Doug Fisher

I will admit that, had I not been attempting to conserve space, it could have been better illustrated, but the theory itself borrows from the subduction model which proposes that cooler, older oceanic crust increases in density and sinks into the mantle. The subduction theory proposes an initial sinking of the Pacific Plate along the entire Pacific Trench followed by convergence driving and even bending the Pacific plate beneath the adjacent plate, while this alternate theory proposes that an initial convergence drove the older denser crust into the mantle which softened the crust facilitating the fold. While tension would be mostly at work during expansion, these would not necessarily be the case between such events. I believe that I have consistently made this claim. The first event would coincide with the oldest seafloor crust and as for the second event, it is tied to the global separation of oceanic ridges. “According to current dating methods, about 40 million years ago major ridges in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans were linked in the south creating V-shaped ridge formations which falls in line with opening-mode fractures” - Link By the way, any thoughts on the proposed rotation center point for Kamchatka?

Thanks Studiot. Your posts have proved to be the most thought-provoking and well thought out. Regarding the pivot point, it appears to be along the mainland and is defined by a sharp bend in the Kolyma Mountains. The two ductile fractures highlighted in the image below would be a direct result of stress along the coast generated by the interior bend. Closing the two fractures would pivot Kamchatka back into the coastal pocket and remove a 300-mile gap making the Asian coastline virtually the same length as the western coast of Kamchatka. I was starting to think no one was going to ask. Great question. One possible explanation for the trench fold is convergence after one of the expansion events. I believe that it is very significant that the Pacific Plate lies on a lower plane than the plates opposite the trench. If the plates were pressed up against each other while on the same plane, the plates would engage each other with equal strength along their rigid length. The Pacific Plate, however, lies at around 18,000 feet below sea level while the plates along the other side of the trench lie at around 11,000 feet. If convergence were to occur between the plates, which geologists agree is occurring at an incremental rate, the plate lying on the lower plane would fold underneath the higher plate. This very basic principle can be replicated by placing a sheet of paper across offset parallel planes and pushing the sheet together. The lower side of the paper will always fold beneath the side sitting on the higher plane. Earth expansion proposes that the planet initially existed as a unified continental crust until it fractured and the earth expanded. As the planet expanded, seafloor crust filled the voids between continents. Hence all continental crust predates seafloor crust. I believe what sets my theory apart from the rest is that I do not believe the planet is necessarily expanding at this time. The seafloor exhibits two very clear periods of expansion. The first expansion saw the continents fracture and separate with seafloor boundaries extending off major fracture points and expanding out as fully formed V-shaped ridges. The second expansion occurred after these seafloor boundaries had time to fully bond. Therefore, during the second expansion, seafloor ridges extending out into the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans split and moved off of each seafloor’s associated expansion ridge or divergent boundary and we find little to no ridge extension into crust currently dating out to 40mya. During periods between expansion events, as we are experiencing now, the planet remains fairly static in size and the fragmented continental plates and seafloor succumb to movement beneath Earth's surface.

Just a little clarification. Plate tectonics and Earth expansion are derivatives of continental drift and up until the 1960s, they were still competing theories. Since both theories build off of continental drift there are obvious similarities; foremost among them the belief that plates fracture, separate and move across the surface of the Earth. The two theories differ in that plate tectonics maintains that old seafloor crust is subducted into trenches as new seafloor crust is created, which allows Earth's size to remain static. Earth expansion assumes that all seafloor crust remains on the planet’s surface which requires the Earth to expand to accommodate both old and new crust. So imagine you have a balloon, but this is no ordinary balloon… The rotation was due to tensile and torsional stress on the continental crust during an expansion event. A portion of the torsional stress was applied as Africa pulled on the southern coast of Asia and eventually fractured and swung out 90° to Asia. The rotation is recorded in the surface of the Arabian Peninsula as well as the Sheba Ridge and the Owen Fracture Zone which reveal that Somalia was once joined to Pakistan and Iran. In the image below, the span between A1B1 is identical to A3B2, each measuring 590 miles long, which is significant, but more importantly, B1 and B2 sit at the base of a shared fracture zone equidistant, roughly 1,000 miles, from a divergent boundary, the Sheba Ridge. Plate tectonics acknowledges this correlation between the Owen Fracture Zone, Somalia, and Pakistan, but in this one instance abandons principles adhered to everywhere else throughout the globe. Where fracture zones in all other instances extend out from divergent boundaries to continental mass, marking the trail of separation, in this one singular instance, geologists depict Somalia mysteriously attaching itself to a fracture zone that expands while moving toward another continent instead of with it. The unique adjustment was necessary to maintain the static Earth model. If Africa sat up against Asia and South America simultaneously it would mean that Earth was once much smaller. On a planet Earth’s current size, such a fit would have been the equivalent of fitting a baseball cover over a basketball. So in order to reconcile the clear connection of the two coasts and the simultaneous opening up of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, unlike in the Atlantic and other oceans where fracture zones marked separation between spans of continental mass, geologists determined that India separated from Africa and plowed through an ancient ocean faster and with as much ease as the Pacific seafloor subducting into the Pacific Trench and the Owen Fracture Zone and the Sheba Ridge spontaneously appeared and expanded between converging plates. Check it out in this video that someone posted earlier. It starts around the 120mya mark. Based on fracture zones elsewhere, Somalia at B1 fit into the Pakistani pocket at B2 prior to Africa separating and swinging free of Asia. Flowlines in the Gulf of Aden, specifically the Alula-Fartak Trough, dictate that the tip at Somalia A1 once joined with a point on Yemen at A2. Since Somalia’s A1 was common with A3 in Iran but also common with A2 in Yemen, we can discern that all three points were shared points before Africa rotated free. From this and the very clear pattern of 90° rotation recorded on Arabia’s surface, we can also deduce that the UAE and a portion of Oman were once a much narrower span—note the ductile fracture extending down from the UAE—that fit within and was extracted from the Persian Gulf then rotated 90° while expanding due the torsional stress placed on it as it rotated clockwise with Africa. Based on this interpretation, Arabia has experienced some of the most extensive ductile deformation seen on the planet. Interestingly, Arabia possesses some of the world’s largest oil reserves and this is a trait shared with other ductile deformations and fractures throughout the globe including Cameroon, North Africa, Venezuela, and the Gulf of Mexico.

