The most important physical, empirical, actual, and factual difference lies in the way that expansion/ rotation takes into account the aspect of global torsion, where plate tectonics simply just doesn’t deal with it at all. Transform faults are given only a supporting role in connecting primary zones of accretion and subduction as correlates of convective overturn. Not only torsion doesn’t figure on plate maps but neither (hardly) do transform faults, and yet the gravity maps (and Google Earth) show them clearly as every bit as important as the ridges. Expansion on the other hand sees torsion as a primary feature of crustal divergence (adjustment), and the transforms as its part expression on the ocean floors. Consequently transforms are important as the part expression of global torsions on newly created crust.
How can one model (plate tectonics) see torsion as relatively unimportant to the point of not even giving it mention, and the other (expansion) see it as all-important? The answer is it’s a ‘mis-match of scale’ problem - a question of perspective. In ignoring the importance of torsion, plate tectonics has just simply screwed things up, got things in wrong slots. In respect of ocean floors it invokes three dynamic parameters - accretion, transforms, and subduction - of which the second is given limited importance and the third is unproven - and assumes the Earth was a constant radius. Expansion invokes only two parameters - ridge accretion and transforms - sees the two as scale equivalents, and is led then to ask the question - “Is the Earth expanding?” Note the logical difference:-
Plate tectonics = three parameters ( and includes an assumption)
Expansion = two parameters ( and points to an inference)
The second (expansion), according to Occam, is clearly the sharper of the two. It’s up to us whether we want to address it or not but it should at least be looked at seriously.
In other words, plate tectonics starts with an assumption of constant Earth-size, radio-active decay giving convection cells in the mantle, and fits the data around it. Earth expansion starts with the data of just transforms and ridges (which are plainly in evidence with no need for assumption) and how these relate to deformation in the crust, and directly observes a space - time pattern in them. Which is inescapably different from the space-time pattern assumed by plate tectonics.
You haven’t explained why the Earth doesn’t explode due to having a large ball of compressed uranium in its middle?
This website has a ton of evidence against plate tectonics - users.indigo.net.au/don/nonsense/ If you have any problems understanding the principles, let me know.
The whole dynamics of the Earth’s core are in some way linked to plate tectonics. The Earth’s inner core is a ball of solid iron (about 80%) and nickel, surrounded by a liquid and highly dynamic outer core, a highly viscous mantle and a solid crust that forms the surface. Over the 4.8 billions of years, the Earth has cooled from the inside out causing the molten iron core to partly freeze and solidify. The heat given off as the core cools flows from the core to the mantle to the Earth’s crust through a process known as convection. Like a pan of water (my last example was a cooking tomato sauce) boiling on a stove, convection currents move warm mantle to the surface and send cool mantle back to the core. This escaping heat powers the geodynamo and coupled with the spinning of the Earth generates the magnetic field and - as models can show - also the plate tectonics.
The thermal energy which is delivered continuously to the Earth’s mantle, comes
partly from slow cooling,
partly from heat of crystallisation,
partly from compression,
partly from radioactive decay.
In addition, during the solidification the light elements in the melt at the inner core boundary are enriched and spread upward.
The heat inside the Earth is converted into mechanical work by convection currents, and this is ultimately the driving of the plate tectonics.
You see that the plate tectonics and the magnetic field of the Earth have probably the same cause.
Transform faults are GROWTH FAULTS, but only the active sectors are typically shown on plate maps (the short jagged sections offsetting the ridges in Fig.1). Omitting their inactive sectors and calling these ‘fractures’ and thus implying that there is no movement associated with them is misleading in the extreme, and completely belies the importance of these structures in the growth of the ridges over time. But fractures are fractures, …discontinuities in the rock on which (by definition) there has been no movement - ever. The ‘fracture’ sectors of transform faults however define the trace of movements past. They are entirely about movement! Yet Plate Tectonicists call them ‘fractures’. Why? Because to Plate Tectonics they are really something of an embarassment - as the expression of earthquake- mediated brittle failure they cannot be accommodated in a ductile flow/ convection model. Attempts to do so describe them as zones of ductile flow, …not brittle failure. So they are left off plate maps. One can only surmise the reason to be because they interfere with the depiction of ‘plates’ and therefore what ‘Plate’ Tectonics is properly about.
