The Inflating Earth: 1 – Seafloor Stretching

David Pratt has published a very interesting paper in the New Concepts in Global Tectonics journal with some very interesting conclusions.

Fossil magnetism in rocks can be affected by many factors, with the result that derived virtual magnetic poles for specific periods show a wide scatter.

The fundamental assumption that averaged palaeomagnetic poles approximately coincided with past geographic poles is unproved.

There is great scope for subjectivity in the selection, processing and interpretation of palaeomagnetic data, and this is reflected in inconsistent and often contradictory reconstructions of plate motions and true polar wander through time.

The major tenets of plate tectonics and the associated theories of continental fragmentation and assembly are contradicted by a wealth of evidence. The wrench-tectonic theory of large-scale polar wander and ‘minor’ plate rotations and translations, based on selected palaeomagnetic data, is also open to serious objections. Geological, geophysical, palaeontological and palaeoclimatic data do not require large-scale plate motion or polar wander; they point to nondrifting continents and stable poles, with vertical tectonic movements causing periodic changes in the distribution of land and sea.


New Concepts in Global Tectonics – NCGT JOURNAL March 2013

Overall, I very much agree with David Pratt’s conclusion that there “is great scope for subjectivity in the selection, processing and interpretation”. However, I would extend this statement to the Earth sciences in general – not just palaeomagnetism.

David Pratt’s paper has reached the attention of the news editor of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies [SIS] who is relieved to know that the concept of an expanding Earth is fatally flawed.

This evidence alone, he assures the reader, contradicts the idea of continents drifting thousands of miles around the surface of the Earth. It is also fatal to the expanding Earth theorists – which is a bit of a relief.

Personally, I am very much aligned with the SIS news editor who is “warming to this subject and there is a long way to go”. Therefore, before the editor drafts “another post next week” it seems timely to introduce a couple of new perspectives [from my ongoing research] into the debate regarding the concept of the expanding Earth.

The roots of the expanding Earth concept trace back to Sir Francis Bacon [1561-1628] who noted “the similarity of shape of the opposing African and South American coasts” according to Warren Carey in his wonderfully subtitled book: Theories of the Earth and Universe – A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences.

The earliest visual representation [that I have found on the internet] of the expanding Earth concept is from 1909 by Roberto Mantovani.

Roberto Mantovani
Models of the Expanding Earth
Hypotheses – Problems – Results
Klaus Voge

Roberto Mantovani’s illustration very much aligns with my own initial thoughts when I studied an atlas as a schoolboy and those old 1961 atlases are treasured processions.

Therefore, as a starting point [in this research] I performed a basic reality check using Wikipedia’s basic geological map.

World Geologic Provinces
Map of world geologic provinces

Overall, Roberto Mantovani’s concept appears to pass the geologic reality check.

The continental trio of South America, Africa and Australia seem to squeeze together horizontally. The US East Coast seems to line-up with North Africa and Greenland appears to connect Canada to Scandinavia.

A second level reality check is to see if this [subjective] visual matching is supported by a map of the seafloor.

Earth seafloor crust age - 1996

Age of oceanic crust

Overall, Roberto Mantovani passes this second level reality check.

At this point the concept of an expanding Earth is looking good, but, as David Platt has so eloquently explained there are many problems with the current expanding Earth theories – let alone the mainstream excuses for plate tectonic.

However, the expanding Earth explanations that I have read are very superficial insofar as they concentrate upon the surface of the Earth. This is missing the forest for the trees because 99% of any expansion [if it exists] is not happening on the surface of the Earth. The majority of any inflation must occur in the interior of the Earth.

Therefore, if the Earth is inflating then there should be some record of outgassing that matches the seafloor expansion record.

Following this line of inquiry produces some very interesting results.

The 1966 illustration of the seafloor age includes a scaled key which provides a guide to the ages and relative growth rates – as graphed below.


Evidently there have been two big waves of seafloor spreading that should be associated with planetary outgassing and [possibly] expansion.

Interestingly, the high level summary graph of the oxygen content of the Earth’s atmosphere also depicts two big waves of oxygen outgassing.

Although the timelines are different the patterns are very similar.
Personally, I have more faith in the pattern than the dating [in both diagrams].

Concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere over the last 1000 million years
Oxygen content of the atmosphere over the last billion years.

Another, cross check on the planetary outgassing [and any expansion] should also be reflected in the Earth’s biodiversity [as currently understood from the fossil record].

Biodiversity as shown by the fossil record

The very remarkable feature in the biodiversity graph is the rise and gradual decline in biodiversity than continued until about 200 million years ago.

However, the biodiversity suddenly takes-off exponentially when the seafloors start spreading 180 million years ago. This is very indicative of an expanding Earth with new habits, extended habits and new climate zones.

Biodiversity was moribund until the seafloors started spreading.

Personally, I perceive there is very good high level support for the concept of an inflating Earth driven by planetary outgassing of oxygen and hydrogen [mainly in the form of water – H2O].

However, many people will perceive things differently.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Astrophysics, Catastrophism, Earth, Inflating Earth, Science, Water. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to The Inflating Earth: 1 – Seafloor Stretching

  1. malagabay says:

    The SIS New Editor eloquently captures the concept of Inflation which is [from my perspective] primarily a combination of stretching and extrusion [where the Earth’s crust is fractured] which drives some secondary splitting, rotating, folding, sinking, uplifting and faulting [just to make life difficult for geologists].

    The inflating Earth model can also explain the little bits of continental crust left behind – as continental drift can too. In the Plate Tectonics model these pieces of crust should not be there. Old crust is thought to subduct at particular plate boundaries. If new sea floor forms and then old sea floor must subduct – or somehow disappear. That is if you start on the assumption the Earth has not grown in size over the course of Earth history. For example, if you go to the west coast of Britain or Ireland you will see offshore little pieces of rock stranded off-shore, and other pieces that are best described as small islands.

    However, I totally agree that it all depends upon your personal perspective.

    Are these pieces left behind after jerks and fits as a result of tectonic activity, continental drift, or an inflating Earth?

    It all depends on what is inside your head when you are looking at them – and this goes for geology in general.

    If you begin in a uniformitarian mind-set it all seems quite logical – small changes over millions of years.

    If you look at it from a non-uniformitarian angle, bearing in mind that upheavals of various kinds might have taken place, you see things in a different way – but which side of the coin is the more realistic?

    A bit of both may be inferred, long periods of erosion by slow processes such as wave energy, wind and frost, interspersed with catastrophic events (of differing degrees of magnitude) which may also include outgassing episodes.

    My personal perspective is that “things” usually progress with a boring monotony until “something” breaks the routine [or “hits the fan”].

  2. Pingback: Amber Nectar and the Oxygen Paradox | MalagaBay

  3. Ray says:

    It doesn’t have to be a “versus” situation between expanding Earth and tectonics. Obviously tectonics are current reality in Earths history, but we don’t have billions of years of observation and experience to draw on as far as what kinds of chemical reactions are possible on the cosmic size/pressure/temperatures we are talking about here, we cannot conclusively dismiss that at some stage in Earths history the planet was smaller.

  4. Ray says:

    I don’t think the Earth is expanding, nor has it been for at least 70 million years, but I cant really vouch for anything before that, for or against. But I think that plate tectonics is a natural result of the current size of the planet, which may have always been constant or may have experienced change in some form that we have not yet been able to verify. But I agree that oxygen and notably hydrogen may have been instrumental in some kind of cosmic chemical reaction in the core or surrounding magma, likely core, that could have resulted in a dynamic expansion relative to the reaction and stabilised where it is now. Again, I’m not saying that is what happened but just that it makes somewhat sense to me, given other factors, and we cant rule it out under scientific principle at this stage, we just need to keep looking, inward and out, for evidence either way.

    • malagabay says:

      Some people see “statistically insignificant” growth.

      The scientists estimated the average change in Earth’s radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

      Some people see “statistically relevant” growth.

      The expansion of the Earth is claimed to take place over the life span of the Earth, which is five billion years.

      In just 100 million years expanding at the rate of .004 in, the Earth will increase its radius by 6.313 miles.

      In five billion years that would amount to 315.657 miles. The Earth is only 4000 miles in radius.

      That seems statistically relevant to me and solid proof that the Earth is indeed expanding.

