NOTE: (I had this at the bottom of the post some people missed it so I moved it up to the top) I’m not convinced that this idea has any merit whatsoever, as I see more conventional reasons (like silting) for land recovery such as at Rome’s original harbor and in New York, but thought it was worth posting for the discussion that would ensue. Even bad science deserves to be discussed/disproven. See also a note below. – Anthony
Isostacy is a major Geological error.
Guest essay by Richard Guy
The Governments of the United States and Canada are concerned about the ebbing water levels in the Great Lakes. For years the water levels in the great lakes and other lakes have been declining without any signs of ever returning to previous levels. The best news is that there is no hope that the water levels will ever return. The bad news is that we have our heads stuck in the sand dunes which have been created on the shores of the great lakes as they recede.
What we have also failed to notice is that the process is speeding up faster than our ability to grasp the reality. The fact is that this process of ebbing lake and water levels has been going on since pre history but we are just becoming aware of it as more and more shoreline inhabitants observe the phenomenon.
Another major deterrent to our overall realization is that our thought processes are hampered, among other things, by the media hype of rising sea levels and Post Glacial Rebound. Post Glacial Rebound is a geological error which has been foisted on us for a long time. It is time that we outlaw this false concept of Glacial Rebound and release a new era of exiting discoveries which have remained hidden by this mistaken premise.
Isostatic Rebound was introduced into Geological theology over one hundred years ago and it has lead us astray. This theory of Iostacy was based on an original error in deduction. The error in deduction was that the land rose from the sea. This original error was compounded when the theory of Post Glacial Rebound was built on it. This led us even further away from the truth.
We will never solve the disappearing water problem until we face the reality that we have been mislead by Iostacy. We have to face this reality because this reality is now facing us: we are losing water all over the planet while we continue to harp on rising seas levels.
Once we abandon Isostatic Rebound we will see the reality of receding seas. This path will also lead us to other interesting discoveries such as why the seas recede.? Once we accept that seas are receding that acceptance will automatically eliminate Post Glacial Rebound. There is no time to waste because our survival depends on this acceptance.
What is really occurring is that the sea levels have been falling from pre historic times. Rivers have been draining the land and the lakes since pre-historic times. As Sea levels fall lower and lower the draining process moves faster and faster and we lose our wetlands as more and more land is left behind by the receding seas. Sand dunes now line the shores of the great lakes where people used to swim and boats used to be moored. Many marinas have been deserted leaving boats stranded on sand bars. This is also a cause of the amount of arid land which is increasing worldwide.
Graph from: http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/dbd/
So it is wise at this stage to give the lie to rising sea levels and accept receding sea levels. This will not stop the water loss but it will make us understand what we have to do in order to preserve what little water we do have left.
New York is learning about receding seas because the marshes in Jamaica Bay are disappearing and drying up. New Jersey is dealing with the receding sea by selling off the new land left by the sea to Donald Trump and Playboy Hotels and Casinos. Donald Trump built his Taj Mahal Casino on these lands left by the receding sea.
Now that The State of New Jersey has discovered the land bonanza they are gaining as the sea recedes they have been looking over old survey maps to find out where the sea was back in 1776. They are proposing to claim retroactive taxes from landowners who have occupied these lands back to those historical times. They estimate that they have accumulated 830000 acres of land from the sea since 1776. The State of New York can make a similar claim as it includes long Island the Sounds and Brooklyn Shorelines. An exhibition by the New York Library in 2010 showed the mapping of the New York shoreline over three hundred years. The entire New York coastline has gained a quarter mile of land over that period.
So when we see the water levels falling in the Great lakes that is only the tip of the iceberg. Those levels have been falling for a very long time and will continue to do so. If we want to get a picture of what our earth will eventually look like just look at the face of the Planet Mars.
The first order of business is to get rid of the Isostatic Rebound theory and accept that our seas are receding as our planet expands. The sea is not rising. We will then see why our lakes are going dry. We will also understand that the only thing we can do about it is to keep dredging our waterways harbours and lakes to keep things moving. That was all three Emperors of Rome could do to keep the Harbour at Ostia open: they were finally defeated. It took Nero, Trajan and Articus one hundred years of dredging before they gave up the fight against the receding sea. Today Ostia is three miles from the sea and twenty feet above sea level.