Well, …clearly the Earth is not divided into a “number of plates”; the distribution of transform faults, their continuity and global extents uniting the spreading ridges proclaims the unity of the ocean floors from the Pacific to the Atlantic, not their segmentation into “a number of plates” that “move independently”.
Below - a satellite picture which shows growth faults of the expanding Earth Theory.
As we can see in the fabricated diagram below - the growth faults are conveniently omitted from plate tectonics maps because they are an inconvenient embarrassment to the theory.
Still no reply to the fact that a solid uranium core could explode???
How do you think the planets and moons came into existence?
Even “solid uranium” wouldn’t explode. It would have to be weapon’s grade, purified, and under explosively extreme pressure. Uranium isn’t the only thing down there:
The geoid is a physical model of the earth’s shape, which in 1828 developed by the German Carl Friedrich Gauß (Gauss) - in contrast to the geometric model of the earth ellipsoid. The term “geoid” goes back to the German Johann Benedict Listing, who described it in 1871 as a surface equal gravity potential. The geoid is used to define heights and for measuring and describing the earth’s shape.
[quote=“Arminius”]
I am repeating my last post because it clearly debunks the ‘Plate Tectonic Theory’ and nobody has responded to this information in an appropriate manner thus far.
Transform faults are GROWTH FAULTS, but only the active sectors are typically shown on plate maps (the short jagged sections offsetting the ridges in Fig.1). Omitting their inactive sectors and calling these ‘fractures’ and thus implying that there is no movement associated with them is misleading in the extreme, and completely belies the importance of these structures in the growth of the ridges over time. But fractures are fractures, …discontinuities in the rock on which (by definition) there has been no movement - ever. The ‘fracture’ sectors of transform faults however define the trace of movements past. They are entirely about movement! Yet Plate Tectonicists call them ‘fractures’. Why? Because to Plate Tectonics they are really something of an embarassment - as the expression of earthquake- mediated brittle failure they cannot be accommodated in a ductile flow/ convection model. Attempts to do so describe them as zones of ductile flow, …not brittle failure. So they are left off plate maps. One can only surmise the reason to be because they interfere with the depiction of ‘plates’ and therefore what ‘Plate’ Tectonics is properly about.
Well, …clearly the Earth is not divided into a “number of plates”; the distribution of transform faults, their continuity and global extents uniting the spreading ridges proclaims the unity of the ocean floors from the Pacific to the Atlantic, not their segmentation into “a number of plates” that “move independently”.
Below - a satellite picture which shows growth faults of the expanding Earth Theory.
As we can see in the fabricated diagram below - the growth faults are conveniently omitted from plate tectonics maps because they are an inconvenient embarrassment to the theory.
Still no reply to the fact that a solid uranium core could explode???
How do you think the planets and moons came into existence?
The cause of the expansion is unimportant in resolving of whether it is occurring or not. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of Expansion Theory.
Personally, I believe that matter is just aether particles in rotation around mini-black holes known as neutrons. Internal pressure can force aether particles to stop spinning which creates heat energy and expansion.(creation of new matter and growth of old matter)
You are still not responding appropriately to my posts.
In order to be a good philosopher, you must address each point with equal vigour and attention.
Why do plate tectonic diagrams always appear in an artificial or non-satellite format?
Is it because there are lots of small lateral fault lines which don’t fit into the plate tectonic theory story line?
The lateral fault lines follow a pattern which is unified and global and doesn’t add anything to the plate tectonics theory. Thus, the lateral fault lines have been excluded from the artificial diagrams to reinforce a false and poorly conceived theory.