      Some people see cracks “appearing all over the Earth”.

      Silent Cracks
      Huge cracks are appearing all over the Earth. What is particularly unusual about these cracks is that they often are not associated with earthquakes. The Earth simply opens up in a smooth movement and leaves no trace on the seismometers. Check these out:

      Iceland Lake Disappears into Silent Crack
      “But what phenomenon created the large fissure at Lake Kleifarvatn is an enigma. “I couldn’t find an earthquake in our database that was big enough to cause such a huge rupture in the surface,” said Clifton.”

      Large Crack Opens in Peru
      “The sudden appearance early in the morning of an enormous crack, measuring 100 meters wide and three eracycles long, caused confusion among residents of the Huacullani district in the Chucuito province, department of Puno.

      Crack Opens in Ethiopia
      “A crack in the Earth’s crust – which could be the forerunner to a new ocean – ripped open in just days in 2005, a new study suggests.”

      Earth Opens up in Michigan
      “A large crack suddenly appeared after what seemed like an earthquake in Menominee Township of Michigan, US.”

      Cracks are observed as large scale features on the Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, indicating that planetary expansion is a normal process in the Universe.

      So I definitely agree that we “need to keep looking”.

      • Ray says:

        I’d be more inclined to believe the reaction would have been an event ranging from 200 million to about 70 million years ago, any growth we may be having now would be residual, because at the rates you gave, the break up of Pangaea 200 million years ago wouldn’t have attained the size the planet is now.

        I also think it would be Hydrogen and core related because if it were mantle or magma the reaction would be more sporadic and warping but with the core it would have a relatively stable distribution of energy.

        And I prefer Hydrogen over oxygen, though I wouldn’t rule out both with a lesser degree of oxygen, because as Pangaea was not mostly submerged, you had shallower oceans and landmass that life evolved on. The limit of water may have pushed life onto land, but as the (unverified) reaction releasing hydrogen with the expansion you would have clouds of oxygen and hydrogen with lightening creating large amounts of water.

        Hydrogen pouring out into an already oxygenated atmosphere would be like a constant tap filling in the valleys left by the expansion. But this is just brain storming, I don’t have anything to back this theory, especially not a knowledge of what kind of reaction could cause a de-compacting of material density and a release of gas.

        The Earth may well of been dense material, perhaps stellar, and as it cooled that density could have simply not had the kind of pressure to retain its form. But again, I’m speculating.

      • Ray says:

        Malagabay, the EE advocate I am talking about here is you. I believe the Pangaea era was the minimal size of the Earth, which existed up til 200m ago, not billions of years growth, but anyway, this is what I have posted around:

        From what I have seen so far, while looking into this, (after a day of knowing about the theory) IF there was such an event, I would place it somewhere around 200 million years ago to about 70 million years ago. It would have been a relatively rapid event, many EE advocates claim it is an ongoing thing for billions of years and still is, but I don’t, I’d place it in that given era.

        I think that because Pangaea/super continent was roughly that time 200m ago, and suggestions that the ocean floor is aged between those two points. I’d say such a reaction would had to of released hydrogen(perhaps some other gases) over this period, and that hydrogen into an oxygenated atmosphere, via lightening and perhaps volcanic activity, would have created a constant pour of water into the valleys that were opening up between the continents.

        Before this event there would had to of been water but I would presume it was shallows and much less abundant, likely the reason life was pushed onto land in the first place, the seas were teeming with life to overflow.

        One EE advocate told me that the Earth is still growing and gave numbers like “the thickness of a human hair per year” and went on to say that people do not find this significant, but it is over time. I basically said if this were true it wouldn’t have been possible for the Earth to expand at that rate from 200 million years ago to its current size, you would only be looking at 12miles of growth (or something along those lines) So under my theory of “the rapid event” it stabilised around the size it is 70 million years ago and maybe has a residual growth rate carrying over til now.

        Someone, who is not an EE advocate, suggested to me that human physiology seems to be suited for a different gravity. Now under this theory I have given, the mass of the Earth hasn’t changed, but all this hydrogen, and other gases, was mass at the centre, a greater density below, a greater pull, but as it spilled to our level the centre mass reduced. So this lessening of G-force would have been advantageous to Dinosaurs, and they didn’t go extinct until around the time the event concluded at 70m, which raises more questions like if the two events are linked somehow(?).

