Expanding earth theory

[Bildr]

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

here's a web site with a lot of info about the expanding earth theory. your thoughts ?

[ApolloGnomon]

From text below clips on reference link:

To begin with basic stuff.

All science knows…

The earth has two crusts. One…the mostly basalt lower crust or the oceanic crust which is 2 – 4 miles deeper down than the higher upper continental crust. This lower crust, essentially covers the Earth. It … this crust is being made daily at rift cracks that snake around the earth’s mid- oceans. But how could all these rifts continually spread apart…without the Earth growing? Ah….that is the question….isn’t it?

First, the oceanic crust is higher density rock than the continental plates. In essence, the continental plates are floating higher on the magma layer below than is the ocean plates. Then it rained. All the water for billions of years has run downhill and ended up on the lowest terrain, the basaltic crusts, and are now pushing them down further.

When the entire planet was molten the slag fraction floated to the top - similar to arc welding. The heaviest fractions sank to the bottom, leaving the lightest materials on the top.

The second part of this statement is just an argument from incredulity. Apparently the writer is unaware of subduction zones.

[George Ford]

I was blown away by expanding Earth theory. I made all my mates watch it... then I saw this and felt like a twit:-

[Bildr]

well, am i alone or the super-continent of Pangaea seems weird to me? why on hell would only one super massive continent would have existed on earth? Isn't it unlikely to have happened with all the possible earth crust movement in the beginning of it's creation?

Edited August 1, 2011 by Bildr

[Odin11]

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

here's a web site with a lot of info about the expanding earth theory. your thoughts ?

My thoughts? I think anyone who believes in the expanding Earth theory lacks so much intelligence that they must put a cork on the end of their fork so they don’t stab themselves in the eye as they eat.

The man who made that website is a complete moron. Who has never taken a single geology class in his life.

well, am i alone or the super-continent of Pangaea seems weird to me? why on hell would only one super massive continent would have existed on earth? Isn't it unlikely to have happened with all the possible earth crust movement in the beginning of it's creation?

There was more then just Pangaea. There was Rodinia before it and Columbia before that, as well as many other smaller ones throughout time.

[ShadowSot]

well, am i alone or the super-continent of Pangaea seems weird to me? why on hell would only one super massive continent would have existed on earth?

Well, like Odin 11 said, there's been more than just one super-continent. The first one would have been Vaalbara, around 3 billion years ago.

It broke up and reformed into Kenorland, about two point seven billion years ago. Kenorland broke up about two and a half billion years ago into Laurentia, Baltica, Australia, and Kalahari, which then formed into Columbia around two billion years ago, before breaking up aroun one and half or so billion years ago. The pieces came together forming into Rodinia around one billion years ago.

Rodinia broke up about 750 million years later, then the continent came back together and formed the famous Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. Pangaea broke started to break up about 200million years ago, forming Laurasia and Gondwana.

Currently there are three supercontinents, the Americas, Afro-Eurasia, and Eurasia.

in the future we'll see more, supercontinents tend to cycle about 300 to 400 million years.

Isn't it unlikely to have happened with all the possible earth crust movement in the beginning of it's creation?

Not really, there's only so much space on the Earth and there's been lots of time for them to bump into each other.

[Odin11]

Well, like Odin 11 said, there's been more than just one super-continent. The first one would have been Vaalbara, around 3 billion years ago.

It broke up and reformed into Kenorland, about two point seven billion years ago. Kenorland broke up about two and a half billion years ago into Laurentia, Baltica, Australia, and Kalahari, which then formed into Columbia around two billion years ago, before breaking up aroun one and half or so billion years ago. The pieces came together forming into Rodinia around one billion years ago.

Rodinia broke up about 750 million years later, then the continent came back together and formed the famous Pangaea, about 300 million years ago. Pangaea broke started to break up about 200million years ago, forming Laurasia and Gondwana.

Currently there are three supercontinents, the Americas, Afro-Eurasia, and Eurasia.

in the future we'll see more, supercontinents tend to cycle about 300 to 400 million years.

Not really, there's only so much space on the Earth and there's been lots of time for them to bump into each other.

Nice post. I just named two of the big ones off the top of my head because I did not feel like looking up my notes from school. lol

[lostinthecrowd]

This topic gave me a good laugh XD

[Grumpy oldie]

Nice post. I just named two of the big ones off the top of my head because I did not feel like looking up my notes from school. lol

*snip*

The school books you read, is a "convenience" theory, that is to bridge the gap between science and theology. Most of the so called scientists are from religious backgrounds, like christianity or judaism. Neither allows you to exclude the "god element". Most are politically inclined, and therefore cannot exclude these interrests.

Someone said in a statement, that "light" elements floated on top during the earth melt period. This you didn't even have the *snip* to question. If the earth had melted in that way, and the lighter materials floated on top in a melting-factory like manner, we would be digging to the core, to extract uranium. That isn't where we are digging for it, is it. We are actually digging for this heavy metal, in the lighter crust. Same applies for iron, and all other minerals we have.

Neal Adams, does not have it all correct ... but then, a layman like he is. He does have at least an inclination to ask questions, which *snip*.

*snip* Just repeat what you are told, and tought ... you do not have the intellect, to think for yourself.

Beyond just the "heavy metal" stuff floating on top, we have light material inside the earth that is being vented out during vulcanic eruptions. Lava, is actually very light material ... much lighter than the granite crust.

And then you have the mechanism ... you have magnetised plasma (called magma) around an iron core, that is constantly changing directions. It is moving continent a north, continent b south, west north east and god knows where. An impossibility, literally ... that sort of sounds like you have some sort of gear system.

IFF there is an iron nickel core in the center of the earth, the magma is moving in only one direction to create the magnetic field.

But the most fantastic idea, is all the supercontinents. alpha to omega, which are there to supposedly make it sound logical. Like a piece in a puzzle, move north 2 clicks, south 5 clicks, east 1 click, then north 2 clicks, east 1 click ... during these periods we have a working magnetic field ... no, you wouldn't have a working magnetic field if this was correct.

To believe in this crap ... is to be a complete *snip*.

Then we have the latest, the earth is getting fatter at the middle. When I was younger, the earth was thinner at the middle, because it was rotating on it's axis. Now, it's suddenly thicker, because it's spinning on it's axis.

The angular velocity of the earth, can be literally ignored in all calculations, because it does not allter the direction of earths gravitation force.

The earth model, as is being tought, is not just a flop. It's ridiculous. It sounded very good, when I was a child without the intellectual capacity of asking questions, or doubting what I saw or read. To a child, it sounds normal. But once you look at a model of the earth, it doesn't appear this way at all.

You have subduction, which is a total crap ... on one hand, you have the light material floating up. Then you have a light crust, floating on a much denser lover crust, and on top of that all, you have light material being pushed through this dense material, by subduction.

This meachanism, defies even the most basic physics. It's already been stated, that the heaviest material, and densest material is below ... subduction, cannot take place.

It's just a domino that falls upon itself, with so many holes in it ... that it looks like swiss cheese.

Neal Adams, did a hell of a good job in putting those pictures up to make it visible for everyone to see ... what was obvious, from the start. Perhaps Neal Adams doesn't have it 100% correct, but the basics he has correct ... plate tectonics, is just a piece of religious crap, said plainly. And to be so cowardly, that you flock into this religion to kiss your teachers butt, doesn't say much for anyones intellect. Intellectual capacity, derives from being able to ask questions, and go against the crowd ... to follow the crowd, is the way of the true moron. It's the easy way, the way of not having to prove your point. The way of not having to have any facts to support you. You are among a crowd, that will way "sieg heil" to everything you say ... as long as it's follows the religious path.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Anvil
inappropriate comments removed

[ShadowSot]

You are among a crowd, that will way "sieg heil" to everything you say ... as long as it's follows the religious path.

So aside from flicking off Odin 11 were you actually trying to say something with that word salad or just rant and shake your fist?

[Odin11]

So aside from flicking off Odin 11 were you actually trying to say something with that word salad or just rant and shake your fist?

Wow, I dont think Ive ever been equated to a nazi before, especially in a conversation about geology. Have you? lol And it is only his first post. I like how he disputes the Iron Catastrophe(<--caused the differentiation of Earth), clearly without any real understanding of it, but then uses it in his argument against subduction.

He also seems to have a problem with people going to college for education.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Odin11

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

Grumpy oldie- Tone it down. You can communicate yourself far better than that if you actually want others to be receptive to what you're talking about.

Back to the topic and leave the aggressive comments out of it.

Thank you.

[Grumpy oldie]

Grumpy oldie- Tone it down. You can communicate yourself far better than that if you actually want others to be receptive to what you're talking about.

Back to the topic and leave the aggressive comments out of it.

Thank you.

Agreed, I'll tone it down ... sorry for the grumpiness :-)

Expanding earth, is an observation. It's an observed fact, not really a theory. Theories, concernes why, and how much, by which means, etc. Looking at how the continents fit together, is far too obvious. And then coming around with Rodinia, to explain why the continents also fit over the pacific. And then with numerous others, to explain different fits. There was only one continent, and then it broke at different times which explains why you have similar life forms at different places, but with different time scales.

People may find it hard to believe, that it expands. But you forget one big issue, and that is the magma itself. As the magma cools, it expands. Magma leaving it's underground chambers, immediately expands as it comes up on the surface. A cooling planet, would automatically become an expanding planet.

[Oniomancer]

If one thinks for themselves, it shouldn't take them long to realize Adams is talking out his backside.

I would suggest searching the ancient mysteries sub-forum for the topic but I'll summarize again.

To begin with, his notions about subduction don't take variations in relative density into account. First, yes, the crust floats but as computer modeling suggests, it's supported as much by it's surface area as it's lightness. Where it plunges into the mantle though it gets bunched together into denser masses which sink under their own weight, just as a flattened Kleenex will float on water but a balled up one will sink, to use the analogy provided by the modelers. Second, I don't need anyone else to tell me that when crustal rock is subducted, it's colder, therefor more solid and therefor denser then the surrounding magma. The presense of heavy metals in crustal rock is easily explained as even in commercial refining slag will frequently contain a certain amount of entrapped metal caght in and borne up by the lighter slag. Larger deposits are generally the result of upwellings of deep magma during extreme geological events, such as the asteroid impact which created the extensive deposits at Sudbury, Canada.

Adams barely even addresses where the material at the plate boundaries is going and why. Which brings us to another point. If Adams' contention is that the dissappearing boundary material is going under and pushing up the continents, then the entire continent itself should be noticably rising and we should be seeing more mountain building. This idea in itself is not supported by the existence of the abysal plain, which by rights should be a solid mass of seamounts from the pressure of the new crust piling up against the older continental crust.

His very notion of stretched material becoming more wrinkled is peculier all by itself as well as if one assumes uniform expansion, if the old crust is as fixed as he claims, it ought to actually be becoming smoother and or rifting in to new plates along intra-plate faults.

The fact of the matter is that mere expansion cannot account for observed geological evidence such as a piece of the North American gulf coast attatched to western Argentina or independently moving volcanic hotspots, among many other examples.

The earlier video has already dealt with his bizarre, poorly articulated and unsupported take on vacuum fluctuations, along with the evidence of geopositioning technology as applied to the study of geology.

I think it's safe to say that while plate tectonics has a few small problems of it's own, it does a far better job of explaining things then expanding Earth could ever hope to.

[ShadowSot]

Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever been equated to a nazi before, especially in a conversation about geology. Have you?

Can't says I have. Does set the tone for his membership from the get go, eh?

He also seems to have a problem with people going to college for education.

Well, there's me lucky. Closest I've come to a college campus is dropping someone else off at one.

And then coming around with Rodinia, to explain why the continents also fit over the pacific.

Actually it's due to matching geology and fossils that predate pangae and indicate an earlier super continent.

People may find it hard to believe, that it expands. But you forget one big issue, and that is the magma itself. As the magma cools, it expands. Magma leaving it's underground chambers, immediately expands as it comes up on the surface. A cooling planet, would automatically become an expanding planet.

Actually, as magma cools it shrinks.

When the molecules of something are heated to the point where it melts, the atoms spread out, if it receives enough heat they'll spread out and become a gas. The material is also less dense due to the atoms spreading apart, meaning it takes up more space.

When it cools, the atoms contract and the material becomes more dense. It takes up less space and it shrinks.

There's only one material I know of that expands when it freezes, and that's water. The molecules form a crystalline structure, which causes it to expand.It's also why it'll stay a liquid under pressure.

Just walking on ice is enough to cause some of it to melt, which is why it's so difficult to walk on ice, and how ice skates work.

You also mentioned you were taught in school that the Earth was thinner at the equator.

I really doubt this as Earth was described as an oblate spheroid by Isaac Newton.

Now, new observations have shown this to not be completely true either due to varying density of the Earth's surface.