The Port Authority in New York is having to blast bedrock, for the first time, to keep the harbour channels open. The sea keeps getting shallower and the seagoing vessels keep getting larger. Ships keep demanding deeper depths.
Our Planet Earth is dynamic. It is a masterful creation not unlike other planets in the Cosmos. The earth does not reveal her secrets readily and her secrets are often presented to us as a mirror image of what is really happening. So when we observe that land is rising it may just be a mirror image: our seas are receding.
###
Richard Guy is a Structural Engineer. P.Eng, Mse, West London University. He has worked in several countries worldwide. He has written three books on Receding Seas and allied Phenomena. He lectures, writes and does radio and TV interviews. He has built Airports, Refineries, Highways on lands left behind by the receding sea
See: The Mysterious Receding Seas on Amazon
===============================================================
UPDATE: for those who never read past the first few paragraphs to see my caveat, I’ve now moved it up top for better visibility.
Some people asked why I should publish “rubbish science” like this. The reason is the same that I often publish some “rubbish science”from climatology; it deserves ridicule for the ridiculous premise of the idea.
At some point, when the next ice age kicks in, we will start to see the seas recede. We are nowhere close to that.
The new land that Mr. Guy sees is from silting deposition. For example the delta of the Mississippi river continues to grow each year for that reason.
Plus, with GPS enabled altimetry systems, we can now actually measure isotasy changes. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Richard Guy:
At September 2, 2013 at 8:15 am you wrongly assert
NO! For example, Alexandria is under the sea.
This is but one example of your seeking information which supports your idea and ignoring information which contradicts it.
Science is an attempt to seek the closest possible approximation to truth by attempting to find information which falsifies existing understanding(s) so the understanding(s) has to be rejected or amended.
Pseudoscience is an attempt to justify an idea as being true by attempting to find information which supports the idea while ignoring or rejecting information which conflicts with the idea.
Everything you have written here is pure pseudoscience.
Richard
Alexandria by sunk by tectonic activity. All the city sank. There are many sunken cities around the world that have been buried by earthquakes. Port Royal is one such famous city that sank off the coast of Jamaica in 1692. Earthquakes are a manifestation of earth expansion and as the earth expands it creates fissures and the earth slumps. The Town of New Madrid in 1811 slid off the banks of the Mississippi River Fault and sunk. I don’t profess to be a scientist but I can think and that is all I am asking you to do. Think. Don’t just accept what has been handed down to us. All the major bridges in the USA have been retrofitted for earthquake. This means that we have reached a level of awareness about earthquakes we never had before. We engineers build bridges and dams across river valleys without any thought about earthquakes. Our bridges fail sometimes mysteriously and all our dams leak WHY?. Richard Guy
When scientists tell us that sea levels are rising they are really saying that sea levels are rising ,over and beyond, the level they have always been. We all accept sea level as a datum throughout history as well as today. That was the mistake Darwin made: he, like all of us, thought that sea level was constant through the ages. That was a mistake that we all make. As I said in a previous post WHAT IF? sea level was the variant in the equation? All mountains are measured from sea level. Every fifty years we determine sea level and start from there to measure the mountain but we are unaware that the sea level has receded by one foot, not 1millimeter, but 1 foot. We then announce that the Mountain has grown by 1 foot in fifty years. This is what happens because we accept sea level as a fixed datum. That is where the whole Isostatic Rebound Theory falls apart. Every benchmark established in every city street fifty years ago is wrong as far as height above sea level goes but that is attributed to Isostatic Rebound if you see what I mean?
