MrGamma

Experiments since then have also measured within their error of 0.

There is a history of the measurements taken over history on this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

Not one of those experiments hit their expected fringe shift. IN fact... All of them were under their estimates. Example...

Joos in 1930

Fringe shift expected 0.75

Fringe shift measured 0.002

Nobody has hit their mark in all of history.

What exactly is a fringe shift in relation to the sun? What is it? And why do experiments continually fall under their estimates?

If it's undetectable, unseen, unidentified and un-affecting-anything, then it's unnecessary and unimportant.

I completely understand that it's not needed... I'm just wondering what the measurement was that he found. It was proportional to the square of the velocity. And the measurement according to Einstein effects how Special Relativity and General Relativity works.

Was the measurement really nothing? If so... Why two different relativity theories. Is it common place to throw away a measurement whose proportion is square to the speed of the velocity?

Does one theory work with a frame of reference while the other doesn't? The experiment was trying to find the aether in relation to the sun. Doesn't this in itself imply that the sun would be the center of our universe?

I thought it was what they DIDN'T find that was important.

Well if they found "Nothing"... then why are there two separate theories... One which work with "nothing"... and one which works without "nothing"...

Clearly... if there was "nothing" then there would be no need to make two different "algorithms"... correct?

Whatever he found was "proportional to the square of the velocity" and they were trying to detect movement relative to the sun... so... what did they find?

While you wait for replies I suggest searching the forums, as we have had many a discussion on the MM experiment. Some of those threads may help.

Thank you... Sometimes I overlook the obvious... I found this in one of the threads...

"By the context of his speech, it appears that Einstein says the following two things:

 

1) Special Relativity does not disprove the existence of an Ether. That was always known: Ether is just simply NO LONGER NECESSARY in the formulation of Electromagnetism, according to SR.

 

2) In General Relativity, spacetime interacts with matter. And it is this concept of spacetime that Einstein names "Ether" in his 1920 text."

So I guess my questions are... What did Michealson-Morely find? Is it nothing more than a "frame of reference"? Or is it something like the electro-magnetic interference from the sun? It must be something... right?

Michelson Morley ran an experiment using an interferometer to look for the aether relative to the earth's sun.

He found a displacement which was proportional to the square of the velocity...

If the aether was relative to the sun. Effectively this experiment found a displacement pattern which is visible within the light spectrum but relative to the sun. Correct? What did he find which was thrown away as experimental error?

Any help would be much appreciated as I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

The universe is not expanding or contracting, it stays the same.

You would probably be interested in researching plasma universe theories which lean towards a steady state universe... the history of the big bang... NGC 7603 Quasar which contests the red-shift theory... ect ect...

Also... They are trying to find dark matter with bigger and better particle accelerators... They might do it... They might not...

Peopleare also contesting the Galelio Gravity theories...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/06may_lunarranging.htm

It's essentially your task to prove everybody wrong... which will be impossible for the most part since science subscribes to a maintstream belief... everyone else being a crackpot ( when really they are the ying to the yang )... so it goes...

There are other people exploring the possibilities of the steady state universe with matter generation at the earths core, "Expanding Earth" and "Growing Earth"

There are people contesting the volcanic level extinction events throughout history vs comet meteor collisions... Something worth looking into to see how mathematical constructs can compete with physical evidence...

The fact that the CMBR has a black body spectrum basically shows that it wasn't caused by a plasma, so is a BIG setback....

Isn't a black body another way of saying "nothing is there". How does nothing prove anything? I ask because I don't understand and others have mentioned the CBM to be false.

This series suggests that red-shift is more of an optical illusion rather than a means to gauge distance with doppler.

Cosmology Quest - Critique of Cosmology - Pt1 of 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Pme3XL1AA

I was wondering if this is a popular theory or if it basically has no possibility. If it's already been talked about then my apologies.

Specifically... Could this be possible? If not... why? I would like to research it more but would like trained minds to give insight as to it's legitimacy.

Cosmology Quest 2 - Plasma Cosmology - Part 1 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEbatH0ssYE

Cosmology Quest 2 - Plasma Cosmology - Part 2 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wchV5R9NhqY

Cosmology Quest 2 - Plasma Cosmology - Part 3 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy39vI41kF4

Cosmology Quest 2 - Plasma Cosmology - Part 4 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBAUqLIT4k8

Cosmology Quest 2 - Plasma Cosmology - Part 5 of 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-4jPllBldM

Thank you... Enjoy...