Plate tectonic ignores the Earth’s rotation and its twisting effect on the fault lines. Note - The s- shape of the longitudinal fault lines. Thus, the convection theory must be false.
5.The crazy subduction theory
There are ways of interpreting that zone (as described on this site) other than plate tectonics says. The mantle is not necessarily ‘subducting’, nor even (as it supposedly ‘descends’) is it cold, .and the ‘slab’ is actually constituted of the entire ocean floor right back to the ridge, not simply the turned-down sector that Plate Tectonics usually labels ‘slab’. If coldness and slabness is the point, why doesn’t the entire ocean floor just sink? It is after all cold, and more dense than the mantle on which it is sitting. And it is huge - making up two thirds of the Earth’s surface in fact. Why must it travel so far from the ridge before it is cold enough to sink? It’s pretty cold right where it is, on an Icelandic slope, say, …even in the sunshine. And why (if it is cold) must it always sink on a line (a continental margin)? Why doesn’t it just sink anyhow, …like a ‘plate’ - and zig-zag to the bottom? Because there is a space problem? …no room for all that ocean floor at the surface to sit on the much smaller curvature of the core-mantle boundary? Or maybe, because gravitational force tapers off with depth it will tend not to sink at all after a while?
Nope, …that’s not it. According to Plate Tectonics it’s not cold (/dense) enough. To become cold (/dense) enough it has to be pushed down into the hotter regions of the mantle where it can undergo a phase transition to its denser equivalent of eclogite. THEN it can sink (“because it’s cold” - “because it’s dense”).
What? It has to sink into the hot mantle to become cold /dense enough to sink? Yup! That indeed is Plate Tectonic logic. And just in case we need another bit of logic in order to swallow that one we have to consider the other bit of PT-ers’ logic, …that to get down there in the first place the slab has to be forced down. How? Well, …by the continental lithosphere at a ‘plate boundary’. What’s that? By the continental lithosphere that is lighter than the oceanic lithosphere, do I hear you ask? Well, … yes again. That’s more Plate Tectonic logic. It goes on and on, this logic, a bottomless Christmas Stocking jamboree of Wonderland possibilities to aid publication and career advancement. Can there be any wonder it’s considered the greatest thing since sliced bread?
You are still ignoring the evidence and not responding appropriately.
You have to state the reasons why Plate Tectonic maps always are artificial and never use modern satellite photography, but instead, rely on 100 year old graphic techniques to depict the fault lines.
Why do Plate Tectonic Theory maps omit the thousands of lateral fault lines which circle the globe?
Are you defending the religious view that the Earth was created by God and that the earth was formed in its current size and hasn’t changed one iota since its Biblical creation 5,000 years ago?
You are derailing the thread again, Puppy. I warn you: Stop your personal attacks. They have nothing to do with the topic of the thread. So if you are not interested in it and want to be still off-topic, then post in the threads of the off-topic sector.
Now you are pulling the authoritarian card, in the hope of disguising your deceptions. You are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel now! Note- There were no personal attacks in the last post, so I guess you must be just imagining it. I am discussing geology, so how can this be off topic? Please explain.
My last post was - [ Personally, I believe that matter is just aether particles in rotation around mini-black holes known as neutrons. Internal pressure can force aether particles to stop spinning which creates heat energy and expansion.(creation of new matter and growth of old matter]
Thus, you have ignored the answers and evidence yet again!
Stick to the topic, Puppy, or post in another thread. I am not interested in your personal attacks.
I am not playing a card at all, but you are playing every and any card, because it seems to be opportune to you.
Stick to the topic! No single “you” is needed, if one sticks to the topic of this thread: Geology. We (except you) are talking about geology not about “persons”.
If there will be still any word like “you” or similar words in your next posts, then I am going to not respond any of your posts.
You have used the word “you”, Thus you have contravened your own pathetic standards of non-excellence and evasiveness. Why don’t you just admit that you are like your hero Adolf H and that you can only dictate and not listen or react appropriately.
“I love the smell of smoking Christians in the morning”
