CompuServe Messages

Hi, Kamron– >> Are you agreeing that the plume would flow up the rising incline? and the conservation of momentum will attempt to drag the plate upward with the flow. What are you thinking here with the hint of a reverse flow? I agree it is _possible_ the upwelling might be directed by plate inclination, but do not presume to know enough about convecting rock to be sure of it. While the seafloor gets generally deeper as one moves away from the ridge, I think the asthenosphere (underside of lithospheric plates) is at a rather constant depth relative to sea level, very near the ridges being an exception. Thus inclination may have no bearing on small-scale convections (the "rollers"). Any effect due to inclination may be overwhelmed by effects of plate motion (which would seem to contradict any notion that "rollers" propel the plates). But if a flow is forced one way, the forcer will be pushed the other way – a jet of water hitting an angled board will push the board back and to the opposite side from the deflected jet. Now it is flowing in a deflected direction, it may try to drag an additional part of the board with the flow, but which pull wins? Whatever the _net_ velocity change due to drag (as opposed to thermal differences) is will determine the momentum change of the plate/board. >> I agree, if you heated up the crust in its entirety it could flow around objects ,it could stretch and squish together I do not think it needs heating for a limited amount of shape-changing even in the cold crust. A glacier flows without being ductile, I think. Faults are the most obvious mechanism for non-plastic solids to change shape; I do not know what other mechanisms may come into play. The plates are rigid by comparison with the deeper mantle, but I do not think that makes them absolutely rigid. >> Notice how the arcs progressively get flatter more or less as we go north. You are getting closer and closer. If the Americas moved centered on Alaska, the arcs of motion would have smaller radii of curvature as one approached Alaska, not get "flatter". What arcs are you looking at? >> If this process was over time and the crust was pulling on the rise forming the shift faults as you suggest the curve of the Atlantic Mid Ocean Rise at the south end would be curved in the opposite direction than my theory predicts. You have just proved that the shift faults are not formed by pulling Plate tectonics predicts the mid-oceanic spreading rise must be near the center of any internal (non-Pacific) ocean – the ridge is therefore expected to swing between Africa and Antarctica, just as it does. Why is there no extra ridge between S. America and Antarctica in your theory? >> My first guess of course is erratics. Sometimes older rocks get eroded and redeposited atop younger rocks, but here we are talking about thick layers (not trivial like the K-T boundary) of what you would claim are younger rocks with _many_ layers of Paleozoic rock atop them. Your theory predicts gigatons of "surprises" for conventional theorists _at_ the K-T boundary and small amounts of gravel below it – the opposite is what we find. –Doug