( .. debunking the myths .. )
" When thoughts, logic and facts have the potential to humiliate and frighten, they will always be ignored. " ~ Mister supernatural (in comments)
Fig.1. The three fallacies of Plate Tectonics :-: 1. plates, 2. subduction, and 3. mountain building.
ps://twitter.com/EuroGeosciences/status/914829938917806081
Plate Tectonics is a theory that purports to explain geological features of the Earth's crust in terms of mantle convection. Seen originally as a pancake of crust being fractured and displaced atop a roiling mantle boil ("ridge-push"), the picture currently being promulgated is one of "slab-pull", where deformation is driven by a 'slab' of oceanic crust descending back into the mantle at so-called "subduction zones".
Cycling convection, .. driving or pulling, and/or assisted by frictional drag, .. Plate Tectonics is not very clear on the point ).
The plate model is based on a denial of what is plain for all to see - that in recent geological times the Earth appears to have got hugely bigger by the extents of the ocean floors (/mantle). It is assumed that since there is no apparent explanation for this incredible 'biggering' it therefore cannot have happened (/be happening). It is further assumed therefore that prior to mantle breakthrough there must have existed an ocean floor (/mantle crust) equal in areal extent to the sum of those existing today that has since been destroyed to make way for those present, and that this disappearance has happened down so-called "subduction zones" of which (just by the way) there is only one - that bordering the Pacific extending through Indonesia then along the Himalayan front to the Mediterranean Sea.
The "just-by-the-way" is to highlight the casual effrontery of Plate Tectonics in proposing that although there is just one subduction zone separating the continental-collective from the oceans today, it has no qualms about proposing a plethora of them that have formed in the past, heaping up mountains willy-nilly wherever any (mountains) occur - even ones that have been eroded to exist now as mere hills - or even, in extremis, those that are represented now by planation surfaces. [x]
Plate Tectonics' 'master stroke' therefore is to claim the once-existence of something for which there is no evidence (whatsoever), and in the fine Kuhnian tradition of scientific revolutions, further this astonishing claim by declaring it to be based on the assessment of "outsiders who didn't have a geological clue (.. and didn't need one)."
Plate Tectonics is unsupportable even within its own frame of reference, particularly its emphasis on hypothesised gravitational collapse in mantle crust by subduction (that we can't see) rather than gravitational collapse in the continental crust (that we can see) - and by attributing crustal movements generally to (hypothesised) convection rather than to observed gravitational collapse and commensurate Earth rotation.
=> Nonsenses list
No comments:
Post a Comment