Any discussion of how an expanding earth can occur that doesn’t deal with densities before and after expansion, misses the obvious.

Firstly, just an FYI, the ‘P’ in P-wave does not stand for pressure. P-waves are the first, or ‘primary’, seismic waves to arrive. S waves, also known as shear waves, arrive next and are therefore ‘secondary’. See here.

Re the bathy maps/profiles, you state: “There seems to be a corollary between depth of trench and the distance between the trench and the mountain range as well as the height and bulk of the mountains.”

I wish you had quantified this part, I had a difficult time following your description of what was what. By ‘height’, you mean the elevation difference? And, you will definitely have to define, and ideally quantify, what you mean by ‘bulk’.

Regarding distances between trench and arc, here are the numbers I came up with (in ascending order):

Nankai (Fig. 6b) – 160 km
Aluetian (Fig. 4b) – 165 km
Mariana (Fig. 5b) – 200 km
Sunda (Fig. 3b) – 260 km
Chile trench (Fig. 2b) – 260 km
Cascadia (Fig. 1b) – 310 km

If you do mean elevation difference between trench and arc (instead of ‘height’), then I came up with (in descending order):

Chile – 10500 ft
Mariana – 7500 ft
Aluetian – 7200 ft
Sunda – 6800 ft
Nankai – 5550 ft
Cascadia – 4000 ft

(*note: these numbers aren’t precise down to the foot, but within a couple hundred feet. I did them quickly, you could re-do them if you want [I provide scales on all profiles])

You then say: “It seems that the closer the volcanic mountains are to the trench, the higher and more active the volcanic vents, and the greater the bulk, the deeper the trench.”

I suppose the Cascadia fits your relationship, but don’t really see it anywhere else. You will need to quantify your other parameter – ‘bulk’. Ideally, one would then do this for numerous transects across the boundaries (they change along strike) and for all the boundaries of this type. Perhaps then you’ll find a robust relationship.

But … fair enough … you looked at the data, came up with a relationship (that I couldn’t reproduce, but anyway), and proposed an explanation. As I said above, at least you put the work in!

-

You say: “Because basaltic crust is brittle, the more it has to “stretch” and curve as it wraps around the edge of the continent or volcanic arc, the more it fractures allowing hot magma to extrude and erupt up though it, this further weakens the basaltic crust allowing it to flap-up like a “crease”…”

You mention the brittleness of basaltic crust several times. Are you saying that basalt that is 10s to 100s km deep in the Earth is more brittle than continentental crust at the surface? Maybe, I’m misunderstanding. Also, I didn’t take the time to look it up, but researchers have done experiments on rocks of many compositions investigating under what conditions they would fracture in a brittle fashion. Of course, temperature and pressue have a huge influence on this. I’m sure a basic structural geology textbook has the necessary charts and information … this might shed some light on your brittle basalt hypothesis.

You say: “volcanoes are not the product of basaltic oceanic crust “driving down” under the continental crust, rather the vocanoes are a product of fracturing in the basaltic oceanic crust as it stretches and curves under the mountain ranges because of the brittle nature of the basaltic crust under the bulk (weight) of the mountains.”

So, the oceanic crust gets under the continent because it is brittle? I don’t get it. If it is ‘stretching’ under the continent, isn’t its relative motion then going under the continent? My readers will definitely be interested in having you expand and clarify.

-

You say: “Figure 7. of the Nankai Trough and Kumano Basin doesn’t provide any evidence that Subduction is happening in that areaa, at best it suggest that there is some compression, but without Subduction.”

So, you agree that the area, which has been termed accretionary wedge (you can call it whatever you like), is formed from compression? Good, we are in agreement. You already know what conventional theory says regarding the mechanism for that compression (i.e., plate convergence) – I’m curious how you envision compressional deformation w/in the context of your no-subduction model. Care to elaborate?

You say: “Figure 8. the slumping also doesn’t provide any evidence of subduction, rather, it suggests “sluffing” of the face, or it could be described as collasping of the face of the continental edge …”

Of course slumping, by itself, doesn’t indicate subduction. I never said it did, don’t play that game … it’s a waste of everybody’s time. It’s not my figure, I didn’t take the time to redraft it and remove annotation. The slumping does indicate a high-relief and active submarine slope with material that can relatively easily slump (i.e., sediment not rock)… but, you’re right, that by itself doesn’t address subduction.

You say: “Where basaltic oceanic crust comes into contact with continental crust, because the basaltic crust is denser, continental crust can be and likely will be displaced.”

Are you saying that denser basaltic crust is uplifting and displacing the overlying continental crust?

You say re the seismicity distribution: “Because of the depth of continental crust, this in turn allows magma to rise causing seismic activity.”

Because of the depth? What depth of continental crust? Again, I’m sorry … I’m simply not understanding you. I don’t want to misunderstand and then mis-state you. Also, the bottom map (Fig. 10b) shows just the deep events … what makes those areas different than the shallow events, which are distributed along all plate boundaries?

You say: “Figure 11. is a cool color image, but doesn’t provide anymore data or observations than figure 9. that indicate basaltic oceanic crust is driving under the continent. An equally valid interpretation is that basaltic oceanic crust is elevating in the stratagrphic column because the continent is no longer sitting on top of it.”

Elevating from what? Is it formed much deeper and rises as a semi-coherent slab? I don’t get it.

You say: “Figure 13. doesn’t shed a lot of light on subduction, but it suggests there is some degree of compression along both the Pacfic and Atlantic coast of Costa Rica.”

You say: “Figure 14. shows in the darker green shaded area at the bottom of the diagram upthrusting wedges as a result of fracturing of the basaltic oceanic crust as it elevates upward after the continental crust’s bulk ceases to weight it down”

Maybe I’m starting to understand your idea here … you are saying that the oceanic crust, when it fractures, thrusts itself up resulting in this imbricate fold-thrust belt? I don’t see how fracturing, which you say above is from stretching, produces upward-thrusting like this? There are fold-thrust belts on continents (i.e., not involving oceanic crust) that show similar geometries, are you saying they form under an analogous mechanism?

Finally, you say: “In summary, an alternate interpretation can be made of these geologic features…”

I agree, alternate interpretations can be made. I’m glad you offered yours to everybody. But, I hope you don’t think you’re done … proposing the idea is just the beginning. There are tons of ways to now test your ideas. I’ll be excited to see how you will do that.

Good question. According to Expanding Earth theory, the Earth produced grantitic crust which entirely covered a smaller globe, at some point in geologic time, perhaps around 180 m.y.a., for an unknown reason the Earth began producing basaltic crust (even under the continents) which is denser and more brittle than granitic crust, thus the granitic crust was pushed up from underneath. At some point not only did it form underneath, but also rose and erupted to the surface at the spreading ridges which now total about 40,000 miles in length.

Moving on to the specific data and observations, the basaltic crust is denser and more brittle than grantitic continental crust as reflected by the P waves shown in figure 9. This diagram shows the denser oceanic crust in dark blue. “P” stands for pressure.

In this next section I focus on the vocanic ranges and trenches depicted in the various figures and discuss and analyse the relationships between their distance, height, and bulk.

Looking at figure 1a. the distance between the volcanic mountain range (Cascade Range) and the area of alleged subduction is the farthest distance among the figures presented. Next comes figure 6a. from Japan, and then figure 3a, from Sumatra. next comes figure 2a. from South America, and then figure 4a. from the Aleutian Arc and finally the figure 5a. of the Mariana trench.

What is the organizing principle in this order?

It seems that the closer the volcanic mountains are to the trench, the higher and more active the volcanic vents, and the greater the bulk, the deeper the trench.

Starting in reverse order from the Mariana Trench in figure 5b. notice how it shows that the vocanic range is right next to the trench, and the height, not accounting for sea level, is substantial, as well as its bulk. Then in figure 4b. the Aleutian Arc volcanoes are slighly farther away from the trench and the trench is a little less deep, but it is an “active” volcanic range with a well defined volcanic ridge and again substantial bulk. Then figure 2b. shows the the distance and height of the Andes Mountain Range. Again notice that the bulk and hight is slightly farther away than either the Mariana’s example or the Aleutian’s example. Figure 3b. shows the Sumatra distance, hight and bulk, The actual mountains seem relatively small, but the face of the plate is vertical, suggesting relative “youth”. In figure 6b. from Japan, again the mountain height and bulk is relatively subdued compared to the deeper trenches and its trench is also minimal, but it does have a fairly steep face. Figure 1b. shows the cascade range and as noted before, the distance is greatest, there is less height and less bulk (with little or no trench noted).

There seems to be a corollary between depth of trench and the distance between the trench and the mountain range as well as the height and bulk of the mountains.

Why is this relevant?

It goes back to the quality of the basaltic oceanic crust and as previously argued how it wraps (arches) around the edge of the continental plate or island arc. Because basaltic crust is brittle, the more it has to “stretch” and curve as it wraps around the edge of the continent or volcanic arc, the more it fractures allowing hot magma to extrude and erupt up though it, this further weakens the basaltic crust allowing it to flap-up like a “crease”, also the deeper the grantitic crust reaches down (is thicker), the more bulk, the more the basaltic crust “creases” or hinges up from a deeper level in the stratigraphic column. The Cascade Range is furthest from the alledged subduction zone and is a shallow moutain range with less bulk so the basaltic crust has more distance to curve up, allwoing for a more gentle upslope and it doesn’t start at as deep a level on the stratigraphic column. The Mariana Trench has the closest mountains with the deepest base in the continental crust (significant bulk), therefore the basaltic crust “hinges” from the deepest level on the stratigraphic column of all the figures shown.