I would appreciate any opinion (with reasons).

I am sorry I cannot join you on the math side of things ( still learning ) but I can offer you a place to look in history. Maybe it will give you ideas?

The Michelson–Morley experiment was an attempt to find the Aether.

This same interference pattern went on to create a laser interferometer gyroscope which can innately detect spin and orientation. Properties which might be gravitational in nature.

Perhaps the interference pattern is worth investigating?

Is wasn't my intention to not make sense. I am only trying to figure out the nature of the experiment. Some people have told me they didn't find anything while the wiki says an interference measurement was found which lead to the invention of lasers.

"In recent times versions of the Michelson–Morley experiment have become commonplace. Lasers and masers amplify light by repeatedly bouncing it back and forth inside a carefully tuned cavity, thereby inducing high-energy atoms in the cavity to give off more light."

I drew a premature assumption because I do not fully understand the concept. I am only trying to understand the dynamics of physical things and how they translate to physics. I thought that the interference pattern was a "shift" in the angles of light. It is also mentioned in this thread that gravity is the curvature of space time. I thought perhaps the shift in the light was focusing of beams so they adjust for that shift and bend "straight" and the interference which was phased out was not an aether but rather the gravity interference of the sun.

What did he find in the experiments? A wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum? Interference caused by the suns electromagnetic radiation?

There is no breaking of the gauge symmetry of general relativity. Well, certainly not at the scale of the solar-system.

I've been doing my research regarding the history of modern physics.

I came across an experiment which attempted to detect the aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment.

I have come to a premature assumption that the experiment detected gravity interference rather than an aether. The Michelson Interferometer pattern shown on the wiki page has made me think that the pattern and gravitational force are somehow linked. This along with the assumption that perhaps a laser is an interferometer which focuses light to a point where it escapes gravity.

Is General Relativity used to phase out the interference of gravity on earth and perhaps Quantum Physics "scale" to meet any situation regardless of interference?

Is breaking of the gauge symmetry somehow related to the aether?

If not... Where is the mistake in my thinking?

depends on the distribution of wave lengths on the water. sure, for the small surface waves you see on a calm day they will need to be close together but if you have massive long wave length waves then it'll work when they are further appart.

What is that called? Phase cancellation? Attenuation? Zero Resistance Attenuation? Is there a reference which talks about the phenomenon? Or is it theoretical math?

Maybe this is confusing you.

It certainly is... but I'm learning...

I don't see how your meaning of wrappers has anything to do with quantum field theory?

It was a mis-interpretation on my part. Until now... I didn't realize that Quantum theories are specifically made to avoid wrappers... the science deals directly with real things and makes no attempt to "wrap" things in an extra layer at all... rather the quantum field has been built to explain things which cannot be explained Newtonian physics. If Newtonian physics extended it model and made special rules to deal with the quantum field then I could say Newtonian physics was using wrappers... but it's not...

Breaking gauge symmetry is exactly that. Some dynamical or spontaneous breaking of the symmetry.

My understanding that is that gravity is defined as a force... so is electromagnetism. The superconductivity model which essentially breaks gauge symmetry shows an object "locked in orbit" for a lack of a better term.

( the magnet floating at zero resistance )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity

If I am visualizing this correctly... could this "breaking" of the guage symmetry in electromagnetism be related to the orbital distances of the planets from the sun? If so... is there an equivalent phenominon in electromagnetism which locks objects along a horizon? Much like the planets around the sun orbit on the same horizontal plane?

QED by Richard Feynman

I have heard this name quite a few times before. He has apparently made great contributions to science. Thank you for the reference.

If they were 1000m apart. Would they drift faster towards each other?

Why does the photon need a rest mass? Please explain your reasoning for this. There are situations where the photon does have a mass, but this is related to breaking gauge symmetry in the Ginzburg–Landau model of superconductors (for example).

 

Usually, due to what we call gauge symmetry the photon and graviton are massless. Any mass would violate this symmetry.