Edited August 6, 2011 by ShadowSot

[Grumpy oldie]

If one thinks for themselves, it shouldn't take them long to realize Adams is talking out his backside.

I would suggest searching the ancient mysteries sub-forum for the topic but I'll summarize again.

To begin with, his notions about subduction don't take variations in relative density into account.

I agree, that the topic is far too popular amongs cultists ... that is unavoidable. Although I admit, it is fun to read the cult pages at times.

But what you are talking defies physics, plain and simple. You are talking about a perpetual machine ... it's an oxymoron. Sure, Adams is not a physicist, and his failing is primarily that he is on the defensive instead of focusing on making a model.

And the fact that you have people with seeming intelligence, talking about this perpetual machine as a fact is outrageous. Like the Big Bang, an equilibrium in the Universe is suddenly disrubted, by ... who? the touch of God? And when explained, it's explained in a biblical manner ... Universe was created from Big Bang in 7 days. It's outrageous to have these religious liars and lunatics to be basically running the scientific community.

Plate Tectonics is the same thing, over and over again you have this "theory" stranded. Pangea was created, because the continents obviously fittet over the Atlantic. Then Rodinia was created, because it was proven that they also fittet over the pacific by taking specimens from sealife. Everything to continue the road, of a constant earth ... which fits the "creation" theology.

Lunatic theories like Nibiru, Nephilim all fit well into this Plate Tectonics. Because it leaves all these elements as "mysteries". They are no mysteries. There is no mystery why the Dynosaurs got erased ... it wasn't God, that acted on the earth by throwing a rock like the "Bugs" in Star Trooper and destroyed them. It's just basic physics, they could neither migrate, nor adapt to a changing earth. There is no nephilim that walked the earth, they were human predesessors with greater height because of "non constant gravity". The Egyptians didn't murder slaves by the thousands of billions and trillions to build the Pyramids and the sphynx, just as with the statues on the Easter Island that were abandoned ... stones in those days were much lighter building material, because of a "non constant gravity".

None of these things are mysteries, but if you start getting scientific about these things ... you'll end up with the bible being a holy book of liars. And that is why you have plate tectonics, and a lot of other inconsistensies in science, such as search for "the God element".

Now, for the perpetual machine ... the earths core, is not a nuclear oven (or should I nukular so the bushmen will understand?) In the case it isn't, it is merely en enclaved heat sourse ... that is cooling down. As such, all force escaping from the core is basically escaping outward. The preassurised force inside the earth, that may move the lithosphere (I wish to state, english is not my first language) is run on a machine, that is slowly and surely going out of fuel, and always running slower and slower. Any energy that escapes it, through movement or vent, will need an external force to re-enter. Gravity will not make it, because it needed an extra push to escape, and any collection and saving of energy in the crust, by friction, will be outward pointed, because of the greater density of the layers below. Thus, an extra terrestrial force is needed to push it in ... again, the "God element".

It defies physics, it's like putting a thin paper on a table, then have a book on one end and trying to push it under by tucking a finger under and trying to move it under the book ... the paper will crumble, plain and simple. Even if put in any other contrast, with water on top of the paper as a push, etc. The paper will always crumble, and even if it will go under the book ... if we are lucky. It will still not go INTO the table. And whatever extra force you put on the book, will result easier crumbling of the paper ... and it will not result in subduction. Because the lower layers have greater density, and thus are basically harder material. In the case of a melting pot, the hot material is of lesser density than floating objects, that therefore can sink. In the case of the earth, the magma is a compressed plasma source that is going from solidified plasma, to liquified plasma, and escaping a vent in the earth and immediately expanding in volume.

And subduction is now referred to as "overriding", because after the Japan earthquake it was observed, that the crust is actually running over the ocean crust, and not the other way around.

And don't say it is tantamount to the same thing, because it isn't ...

And finally, you have dissipation of heat, that has occurred for billions of years ... I'm not gonna go there, I'll just say that I am sick and tired of religious fanatics running the scientific community. Our lives, as a human race, relies on our knowledge and to have knowledge dictated by people who have an agenda like religion, or "race" is absolutely unacceptable.

Focus your energy on the observed facts ... the continents all fit together on a smaller globe. This is a fact, an observed fact, and any disbute of this. Is simply ravings, and annoying. From there you can start creating theories as of how, when and by what means ... but this simple ovserved fact, is not disputable. Except by raving religious fanatics, that just must have their God element in there somewhere.