        As for the Reaction itself that would had to of taken place for such an event, remember you have opposing physics here; you have the expansion of the planet, but at the same time the inner planet is losing massive amounts of matter/gas into the atmosphere. You see the conundrum? At a time physics should be asking for more matter into the core to account for the expansion, in fact it is losing matter out of the core, so riddle me that, what kind of chemical reaction could do that?

        I don’t know much but I believe the fusion on the sun is caused from the gravity and pressure pushing atoms so close together that they give off massive amounts of energy, their electrons are colliding etc. This would mean that you could get more atoms into a smaller area, a fusion compression of matter, so an idea I am entertaining is that the planets were basically birthed from our star as compressed fusion clumps, but after a time being free of that powerful gravity, and perhaps something to do with cooling or de-fusion, the result is this sudden expansion. So basically Earth had a fusion core up until 200 million years ago, at which point it burned out, and now it is cooling.

        Now I am just basically humouring here, but if there were any science behind it I think it would look like this. It would be a general premise, but obviously Earth has a tectonic situation going on now, with perhaps a residual growth, but is otherwise stable.

      • malagabay says:

        You seem to have come a long way in day…
        And it’s probably in the right direction…
        Except for mainstream Plate Tectonics…
        Have a rummage around the site…
        There are other related postings if you are interested.

        For example:
        Exothermic Terrestrial Degassing of Hydrogen and Helium

        The Inflating Earth – Sea Level

        The Inflating Earth: 4 – Gravity


      • Ray says:

        Thanks Tim, the whole reason I took an interest was in part because of the reconciliation, or lack there of, in subduction theory. I’m not an expert on any of this, I am just throwing ideas around. So coming a long way in a day is not really accurate, I have pretty much gone as far as I can, I’m not a research person, I’m not a learner so much as I’d say an artist, I’m a fiction writer so I have bursts of creativity, it is different from academic merits, but maybe somewhat useful or complimentary in the right circles.

      • Ray says:

        So I don’t know the science behind tectonics but I know there are some flaws in current conclusions. When I said “we have a tectonic situation” I was being more broad, that we have this fracturing into continental plates grinding together, some points where they meet are more stable than others, etc. Kind of like scales on a reptile or chainmail.

  5. Ray says:

    (I don’t mean the Earth was a star but rather material thrown loose from a star, likely Sol)

  6. Ray says:

    Dinosaurs survived fine during the event but it seems around the time I estimate the event ended, this is when the dinosaurs declined, it may have been a super-volcano at the conclusion of the event, perhaps resulting in some kind of mini ice-age. Being large as they are, and suspected to be cold blooded, the kinds of pressure freezing temperatures would place on their hearts could account for mass extinction, while the smaller dinosaurs simply didn’t have the body mass and just generally froze to death.

  7. Ray how can you possibly say there has been no expansion for 70 million years – Look at the amount of ocean crust younger than that .Your own figure doesn’t show a zero expansion rate for the last 70million years.
    For the most detailed exposition of the expansion hypothesis check Maxlow’s site and PhD Thesis

    • Ray says:

      Dude, I’ve known about this theory for about 24 hours, I haven’t pinned down the fine details yet 😉

    • Ray says:

      But as I said, it can not have been a multi-billion year process, from what I see of the evidence there would had to of been a dramatic expansion ranging from 200 million years ago, give or take, to 70 million years ago, give or take, any perceived additional growth since then would be residual.

  8. PeterMG says:

    I’m interested in the dinosaurs and why they grew so large. 150 million years ago some were reputed to be nearly 100 tons, which just doesn’t gel if you have todays atmosphere and gravity. This is interesting stuff as the most plausible explanation I have at present is that the atmosphere was of a higher pressure, not one shared with mainstream science. The other explanation is they were much smaller, as indeed the were by the time they went extinct. I have thought that there would have been more CO2 in the atmosphere, this providing more food for plants as well as the buoyancy to keep the dinosaurs alive. The extra pressure would also explain the even temperature of that time. I think this period could prove the key to unlocking the log jam of non thinking in earth science. I’m just a week into discovering this site and may have to revise everything I think, good stuff bring it on.