I think that we should question the entire premise of Isostacy and wring the truth out so that we can move on to more interesting discoveries. One such discovery is the origins of ancient civilizations in high mountains. Every ancient civilization originated first of all in high mountains. Gobekli Tepe has recently been discovered i.e. in historical terms. It is about three thousand feet above sea level in Turkey and is about 12000 years old: much older than the Pyramids. What we are going to find for the future is that archaeologists will unearth older and older civilizations higher up than Gobekli Tepe. Some years ago an ancient civilization was discovered on top of the wind swept plains of the Zagros Mountains. Archaeologists were amazed that ancient civilizations existed at such an elevation. Many more great discoveries will be made the higher up we go. Remember the most ancient cities are at high elevations. That should tell us something. Historians tell us that Nineveh is the oldest city in Mesopothamia. What they don’t tell us is that Nineveh was the first city because all the other cities Babylon, and Ur were built after Nineveh in descending order of age as sea levels fell. Richard Guy
Richard, I understand the Boulian analysis. My confusion is that you seem to be using flawed analytical techniques even in your immediate response. God bless the people who observed and suggested theories which could be critically examined and lead to an incrementally more perfect understanding of the world around us.
You are welcome to interpret the data differently. And if you prevail in your explanation more power to you.
From my personal experience as a geologist and having examined personally what is taken to day as firm evidence, I cited a great field trip in Maine so that any aspiring geologist can personally examine the evidence cited in hundreds of primary peer reviewed papers. in Maine the current data suggests strongly that there was over a mile of ice. By your construct If your theory is dependent upon this ice either not existing in the recent past or having no significant weight then your theory fails by your own construction. MY WORD this construction is not helpful to your point!
I am pointing out that your construct runs into a philosophical theory of what constitutes scientific evidence issue.
My recommendation was to leave this argument alone because it is not necessary for glacial rebound to fail in order to advance your theory and because there is so much empirical evidence it is not likely to fail… so you are entangled in a peripheral battle with little relevance to your thesis or chance of success.
As for your historical dialogue on the point where we all “went wrong”. I am unconvinced with out an alternative explanation of how rock that was clearly deposited on the surface of the ocean floor at some time becomes buried under subsequent facies and is discovered at great depth with out any sign of a “hole” in the sea floor being filled. These used to be called geosynclines. After periods of orogeny and erosion these deposits which were metamorphosed at depth and temperature appear on mountain tops.
While you are entitled to question anything, Your ” oceans are receding” is insufficient to provide a better explanation of the phenomena you chose and because you have additionally chosen to attempt to debunk data with unsupportable assertions which through your lens do not better ( more simply) explain the observed….. the theory you advance fails. It fails more quickly because of the construction of the argument you use to support it. For the reason of poor construction, it never had a logical chance!!!. I would prefer to see you create a better, more succinct, argument so that the result can be judged on it’s own merits rather than get tangled up with old dogs and ghosts.
Science is advanced by individuals with new interpretations of the existing data Old dogs become respected ghosts who broke ground on the path to enlightenment If the investigation is rigorous the failure of the theory is just as important as the possible advancement brought by acceptance.
I truly wish you well, but I am going to have to bow out having offered and exhausted the explanation for the basis of my best advice.
Richard Guy says:
At September 2, 2013 at 8:15 am you wrongly asserted
At September 2, 2013 at 8:37 am I answered that saying
At September 2, 2013 at 12:13 pm you have replied saying
It seems you cannnot see the factual error and the logical disconnect between
And
Sad. Very, very sad.
Richard
I suppose I have to define that I meant Troy, Ephesus, Mycene, Ramsees. Alexandria was sunk by earthquake. The lighthouse and Library were all destroyed by earthquake. We all accept that. I mentioned that Port Royal was also destroyed by earthquake and sunk in thirty feet of water in Kingston Harbour I went down with divers some years ago to look at the ruins. I must be missing your point: where is the disconnect?
Richard Guy:
At September 2, 2013 at 1:33 pm you ask me
OK. You asked.
You said
I pointed out that you were wrong. I cited Alexandria which is not “six miles inland” but is actually below the surface of the Mediterranean Sea.
Your reply is to say that Alexandria sank as result of an earthquake.
Yes, that is why it and other places sank. And it is also why some places rose.
It is a logical disconnect to claim “all” places have risen and to ignore those which sank because you choose to ignore them.
Your ideas are nonsense. Face it. And live with it.