This is definitely not the first time I have made this ‘startling’ claim: Sure it's not bacon, but can you make too many cheese references? And there is no contradiction. If the continents were made of strictly cheese, we would only see arcing coastlines with outstretched wisps of cheesy mass just like the fracture and torn cheese on the pizza. We would also see a welcome drop in the price of cheese. Continental crust has both ductile and brittle features. It has a complex and varied structure as seen in your sedimentary/igneous rock image. You can look at the complex pattern of mixed rock in your image and virtually predict where fractures would occur if tensile stress were applied to the region. Consider a sheet of clay and stone. If we were to break the sheet apart, the fractures would occur between the rocks, but it would not be surprising to see instances where softer clay extends out between the two halves. Hence, Kamchatka and the aligning coastal point, which exhibits evidence of a ductile extension in the form of thinning, arcing, and internal ductile voids. Even the fit of the eastern coast of South America to the western coast of Africa appears to support my view. There is not a lot of matching rock across continents. Also, Madagascar is a known fragment of Africa and most of the rock is unique to the coast similar to Kamchatka and its Asian pocket. Yes indeed. +1 How many times must this request be repeated? In regard to the pivot or rotation of Kamchatka, Korea, and Japan, it is only used as a relative reference to each fragment. The actual movement is the rotation of the Asian mainland breaking free of the Pacific Plate while Kamchatka, Korea, and Japan are fractured fragments which remain attached to the Pacific Plate. Also, I do not believe that the geological trend lines are any more relevant here than they are along the South American coast where they also run counter to those along the African coast. Again, you appear to be holding my theory to a higher level of scrutiny not applied to a geologically confirmed conformance. And as I have demonstrated earlier, Alaska, Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea have far better conformance to their adjacent coastlines than these two continents. In my book, I address the Benioff Zones and state that the quakes are occurring between the seafloor folds and the fractures that extend off these sharp folds. So I am not denying movement within the trenches, just nowhere near the extent of movement required to substantiate the current plate tectonics model. So it is reasonable that the same movement that has allowed volcanoes to form in the preexisting Cascade Range would be at work in the preexisting ranges and valley of Kamchatka after the Asian mainland receded away.

