Mantle currents, and thus plate-tectonics, is wrong.
Those who push plate-tectonics are so amazingly stupid, that they never even bothered to check whether, or not, the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle was really lighter than the colder rock above it, as is required by their theory. And, this is though most geology books actually tell you that the hot rock, 3740 K, at the bottom of the mantle has a density of 5,560 kg/m³, and that the density decreases from 5,560 kg/m³ to 3,370 kg/m³ as one approaches the top of the mantle (3,370 kg/m³ is the density the cold rock, 930 K, at the top of the mantle, about 40 kms down).
This, totally contradicts the assumptions of the theory of mantle currents/plate-tectonics (that is, contrary to known fact, plate-tectonics assumes that the rock at the bottom of the mantle becomes hotter, and thus lighter than the colder rock above it, and consequently rises).
How could scientists be so stupid? Well, whatever the reason, they certainly are extremely stupid.
I also note that, various scientists have now had a year to come up with some sort of answer to this problem (and the other problems presented above) but they have not.
Orac's screed is pure example of his basic incompetence (which he continually displays).
"How do you hold a deformation stress for any length of time in a fairly viscous material pressure just spreads think pumping a car tyre or hydrolic pump. If you had a deformation or density stress in a round bubble like his lovely red circles think how the stress would release and what surface movement you would get......."
Well, duuuuhhhh.
"How do you hold a deformation stress for any length of time in a fairly viscous material"... like solid mantle rock?
Like the way deformation stress has been held in the mantle rock below Scandinavia for more than 10,000 years. What's your problem,... 10,000 years not long enough for you.
I also take pleasure in pointing out that his very first assumption "a fairly viscous material" is, in fact, incorrect for mantle rock and thus his analogy (for that is all his argument is) is bound to be wrong. Mantle rock is not "a fairly viscous material" but an extremely viscous material.
In fact, compressed (mantle) rock is the most viscous materials on/in the planet (well, almost, the only more viscous material being the compressed iron of the solid core).
To further quote Orac "However like all crackpots rather than scientists he (Orac) doesn't do the most basic checks or calculations."