I am learning the conditions required to theoretically produce energy from matter. I was just a liitle worried that theoretically it was deemed impossible but after reading a cheat sheet I realized everything is open for possibility so long as it's works. Ha ha... laugh now... but I'm certainly allowed to be inspired... no law of physics against that is there... maybe just a few years... huh?

Guage symmetry reads as if its fundamental rules of space and time like trigonometry, and geometry. Commonly observed mathematical laws of physical ( tangible ) properties. Super conducting by definition is the process of dropping resistance to zero allowing current to flow freely. I'mnot sure how that applies to how I'm interpreting Superconducting.

What is breaking gauge Symmetry.

I don't understand your language here.

 

wrappers?

 

As in something to put you gum in so you can pick it up wnd have control over it without having to touch the actual gum yourself.

If I wanted to protect a piece of code yet still have control over it I would make a wrapper and use that to interface with it.

This is all really over my head... If I were to calculate the displacement of water to learn which direction it travels in relation to the displacement space.

I assume I would need to calculate weight, volume and somehow I would have to apply gravity, and then direction. What would be a good physics "model" to read up on and learn about regarding this. My understanding of physics is below the high school level so any guidance would be helpful regarding this.

We don't have a solid theory about quantum gravity yet so it's hard to address issues like this. However, just because gravitons are (possibly) gauge bosons you shouldn't assume they're nearly identical to photons. And what's the void in the spectrum you're talking about?

I looked this up... There are no other bosson except gravitons ( thoeretical )... so essentially these are the wrappers which are used to pad the mathematics so that things "work"...

Why is a photon not a candidate for a "natures force" wrapper?

Also... The Standard model says Photons are te actual wrapper themselves... I imagine this would mean there are different models in use to deal with more complex situations...

I think it's interesting how the more complex it gets the more the names strive to sound "grand unifying"... and such... Is there a specific programming language physics modeling uses?

when I'm talking to you, there isn't a 700mph wind coming out of my mouth and towards your ears, but that is nonetheless how fast the sound waves are traveling through the air.

I see... I am lumping things together to the same concept rather than breaking things down to their elementary state. A frequency is inversely proportional to a wave. The frequency being different than the wave. The wave being the medium through with the frequency is measured. Not entirely sure. But it's start.

I have read that a graviton has no mass. But a photon theoretically has no mass either... but to work with it's measurements... it needs a rest mass. For anything to be calculated in "the real world" it needs a rest mass but as light it could actually have no mass depending the state it's in? Is there any truth in the way I have interpreted this?

Is there a Physics cheat sheet? Like a periodic table of elements which lists the measurements and units of physics? I would rather not waste anybodies time until I've had a chance to go over more of the basics.

Gravitational waves should be thought of as linear perturbations (small fluctuations) about a fixed space-time.

I think I need to see things for what they really are. And this sounds to me what gravity indeed is. If I could hear it, it might be painful... but I can't so my best chance would be to feel it in my inner ear and possibly twitch for a moment and lose my balance all-together. Or so I have read.

Thank you for the Hertz and Amps stuff...

We know gravity has potential energy, similar to EM fields, that's how hydroelectric systems work... Or why rivers flow down hill...

Energy which can be mathematically manipulated so long as it works with the proven structures of physics. Sounds good. Thank you for the link.

The Burgess shales are about 540 million years old and are one of the most remarkable fossil finds ever.

The science you are referring to is called Biostratigraphy. They make an assumption that they have a clear picture of the fossil record. They use the fossils they find to date the rock sediment. If the fossil is found outside a previously known period in time in a previous sediment then the rock must be dated within the time the species was found ( in other rocks of similar nature ). If a species thrives in an isolated climate or region for an extra few hundred million years they don't really seem to care... How do you say +/-540 millions years of accuracy/stupidity?

The plate tectonics model explains quite well why the oldest part of the ocean floor is a mere 200 million years old.

The Expanding Earth has been around since the 1930's... maybe sooner... it was at one point in time the favored theory until this "proof of concept" refuted it...

McElhinney, M. W., Taylor, S. R., and Stevenson, D. J. (1978), "Limits to the expansion of Earth, Moon, Mars, and Mercury and to changes in the gravitational constant", Nature 271: 316-321

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v271/n5643/abs/271316a0.html

This Growing Earth theory may be a real possibility...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growing_Earth_Theory

Anyways... I'm sort of tired... I learned a few months worth of physics this past week and I still have no idea how to argue physics with you. Maybe in a few months I will try to argue orbit trajectories and such but for now I have to start work again or I'll loose my clients.

