Newstein wrote:Bunch of psychiatrists here.
I ask some questions
No answer even some claim they have.
I will do it myself
1) ridges stretch along with the expanding earth, so they stay at tje same place.
2) antarctica does not shrink. What we see is a growing plate, a logic result of an Ee

If the earth is expanding, Newstein, not only does antarctica have to be getting farther from everybody else, but everybody else have all to be getting farther from everybody else. New York has to be getting farther from Honolulu. Can you observe that? No, you can't. On an expanding sphere, the farther two places are from each other on the surface, the faster they must be separating from each other, which is why testing the divergence velocity of New York and Honolulu should be right up your street. It doesn't matter that the divergence is slow. We have instruments capable of measuring it. Better for you to consider, Sydney and Brussels. If you're from Belgium, you'll probably know where Brussels is. Head from Bruges to Ghent, and hang a left.

Oddly enough, because of global airline activity, we know that these places are not, in fact, getting farther and farther from each other. It would show up in the fuel bill, if not in the average travel times in, you know, the winds of change. Everyone would be bitching about earth expansion, instead of a few lonely troublemakers on the internet.

Arnold Layne wrote:This is like tag wrestling.

As soon as one goes another takes over.

Maybe toe-tag wrestling would be more apt with all the sockpuppetry.

crank wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:This is like tag wrestling.

As soon as one goes another takes over.

Maybe toe-tag wrestling would be more apt with all the sockpuppetry.

Toe jam football. One thing I can tell you is you got to be free.

Sendraks wrote:

Newstein wrote:
1) ridges stretch along with the expanding earth, so they stay at tje same place.

The same place relative to what? If you think carefully about this, you'll begin to understand the problem with your claims.

Newstein wrote:2) antarctica does not shrink. What we see is a growing plate, a logic result of an Ee

Are none of the other plates shrinking? Because if you find that they are, you will soon realise there is a problem with your claims concerning EE.

No there are no problems with my claims. The stay at the original place. Try to imagine it with a balloon.
All plates are growing.no problems concerning ee

BIG problems when you try to answer my questions apparantly, with plate tectonics impossible

Newstein wrote:Try to imagine it with a balloon.

Yes, Newstein, do try to imagine it with an inflating balloon. Expansion means the balloon is growing. We'll do this one syllable at a time, so you can follow it. Every place on one plate of the balloon is getting farther from every other distant place on another plate of the balloon. We could measure that if it was happening. What you're doing is imagining describing a balloon of constant diameter as an expanding balloon. You should try to make up some other shit, too, like "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth..." That should get you started, get the creationist creative juices flowing.

Newstein wrote:
BIG problems when you try to answer my questions apparantly, with plate tectonics impossible

No, Newstein, you're really just not cut out for serious internet trolling. You need to hone your skills a bit. Try some plate tectonic theory. If there is no subduction, and expansion has been going on for 400 million years, where's the 400 million year old oceanic lithosphere? Probably somewhere up your arse. That's got to hurt.

Newstein wrote:No there are no problems with my claims. The stay at the original place.

The original place relative to what?

Newstein wrote:All plates are growing

Citation?

Newstein wrote:.no problems concerning ee

See, you're saying this as a means to convince yourself. It isn't persuasive to others not already buying into this garbage.

Newstein wrote:Bunch of psychiatrists here.

We have to be. There's so much work.

The capability exists to directly measure ground motion utilizing a number of instruments, a quick search I found this paper, GEOPHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF SATELLITE LASER RANGING MEASUREMENTS OF CRUSTAL MOVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA

This is from way back in 1984 and they could measure 40 and 60 mm/yr. California is chock full of seismic stations that are monitored very closely for positions. The moon has that retroreflector placed by an Apollo mission allowing for extrmemly accurate position measurements on earth of positions. If the earth was expanding, it would be directly measureable and it isn't. I would imagine this too has already been mentioned in this thread.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Newstein wrote:Try to imagine it with a balloon.

Yes, Newstein, do try to imagine it with an inflating balloon. Expansion means the balloon is growing. We'll do this one syllable at a time, so you can follow it. Every place on one plate of the balloon is getting farther from every other distant place on another plate of the balloon. We could measure that if it was happening. What you're doing is imagining describing a balloon of constant diameter as an expanding balloon. You should try to make up some other shit, too, like "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth..." That should get you started, get the creationist creative juices flowing.

