CompuServe Messages

Hello Doug My point on the plate motion being driven by convection rollers is that normally convection would cause plumes. Plumes rise in a column. If they meet a flat surface they would spread and flow outward in all directions evenly assuming no other currents exist. The form would be a donut type of flow. The plumes rising to meet the slanted crustal areas would naturally flow upwards towards the mid ocean ridge driving the plate in the wrong direction. As stated the rollers would only develop after the plate started moving so the moving plate would supply the energy for creating the rollers. The following section is important to me so pardon me for bringing it up again. We worked up to here and you responded… >>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? Also I have one reference showing the magnetic profile of the Mid Ocean Ridge has the same cross-section from one shifted section to the other balanced from the midpoint out on both sides. This eliminates the filling in proposal also. >> The crust would cool faster, and thus become denser than the topmost mantle. There is plenty of force to be harnessed. << It is this function that would groom a consistent _worldwide_ crust. The upper layers would cool and sink over and over until the crust material was separated as a lighter material that would eventually float over the heavy material. The Sial crustal material having a lower melting point would not hardened until the magma below it had cooled enough to allow the solidification. This temperature variance insured an even worldwide layer of floating crust. This is the reason I believe the earth had a lighter consistent granite crust floating on the heavier basalt. This planet wide crust in turn built up a planet-wide geological table from the slow accumulation of dust from the sun creating the layers of time. This slow accumulation ended with the catastrophe. The deposits that occurred after the KT boundary were all done in a very short time frame. In both theories the division of the plates is the same. In both theories the original connections of the continental pieces is similar enough to not worry about. The main difference is how the motion occurred & What started it. I say the basins have all the clues to tell the story of the motions. Traces of the motions are left in the remnant island arcs and in the shift faults. These shift faults are parallel to the motions that I say occurred in the plates. The shifted mid ocean ridges prove that the event was a simultaineous single rapid event unless we can come up with a plausible reason for the homogeneous continuous mid ocean ridge and the shifted rise sections. A catastrophe at the KT boundary is commonly assumed. It is the extent of the catastrophe that is not well known. Kamron