In figuure 9., volcanoes are not the product of basaltic oceanic crust “driving down” under the continental crust, rather the vocanoes are a product of fracturing in the basaltic oceanic crust as it stretches and curves under the mountain ranges because of the brittle nature of the basaltic crust under the bulk (weight) of the mountains. The “P” wave diagrams in figure 9. suggest that the basaltic oceanic crust never undergoes wholesale melting as it gets deeper on the stratigraphic column under the continents. Subduction theory relies on the idea that the basaltic oceanic crust melts and is reabsorbed into the mantle. The “P” wave diagrams don’t provide any evidence that is indeed happening. In addition, it is understood that the mantle itself, below the basaltic oceanic crust does not melt wholesale either, but at best undergoes partial-melt in limited areas. Certainly not to the extent required by Subduction theory. The “P” wave diagrams in figure 9. don’t provide and evidence that the mantle is undergoing wholesale melting either.

Figure 7. of the Nankai Trough and Kumano Basin doesn’t provide any evidence that Subduction is happening in that areaa, at best it suggest that there is some compression, but without Subduction. The steep face suggests little deformation in that area which would come with subduction.

Figure 8. the slumping also doesn’t provide any evidence of subduction, rather, it suggests “sluffing” of the face, or it could be described as collasping of the face of the continental edge due to seismic and volcanic activity as a result of fracturing and fissuring of the basaltic oceanic crust allowing some magma to “push up” displacing less dense continental grantitic crust. Where basaltic oceanic crust comes into contact with continental crust, because the basaltic crust is denser, continental crust can be and likely will be displaced.

Figure 10. shows seismic activity in the Pacific Basin. The most seismic activity and the deepest activity happens in areas with the most active and deepest rooted volcanic systems. Again, that is because the basaltic oceanic crust has suffered the most stretching and deformation, causing fissuring. Because of the depth of continental crust, this in turn allows magma to rise causing seismic activity. Eathquake activity by itself provides no evidence that subduction is happening. It only shows there is vocanic activity and mountain building activity which by themselves again says nothing about whether subduction is happening or not.

Figure 11. is a cool color image, but doesn’t provide anymore data or observations than figure 9. that indicate basaltic oceanic crust is driving under the continent. An equally valid interpretation is that basaltic oceanic crust is elevating in the stratagrphic column because the continent is no longer sitting on top of it. There is serpentinite diapir formation suggesting hydrothermal activity, possibly abiotic oil generation. Notice the vertical fault lines under the serpentinite diapir formation, this is a product of faulting and fracturing because of the deformation and stretching of the crust, and the brittle basaltic crust elevates because it ceases to be covered by the weight and bulk of the continental crust (even though it is less dense).

See the reverse horizontal arch under the orogenic mountains in figure 11. This is a result of the added weight pressing down on the material causing the reverse arch.

Figure 12. shows the “broken and fragmented” nature of that section displayed in the image. It is an inconsistent pattern providing little imformation that directly shows subduction (I understand Tonga is where almost all geologists, even Expanding Earth geologists believe at least some subduction is occuring), it’s just that particular image reveals little information.

Figure 13. doesn’t shed a lot of light on subduction, but it suggests there is some degree of compression along both the Pacfic and Atlantic coast of Costa Rica.

Figure 14. shows in the darker green shaded area at the bottom of the diagram upthrusting wedges as a result of fracturing of the basaltic oceanic crust as it elevates upward after the continental crust’s bulk ceases to weight it down. There is also a possibility of upward pressure from the mantle level causing the dark green shaded wedges. It would seem these features are not consistent with slab-pull down which is necessary for Subduction theory. This fracturing would also encourage slumping which is seen above the dark green shaded area in the tan shaded area with multiple verticle fracture lines. The credit in the figure, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/FutureSupply/MethaneHydrates/about-hydrates/nankai-trough, suggests the upward migration of minerals (oil) and hydrothermals which further suggests, rather than oceanic crust driving down under the continental crust, that oceanic crust is fracturing and fissuring from being “stretched”, while being relatively static, allowing heated water to rise after being heated in the deep crust.

In summary, an alternate interpretation can be made of these geologic features because the diagrams, maps, and images don’t provide data and observations that compel an observer to conclude that subduction is happening. Rather, at every corner it’s assumed subduction occurs, so that even though a feature is ambiguous as to oceanic basaltic crustal movement (function), subduction is given the benefit of the doubt, and in several cases outlined above this benefit of the doubt goes against the weight of the evidence leading to the unwarranted and erroneous conclusion that subduction occurs.

Subduction can’t be concluded from the above data and observations because an equally plausible interpretation consistent with the data and observations can be made without reference to the supposed subduction mechanism.

Why is the oceanic crust under the continent? If it formed at a spreading center, how did it get under the continent?