Richard
Pacific Islanders will tell you that Islands Pop up and Islands sink. Tulvalu is supposed to be swamped by rising seas. Tuvalu is sinking and so are the Duke of York and Carteret Islands.
So tectonics action sinks some locations in the normal process of earth expansion. In Iqaluit in Northwest Canada islands are appearing in the Hudson Bay. The Inuit elders have observed over many years that the Hudson Bay is getting shallower. I was shown an island that had grown in size over the years. In Jamaica when you stand at Port Royal and look out to sea there are now nine Islands where there used to be just one. Port Royal itself was a small sand spit in the year 1665 when the Spaniards arrived. Today Port Royal is comprised of hundreds of acres as the sea recedes. Five hundred years ago burials could not take place at Port Royal as the water table was too high. The first cemetery was established in the late nineteenth century when the sea level had dropped. Richard Guy
Dear Mr. Guy,
We were wondering how you could write all you did in your above article. Thank you for coming back. We, I think I can speak for all of us, now understand. All I can say is I am sorry for the frustration and hurt you are experiencing at our attempts to refute you (some of us would likely not have been as blunt, had we realized what you are up against). I’m afraid our strong rebuttals were necessary, however, in order to ensure that no one reading this thread would be misled about what the WUWT posters think.
Take care of yourself and in the days and months to come, as increasingly more people “just don’t get” what you are trying to tell them, hand it to God. Trying to convince others that you are REALLY, REALLY, RIGHT, is just not going to work. Trust me. It will only be cause for more depression. Just live one day at a time and rejoice in what is lovely in that day, your dog or a beautiful sunset, or your daughter’s loving voice on the phone. You have, here on WUWT, stepped outside the bounds of what we consider to be rational thought. Let it be. Even if you are no longer understood, you are still loved.
With deepest sympathy (more than you will ever know, I think),
Janice
What Janice Moore said.
We’ll think no less of Richard Guy if is simply says “I was wrong”. I once believed CO2 was the major force behind global warming. I was wrong, it is only a minor player among many. See my 50:1 interview for how my turnabout occurred.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/01/my-50-to-1-project-interview-is-now-online-along-with-the-main-video/
– Anthony
Hello Janice
Thanks for your kind collective thought and humane dismissal. In former days it might have been the Rack. Richard Guy
Janice Moore:
re your post addressed to Richard Guy at September 2, 2013 at 2:51 pm.
Thankyou. Well said. You speak for me and I am sure many others.
Your post needed saying, and you said it well.
Richard
Thanks, Richard. I needed to hear that.
Janice
Before reading through all 200-odd comments to see whether this point has already been made, let me note that GIA has long been held to be the number two agent controlling secular acceleration of earth rotation, since before they called it GIA even. This secular acceleration has been calculated through eclipse records to be -1.7 ms/century. Lunar laser ranging puts tidal acceleration at -2.3ms, leaving 0.6ms unaccounted for, hence its attribution to GIA. This trend holds over 2500 years, so that core/mantle coupling can be reasonably assumed to be negligible. Accordingly, in addition to all the other excellent evidence for GIA, one must explain the missing 0.6ms/century of acceleration if one discounts GIA.
Another thing to remember, beyond mantle loading, ice sheets displace the lithosphere’s center of gravity relative to the hydrosphere. –AGF
While I’ve heard of the expanding earth theory I’ve never seen any solid proof. As to GPS measuring accurately I used to work for a GPS company and they had a course put on by a university prof who was one of the best at GPS in North America and the least accurate of the 3 is vertical. I still think the isostatic rebound is valid unless someone can show how having miles of ice on the majority of the continent wouldn’t have an effect.
Hello TRM
What I am saying is that the Ice age burden never existed to the extent that is professed. The surface of the earth is rising by expansion but not from the Ice Age load. The original premise was wrong. The land did not rise from the sea the sea receded and is still receding today. Granted we have been losing Glaciers all over the world. In Alaska the sea is receding as the Glaciers melt.
All ancient civilizations have houses founded in solid Earth not ice. The Ice age is a figment of imagination based solidly on the “Raised Beaches” that Darwin mis-interpreted. Agazzis later came along and based his Ice Age on Darwin,s mistaken “Raised Beaches”. This simple mis-interpretation is what gave us the Isostacy theory and I say that is wrong and the Ice age is a myth.