Hello studiot, It would appear to me that there is a lateral trend inland. The Uda River Basin extends laterally inland as if it were a natural extension of the Central Kamchatka Depression when Kamchatka is pivoted into the coast. In regard to similarity in rock type, I would expect that, as I stated before, fractures would occur between dissimilar materials, but the two coastal points that clung together while the rest of the peninsula fractured cleanly may suggest that both coastal points would be composed of similar rock type. I think it would be truly interesting to perform an analysis of the two. Hi Gideon, Sorry for the lack of a response on the second half. Essentially what you are offering may be more in support of what I am proposing. I am proposing that the form of the peninsulas is a directly related to the adjacent landform. Look to the north and south of your island. The main waterway cuts a swath through the land while the land to both sides are typically closely conforming. If there is a curve or bend in the river, well, the land on both sides happen to carry the same curve and could easily be seen as conforming coastlines. That is essentially what is occurring in the image you have provided. The river has divided into two separate river ways each with conforming curved coastlines. No one is saying that rivers formed the peninsulas in question, but I am saying that like the island in your image, the formation of each peninsula is directly linked to their adjacent conforming landform. On the other hand, if you told me that that island floated up the river and positioned itself into a perfectly conforming hole in the river, this would be like someone suggesting that the peninsular formations in question randomly attached themselves alongside conforming coastlines. Hotspot ridges consistently associated with fracture points. Fracture Mechanics: Consistent with opening-mode fracturing. (Boundary ridges extend outward from each tip or point of a fracture.) Plate Tectonics: Not currently acknowledged or addressed. As pointed out earlier, the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain (HESC) aligns with the cusp of a ductile fracture lying along the eastern coast of Kamchatka. It is a rather significant find as these alignments occur consistently in the immediate vicinity and throughout the globe and are currently not acknowledged by geologists. It is also significant because, just like other ductile cusps and ridges, the HESC remains aligned to its original cusp, suggesting that only a few miles of subduction or folding could have occurred at the Pacific Trench to have allowed the alignment to be retained. Based on the subduction model, the below image demonstrates how the HESC will intersect the Pacific Trench millions of years forward into the future. Rolling the Pacific Plate back millions of years would find the ridge previously intersecting the Aleutian Trench. So it is rather remarkable that we exist at the precise time when it just happened to have slid directly beneath a continental ductile fracture cusp mimicking other cusp and ridge alignments. Also, as demonstrated in another post, opening-mode fractures occurring in continental crust creates a rip in the seafloor that extends out to a point. According to current dating methods, about 40 million years ago major ridges in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans were linked in the south creating V-shaped ridge formations which falls in line with opening-mode fractures So what of the Emperor-Hawaiian seamount chain. All other major ridges that are the product of opening-mode fractures in the adjacent continental crust have a sister ridge that at one time in the past joined it in the south forming a ‘V’ at the base. And, like the fractured frame and canvas, the two points at the top of these paired ridges were once joined. The in-plane fractures along the Asian coast appear to be splinter fractures and suggest downward shearing from another continental mass, North America. So, like the Americas fracturing and separating from Europe and Africa, we should expect to find a divergent boundary in the Pacific and lying the other side of the divergent boundary we should find the HESC sister ridge extending from North America. It should be noted that divergent boundaries are not always well-defined at the immediate point of divergence as can be seen in portions of the East Pacific as well as the Southeast Indian Ridge lying between Antarctica and Australia, though they typically exhibit a noticeable rise from each side. The North Pacific has neither. This follows a pattern, however. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is the most well-defined divergent boundary followed in this list by the East Pacific then Southeast Indian Ridge. The surrounding seafloor drops by 7,000, 3,000, and 2,000 feet respective of the central definition, i.e., less rise equals less definition. Yet there are other characteristics that can identify the existence of a divergent boundary. Since new seafloor crust is generated at divergent boundaries and transported outward and away, unique formation or blemishes occurring at the boundary are carried along with the crust to either side. The effect creates a pattern of seafloor mirroring across the divergent boundary. In the image below, you can see two troughs to either side of the East Pacific Ridge (EPR). Fracture zones mark the lateral path of seafloor crust moving away from a divergent boundary. Therefore blemishes, like troughs and ridges, that form at the divergent boundary should move parallel to this path and be similarly located relative to fracture zones lying above and below. The upper lateral troughs clearly exhibit this, mirroring each other across the EPR just below the Challenger Fracture Zone. Meanwhile, the lower vertical troughs do as well and actually extend directly off from a fracture zone, the Menard Fracture Zone. Of course, ridges in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans which were once joined are examples of mirroring across divergent boundaries. The Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain (HESC) is a significant ridge measuring roughly 3,900 miles in length. Based on other V-shaped ridges extending between continents, we should expect to find its sister ridge somewhere between the HESC and North America. Also, similar to other ridges and the mirroring phenomenon described above, we should expect that the sister ridge extends just beneath the same fracture zone as the truncated portion of the HESC, the Hawaiian Islands. As you can see in the image below, the Baja Peninsula appears to be that ridge. Both it and the HESC extend just beneath the Molokai Fracture Zone and bringing them back together along that shared fracture zone finds the Hawaiian Islands fitting into an accommodating pocket alongside Baja’s western coast. I believe these two ridges were at one time bonded together in a V-shaped formation similar to the others, but, like them, fractured apart during a second expansion event. The Baja Peninsula is the lower half of the North American Coastal Ridge (NACR), a ridge extending all the way to Alaska. Starting in the south and moving northward, the NACR comprises the Baja Peninsula, the Pacific Coast Ranges, Queen Charlotte Islands, the Coast Mountains and bends over to the Kodiak Islands. The entire length of the ridge: 3,900 miles. The same length as the HESC. More significant signs of mirroring across a divergent boundary exist to the north the mirroring of Hawaii and Baja. The Mendocino (MeFZ) and Surveyor Fracture Zones (SuFZ) drape down from a central point while below the Pau (PaFZ) and Pioneer Fractures Zones (PiFZ) rise up from a central point. I believe these center points, which sit amidst mirroring fracture zones, mark the location of a divergent boundary. Further supporting this theory is the existence of mirrored ridges that exist 1,300 miles to each side of the proposed divergent boundary. Both ridges extend up from the same Mendocino Fracture Zone and rise upward and away toward each boundary wedge, the HESC and NACR. Let’s recap: There exist two large ridges that mirror along the same Molokai FZ in the south and extend to the north 3,900 miles. Two unique vertical ridges in the north sit inside the two main ridges and extend upward from the same Mendocino FZ back to the two outer ridges in the north. The same two unique vertical ridges rise up from the MeFZ at 1,300 miles to each side of points in lateral fracture zones that form mirrored patterns to each side. Conclusion: The Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain aligns with a ductile cusp. If the HESC is a boundary ridge associated with an opening-mode fracture it would mean that no significant subduction of any kind has occurred at the Pacific Trench. But to equate the HESC with an opening-mode continental fracture, there must be a sister ridge as is true of the others in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. There must also be a divergent boundary between the two ridges to account for the creation of the North Pacific seafloor. I believe there is evidence of both a sister ridge and a central divergent boundary. The evidence suggests that as the Pacific opened up between Asia and North America, Kamchatka’s ductile fracture point, which is aligned with the HESC, was initially attached to Alaska at the top of the NACR, the tip or point of the Alaskan fragment that pivoted out from Canada.

Thanks studiot. That is an excellent point, but to make each piece fit you actually have to select, flip, rotate, and often score and break existing pieces. I have demonstrated that all the peninsular structures are already correctly aligned and naturally conform to the opposing coasts similar to the conformance of the fractured coast of South America to the fractured coast of Africa. There is no need to perform major manipulation of the peninsulas to make them fit. Simply pivot all the peninsulas in the same counterclockwise direction and they fit. And unlike laying flagstone, where a point becomes a complex shape that must be negotiated by laying out two rocks to form a conforming point (examine the stonework image), the points on Kamchatka and Korea fit into coastal recesses composed of a single continuous shoreline. People should be impressed with the high degree of difficulty in finding a coastal shape that conforms and aligns to both Kamchatka's endpoint and its small coastal point. That the two surfaces just happen to be adjacent and properly aligned to each other should further impress. Sorry for the late reply. Very, very busy weekend. I will try to post more later today.