Did you know they found water on the moon?

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/09/moon-water.html

Does this put a kink in the whole astro/physics theory where they estimated the moon formed in the orbit of earth when a asteroid slammed into it and knocked a good chunk out of it?

You're looking at things wrong. Our ability to measure practically everything is improving over time.

This GPS NASA data... Can you tell me which way the South American Mountains are moving and how fast?

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

(1) Where does the mass come from? Any proposed mechanism flies in the face of physics, which is the most thoroughly vetted of all sciences.

I posted the journal already. I really want to post another but I think I can save it for later... more "effect".

"Proton-antiproton pair production in two-photon collisions at LEP"

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L

(2) If scientists had indeed found that the Earth were expanding, the results would be trumpeted in the most important journals rather than skulking about in obscure and/or psychoceramic journals.

Remember that journal you said you sort of recognized but it wasn't in the priority list. Read the conclusion or cliff notes at least. What is a priority list? Is it like the army? The paper goes to the senior officer for review? Honestly... I am learning as I go... I had no idea...

Scientists love bizarre, unexpected results.

Sure... I'm still learning...

"To me this looks like..." is never the beginning of a good hypothesis.

Okay... Explain this...

All volcanic island arc systems are a curved chain of volcanic islands with a trench on the convex side and volcanoes on the concave side. No exceptions. All of them look like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_arc

Plate Tectonics says it's sub ducting plate thrusting under the island, bending down to form a trench ( sometimes at an angle of 5 degrees to depths of 10km ).

Why does it form a curve if a plate is scraping underneath an island and why doesn't some of the plate scrape off onto land.

Because it's the land ripping apart. On a globe this size it makes a curved shape. All Volcanic island systems look like this. I have not found one single exception yet.

The trench is the earth splitting apart at the crust. And the volcanoes on the concave side is where the stress is released in the earths mantle and the volcanoes erupt.

Do your research on that one. Any map will work. You will find no logical alternative. Guaranteed.

And while your wondering how the Grand Canyon was formed by river erosion... Ask yourself how water erosion is responsible for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waimea_Canyon

Increasing the Earth's mass (and size) would increase both the Earth-Moon orbital angular momentum the Earth's rotational angular momentum.

I'll admit... I'm a programmer... My math and physics are not at a level where I can even begin to understand the orbital calculations. But in English... I gather that if the gravity field is intense enough... objects snap to an orbital "frequency" but with smaller gravity fields they "fluctuate" or at the very least change...

More that it is a minor publication, and as such the quality of the papers and the quality of the peer-review tend to be suspect.

I've been learning how to guage the legitimacy of scientific peer reviewed papers and it would appear it has mostly to do with citations it references and the publishers themselves. Can you shed some of your insights onto the legitimacy of these papers.

This guy attacks the intergrity of paleomagnetic evidence. Seismic measurements of the plates and even subducting Benioff zones of earthquakes.

"Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat"

David Pratt © 2000 (First published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 307-352, 2000)

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm

Also... This paper mentions that they cannot with any accuracy determine if the earth is growing or not.

"THE HYPOTHESIS ON THE EARTH'S EXPANSION IN THE LIGHT OF SPACE GEODESY RESULTS"

Acta Geodyn. Geomater., Vol.2, No.3 (139), 95-101, 2005

http://pecny.asu.cas.cz/CEDR/download/Bajgarova_Kostelecky.pdf

Physicists have been pondering the deep nature of matter for some time now, and no one has seen a positron turn into a proton.

I completely understand that Physics are pondering matter creation. I have only just begun to learn that they are reproducing the effects with gamma rays. But I still have much to learn.

But Somebody passed me this saying that they may have created matter from energy.

"Proton-antiproton pair production in two-photon collisions at LEP"

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hep.ex....6017L

Also... This article is way over my head but I thought anybody who actually understood physics might enjoy it... Does it even suggest that matter creation could be occurring within the earth due to a gravitational field? It's a little Greek to me... ( I'm really just posting it so I can come back to it later and not lose it. )

On the Possibility of Matter Creation/Destruction in a Variable Gravitational Field

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9911025

How in the world does this expanding earth model explain the Burgess shales?