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/gpsgia.pdf
We can take GPS satellites which we can rather accurately locate due to the simple facts of light speed being well known, and travel time providing a useful indicator of distance for a radio signal carrying a timestamp.
Whether the GPS system has an exactly known position or not, we do know that the position of it relative to a given location on the planet, simply because we can check with multiple signals and determine not just our location on the surface of the planet, but the altitude of said location.
With enough signals accumulated over a long enough time you can remove errors induced by the motion of the receiver, but there are errors which you can not eliminate, even if you bolt the receiver directly into the bedrock.
Those sources of error need to be explained, and even if no one had thought up post glacial rebound, it would have been discovered upon the advent of GPS surveying.
Canada is rising at a measurable rate.
The northern US is sinking at a measurable rate.
The great lakes are a big bowl on a tilting tabletop, and your entire argument about the great lakes fails because the water levels are not universally receding last time I checked.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/–w6gQHM3LcQ/UFCdidSpySI/AAAAAAAAU3w/HhBX9ujL1VU/s1600/Rebound+copy+copy.jpg
We’re not talking about a little bit of ice on the ground either: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2rvU35ZpKTU/UFCi2DyqVHI/AAAAAAAAU44/PCH8HrhcJzw/s1600/Glacier+height.jpg
We’re talking kilometers of ice in some places.
So no, this argument is flawed for numerous reasons and does not meet the prerequisites for being called science at all.
Anthony, This guest post has allowed me to consider the nature of evidence in scientific method.This issue is directly relevant to the discourse on AGW and climate sensitivity to CO2. Mr Guy’s reasoning is in a form unsupportable as evidence for his thesis. It even goes as far as to attack theories not critical to his argument.
When the model does not fit the data the model must be modified, we have learned something either way.. Scientific method and rules of evidence do not allow us to hang onto the model and dismiss the evidence.
There should be some worth while discussions about scientific method, logic and rules of evidence. With out the form of logic there is no foundation to process and absurdities aren’t challenged. I believe that the AGW camp has abandoned good science for supporting an ideology. Never the less good science must prevail and the discourse has to be on the scientific plain not on the political battle field under their political “rules”.
OOPs sorry appeal to authority =fail
OOPs sorry ad homenum attack =fail
OOPs Sorry proposition h fails because e is not evidence of h.
OOps Sorry a phenomena that lags can not be the cause the proposition of cause =fails.
OOps Sorry an assertion with out data can not be evidence = fails.
OOps one lottery ticket of several million is only evidence that you could win not evidence that you will win. = fails
etc.
If we are to have a discussion we need to elevate the debate to scientific principles or frankly we will loose because politics and made up facts become too facile.
Maybe we should give geran space to expostulate his assertion that the moon doesn’t “rotate.”
Well, it rotates and orbits at a rate such that it keeps the same side towards the planet, which I assume is what they meant, though they said it in a strange manner.
Oh dear, I was reading some more of these posts, Richard… are you claiming that the planet is expanding, as in actually growing in surface area?
Would this not suggest that there is material being added to the interior, or that the interior is composed of something which undergoes expansion over time… like freezing ice perhaps?
Are you aware that you’re essentially stating that ice ages are absurd, but a simple conclusion of your train of thought might be that the seas are draining into the planet, freezing, and causing it to expand?
Do you know what happens when water freezes? There is energy involved, where is the energy transfer involved here?
Why is the apparently logical conclusion for you after learning that there are fossils on the Himalayan mountains, that clearly they were under oceans in exactly the same state they are today?
Why is that more reasonable than the idea that they have been lifted upwards by the collision between the indian and asian plates?
I’m just at a loss here, what is your motive for pushing this idea without even doing something as simple as checking to see if GPS data supports your assertions?