Still working on that post. Try to put aside thoughts of Earth expansion for a moment and consider the following while understanding that these observations/discoveries do not necessarily contradict plate tectonics. Are any of the following numbered statements incorrect in regard to the above image? 1. Peninsular formations or coastal fragments sit atop each of the island arcs. (To avoid confusion, geologists agree that Japan did cleave from the Asian coast so it would be considered a coastal fragment and was likely a peninsula before cleaving completely free in the north.) 2) Each peninsular formation can pivot back into a conforming coast (See examples below): Alaska pivoted back along a conforming Canadian coast with a unique zig-zag pattern. Kamchatka pivots into a conforming coastal pocket where lone coastal points align. While geologists agree that Japan cleaved from the Asian coast, they place the cleaving 200 miles to the north of the fit I propose. I believe Japan fractured free of Asia where the two have aligned fracture points. The two tab pullouts (B and C) are 110 miles apart on both landmasses. The coastal points and coastal notches, from which they were extracted, are all roughly 40 miles in width allowing that they all (B and C) once interlocked. Ductile extension is exhibited in the form of side arcing along each side of the tabs, while lighter linear bands mark the ductile stretching of continental mass forming valleys or lowlands behind the end caps. Like the coastal points in the Kamchatka region, these were the last points to break free after experiencing ductile extension. The two coastal points to the north (A) were once joined much like the coastal points in the Kamchatka region. Just to be clear, geologists do not currently acknowledge these perfectly aligned tabs, notches, and points. (Some may note in the inset that Japan does not conform beyond point C as Korea sits in the way. Please see below where Korea originally sat along the coast.) The above image provides evidence that the coastal points being discussed are the product of tensile stress and ductile fracturing. Ductile side arcing occurs prior to material or plate failure as two opposing landmasses pull apart. Thinning crust between these arcs forms a band of lowlands that often drops very close to sea level. While I propose ductile extension of the Kamchatka point is associated with separation from the aligning coastal point on the Asian coast, geologists see the coastal point as forming randomly off the coast of Kamchatka hundreds of mile from the mainland with no explanation for the thinning crust and ductile voids. Like the hot melted ductile cheese, you can clearly see that Bohai Sea is a ductile void with the wisp of land still extending across half of its outer opening (C). Meanwhile, Korea Bay appears to be a ductile arc and closing these ductile voids allows Korea to pivot back into a conforming angular recess. 3. None of the four fragments—Alaska, Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea—can be interchanged with another and achieve the same level of coastal conformance. According to geologists, Alaska and Kamchatka bubbled up from the seafloor apart from their associated mainland and Korea is believed to have formed when continental fragments collided with the Asian coast. The conformance of these landforms to their adjacent coasts is considered to be random. But we should take the time to consider and observe how unlikely it is that these peninsulas just happened to bubble up or, like Korea, travel from afar and collide adjacent to conforming coastlines. Try switching any of these four fragments with each other and there is nowhere near the level of coastal conformance as the existing configuration. Bring over Italy, Greece, and Florida and the results are the same. 4.The accurate pairing of each peninsula with its matching coastline borders on the miraculous. I believe the odds of Alaska, Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea all having this level of coastal conformance are astronomical and the only way that this could exist is for each to have originated from their conforming coasts and fractured free. I also believe that geologists have overlooked the consistent association of island arcs with peninsulas, as these, along with the downward V-wedge, actually serve to confirm that the peninsulas have fractured from Asia as can be seen replicated with the canvas frame (inset first image in this post). All the best.

Sorry for the late reply. I was composing a reply to your first post then was sidetracked. Science has had roughly 60 years and a lot of man-hours and research invested in developing a theory for plate movement and subduction that still remains a work in progress with many uncertainties remaining. I don’t expect that sort of effort to be applied to Earth expansion until it is proven that the Oceanic trenches are seafloor folds. Hello Pekux, If you were to score a thick sheet of plastic all the way to its edge and then grabbed the sheet by the edge and applied stress by attempting to pull the sheet apart, the first place it is most likely to fail is where it is weakest, where the scoring exists. Depending on the material and the scoring, that initial breach could very well be an arced ductile fracture centered immediately on the scoring. Many of the planet’s coastal ductile fractures are occurring where preexisting fractures extend out to the coast. This is why we see these secondary fractures extending from many of the examples I have provided and riverways often flow along these fractures. Rio de la Plata, Lena and the Rio Grande are all centered and extend off the back of ductile fractures. True I am not a scientist, but there is a higher level of predictability and consistency that comes when ascribing the formation of seafloor ridges to continental fractures versus the alternatives offered by plate tectonics as I have demonstrated here. My theory recognizes both island arcs and truncated seafloor ridges as plate boundaries, while plate tectonics maintains island arcs are formed by subduction and truncated seafloor ridges are formed by hotspots. My theory also accurately predicts that the ridges consistently extend directly from fracture points like ductile cusps or like the ends of Madagascar, while plate tectonics has yet to recognize or acknowledge the obvious consistent correlation between ductile arcs and seafloor ridges. It would appear to relegate this repeatability to coincidence. LOL. That's fair. Never claimed to have great animation/artistic skills. Excellent point. In Maps, Myths & Paradigms that is exactly my claim. I feel that initially explaining it relative to Kamchatka is far easier to grasp. Here is an image from the book depicting the rotation of the Asian continent to the west while downward-facing splinter fractures remain anchored to the Pacific Plate. Also, thanks for the Kamchatka link. I have visited Oregon’s site many, many times. I don’t believe that I had seen this particular paper, but it is similar to one I had come across elsewhere which favored similar origins to explain the dual ranges so it might have been derivative.