Newstein wrote:
BIG problems when you try to answer my questions apparantly, with plate tectonics impossible

No, Newstein, you're really just not cut out for serious internet trolling. You need to hone your skills a bit. Try some plate tectonic theory. If there is no subduction, and expansion has been going on for 400 million years, where's the 400 million year old oceanic lithosphere? Probably somewhere up your arse. That's got to hurt.

No, the expansion started 180-200 million years ago. There was no oceanic floor.
Plate tectonics has to explain why there is no older oceanic crust.
So funny.. those discussions with masons

Sendraks wrote:

Newstein wrote:No there are no problems with my claims. The stay at the original place.

The original place relative to what?

Newstein wrote:All plates are growing

Citation?

Newstein wrote:.no problems concerning ee

See, you're saying this as a means to convince yourself. It isn't persuasive to others not already buying into this garbage.

So you are saying the african plate does not grow? How can it be attached to antarctica once?

Arnold Layne wrote:

Newstein wrote:Bunch of psychiatrists here.

We have to be. There's so much work.

Still, NOBODY can answer my questions

Newstein wrote:So you are saying the african plate does not grow?

Could you quote me where I said anything about Africa?
And I notice you failed to provide a citation for your claim that all the tectonic plates are growing.

Newstein wrote:How can it be attached to antarctica once?

Firstly you're confusing land masses with tectonic plates.
Secondly, by asking this question you're betraying a staggering ignorance about the theory of plate tectonics which effectively makes your question an appeal to incredulity.

Sendraks wrote:

Newstein wrote:So you are saying the african plate does not grow?

Could you quote me where I said anything about Africa?
And I notice you failed to provide a citation for your claim that all the tectonic plates are growing.

Newstein wrote:How can it be attached to antarctica once?

Firstly you're confusing land masses with tectonic plates.
Secondly, by asking this question you're betraying a staggering ignorance about the theory of plate tectonics which effectively makes your question an appeal to incredulity.

Check ocean age scan.
No i don't confusing anything.
I'm not ignorant.
Have you watched my video?

So no citation for your claim that all the plates are growing? Nothing at all?

Saying that you're not confusing anything doesn't magically make the obvious confusion in your posts disappear.

Your posts here are a poor advertisement for why I would want to spend time on your video. I'll watch the video when you provide a citation (that isn't from a laughably biased EE source) that supports your claim that all the tectonic plates are growing.

Sendraks wrote:So no citation for your claim that all the plates are growing? Nothing at all?

Saying that you're not confusing anything doesn't magically make the obvious confusion in your posts disappear.

Your posts here are a poor advertisement for why I would want to spend time on your video. I'll watch the video when you provide a citation (that isn't from a laughably biased EE source) that supports your claim that all the tectonic plates are growing.

Like I said
The age ocean scan proofs it.
At the ridges, new oceanic crust is made.
Check the colors.

Newstein wrote:Like I said

This is not a citation.

Newstein wrote:The age ocean scan proofs it.

Citation?

Newstein wrote:At the ridges, new oceanic crust is made.

Yes, we do know what divergent boundaries are. However, you appear to be operating under the belief that this is it for plate tectonics and appear to be rather uncharitably ignoring the convergent boundaries.

Simply stating what happens at divergent boundaries is not a citation for your assertion that all the tectonic plates are growing.

Newstein wrote:Check the colors.

So many colours, so pretty.

Now, this citation for your claim that all the plates are growing. Is this going to take long to arrive? Is it in the post?

Sendraks wrote:

Newstein wrote:Like I said

This is not a citation.

Newstein wrote:The age ocean scan proofs it.

Citation?

Newstein wrote:At the ridges, new oceanic crust is made.

Yes, we do know what divergent boundaries are. However, you appear to be operating under the belief that this is it for plate tectonics and appear to be rather uncharitably ignoring the convergent boundaries.

Simply stating what happens at divergent boundaries is not a citation for your assertion that all the tectonic plates are growing.

Newstein wrote:Check the colors.

So many colours, so pretty.

Now, this citation for your claim that all the plates are growing. Is this going to take long to arrive? Is it in the post?

I will start posting screenshots of my video to explain it then

If you want the map:

I'm not especially interested as to whether one particular tectonic plate is growing, your claim is that they are ALL growing. In order for them ALL to be growing, all the boundaries would have to be divergent.

I await your citation that all the boundaries between the tectonic plates are divergent.

The same thing happens with the Antarctica plate. It is surrounded by divergent ridges, so new oceanic crust is being formed, so the plate IS GROWING. Somebody with doubts?

See my above comments concerning a citation for ALL the tectonic plates.