Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG.

Helloo Mike Kremer
I not find my post but you replied to it
Where has it Gone?

Thanks
Blobby2

I suspect that Pre will want this claim substantiated before he will accept any of what follows.

http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_4.asp

“One idea that might explain the ability of the athenosphere to flow is the idea of convection currents. When mantle rocks near the radioactive core are heated, they become less dense than the cooler, upper mantle rocks. These warmer rocks rise while the cooler rocks sink, creating slow, vertical currents within the mantle”.

Whilst this kind of simplified explanation may be all that is sought by the majority of people who might read this, it is, with some justification, open to the sort of criticism leveled by Pre.

I would suggest that the idea of mantle convection should be considered in greater detail than this before it is either thrown out or unconditionally accepted.

I find this interesting: Is there a thread on the topic of WATER & Earth?
BTW, in the Gospels, Jesus says (John 3): " We are born of the udatos (water) and the pneuma (air)." Wow--a bright guy, eh?

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/10/if-you-put-all-the-water-on-ea.html

Put all the water on this planet into a single sphere and it would have a diameter of about 860 miles, says the United States Geological Survey. For reference, that's...
boingboing.net/2012/05/10/if-…

If not, you could always start one.

Someone is bound to observe that water + earth = mud, but I promise I will not do that.

It’s easy to grumble, perhaps with some justification, that Pre doesn’t answer questions. However, I think that when he does it is important to recognise that fact, and to make an appropriate response.

Pre, a little while ago you posted a helpful response regarding the possibility, or otherwise, of convection occurring because local temperature inversions might have happened within the mantle. It was not my intention to ignore this; the trouble is, I can’t find it now, and I don’t want to risk misquoting it. It had to do with the combined roles of heat and gravity in determining density.

Hunting time is at a premium at present, so any help that anyone can provide would be appreciated. There are at least 5 threads it could be in.

Pre, somewhere in one of the threads relevant to this discussion you suggested a parallel between current crustal movement and isostatic recovery. Returning to this though; I find myself wondering why, if current tectonic movement is the result of past expansive forces, are there areas in which there are converging tectonic segments? Cf. Lithgow-Bertelloni and Richards (1997).

Pre, do you interpret their lack of answers as evidence that they have no answers?

"are there areas in which there are converging tectonic segments"

The collision caused compressive forces. The expansion caused expansive (tensional) forces.

So there must be some converging tectonic segments (caused by the collision), but most segments are diverging (caused by the expansion of the planet).


Of course.

Great! This gives me confidence that I can look forward to lots of answers.

If there is more expansion than contraction, the Earth must be still expanding. Is this supported by modern, precise measurements of the Earth?

Bill s has added some of his own thoughts to all this in his thread "Global Tectonics" at:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44134

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Pre; but this topic seems to be going nowhere. I think I might give it a rest - eternal, perhaps.

Actually,... I spent an inordinate amount of time answering ImagingGeek's questions.

This taught me that answering the questions of certain types of people, is a total waste of time.

Judging by your reluctance to answer my questions I assume you have me tagged as one of those "certain types". As I said before, that probably means I am in good company.

From things I've been reading recently, it looks as though more geologists are questioning plate tectonics, but I'm not sure that the direction in which they are going will be of much help to you.

I'm going to have another look at some of the ideas and will post anything that seems relevant.

MK, Are you OK with that?

In a word, yes.

Depending on what that is intended as a response to, it is probably safe to assume that the subject is closed.

The subject is not closed.

Bill; why don't you explain what you think has replaced mantle currents as the force that moved the continents so far apart?

You don't seem to know what this force is,... do you?

Pre, I don't recall claiming that anything had replaced mantle currents, or that mantle currents provided the force that moved the continents.

I think gravity is the only force I have actually suggested as being largely responsible for moving continents and their underlying material.