I will admit that I am by no means a geologist, but I do know that much like your statement regarding hotspots finding their way to thinner crust, fractures occur where the bonds are weakest and that is between dissimilar materials. For example, concrete breaks around the aggregate, not through it. The fact that Kamchatka varies from the Asian coast makes perfect sense from the perspective of fracture mechanics. You really don’t see any significant conformance between Kamchatka and the adjacent coast and seriously believe it would fit as well in any of those other locations? I challenge you to find a better fit. The results would be interesting. This whole thing about using ‘paln’ views at some scale and projection argument is a bit ridiculous. See what you did? You forced me to create this horrible animated gif—it may have been rushed—to demonstrate that there is no variation in scaling. The fit is slightly looser than my image above, but that is due to the map overlay I used in ESRI. This is direct from Google Earth with no overlays. In this animation, the image captured of the coastal pocket remains stationary. A series of images were captured at the identical scale—no zooming in or out—while the peninsula was rotated and moved back into the cavity. These images were then layered in sequence over the backdrop and finally reverse sequenced to show Kamchatka pulling out of the Asian coast. No distortion or change of scale occurred at any point in the making of this gif. Again, anyone can confirm this fit using the same process. If the fit looks all too perfect, blame Google. The alignment of the coastal points is highlighted with a circle and demonstrates the near-perfect fit and alignment of Kamchatka’s endpoint and arced coastline when these two coastal points are joined back together. Again, it is practically impossible that a landform bubbled up from the seafloor and chose the same size, shape, orientation with convex toward concave, and the perfect placement of a lone isolated coastal point. Are we sure plate tectonics doesn’t allow for an intelligent planet? Google Earth: Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO Image Landsat/Copernicus Image IBCAO Back to the subject of ductile fractures. Located along the coast of North Africa is a rather large ductile fracture. Here we can see the requisite cusping to each side, a central ridge extending into the Mediterranean and depressions extending into the corners of the fracture where we normally see secondary symmetrical fracturing. This is where the continental crust is thinning and on the verge of becoming ductile voids. Interestingly enough this large shallow, somewhat rectangular, ductile fracture is not unique. Just a ways to the north on the Siberian coast exists one nearly identical in form, the Gakkel ductile fracture. Once again the fracture exhibits cusping to each side of the recess. A secondary fracture in the form of the Khatanga River extends into the western corner and a central fracture in the form of the Lena River extends down a central rise which mimics a central rise on the ductile fracture along the North African coast. The two fractures are almost identical in size as well, roughly 550 miles wide and over 200 miles deep. The Gekkel ductile fracture is more significant than one might first realize. Its central fracture, the Lena River, extends out and aligns with the Gakkel Ridge, the northern extension of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The fracture’s cusps align with the Lomonosov Ridge and the Barents-Kara Ridge. This is one of the clearest examples of ductile fracturing being directly associated with a rip in the adjacently attached seafloor. I will probably have to have my jaw reattached if you are unable to see this one. All the best.

Hello Studiot, My intention was not to insult geoscientists, it is what I perceive to be fact and I've seen no proof to the contrary. It is absolutely true that ductility is a term that geoscientists are very much aware of as your quote shows. Folding rock requires a level of ductility or flexibility. If the rock is too rigid, a potential fold can become a brittle fracture. These are common observations at ground level. I was never questioning this level of awareness. Now consider viewing the planet from above on terrain and bathymetric maps. Observing brittle fractures on maps was key in discovering and developing the theories of continental drift and ultimately plate tectonics. Anyone that has even a basic knowledge of plate tectonics has seen maps demonstrating the conformance of the Americas to Africa. So what is a brittle fracture? This is a break in a rigid material like a ceramic vase. If you have ever broken someone’s vase, you have probably at one time made an effort to glue it back together and oftentimes you can be very successful (it is helpful putting it back on the shelf with the missing pieces toward the back). The reason the pieces fit together as well as they did is that the fragments experienced little to no deformity, i.e., stretching, due to the rigidity of the material. The coasts of the Americas and Africa exhibit this type of fracture for the most part, which is why we can so easily see and recognize their original fit. What is a ductile fracture? This is a break in a ductile or pliable material. You’ve witnessed it many times. You see it when you break open a cream-filled chocolate or grab a hot slice of cheese pizza. On a cheese pizza, the material stretches and deforms and signs of structural failure begin to show up in the form of oval voids. Full failure occurs when the wispy material surrounding the voids breaks which leaves arcs with wispy cusps draping off your slice of pizza. In sheet metal (image below), these cusps are far less pronounced because the material is slightly more rigid than melted cheese. Nevertheless, the telltale signs of a ductile fracture is an arced recess in the edge of a sheet or plate with some level of defined cusping. So when we have a planet with continental crust that has been subjected to stresses and brittle fracturing, why would we not expect these same stresses to incur ductile fracturing since we know that Earth’s crust exhibits ductile properties and since ductile fracturing is such a fundamental aspect of fracture mechanics? To be fair, the idea of ductile fracturing had not occurred to me until I began analyzing Kamchatka. By the way, I have not abandoned my Kamchatka claim by any means. I thought the fit was fairly self-evident. The image I provided is perfectly scaled and displays exactly how Kamchatka fits into the adjacent cavity. I’ve provided another map below. Notice how many coastal points exist on each coastline and yet these two points align when Kamchatka is placed into the coastal pocket. And geologists are still struggling to explain how the two rows of mountains could exist on Kamchatka since subduction and island arc formation can only account for one row. Meanwhile, the Kamchatka valley just happens to align with a similar valley when pocketed into the coast, suggesting that the mountains and valley were formed while Kamchatka was still embedded into Asia. Back to ductile fractures. After recognizing that Kamchatka pivoted out from the Asian coast, I noticed two arced pockets in the Asian coastline and immediately recognized that they were ductile fractures. Picture these as voids in the cheese above that occurred as Kamchatka pivoted outward and upward, stretching the upper coastline line in the process. Like one of the cheese voids in the center of the above pic, the thinner side gave way and opened up the void creating a coastal arc. The outstretched cusping is what remains of the outer wall of the void. I think most can easily visualize this entire process of Kamchatka pivoting out of the adjacent pocket and the ductile fractures opening up along the way just by studying the image below. Hope this helps clarify discoveries 1 and 2. And thanks so much for inquiring about them. Even if I am wrong about the earth expanding (you don't even have to say it ), these are still discoveries that may have an impact on and within the bounds of plate tectonics. Thanks again and all the best.