Basically... On a smaller earth... the seas were displaced to cover the continents. At one point the water covered the earth. That explains why we find all of the fish fossils on land. The age of the sea floor in every part of the world is no less than 200 million years old and that's why we will never find any trace of ancient lofe past that point. Is that what you meant? How does Plate Tectonics explain it? Where did all the water go is another question you can ask... because in my eyes... I don't think there is enough polar ice cap to melt to cover all of the earth. ( But I have not researched that yet )

One final problem, and this is the biggest one of all. Suppose we truly had found that the Earth was indeed increasing in mass to the extent expounded in this hypothesis. Such a result would not be published in some obscure journal. It would be published in one (or both) of Nature and Science, the two scientific journals at the top of the scientific journal pecking order.

That article by the Italian gent didn't say the earth was growing. He was just running tests on the effects it might have on the gravity satellites. He suggested that something regarding the technology should be readjusted to make sure it could detect it I think. It was alot of math and physics which I really couldn't understand in full.. I am just paraphrasing...

That seems to be my biggest concern... This news release says that we haven't truly been measuring the earth correctly in the past. Combine that with inconclusive results in the other papers and it creates possibility. I understand that lack of evidence is not proof of concept... but lack of evidence might be a good reason to consider the possibility.

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63519

Happy to help

I sort of found out from somebody else that that last paper "NEW CONCEPTS IN GLOBAL TECTONICS" was more of a flyer being distributed at a conference rather than a real paper... So I am not using it for reference...

Thanks for the links...

I think it's also important to note that all island arc systems are a curved chain of volcanic islands with a trench on the convex side and volcanoes on the concave side.

Plate Tectonics says it's sub ducting plate thrusting under the island, bending down to form a trench ( sometimes at an angle of 5 degrees to depths of 10km ).

Why does it form a curve if a plate is scraping underneath an island and why doesn't some of the plate scrape off onto land.

Because it's the land ripping apart. On a globe this size it makes a curved shape. All Volcanic island systems look like this. I have not found one single exception yet.

The trench is the earth splitting apart at the mantle. And the volcanoes on the concave side is where the stress is released and the volcanoes erupt.

Do your research on that one. Any map will work. You will find no logical alternative. Guaranteed.

Yeah but it was formed by water erosion due to melting glaciers, not just a little rain water here and there.

 

Interesting theory though, but wouldn't experts have been able to tell the difference between the earth sinking down due to a fault and water erosion? I'm no expert on geology, I admit, but I still try to trust the experts.

Well it has volcanoes all around it... and if you look at any continental volcano system... your going to find huge rifts in the immediate vicinity...

Here are two other rift systems...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Rift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal_Rift_Zone

If you can find a single volcano anywhere on the planet which does not have a volcano near by I would be very interested in seeing it.

If you were living in Tibet... Would you trust your governance to the professionals?

About 4000 years ago, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and the entire Earth was flooded. The Grand Canyon was formed in a few hours.

"Give me convenience or give me death..." - Jello Biafra

The grand canyon was created 6 million years ago. It is the worlds largest canyon if I am not mistaken. By definition it was formed due to water erosion.

But... all the images I see of the canyon look like rifts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon

According to Geology the term used to describe rifting is Horst Graben.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Horst_graben.jpg

Does anybody else see what I'm seeing?

Wouldn't we have one hell of a lot more canyons this big on the earth if 6 million years of erosion creates a canyon this big? I mean the earth rains if I am not mistaken and it has been doing so for at least 6million years right?

Is the earth expanding, or gaining more mass? Isn't every planet doing the same? I mean where does all the meteorites and space dust go, if not to earth and other planets, attracted by our gravity. That theory is obviously lunacy though.

Trust me... it's drives you crazy trying to figure out who has the right information... do psuedoscience/science a favor... never ridicule it because if you do it just makes it twenty times harder to see the truth...

Somebody who ridicules reeks of insecurity... and try arguing to win one simple fact that proves your point... firing twenty arguements at somebody is a sure way to offend them and it makes you look like an insecure jerk... in most cases though you'll lose the not so important points and then your credibility takes a dive... and the other side gains converts... provide the facts only... anything else feeds psuedo-science and in the end turns both camps into a farce... let people make up their own minds... and your bound to find more people who find the right information....