Hi Max
GPS is incapable of measuring the slight expansion of the earth over time because GPS in itself has not the subtle capability of measuring the enigmatic variations of the earth surface. The topographical features of the earth make it impossible to get the accuracy. Please stop selling GPS as an accurate measurement model for earth expansion. The measurement of the Planetary expansion is not possible with GPS in its present state. A method to measure the earths expansion still has to be devised. On the matter of increase of the earths surface we all still look for where the mass is coming from. What we have to look at is where is the volume coming from. The earth increases it surface with Magma which is ejected as Lava and expands to several times its volume while loosing its density. This ejection from the earths interior is what creates the new seafloor and land area. In the process it looses its density and becomes the lighter crust. This phenomenon is
staring us in the face everyday but we miss the subtlety of the Metamorphosis from Magma to Lava.
This is what I term the “Popcorn” effect. That is why our sea floors expand and why sea levels must fall. Richard Guy.
Wait, I’ve got it!
Ok, bear with me here, this is nothing crazier than anything else in this thread…
The interior of the planet is a gigantic refrigeration system which extracts heat from seawater, freezes it, and then the heat sinks are magma chambers and ultimately volcanic eruptions!
In case you were wondering why this would exist, well, if you just got done making a world in a week, wouldn’t you want to relax and drink a lot of ice cold beer?
The planet is just [insert deity here]’s beer cooler!
Richard Guy, have you ever heard of a little theory called plate tectonics?
Hello UK Sceptic
Yes I have heard of plate Tectonics. When Wegener presented his paper on plate Tectonics to the American Scientific Society the President of the Society declare it “UTTER DAMMED ROT”. Fast forward one hundred years and what do we have Plate Tectonics and in order to deny expansion we have subduction. Have you heard that all the planets in the cosmos expand.? Why should the earth be disobedient to the laws? Just Think? Don’t just follow blindly. Think? That is why you are a Sceptic; remember? Richard Guy
All the planets in the cosmos expand? I wasn’t aware than anyone on Earth could see so far into the cosmos and view every planet therein.
It is ridiculous, hyperbolic statements like this that that make me think you are not to be taken too seriously which is why I won’t be following you blindly.
BAH! There should be a tag after ~Richard Guy in that post…
Anthony – you inflated this idiocy by referring to it even as ‘bad science’ This is not science at all and did not warrant the amount of effort everyone here spent on it. This does not even approach the borderland of science and is practically devoid of any geologic knowledge.
Enough said.
And quit the lie about the Earth spinning on its axis. Accept the fact that the universe spins around the Earth before it’s too late and the planet goes supernova.
For what it’s worth, I think that Richard is on to something. The theory of earth expansion is older than plate tectonics and has quite a following around the world. If you are not familiar with it, maybe you should get out more.
The satellite estimates of sea level rise differ from gauge averages by several mm/yr. Maybe it is a fundamental problem. Maybe we should look at all the assumptions that go into the satellite measurements.
Read Nil Axel Morner. Isn’t he hinting at something similar?
Reading the comments to Richard’s article reminds me of why I stopped reading the comments here.
Than you Marty its refreshing to have someone who thinks. I have worked in several locations worldwide and found the same anomaly everywhere. There is so much weight for what I have observed that I thought that it would be helpful for scientists to think through my observations.
This has not been the case. I just got some encouraging words from another member of the Expanding Earth Fraternity. The expansion process is not an increase in mass but rather an increase in volume. All the great scientists look for the mass increase of the earth and finding none negate Earth Expansion. The simplicity of the complexity is this we don’t look for mass increase we look for volumetric increase. The volume of the earth is increasing by magma which is ejected under tremendous pressure from the earth. It immediately expands to eight times is volume as lava on the ocean floor. This increase in sea floor spreading dictates the recession of the sea. The sea has been receding for millions of years and as it does civilizations follow in decending order.
My second book is entitled. “The Ascent of Man: Downhill all the Way” It relates how civilizations have followed the receding seas downward. So to start where I came in before all the sarcasm and redicule started. The earth is growing by a process which I term “The Popcorn Effect” because of the expansion of the Lava. As our earth grows sea levels fall. As sea levels fell civilization followed. Richard Guy
V Mueller pointed out in http://www.aracneeditrice.it/aracneweb/index.php/catalogo/9788854856936-detail.html that if you take the earth’s radius and multiply by Hubble’s constant you get the rate of alleged post glacial rebound. This is exactly the expansion rate proposed by many theorists. Maybe you’re missing something.
