CompuServe Messages

>> Those rollers may well be rotating in alternating directions; that is certainly what I would expect based on normal conventions. This leaves me again with no clear notion of how plates could be pushed, and I see no point in discussing the push theory further until I find out what the theory says (if it is not dead). This does not mean I disbelieve in it – as I said, the mantle is too strange to us surface critters to presume anything about it without evidence.<< This is what I have been saying that there is no logical consistent force available from convection that could move the plates, that I can come up with here. >>Granite may be hard only from the viewpoint of ur "short" attention spans. Has anyone put it under pressure for more than a few millenia? But forget the granite, it is _basalt_ you need to test if you are interested in ocean basins.<< How would time effect the solid condition, there is no evidence in our experience that solid hard brittle materials like basalt are flexibility to a tiny degree as a result of time. This flexibility is result of a temperature threshold being crossed. If the threshold that would convert it from a rigid solid to a soft solid is achieved then it could bend, these conditions are not present in the bottom of the ocean as a general rule. So if the conditions are not right how does time change the equation? >>Glaciers show lots of cracks on their surface as they make right angle turns within meters and the like. Seafloor shows fracture zones in places, too, though it does not make turns within anything like that degree of sharpness that I know of. Seafloor will be covered with sediments also, so often we will not be able to detect any evidence of reshaping.<< The features of the rock are seen through the sediments and I have see no evidence except at the mid ocean rise of the ocean basins flexing and reforming. They are very smooth out away from the mid ocean rise. Where is the evidence that this necessary deformations are occuring. I have shown how he present theory calls for converging and diverging areas of plates….where are the resulting cracks, bulges and sunderings? >>As for the ocean between S. America and Antarctica, why would that section resist forces capable of uprooting continents?<< I Don't understand the question here. >>Why would your lava waves that met to form ridges _only_ happen between continents separating and not between S. America and Antarctica even if they were moving in similar directions?<< The ridges were not so much waves as tides of lava. I imagine the action of the motions at the time the plates moved to be a bit complicated. There would have been a back and forth action in all the firming new oceans. At the point where these tides meet, the mid ocean ridges…. the impact was a series of back and forth actions as the undulations caused by the rebounding of the inner earth materials after the moons parting slowly subsided. This pressing pulsing force caused the features of the Mid Ocean Rise. >>Waves moving before and behind but not beside S. America's motion? For that matter, your lava waves should travel perpendicular to the continental margins that generated them, yet this does not fit the ridges.<< Think of the flow as tides…the flow would be perpendicular away from the crustal sections but effected by the relative motions of sections. This combination of motions would produce the features we see. >> The Mid-Atlantic ridge passes too close to the coast of N. Brazil for your theory.<< Not true , please explain how >> It fits the halfway point of coasts if you connect points that were once joined, but not the meeting points of waves generated by those coasts in their _final_ positions. The jog in the ridge at the Romanche fracture zone (corresponding to where the horn of Brazil and the nook in Africa near Nigeria met) does not look like anything chosen by a meeting of waves unless they are somehow constrained to retrace the continental motions.<< Lets look at the impact of the undulating tidal fronts in this area. As the tides begin to meet resistance from the opposing flow keep in mind that the area is being crossed by the rebounding waves moving back and forth across the area. The area in here has what I would call more of a _shear_ impacting motion in the central impact area. The tides motions would be applying more of a shear motion resulting in a much greater shear force per frontal square foot. The Mid Ocean Ridge would break more often & shift to a greater extent in these shear impact areas. And in cases all around the Mid ocean you see this. In areas where the shear force is less where the impact front meets head on the central impact front would break further apart and the shift would be less. This we see all over the Mid Ocean Rise also. What is predicted is shown by the features of the Mid Ocean Rise. This record of the variable shear force showing up in the shifted rise is a large part of the proof of the rapid event. Take a minute and look over the features in the Mid Ocean Rise and you will be convinced that this prediction has occurred. >> How does the tongue between S. America and Antarctica into the Atlantic show _sudden_ motion?<< This tongue of Pacific basalt remained because of the gap between the moving S. America and Antarctica allowed the pacific flow to move through the gap. The frontal area would be formed into a smooth curve which it has and there would be roughly parallel boundary on each side of the tongue separating the tree plates. Look at the curves of these boundary in this area they are just as the theory predicts. >>Lava waves? Your theory predicts vaporization of the oceans and thus the total extinction by scalding of life on Earth.<< Yes… more than the scalding occurred…..the air was probably also removed as well, everything except a few inhabitants of caves that were able to dig out and the life that was protected in the Ark. Kamron