Ridiculing and going for the hard sell... is generally a bad idea... calling it lunacy only makes people think that genius is associated with lunacy... attacking peoples credibility as a last ditch effort to prove your point is bar none the worst thing to do... attacking them straight up is twice as worse... because it's not science... it becomes a philosophical/political war... and dare I say... everyone should be talking science not Scientology...

I hope that makes sense to you... Do they teach ethics in science classes? Or do they do things like look at old viking maps of the world and have themselves a good chuckle?

And to answer your question... yes... mass does accrue due to gravity and solar dust, meteors, ect... it's rather insignificant for Earth ( maybe 40,000 tons / year )... but I imagine over a few billion years it might add upto something depending... Research Jupiter and Matter accretion... they appear to be doing alot of research on that planet...

It's worrying just because you'd expect a "good" journal to be there, it might not be because it might not be an english language journal or some other reason....

I'm not sure how to interpret that... maybe the paper is no good or maybe the scientist is considered "psuedo"???

I am curious how one finds a scientific paper. Somebody has made reference to what I think is a real scientific paper. I can't find it on Google... What would be my best bet to get ahold of this material. Are there online scientific journal resources out there? This is the reference.

13. Hayford, William W., et al. Is Subduction a Real Phenomenon? -- New Problems and Paradoxes about the Trench-arc-backarc zones.. 32nd IGC, Post-Workshop PWO 09, New Concepts in Global Tectonics, Urbino, Aug 29-31, 2004.

All orbits have a frequency associated with them, the earths around the sun is about 365.25days.... It's also true that if you work out this frequency, you find that it's dependent only on the height of the orbit, not on the mass of the orbiting object.

This is very interesting to know... Thank you...

i also belive that earth is expanding because if we see world map it is clear indication that all continents joints each other long time ago. but my theory little diffent that earth is expanding but continents are shrinking also. this all is like a log of tree 100% same bark of log is shrinking and log of tree is expanding at same time.

I would be very interested in where you read information regarding shrinking continents. If you could post link to that reference it would be helpful even if ends up being bogus or not it would be interesting to read.

Continental Drift and Expanding Earth can co-exist... In theory, re-curvature of the earth could be the mechanism for sub-duction.

The only current major issue I have with subduction is that the age of the sea floor is less than 200 million years old. Which suggests that subduction is happening in a uniform manner. That rock must be completely erased and replaced with new rock within 200million years otherwise we would have found traces of much older sea floor bottom which in turn would suggest a much more faster movement of subduction. Why are we not seeing the seafloor move and subduct at rates faster than what would be required in a perfectly uniformed subduction pattern?

The sea floor map clearly indicates ( due to the age of the rock ) that the sea floor must be created at los angeles and subducted towards Japan...

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif

Yet the Plate tectonic theory clearly shows a subducting plate in the North American West Coast region... Juan de Fuca Plate is supposedly subducting the material there when in reality it should be creating new material like it's being created at the mid ocean ridges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca_Plate

However I guess this could be perceived as a reversal of plate movement as well. In theory this movement could suggest that the pacific plate is moving east... but... Geodesy information shows the pacific plate moving away from North America ( North West )

http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html

If the Juan Plate is subducting along the North American West Coast... which it is according to the GPS data... where is the ocean ridge with volcanic activity on the west side of the Juan plate? It's sort of in the general area but not where I would expect it to beaccording to the GPS maps, the Wiki Entry and the Sea Floor Map... and it continues up the west coast. Now... Why does the section north the Juan Plate where the rift continues show lack any sort of subduction zone to eat up that new material? The North American Plate moving west where new material is being created. This area should be sub-ducting. Shouldn't it?

In an expanding earth... Recurvature of the earths surface would solve this problem easily. And the buckling of the crust in that area would be clear indication that the Canadian Rockies should be rising in height ( which would fit PT theory as well ) But can PT justify the rising rocky mountians due to sea floor spreading? And if the Rockies are not rising can it justify the last of a subduction area when new material is being generated?

Can it be that simple? It's absolutely not obvious to me that Exapnding Earth can be Ruled out or Plate Tectonics can be ruled out... Both theories fit... I would appreciate links to any material which suggests otherwise. I am still learning.