Great point, but I believe we are saying the same exact thing here. I think we can both agree that there is an abundance of thin oceanic crust. And, based on your statement, we can both agree that whenever continental plates separate and expose this thin layer of crust, should they be lurking below, hotspots would potentially begin cutting a path from the edge of the continental crust, where the thinner crust is exposed, outward. My point: If these hotspots are randomly strewn about the globe, why do they just happen to consistently extend off obvious fracture points and not off from other random coastal areas, e.g., why do they extend off each end of Madagascar and not its center? Why do they occur along the African coast at a point once shared with a ductile fracture? Why did the Cameroon hotspot just happen to go right through the center of an arced ductile fracture? Of course, I fully agree that hotspots, if they exist, lack intelligence. I am just attempting to make the point that the current plate tectonics model requires us to believe the next-to-impossible that this consistent relationship between ridges and fracture points is just a fortunate series of recurring coincidences while fracture mechanics provides a less complicated, readily observable, consistent explanation in each and every case. Thanks for the reply.

Hello John and Sensei, Just to be clear, I have never stated that the Earth is currently expanding (details below). Nor did I intend to write off compression and folding. In fact, I mention both above in my initial post. I am merely stating that there is little to no subduction occurring along the Pacific trench. If there were, the alignments across the trench could not have been retained, thus folding versus thousands of miles of Pacific seafloor having subducted into the trench. Still I realize that, as you suggest Sensei, there is quite a bit of geology which I am rejecting. Here is the problem, if we accept plate tectonics, then we essentially accept that hotspots/mantle plumes have a certain level of intelligence. These powerful invisible forces sit deep inside the mantle and are yet somehow cognizant of surface structures and successfully find their way to fracture points when a non-intelligent hotspot or mantle plume should randomly transverse a continental coast at any point. It is a bit uncanny and we should all be afraid. Queue X-Files music. However, if we reconcile these ridges with fracture mechanics, then the consistent alignments between continental fractures and seafloor ridges is a natural phenomenon common across the globe that can easily be replicated inside a lab, or even in your own home with a canvas-covered frame. Take a look at the image below from Sensei’s embedded video. It is captured at the 5:50 mark and depicts the Atlantic and Indian Oceans as they would appear around 40 million years in the past. The large circles with arrows capture all the hotspot ridges (some are regarded as plateaus) where they intersect continental crust (on the far right the green circle would sit on Indochina on a modern map). You can clearly see hotspots that extend off each end of Madagascar. If you go back in time to about 60mya (5:30 mark) you can see that the ridges begin to form as soon as Madagascar fractured free of India. Plate tectonics would have us believe that hotspots deep beneath the earth discovered each end of Madagascar and suddenly burned through the seafloor crust and moved off from there. Fracture mechanics would suggest Madagascar was affixed to Africa when India (attached to Indochina) broke free at the southern point of Madagascar initiating the GREEN expansion V-wedge. Then later broke free of India to the north initiating the RED V-wedge. Then fractured free of Africa. The same is true between South America and Africa. Two yellow circles on South America mark the span of a ductile fracture along the coast of South America with a V-shaped plateau extending out from it. Across the Atlantic, the third yellow circle marks where South America broke free of Africa in the north (4:35 mark in video). Hotspots once again seeking out fractures or simply a fracture with boundary ridges extending from it? Now note in the image above that the ridges form downward Vs that are attached at the bottom (triangles) around 40mya. Plate tectonics asks us to believe that hotspots not only could determine fracture points, they were also aware and apparently partial to central ridges and rode them from the moment the continents fractured apart until 40mya. Hence the mirrored ridges extending back to land on either side of central expansion ridges. Again, this would be explained quite easily by continental fractures extending outward into the seafloor. And this is where it gets even more interesting. About 40mya all of these ridges in the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean ceased expanding (see image below. Colored lines mark the point where seafloor ridge formation ceased ~40mya. There is little to no extension of ridges into the newer seafloor crust. Why did these subterranean forces decide to suddenly jump the ridge? And what could explain the simultaneous jumping from central ridges in three places across two oceans? I theorize that these ridges are exactly what they appear, boundary ridges extending off of fracture points. They formed because they came about during the first expansion event which saw the separation of all the continents…except for one. The separation of Antarctica from Australia is the last lone continental fracture and some believe that the Wilkes Land crater is responsible for the breakup. I believe the Wilkes Land crater initiated a second expansion event. You can see in the video that shortly after the two continents fracture apart, the V-wedges begin separating as well. By the time the Wilkes Land impact occurred, little to no plate movement had been occurring, similar to today. This allowed the magma seeping up through the boundaries to solidify and bond. When the Wilkes Land impact and subsequent expansion occurred, the bonded ridges held while the expansion ridges gave way and generated new seafloor crust. Another fascinating observation. In the image below of the canvas frame, we can clearly see that the top of the V-wedge marks two points that were once shared. Moving Sensei’s video back in time finds the points where the hotspots intersect continental mass are also once-shared points that are rejoined when the continental masses are brought back together. Why would hotspot ridges mimic this same pattern? In conclusion, the ridge and fracture alignments occurring throughout the world—and oh yes, there are many more examples beyond those revealed in the Kamchatka region and the Pacific and Indian Oceans—cannot be explained by the current plate tectonics model. While I know hotspots are not considered intelligent, I am certain no one knows why hotspots would seek out these alignments. I am of the belief that no one has noticed these alignments previously or at least taken the time to reconcile them to the plate tectonics model. Further, it would appear that no one here is doubting or denying the following: That I have discovered continental ductile fractures, and That ductile and brittle fractures are often directly associated with seafloor ridges. Would love to hear from anyone who is. Thanks and all the best.