Don’t be so quick to ridicule.
In the Cradle of Civilization Mesopothamia, the land between the rivers, the entire scenario is revealed. It matters not if you believe in the bible or not but THINK. Noah is hailed as the Patriach of the Assyrian Nation. The Assyrian Nation originated in the Highlands of what we know today as Iraq. In the Biblical context Noah stepped out of the Ark with his family on top of Mount Ararat in Turkey. As the great flood subsided Noah and his progeny went downward from Mount Ararat. Much later in the Assyrian history Noah dies and his great grandson Nimrod established the capital of the Assyrian Empire Nineveh on the Estuary of the Euphrates River. Jonah the prophet lives in Nineveh and is instructed by God to warn Nineveh of their wicked ways. Jonah does not want the job so he runs away to sea and is thrown overboard and swallowed by a large fish who deposits him back to Nineveh.
The city of Babylon was built after Nineveh lower down at the Estuary of the Euphrates River.
Later on the city of Ur of the Chaldees was built on the Estuary of the Euphrates river. Ur was a teeming bustling seaport on the Persian Gulf at the time when Abraham was born there.
Todat Ur is 250 miles from the sea and 100 feet above sea level. Babylon is 400 miles from the sea and 150 feet above sea level. Nineveh is 700 miles from the sea and 700 feet above sea level.
Baghdad was established on the estuary of the Tigris River back in ancient times it is now 350 Miles from the sea and 125 feet above sea level. All these facts I discovered while doing the research in the Middle East. So all the cities coming down the Tigris and Euphrates valleys were built after Nineveh in descending order of age. Nineveh was first. Richard Guy
V Muller thanks for your injection of substance that supports the earth Expansion Theory. It is so easy not to think and just go along with what has been handed to us through university. If we just start to think for ourselves we will find answers to so many things. The first time I learned about the Roman Roads in Wales I was fascinated. All the Roman roads built in Wales 2000 years ago were built along the coastline. Now they were all far inland. In later years a reader in Wales sent me photographs of Forts and Castles that were all built on the sea but were now miles inland.
I started doing historical research and found a wealth of information hitherto unknown. In Wales there are over 400 forts and Castles most of which were built on the sea. Today they are all far removed from the sea. Camber Castle built by Henry V111 was built on the sea but before it was completed it was abandoned because its cannons could no longer reach the sea. All the coast of Britain has lost its ancient harbours as the sea has receded. Along the coast of Normandy in France there is the imposing structure of Abbey San Michel which was built in 1013 5 miles out in the Channel. It used to be surrounded by a 45 foot tide. Today you can stand on the Coast of France and see the Castle a short distance offshore. The Castle will soon join mainland France because the sea has withdrawn leaving all that land behind.Richard Guy
Max said,”The GPS system orbits at a given height, these orbits are defined by the mass of the planet and the velocity of the satellites themselves.
To change an orbit you must accelerate or decelerate somehow, or change the mass generating the gravity well itself.”
Van Flandern documented unexplained deviations in satellite orbits in excess of SLR estimates. http://metaresearch.org/
TomRude says:
September 1, 2013 at 8:00 am
Next to come: the anti-subduction guy… What a waste.
Tom, when I attended the 2004 IGU conference there was an entire session on subduction as a myth.
Subduction is another myth figmented to support the static earth theory. It just goes on and on. When are we going to stand up and think? Just think and see for yourself that the sea floor is spreading in the Atlantic and Pacific: that is a known. When the Mid Atlantic Ridge was discovered sea floor spreading was also discovered. It was estimated that Europe was being pushed away from North America by approximately 6 feet in the average lifetime. The scientists said that since the earth is static the Pacific must be shrinking? When it was realized that the Pacific was also expanding they came up with the subduction theory to keep the earth static. Of all the mysteries we have to solve why is it so important that we ignore all the other findings from space that other bodies are expanding and the universe is expanding: why not the earth? WHat is so puzzling.
Richard Guy