CompuServe Messages

Greetings Doug >> 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.<< Here again mega years are the method for explanation. For the enormous plates to move in a direction at all would take a coordinated tremendous amount of work. It is easiest to grasp the problem when probing the beginning of the process. Imagine the earth cooling and crust formation occurred. The earth would have a consistent crust. The cooling would have caused mild folding. How would you propose this initial motion could occur considering there is nowhere for the crust to move. Then add to it the additional effort required to force the crust to subduct. The crust material is the scum and lighter than the material below and would need to be forced down into the denser levels below. This combination of no room to move and no force to move it makes your bit by bit progression into motion impossible. Add the resistance of pushing the floating crust downward The plate motion could start without the catastrophe beginning the process. >>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.<< This would work if the shifts occurred back and forth but they are sequential 99% of the time. The next section is moved even farther in the same direction as the previous so again why would the shift fault run into the side B flank when it isn't pulling away…only filling in as you described? >>so much basalt involved with nary a granite.<< Good point. The Granites do have an average density less than basalt but a lower melting temperature, it is possible the granite that fell back into the molten basalt and due to its lower melting point, melted with the basalt becoming a component, trace aluminum should be found in the upper levels. >>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.<< Unless my simulations are out of date the Present Plate Tectonic Theory has a much different motion showing North America separating and moving away 135 Meg ago…. then 35 meg later South America splits from Africa….. Then 45 Meg ago South america moves up to meet N America. This set of motions would end up with an entirely different ocean basin markings. The PPTT disregards the features of the Atlantic Ridge formation and shift fault patterns. The trenches in the carribean show that the area separated rather than squashed together. The shift faults are roughly parallel to the motion that occurred. Compare again my single one time sweeping motion where the N & S Americas pivoting at Alaska with a slight separation of South America downward ……to the current PPTT and tell me which would produce the features we see in the Ocean Basins? Kamron