Comment on “Finally, the True Origin of Earthquakes?”

Here you can comment on, or see comments made on, “Finally, the True Origin of Earthquakes?".

Surprisingly, very little is known (or even speculated) about what causes earthquakes. This article gives, perhaps for the first time, a well-evidenced and coherent account of how earthquakes arise.

It is comprehensively shown that earthquakes are an expression of a process called equilibration, adjustments made as the Earth expands.

A short explanation is also given of why the Earth is expanding.

Click here to go to the article itself, at: Finally, the True Origin of Earthquakes.

You can enter a comment on the article below. All comments welcome.

Share this:


  • Pedro Cunha  On June 1, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    Excelent article David. This theory could also explain why the speed of rotation of Earth is decreasing. In fact, there are evidences that the days were shorter some millions of years ago. The standard theory for this phenomenon is that it’s caused by tide friction induced by the moon. The expansion of the Earth would have caused such an effect on its rotation speed in order to preserve its angular momentum.
    Best regards
    Pedro Cunha


  • Rajesh  On August 9, 2014 at 2:18 am

    Hi David.. Here either I am missing something or you are. Your article does have a lot of correct facts but too much of them seem to be misrepresented. In several places in the article you make a point of ridiculing the plate tectonic theory, but you fail to substantiate how much of this theory you have read and understood. I am mentioning some points below from the plate tectonic theory, which already efficiently explains what you are trying to explain through your “new” hypothesis.

    The Mid oceanic ridges are indeed places where new crust is formed as you have mentioned in your article — this is a central point in the plate tectonic theory — as against your statement that it doesn’t explain this. However, you have very conveniently ignored the fact that in addition to the expansion at the mid oceanic ridges, plate tectonic theory also mentions about subduction at the subduction zones — which are the sites where the trenches like Mariana trench (the one you mentioned) are formed. This is a very beautiful and simple explanation of all the facts without introducing any complications. This also explains why Mid-oceanic ridges are highs (elevated) while the trenches are lows (deep). Compare it with your comments where you are proposing expansion at both ridges and trenches without explaining why one of them is a mountain and other a valley !!

    The good old plate tectonic theory also accounts for conservation of mass & energy, while your “new” hypothesis does not. In your comments, newer crust is being made everyday and hence earth is expanding (WOW !! we would never run out of space no matter how fast we populate :-)) — so where does this extra mass come from !! Have you wondered. You are seeming to flout a very basic mass conservation principle.

    FYI, plate tectonic theory says that while extra mass is coming out of earth at the mid-oceanic ridges, its going back again and is getting destroyed/ merged in the mantle at the locations of the trenches. So, the overall mass is conserved, whatever is getting generated, equal amount is getting destroyed. This also explains a number of other “riddles” that you have ,mentioned in the article and many other that you have conveniently forgot to mention. It explains observations like ..

    – The fact that why older crust is only 180 million years older (bcos crust older than that has been destroyed at the trenches)
    – It explains the presence of volcanoes and island arcs
    – It explains the higher heat flow at the mid-oceanic ridges and the cooler nature of the trenches
    – Explains the tighter nature of earthquake belt in ridges and wider belt of earthquakes at the subduction zones
    – It explains the orogeny — formation of mountain ranges
    – and many more, research to know more

    Plate Tectonic theory, I think, is an ideal example of the fact that reality is simple and beautiful. Its the best example of an integrated analysis of diverse datasets and how we can combine them and explain them with a single simple process ..

    And while I agree that there may be scope for some finer tweaks OR maybe the theory may be wrong and need to be replaced, but your suggested ideas certainly fall short of addressing the facts that the plate tectonic theory is already addressing. Forgive me if you find my language a bit aggressive, I did not intend that intentionally, I just intended to request you not to misuse internet to spread mis-information. Please do your research properly before blaming anything and jumping to conclusions with the ideas you consider “fantastic”.

    Again asking for your forgiveness in case I offended you, its too late for me to change the tone of this reply ..


    David Noel Comments:

    I’m certainly not offended by Rajesh’s comments, in fact he is to be thanked for listing common difficulties in understanding the “Finally, the True Origin of Earthquakes?” article, so the these can be explained.

    In explaining points, I’ll list some of my other articles. Although these have my name at the top, much of their content is a distillation and blending of the work of others.

    Firstly, my article did not mention subduction zones because these are not real objects, only a discredited myth. These are dealt with in “Fixed-Earth and Expanding-Earth Theories — Time for a Paradigm Shift?”, at (2004). When looking for actual evidence, “Subduction Zones” has none. They also contradict plain logic — just two examples: (1) If material is being subducted down ocean trenches, how can they be widening, rather than filling up? (2) If tectonic plates are moving, say the “Pacific Plate” moving north by 100 km up the Californian coast, what’s happening to the 100 km gap which should be forming at its southern edge? To check that subduction is indeed a myth, just google “subduction myth”, you will find 3400 or so results.

    Rajesh has the impression that the “good old plate tectonic theory also accounts for conservation of mass & energy”, but *conservation* of mass and energy is not the difficulty here. Plate tectonics, in fact, is completely unable to explain all the energy that is expressed in earthquakes, which, as can be seen in “Finally”, is the next largest source of energy after solar radiation affecting Earth. Moreover, “Finally” does NOT suggest that extra mass is being created, it suggests that existing mass at Earth’s core, in the form of compacted neutrons, is very slowly being converted to hydrogen atoms, with consequent huge expansion. The reference is “Inside The Earth — The Heartfire Model”, at It’s jaw-dropping to consider that if the Earth was made entirely of compacted neutrons, it would be only about 300 metres in diameter (not a misprint)!

    Rajesh may be surprised to learn that even the terms “plate tectonics” and “subduction” are comparatively recent (around 1970), and that “subduction” was specifically invented in an effort to explain mid-ocean ridge expansion without having to accept that the Earth was expanding. In fact, Earth Expansion studies very much pre-date plate tectonic ideas, starting as early as the 1850s (see “Nuteeriat” at:, and ‘plate tectonics’ actually hijacked the field better known as ‘Continental Drift’.


  • William Frankeberger  On June 30, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    Can someone PLEASE stretch a cord across an ocean trench to prove physically if the trench is closing up or widening???


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: