This is pretty funny! OIM just posted an exerpt that fully supports the accurate measurement of plate motion by two different techniques! That pretty fucking funny right there.
Apparently you don't know what the word "reconstruction" means. No surprise. The author is Dr. James Maxlow and the book is called "Terra Non Firma Earth" if you're at all interested in science: http://books.google.com/books?id=BfU1P7Nv_wYC&printsec=frontcover
You're starting to go round in circles again - the standard ploy of a deluded idiot who thinks consistency means learning how to repeat the same crap over and over.
The enitre "expanding earth" theory is so absurd as to be laughable. You need to explain away so many features that are better explained by PT and in the process invent new physics too. It's too rediculous to even spend another minute on.
We're not talking greek mythology here. We're talking about your inability to prove something. Besides, it's a description of an observation. No, I addressed it. Sea floor spreading occurs at mid ocean ridges, not oceanic trenches (which these wadati-benioff zones are at). Try again.
Pair production isn't new. It was discovered in 1932. And pair instability was observed in 2006, namely SN 2006gy. If anything requires a new physics, it's PT. If subduction were real there would be no Pacific Ocean and no seafloor spreading. Link :wave:
What a load of pseudoscientific twaddle. Pretty funny though. Yes. The evil/ignorant scientists were indoctrinated with the dogma of... blah, blah, blah.
That's absolutely rediculous. The size of the continents clearly accomodate both the atlantic and pacific. That sounds like a description designed to fool a not-so-bright grade school kid.
I found a single article, outlining one or two little problems with an expanding earth (not that PT is a problem-free theory, note). The rest of the article is here Ho hum.
"The insinuation that we still do not know a physical process responsible for an accelerated expansion of the Earth is not a scientific counterargument. The physical nature of many processes has regularly been recognized in science, long after they were first recognized as real phenomena. It is not the task of the geologist to explain problems beyond their discipline. Their task is to see and correctly explain all geological facts." -- Dr. Stefan Cwodjzinski, Polish Geologcal Institute, Lower Silesian Branch, Wroclaw Poland, 2005 Link Here is one possible mechanism: "The creation of electron–positron pairs constitutes an example for the conversion of energy into mass." -- Jörg Eichler, physicist, March 2005 Here is another: "My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun. The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process that is still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005
"Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics." -- Lawrence S. Meyers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005
None of which does absolutely anything whatsoever to address the point i'm questioning you on, and asking you to explain - the observed trend in earthquake depths associated with oceanic trenches, or how it relates to the directions of plate motion. Do you want to try again, or are you ready to admit that you can't?
You are projecting your religion onto the data. Earthquakes provide less than zero scientific support for subduction. According to your subduction model, the Pacific Ocean shouldn't exist. See the replies you deliberately ignored posted above.
If that's the best argument you can come up with, it's no wonder 21st century science treats subduction as a myth.
lol, that wasn't very nice. BTW, the only way Earth is "getting bigger" is if you measure the minute amounts of cosmic dust (and meteors) falling on it all the time; which is practically negligable compared to Earth's total mass.
And yet, there is a big accumulating (expanding) pile of evidence for subduction of oceanic plates into the asthenosphere. There is a Pacific Ocean (I can see it from here), which has existed for hundreds of My. But since you aren't even a geologist's asshole, you don't understand "the evidence"; since you aren't even a scientist's turd-tunnel, you don't know what "evidence" is.
Do you not understand the threshold of change in angle were talking about? We are talking about a change in measured in millionths of a second being enough to move the laser off the mirror. It a wonder you managed to graduate from highschool.