Stop supporting mystery theatre 2000, because it sells books ... dynosaurs did not mysteriously die, because of an extinction level event, that may or may not occur in the future. It sells a lot of books, and sells a lot of hollywood theatre tickets, but it is far from reality. We love mysteries and fantasies, but keep it out of the scientific community ... these are normal events, because of an ever changing earth, non constant gravity. Life has changed, according to earth changes, and is therefore a variety of formations.

I loved to see Charlton Heston, when he hosted the mystery science episodes. And I also loved to see him play Noah and Ben Hur, but they are fantasy stories and we are not here to alter science to support their fantasy books.

Science is to explain observed facts, that the earth crust fits on a smaller globe, is an observed fact.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Grumpy oldie

[Oniomancer]

I agree, that the topic is far too popular amongs cultists ... that is unavoidable. Although I admit, it is fun to read the cult pages at times.

But what you are talking defies physics, plain and simple. You are talking about a perpetual machine ... it's an oxymoron. Sure, Adams is not a physicist, and his failing is primarily that he is on the defensive instead of focusing on making a model.

And the fact that you have people with seeming intelligence, talking about this perpetual machine as a fact is outrageous. Like the Big Bang, an equilibrium in the Universe is suddenly disrubted, by ... who? the touch of God? And when explained, it's explained in a biblical manner ... Universe was created from Big Bang in 7 days. It's outrageous to have these religious liars and lunatics to be basically running the scientific community.

It's not perpetual motion because all the evidence suggests the convection itself is being powered by a persistent but finite energy source, primarily heat from radioactive decay. (possibly very finite if you subscribe to the Radioactive Earth theory) If there was as much trouble with the physics as you say, It would've been self-evident and noticeable long ago.

Plate Tectonics is the same thing, over and over again you have this "theory" stranded. Pangea was created, because the continents obviously fittet over the Atlantic. Then Rodinia was created, because it was proven that they also fittet over the pacific by taking specimens from sealife. Everything to continue the road, of a constant earth ... which fits the "creation" theology.

I'm assuming you're referring to the doctrinal view of conventional theory rather than biblical creation.

The fact again is that we have observable instances of puzzle pieces of mis-matched terrains which cannot be explained except by continents bouncing around like billiards. East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet unless you move them around a bit. The evidence supports multiple configurations. The expansion model does not.

Lunatic theories like Nibiru, Nephilim all fit well into this Plate Tectonics. Because it leaves all these elements as "mysteries". They are no mysteries. There is no mystery why the Dynosaurs got erased ... it wasn't God, that acted on the earth by throwing a rock like the "Bugs" in Star Trooper and destroyed them. It's just basic physics, they could neither migrate, nor adapt to a changing earth. There is no nephilim that walked the earth, they were human predesessors with greater height because of "non constant gravity". The Egyptians didn't murder slaves by the thousands of billions and trillions to build the Pyramids and the sphynx, just as with the statues on the Easter Island that were abandoned ... stones in those days were much lighter building material, because of a "non constant gravity".

Even if that were likely, we'd be talking about an extremely gradual process, progressing on the order of geologic time. Highly unlikely to effect anything that significantly over the brief span of human development, especially not such cultures and their works as compass at most a few hundred years. The pyramids in particular change dramatically virtually in a single generation.

None of these things are mysteries, but if you start getting scientific about these things ... you'll end up with the bible being a holy book of liars. And that is why you have plate tectonics, and a lot of other inconsistensies in science, such as search for "the God element".

Now, for the perpetual machine ... the earths core, is not a nuclear oven (or should I nukular so the bushmen will understand?) In the case it isn't, it is merely en enclaved heat sourse ... that is cooling down. As such, all force escaping from the core is basically escaping outward. The preassurised force inside the earth, that may move the lithosphere (I wish to state, english is not my first language) is run on a machine, that is slowly and surely going out of fuel, and always running slower and slower. Any energy that escapes it, through movement or vent, will need an external force to re-enter. Gravity will not make it, because it needed an extra push to escape, and any collection and saving of energy in the crust, by friction, will be outward pointed, because of the greater density of the layers below. Thus, an extra terrestrial force is needed to push it in ... again, the "God element".

You're half getting it. See above. We know the system is not self contained, so no need for a "God element". The known simplified physical behavior of matter under heat and pressure takes care of the rest.