    The “non thinking in earth science” is a huge obstacle…
    And its not made any easier by the general “non thinking in science”…
    But it makes for interesting times… one step at a time.

    • Ray says:

      That is something I not too sure on; I have suggested that when Earth had a fusion core, gravity was stronger, but when the fusion burned out, the expansion of the planet began and released a lot of material, namely gas, into the atmosphere. This decrease of core mass would have made gravity lesser, decreasing throughout the event, and it is this 120-130 million year period that dinosaurs began to grow at a phenomenal rate.

      But this fails to account for why it seems a lot of dinosaurs required less gravity than what we have now in order to be practical. This is the big hole in my theory.

      But I also came across someone who pointed out that oxygen concentration was higher and then seemed to suddenly decline, this falls in with the theory that hydrogen was released into the oxygenated atmosphere and converted into water.

      • Ray says:

        But I will say that when a star goes nova, from what I understand, it expands to immense proportions and then contracts back, so over this 120-130 million year period (between 200-70 million years ago) if my fusion core theory is correct it would have been akin to a nova, where much more gas than current was poured into the atmosphere for a time, creating high atmospheric pressure but low core mass, hence low gravity, but then was somehow a lot of it was sucked back into the core, gradually stabilising to where it is now.

        (Just a theory to look into)

      • Ray says:

        But that theory hits some troubles like how did life survive with this potentially deadly concoction of gases in the atmosphere? You would presume that if the core breathed out then partially breathed back in then the heavier gases at the terrestrial level would have been the first to go. So I don’t know how to get this complicated stuff right in my mind in a satisfactory explanation :p

      • malagabay says:

        I would be very interested to hear more about your “fusion core” ideas.
        Any links or suggested reading??

    • Ray says:

      That’s the thing, I heard of EE 3 days ago and I ran with it, I just thought up this as a possible solution, I’m just making it up as I go along, but I am trying right now to post a Youtube explanation of this idea, if I can get it to work I will give you a link. I have put some crazy rambling on Youtube, but I have a couple of half decent talks, I just have no fans 😦

      • Ray says:

        As promised, I found it a bit easier to visually and verbally explain it with gestures, rather than words, it may make a little more sense

      • malagabay says:

        Thanks for the video…
        I am very much on the same page 🙂
        The geological evidence points in that direction…
        Same with the atmosphere and oceans…
        But still a lot of ground to cover…
        I’ll keep plugging away looking at the evidence…
        I hope you keep plugging away at bringing your theory together…
        Keep in touch…
        Take care.. and enjoy

  9. Pingback: Main Sequence – Red Dwarfs and Gas Giants | MalagaBay

  10. Pingback: Main Sequence – The Outer Iron Core | MalagaBay

  11. Dr. Subhasis Sen says:

    One step forward and two steps Backward: The Present Status of Earth Sciences

    Subhasis Sen

    Lots of debates and analyses on the possibility of expansion of the planet earth and other forms of global tectonics have been ventilated over the years which include many interesting views not only from earth scientists, geophysicists, physicists and other relevant branches of sciences, but also from amateurs having genuine spirit of inquisitiveness. As revealed by seismic studies, the planet’s main geospheres, composed of a thick zone of basaltic mantle and a solid iron core showing magnetic characteristics, are separated by a fluid geosphere, termed outer core. The true nature of the fluid outer core and cause of magnetic characteristics of the inner core which, according to the prevalent view is a zone of very high temperature and pressure has not been revealed. Also, the reasons for alteration of the planet’s climatic zones and incidences of pole reversal and polar wandering that took place only during the younger geological periods are not clearly understood. Further, how the earth’s oceans and mid-oceanic ridges were formed and, in the interior of the planet, the thick fluid zone – sandwiched between two solid geospheres – came into existence have not been satisfactorily explained. Attempts to elucidate these crucial features in a globe of unaltered dimension have so far failed miserably. Yet many earth scientists still continue to believe on these false concepts almost as axioms.