Hello Arc, I am regretting adding that last line. Replies seem to be focused on refuting that statement, which I get, and there seems to be some difficulty or inability in addressing the main thrust of the topic and specifically the five very clear oversights by geologists: The Kamchatka coastal fit, The existence of ductile fractures, The consistent global relationship between fractures and ridges, The Cameroon ductile fracture, and The perfectly retained alignment of ridges with ductile fracture cusps across trenches. These are globally consistent patterns that are readily identified and explained by fracture mechanics. I have no difficulty in citing papers that tell us that Kamchatka was formed by friction from the Pacific Plate subducting beneath the Okhotsk Plate, but unfortunately I cannot cite one paper that explains how Kamchatka mysteriously rose up from the seabed and coalesced into a shape that perfectly conforms to the adjacent Asian coast and for good measure added one lone isolated coastal point along the western coast that just happens to align with a lone coastal point within the coastal pocket. Just to put it in perspective, you will not find another landform on the planet that conforms to this portion of the Asian coast and yet, amazingly, just a few hundred miles away and millions of years after the Asian coast was formed lava begins rising up from the seafloor to create the one lone landform on the planet that conforms. It is Kamchatka, and you can readily see that it can pivot cleanly right back into the Asian coastline conforming far better than the Americas conform to Africa. Anyway, I truly appreciate your reply, but honestly, if someone could cite a reasonable explanation for ridges being perfectly aligned with ductile fracture cusps across trenches, I'd drop the whole matter immediately. The simple fact is, these alignments could not have retained their alignments if substantial subduction has taken place. All the best.

Hello Studiot, Interesting link and truly confusing post over there. Personally, I’m slightly more of a Bob Jase fan. (You'd have to visit the link and do a little search to appreciate that one.) Wow is right. Just the opposite was stated. I was suggesting that if we removed the stretching, which exists in the form of ductile fractures, the coasts would then be a good fit. Don’t fret, the guy at that link performed far, far worse. This was just a slight misunderstanding. Also, there was no need for the curvy-wiggly modification you speak of. The image was created using same-scale overlays on ESRI’s ArcGIS Earth. You can do the same on Google Earth. I encourage you to give it a go and would love to see your results. No thoughts on the two isolated coastal points coming into perfect alignment along the top of Kamchatka, Studiot? I give you my word that I did not move them up and down the coast…much. All the best and thanks for the reply.