It defies physics, it's like putting a thin paper on a table, then have a book on one end and trying to push it under by tucking a finger under and trying to move it under the book ... the paper will crumble, plain and simple. Even if put in any other contrast, with water on top of the paper as a push, etc. The paper will always crumble, and even if it will go under the book ... if we are lucky. It will still not go INTO the table. And whatever extra force you put on the book, will result easier crumbling of the paper ... and it will not result in subduction. Because the lower layers have greater density, and thus are basically harder material. In the case of a melting pot, the hot material is of lesser density than floating objects, that therefore can sink. In the case of the earth, the magma is a compressed plasma source that is going from solidified plasma, to liquified plasma, and escaping a vent in the earth and immediately expanding in volume.

But in this case the resistence of the table is not equal to that of the book but rather less that of the paper.

No matter how you slice it, if the earth is expanding, it's doing it unequally and thus illogically. If every point of contact between plates amounts to an escape point for fresh matter, why is it pushing at all, and only in some areas? Why if there is constant uniform pressure from below is the old, stiff crust not fracturing because of it?

And subduction is now referred to as "overriding", because after the Japan earthquake it was observed, that the crust is actually running over the ocean crust, and not the other way around.

And don't say it is tantamount to the same thing, because it isn't ...

This is not new terminology. This concept has been in place for decades and is an intrinsic part of plate tectonics theory.

And finally, you have dissipation of heat, that has occurred for billions of years ... I'm not gonna go there, I'll just say that I am sick and tired of religious fanatics running the scientific community. Our lives, as a human race, relies on our knowledge and to have knowledge dictated by people who have an agenda like religion, or "race" is absolutely unacceptable.

The physics on this is sound as well. You start trying to mess with the basic radiant and insulative properties of matter as we know them and you might as well be trying to change the universe to match the theory.

Focus your energy on the observed facts ... the continents all fit together on a smaller globe. This is a fact, an observed fact, and any disbute of this. Is simply ravings, and annoying. From there you can start creating theories as of how, when and by what means ... but this simple ovserved fact, is not disputable. Except by raving religious fanatics, that just must have their God element in there somewhere.

I am observing the facts, and there are too many pieces that don't fit Adams' view that are being discarding as inconvenient.

Stop supporting mystery theatre 2000, because it sells books ...

Wait, what? Oh, I see. An apt comparison, because from where I'm sitting, Adams is doing a good impersonation of Ed Wood. His ideas stagger around aimlessly like Tor Johnson in a makeshift graveyard, ultimately achieving nothing but unintentional laughter from viewers.

dynosaurs did not mysteriously die, because of an extinction level event, that may or may not occur in the future. It sells a lot of books, and sells a lot of hollywood theatre tickets, but it is far from reality. We love mysteries and fantasies, but keep it out of the scientific community ... these are normal events, because of an ever changing earth, non constant gravity. Life has changed, according to earth changes, and is therefore a variety of formations.

Yes, and I suppose it's a coincidence all those megafauna (not just the dinosaurs) just happened to die in neat little pulses accompanied by more than half the other lifeforms of the time regardless of size.

I loved to see Charlton Heston, when he hosted the mystery science episodes. And I also loved to see him play Noah and Ben Hur, but they are fantasy stories and we are not here to alter science to support their fantasy books.

...Or anyone else's.

Science is to explain observed facts, that the earth crust fits on a smaller globe, is an observed fact.

Everybody has to start somewhere, even planets. It's where they go from there, and how they get there, that makes the difference.

[Grumpy oldie]

Actually, as magma cools it shrinks.

I don't know what to say here ... don't want to sound rude, and say you are an idiot, but I'll come close. I am amazed at how you come to this conclusion. This is the most ignorant statement I have ever read.

Magma, is magnetised plasma. Plasma is ionised gas, that when inside the earth it is in compressed heated form, which is closer to liquid or solid (depending on how deep in the earth), but when cooled will seek it's gaseous state.

When a vulcanic eruption happens, the first to come out are the gases that spew with it a lot of ash from molten rock and vapourised water. Beneath it, is the magma ... the magma isn't moving there, it is like yeast ... when, and if, the coast is clear, it expands like yeast and when it turns into solid it is full of microscopic holes from the gases that have escaped. Just like bread, that has been baked in an oven. The enormous expansion of the magma, will seek to close up the vent.