    The author, who is a retired scientist (geologist) of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India, has developed a global tectonics termed ‘unified global tectonics’ essentially based on Hilgenberg’s (1933) model of earth’s expansion which endorses that if the radius of the planet could be reduced to two-third of its present thickness, all the continental fragments would be perfectly adjusted in the resultant small and ocean-less globe. A brief outline of the author’s concept of unified global tectonics is given below pointing out the major changes that took place over the surface and interior of the primordial ocean-less earth:

    1 The author conceives that in the primordial small ocean-less earth, as deduced by Hilgenberg, the entire amount of ocean-forming water must have been associated with the mantle thereby rendering considerable fluid or semi-fluid characteristic to that medium which was extremely suitable for expansion. The view is based on the results of experimental studies conducted by Roy and Tuttle (1961) confirming depression of melting point of silicate rocks under hydrothermal and high pressure condition.
    2. As evidenced by the tidal pull of Moon, it is rational to conclude that the reason of earth’s expansion is the gravitational pull exerted by the Moon causing periodical bulging of the semi-fluid mantle. However, with progress of the process due to escape of volatiles consisting chiefly of water, the ocean basins would be filled up with water simultaneously reducing the fluidity of the mantle which would eventually turn into a rigid geosphere.

    3. As explained above, the Moon – responsible for causing earth’s expansion by exerting tidal pull – was originally an independent small planet which was captured by the earth when it was approaching the latter. Initially due to the Moon’s magnetic influence exerted over the magnetic core of the earth, the latter’s spatial orientation was altered, causing major modification in earth’s climatic features.
    4. Due to tidal bulging of semi-fluid mantle – caused periodically by the Moon’s gravitational attraction -, the solid sialic crust was cracked forming a number of continental fragments of sialic composition. Through the expansion cracks basic and ultra-basic magma emitted which with further bulging or expansion of the planet continued to spread over the gap developed between the segregated continental fragments. In this manner ocean formation took place while the expansion cracks eventually turned into mid-oceanic ridges.
    5. In case of expansion, the continental fragments would move away from one another thereby expanding the ocean basins and, hence, one continental block colliding with another can not take place. A number of evidences, nevertheless, confirm that such incidences of collision of one continental fragment with another indeed occurred, especially during the relatively younger geological periods.
    6. Apart from expansion that caused bulging of the planet, ocean formation, and various other major changes of the planet, there is another redoubtable force caused by rotation of the planet along its axis of rotation which is maximum around the equator and minimum near the poles. While due to expansion, continents were separated from one another with formation and enlargement of ocean basins, rotation of the planet caused certain broken fragments to come closer or even to collide forming lofty mountain ranges.
    7. Seismological studies along with information derived from meteorites confirm that the silicate part of the earth is composed of a thin sialic crust and a thick geosphere of basic mantle while the inner-most metallic geosphere is constituted of solid magnetic iron. In between these two solid geospheres there is a thick fluid geosphere, termed outer core, precise composition of which is not known. The author considers that since the thickness of the fluid outer core and extent of expansion perfectly matches, it would be rational to consider that the so called outer core is a virtually void zone which was opened up owing to expansion of the planet. Hence, it is considered that before expansion of the planet, its mantle and iron core were juxtaposed to each other.
    8. Under such disposition of occurrence of a silicate mantle and solid iron core separated by a virtually void zone, both mantle and iron core would exert gravitational attraction on each other. In consequence of such incidence of both geospheres attracting each other, depending upon the magnitude of the forces an oppositely directed force of gravitational attraction or reverse gravity would occur at great depth including the core sustaining low temperature and low pressure condition at the earth’s deeper parts. This is evidenced by solid nature of iron core and its magnetic characteristics as well as occurrence of condrules in the deeper part of mantles.

    Subhasis Sen (E-mail:
    EARTH – THE PLANET EXTRAORDINARY, Subhasis Sen, 2007, Allied Publishers Ltd., New Delhi, 232p, ISBN :.81-8424-151-8, Address : Allied Publishers Limited, 1/13-14, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi , 110 002, India)

  12. Pingback: Rolling Across The Atlantic | MalagaBay

  13. Pingback: The Arabian Horizon – The Lost Lands: Punt | MalagaBay

  14. Pingback: Iceland Goes South | MalagaBay

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