so long on ‘part 2’, life is a bit busy at the moment. What it boils down to is what we should see with a brittle crustal plate that is on the surface of an ever increasing diameter of sphere. I’ve done most of the preliminary research and gone through the thought-experiments and made some figures about where we should expect to see certain zones of extension and compression. Long story short, the mechanics of this scenario would dictate a more or less consistent suite of features that would be seen on all continuous continental masses (which we don’t), and also that there would be an overall unifying direction of these features, or at least a pattern (which again we fail to see).

Thanks for your comments, and I will definitely look into what you’ve stated and will come up with a new post that incorporates your comments along with the crustal deformation information (I’m trying to collaborate with a friend that does numerical modelling to give us an idea of stress distributions on an increasing diameter sphere).

• Your crustal deformation study will be interesting to look at. I too have spent considerable time thinking about the deformation the continents could expect to undergo with a changing radius. By the end of the semester I should have a much better understanding of the capabilities of crustal movement so will be better able to academically address the problem at that time.

However, for now I think Maxlow’s hypothesis on the subject seems to correlate well with the empirical evidence. Most continents appear to have mountain ranges caused by compression near a sub-thrusted oceanic crust, as well as a mid-continental basin due to gravitational collapse. South America, North America, Europe, Australia, Antarctica all have mountain ranges nearby their continental margins. Africa could be the anomaly in this regard. Asia is an interesting subject however:

The Himalayas are interesting due to their present altitude coupled with the existence of ancient marine fossils. In the EET model, the Himalayan region was a depression caused by an early crustal extension, and became the sight of a shallow sea, named Tethys for convenience’s sake. It should be noted that the continental crust remained intact – no oceanic crust formed. In time, a more powerful spreading zone developed to the south, separating India from Africa and Australia. The spreading zone and changing surface curvature forced Asia and India together, and the weakest point of the continental crust – the Tethys seabed – buckled under compression, folding into a large, compressed geological feature we identify as the Himalayas. I gather there is some P-wave tomography of the area in the literature so will give it a look to check the validity of this hypothesis.

I personally think the key to this whole thing is paleomagnetic data, of which I have the least understanding.