Hello, my name is Doug Fisher, author of the recently released Advertising removed by moderator The first half of Maps, Myths & Paradigms analyzes ancient maps and along the way delves into Plato's detailed geographical description of Atlantis. While I had discovered a location that matched the scale and layout of Plato’s Atlantis, the observation by no means validated the site as the true location nor confirmed that the fabled civilization actually ever existed. Still, Plato’s description of two continents beyond the Mediterranean—Atlantis and a second large continent opposite a path of islands—is a remarkably accurate description of the Americas and the Caribbean islands that link the two continents. It left enough of an impression that I decided to pursue the Atlantis tale to the next level. I set out to identify the scope and source of the cataclysm that potentially befell Atlantis. Plato’s account appeared to describe a global event with earthquakes occurring inside and well outside the Mediterranean. Research for the second half began with an analysis of terrestrial surface patterns as they relate to plate tectonics. From the start, everything appeared to confirm everything I knew and believed true of plate tectonics and then…Kamchatka happened. Here is a list of discoveries that will be addressed in this posting: I. Kamchatka: Fracture vs. Subduction II. Ductile Fractures III. Fractures Have Ridges IV. Cameroon: Fracture vs. Hotspot V. Subduction Fallacy I. Kamchatka: Fracture vs. Subduction Current Theory: Geologists maintain that Kamchatka originated as a series of volcanic islands that erupted up from the seafloor due to friction generated as the Pacific seafloor plate subducted beneath the Okhotsk Plate. They believe that these islands coalesced into one large island and in turn, this large island expanded further to the north until it merged with the Asian mainland forming the peninsula that exists today (see image below). New Theory: I propose that Kamchatka was the product of fracturing and separation similar to the separation of the Americas from Africa. In support of this new theory, the image below demonstrates Kamchatka’s perfect conformance to a cavity lying along the adjacent Asian coast. Not only does the coastal cavity exhibit a conforming point at the end (left arrow) and hump across its top, there are also two isolated coastal points on each landmass that line up perfectly when the two are brought back together (center arrow). These two coastal points were once joined together as an isthmus. Further evidence that this alignment of coastal points is not mere coincidence exists in a similar set of coastal points that still remain aligned to this day (right arrow). The evidence suggests that Kamchatka fractured free of the Asian mainland along brittle fractures but a small initial area of resistance exhibited ductile extension in the form of an isthmus before fracturing cleanly from the continent. The peninsula then swung counterclockwise out from its perch with one last ductile isthmus forming, fracturing, and undergoing 18 miles of separation, which it retains to this day. II. Ductile Fractures We currently acknowledge brittle fractures occurring in continental mass as witnessed in the near-perfect conformance of the Americas to Africa, but plate tectonics appears to have overlooked another fundamental feature of fracture mechanics: Ductile fracturing. Ductile fracturing can occur along the edge of a plate that exhibits ductile or pliable properties. When the plate is stretched beyond its limits these ductile regions give way forming arced voids. In the image below, two arrows mark where the Asian coast has incurred ductile fracturing. These two ductile openings account for much of the disparity in length between Kamchatka’s western coast and the Asian coast (see inset above to see the span omitted from the main image to attain the appropriate fit). Soon after discovering these two ductile fractures, it became clear that ductile fractures were strewn all about the Kamchatka region indicating the region had been subjected to tremendous stress in the past. III. Fractures Have Ridges It also became clear that there was a direct relationship between many of these continental ductile fractures and seafloor ridges which currently are attributed to hotspots. I propose that continental crust and seafloor crust have a relationship that is much like that of a wooden frame to canvas. Just as an open-mode fracture in a wooden frame rips a void outward into the adjoining canvas (see image below), so a continental open-mode fracture rips a void out into the adjoining seafloor. While the tear in the canvas leaves a void, the void created in the seafloor crust is filled by magma lying beneath. The ridges form the boundaries between old seafloor and new and vary in size based on the instability between the two during plate movement. I also propose that island arcs, currently believed to be formed by subduction and friction, are actually the product of in-plane shear fractures where some continental crust has fractured free and pulled away from the seafloor crust while portions of continental crust remain attached. Once again, this basic phenomenon can be replicated on a wooden frame and canvas. Notice in the image below that in both instances portions of the frame and continental crust have fractured and moved away from the canvas and seafloor crust. The separation has resulted in a downward V-shaped void versus the outward V-shaped void incurred by the open-mode fracture demonstrated above. Similar to the open-mode fracture, the seafloor void has been filled by magma lying beneath. Note in both instances that the V-shaped void lies immediately below the two fractured surfaces that perfectly conform to each other. Rather than the plate boundary existing at the bottom of the adjacent trench as currently maintained, the island arc is the actual boundary ridge separating the new seafloor from the old. In the example below, the older Pacific Plate is bonded to the newer Okhotsk Plate at the Kuril Island Arc. While the trench lying alongside the island arc is currently believed to be proof that the Pacific Plate is subducting beneath the Okhotsk Plate, it is actually a fold within the Pacific Plate. Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea are splinter fractures that have remained attached to the Pacific seafloor crust while Asia has traveled westward. IV. Cameroon: Fracture vs. Hotspot Although many examples are offered up in Myths, Maps & Paradigms, one notable example of a perceived hotspot ridge is the one that defines the Cameroon line. The Cameroon line has long been regarded as a product of the African Plate moving across the Cameroon hotspot. I believe what has been overlooked is the arced bay which surrounds it, the Bight of Biafra. This once again appears to be a ductile fracture and in this instance, the fracture continues inland as a brittle fracture. Instability within the brittle fracture during plate movement has allowed magma to seep through forming the inland ridge. Meanwhile, the adjacent seafloor, which is directly attached to the coast, has been subjected to the same partial separation as a result of instability in the continental fracture thus also allowing magma to seep through creating a chain of volcanic islands. Further confirmation of fracturing can be seen below in the enlarged image. The brittle fracture known as the Cameroon line (C) runs directly down the center of the arced ductile fracture while secondary fractures (A, B, D, and E) lie to either side. These secondary fractures can take the form of smaller bays or inlets and often extend further inland as riverways. As demonstrated below, symmetrical secondary fracturing is a common natural trait shared by many ductile fractures. The Karaginsky ductile fracture exhibits similar symmetrical secondary fracturing as seen in the Bight Biafra. Also of note in the examples below, it is common for rivers to flow along brittle fractures. V. Subduction Fallacy As noted in Section III, I believe that the oceanic trenches lining the western Pacific are seafloor crustal folds. Seismic activity occurring in Benioff zones extending from the trench to well beneath the overriding plate is due to shifting within the fold and extends to fractures resulting from the tight fold. By no means is the Pacific Plate completely independent of the Asian continent and subducting beneath it. How can we be certain? 1. The separation of splinter fragments—Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea—from the Asian mainland requires that the fragments be attached directly and firmly to the Pacific seafloor providing the necessary resistance to anchor the splintered fragments while the mainland traveled westward, and 2. Take special note of the ridges in the image of the Kamchatka region below. Note that one of those ridges is the Emperor-Hawaiian seamount chain (C) and it still remains aligned to the cusp of a ductile fracture. Moving the Pacific Plate significantly forward or backward in time would find the ridge further north or south of the cusp. Likewise with the Aleutian Plate alignments. Only minor convergence between plates would allow for the multiple retained alignments, thus seafloor folding is the most logical explanation for the formation of seafloor trenches as it allows for the least amount of seafloor displacement. Ascribing alignments between ridges and ductile fracture cusps and centers, in the Kamchatka region and throughout the globe, to the random movement of crustal plates over hotspot ridges defies all odds and logic. In conclusion, I believe fracture mechanics—a very basic observable dynamic that formed the basis of continental drift and plate tectonics with the realization that the Americas conformed to Africa—was abandoned far too early in the process of analyzing Earth dynamics. Maps, Myths & Paradigms provides a fresh new view of terrestrial surface patterns with an eye toward fracture mechanics and sets forth consistent unifying theories for seafloor ridge and peninsular formations as well as coastal fractures and their immediate observable effect on the adjacently attached seafloor crust. Based on planetary surface analysis, by means of topographic and bathymetric maps, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of fracturing continental plates and separation with little to no long-term plate convergence. This, along with the Emperor-Hawaiian seamount chain’s retained alignment with a continental fracture cusp, strongly suggests that plate subduction is not occurring and, by logical extension, plate tectonics is a failed theory. This would appear to leave us with only one remaining option for an Earth dynamic: Earth expansion.