CompuServe Messages

Hi, Kamron– >> Plumes I can go for but how could rollers be a consequence of the plate motion if the rollers are causing plate motion? How can chickens be a consequence of eggs if chickens are causing the eggs? Let either plate motion (maybe subduction jump-started them) or rollers (perhaps just plumes as in my earlier ice sheet scenario) start moving a bit and the other respond a bit, encouraging the first to move more, encouraging the other to go faster.. they may each egg the other on until both are moving at full speed. >> Not bad… but… if the section in question is pulled more in one direction and fills in to effectively move the center of the rise why do the shift faults extends in the opposite direction into the side that isn't pulled? If the entire plate on one side is pulled harder, the entire ridge would move that way as I outlined – no transform faults on either side. The faults come from differentials. In section 1 the pull is relatively harder on side A, in section 2 the pull is relatively harder on side B. In 1, the A side moves more than in 2 as the ridge in 1 moves A-ward; in 2, the B side moves more than in 1 as the ridge in 2 moves B-ward. The 1/2 boundary has a differential on both sides of the ridge. >> My theory would predict the same conditions due to the collision of the opposing magma fronts comming to rest in disarray. The fractures and the presence of magma also. I would not predict the continuation of this after 65 megayears from your theory. Your theory predicts lower pressures at depth? It seems more like postdictions to me. >> On the contrary erratics are far more difficult to explain with conventional Plate Tectonics. In plate tectonics, the Jurassic rock under the west Pacific was not an erratic, it was a missing link predicted by the theory, which was troublesome in its absence. It is only an erratic in your theory, which explains erratics in the Pacific only by a mechanism that would make Jurassic rock the least probable. The Cretaceous rocks atop the Jurassic are neutral as far as plate tectonics go, neither proving (apart from the strings of hotspot islands) nor disproving, but in your theory must be erratics again defying the odds, the more so because there is so much basalt involved with nary a granite. >> Look at this very apparent plate motion scenario. After the Atlantic Ridge fracture opened up and North and South America separated from Europe and Africa they pivoted slightly with the pivot point somewhere in alaska. Notice how Greenland will fill the Basin at the North Pole as well as snuggle back into North America. Look at the perfect widening gap starting from the North and moving to the south. See how the mid ocean ridge is almost perfectly in the middle and balanced on both sides. It is a vivid and irrefutable sequence,(to me) We seem to be in general agreement on how the supercontinent Pangaea looked and that it broke up (I hope you are putting Greenland against Norway on the other side). This much (including the centered ridge) is predicted by your theory and plate tectonics, favoring neither. –Doug