I suggest you go to the next lava sight, and take a close look ... maybe you will learn something, of what is happening during it. And please, do not come here and say you know ... BECAUSE YOU DON'T. Don't come and say how much you have read either, the satement above, is the most ignorant thing I have ever read.

Take a close look at lava rock, the ash rock that is spewed out is small rocks, which are very light. They are perfect for using to clean up oil spills, because of their microscopic holes that will fill with the oil. Lava is the same thing ... even a child, should be able to see it. It's not a disputable theory, it's an observed fact.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Grumpy oldie

[digitalartist]

I don't know what to say here ... don't want to sound rude, and say you are an idiot, but I'll come close. I am amazed at how you come to this conclusion. This is the most ignorant statement I have ever read.

Magma, is magnetised plasma. Plasma is ionised gas, that when inside the earth it is in compressed heated form, which is closer to liquid or solid (depending on how deep in the earth), but when cooled will seek it's gaseous state.

When a vulcanic eruption happens, the first to come out are the gases that spew with it a lot of ash from molten rock and vapourised water. Beneath it, is the magma ... the magma isn't moving there, it is like yeast ... when, and if, the coast is clear, it expands like yeast and when it turns into solid it is full of microscopic holes from the gases that have escaped. Just like bread, that has been baked in an oven. The enormous expansion of the magma, will seek to close up the vent.

I suggest you go to the next lava sight, and take a close look ... maybe you will learn something, of what is happening during it. And please, do not come here and say you know ... BECAUSE YOU DON'T. Don't come and say how much you have read either, the satement above, is the most ignorant thing I have ever read.

Take a close look at lava rock, the ash rock that is spewed out is small rocks, which are very light. They are perfect for using to clean up oil spills, because of their microscopic holes that will fill with the oil. Lava is the same thing ... even a child, should be able to see it. It's not a disputable theory, it's an observed fact.

Magma is molten material beneath or within the earth's crust, from which igneous rock is formed when the magma cools. I have found no information so far that indicates that magma is magnetized plasma.

I als have found nothing so far to indicate that plasma is found within the earth itself. Checking the wiki I see the common terrestrial plasmas do not occur below the earths surface. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29

If you have links to sites with information concerning either please post them so I can check them out.

[ShadowSot]

I've seen lava, and I've seen it cool to rock. It shrinks. it is not plasma.

[Oniomancer]

I don't know what to say here ... don't want to sound rude, and say you are an idiot, but I'll come close. I am amazed at how you come to this conclusion. This is the most ignorant statement I have ever read.

Magma, is magnetised plasma. Plasma is ionised gas, that when inside the earth it is in compressed heated form, which is closer to liquid or solid (depending on how deep in the earth), but when cooled will seek it's gaseous state.

let's assume this is true of magma for a moment, leaving aside the question of vapor pressure and whatnot. What happens as it continues to cool? If it's like most any other matter we've observed under real-world conditions, it continues to change phase and condense (key word) from superfluid (plasma) to gas to liquid and finally to solid. This isn't even basic physics 101, it's grade school earth science 101.

When a vulcanic eruption happens, the first to come out are the gases that spew with it a lot of ash from molten rock and vapourised water. Beneath it, is the magma ... the magma isn't moving there, it is like yeast ... when, and if, the coast is clear, it expands like yeast and when it turns into solid it is full of microscopic holes from the gases that have escaped. Just like bread, that has been baked in an oven. The enormous expansion of the magma, will seek to close up the vent.

Yes, it expands under pressure when it's in a hot, liquified state, in part because of that same gas, then it contracts again as it cools and solidifies, as shadowsot said.

I suggest you go to the next lava sight, and take a close look ... maybe you will learn something, of what is happening during it. And please, do not come here and say you know ... BECAUSE YOU DON'T. Don't come and say how much you have read either, the satement above, is the most ignorant thing I have ever read.

Take a close look at lava rock, the ash rock that is spewed out is small rocks, which are very light. They are perfect for using to clean up oil spills, because of their microscopic holes that will fill with the oil. Lava is the same thing ... even a child, should be able to see it. It's not a disputable theory, it's an observed fact.

We're not talking about fine ash, or explosively gassified lava like pumice. We're talking about solid flow deposits of rocks like basalt and andesite. And don't try and bring up vesicular basalt. Not only is not the rule but even that's fairly dense in between the gas pockets.

That overriding you cited before is the result of lighter rocks riding over denser oceanic lavas.