Topic: Plat Tectonics Prove False

[SVoid]

So, I was searching a quote that I really liked:

Science says the first word on everything, and the last word on nothing.

I found this website in the search results that is trying to disprove plat tectonics.

Despite what's said about the objectivity of science the reality is quite otherwise.  This is never more clearly illustrated than when a new idea comes along.  For usually the difficult thing is not taking it on board (its logic is often compelling) but giving up the old beliefs that have become entrenched.   What's more, the balance usually revolves around something extremely self-evident and simple.  So self-evident and simple in fact that in retrospect once the change is made it is almost inconceivable how things could have been seen otherwise.   For example in their day concepts such as Flat Earth, Geocentric System and an Earth encapsuled in an inverted bowl-like firmament of stars were the products of the keenest minds, the cutting edge of contemporary thought.  Today these ideas are seen as childishly naive and ludicrous, not just by scientists cognitive of facts but also by an uninformed general public. There is a quality of proportion ('ratio'), ...rationality, which demands to be considered, and whose analysis is even within the grasp of a child, given the accepted mores and beliefs of the time.
And so it is with Plate Tectonics in which it is posited that the surface deformation of the planet is driven by what is tantamount to its internal indigestion - convection cells.

The unwarranted presumptions on which Plate Tectonics is based and the many conundrums and contradictions which derive from these render the whole concept of Plate Tectonics ever less tenable, particularly when nowhere in the consensus position is there taken into account the most marked structural configuration of the planet - its spin symmetry: the Earth's spin has no place in the grand design of Plate Tectonics.

Yup. The earth's spin disproves plat tectonics. A theory that it never occurred to me to look at critically. Is there many people that actually take aim against tectonics? What is it with Australian's these days?

Definition:- Plate Tectonics is a theory that purports to explain the geological features of the Earth's crust in the context of a number of segments ('plates') that move continuously through geological time, driven by, ..or driving (Plate Tectonics is not very clear on the point: see "Formation processes") cycling convection in the mantle, and which is based on the assumption that the Earth cannot increase in size.

This folder debunks Plate Tectonics on the basis that even within its own frame of reference it is unsupportable, and that it does not take into account the geological elements that reflect the Earth's rotation.

I haven't had time to read through it, and I assume it's mostly nonsense. So I don't think I'm interested, anyway.

[Ah.hell]

Definition:- Plate Tectonics is a theory that purports to explain the geological features of the Earth's crust in the context of a number of segments ('plates') that move continuously through geological time, driven by, ..or driving (Plate Tectonics is not very clear on the point: see "Formation processes") cycling convection in the mantle, and which is based on the assumption that the Earth cannot increase in size.

This folder debunks Plate Tectonics on the basis that even within its own frame of reference it is unsupportable, and that it does not take into account the geological elements that reflect the Earth's rotation.

That bit makes me think Neil Adams might be involved.  You remember the comic book artist that rewrote the laws of physics with his "expanding earth" hypothesis. 
http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

[Desert Fox]

Could we maybe get all the contradictory crazies in one room and have it implode?

If I understand correctly, our spin causes an infinitesimal decrease in out weight, basically a force directly opposite that of the main line of gravity. 

[Halleyscomet/Wakefield]

Definition:- Plate Tectonics is a theory that purports to explain the geological features of the Earth's crust in the context of a number of segments ('plates') that move continuously through geological time, driven by, ..or driving (Plate Tectonics is not very clear on the point: see "Formation processes") cycling convection in the mantle, and which is based on the assumption that the Earth cannot increase in size.

This folder debunks Plate Tectonics on the basis that even within its own frame of reference it is unsupportable, and that it does not take into account the geological elements that reflect the Earth's rotation.

That bit makes me think Neil Adams might be involved.  You remember the comic book artist that rewrote the laws of physics with his "expanding earth" hypothesis. 
http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

The site makes multiple references to the "Expanding Earth" hypothesis.

The structures that describe spin are the same structures that describe enlargement; the two are hand-in-glove expressions of the same dynamical behaviour; if we accept the inscription of spin on global geological structure, then the dynamics of enlargement follow axiomatically regardless of any 'final causal explanation' of the relationship.  They are, .. empirically, genetically, and logically - tied.

The driving philosophy of the site appears to be the thesis that the Earth's spin renders plate tectonics impossible and leads inevitably to the expanding Earth Hypothesis.

[Halleyscomet/Wakefield]

1 -   Omission of spin

The unmitigated drivel.   Plate Tectonics ignores  the three critical aspects of transform faults that are arguably the most important features of  ocean floors available to interpret global geology.

*    The connected, single-set, global extent of their growth (figures below).
*    The aggregate, spiral symmetry shown by that growth relative to the Earth's rotational axis.
*    The stepped offsets of transform fault start points by which the enlargement of the ocean floors is inscripted

On this page the author starts of claiming to discuss the alleged omission of Earth's spin from the theory of plate tectonics, but focuses instead on attacking Plate Tectonics on the grounds that it doesn't deal with the expansion of the crust described in the Expanding Earth hypothesis. The author gives no evidence to support their claims that the Earth's crust is expanding in the manner they claim. The text ends up reading like someone attacking heliocentrism on the grounds that it doesn't tell us where Atlas is standing to hold up the Earth.

[Karyn]

I think the SGU covered this way, way, way the hell back.  Like in the first 50 episodes.  They either had Neal Adams on to talk about it, or they spent a lot of time covering it.  O..there it is...Episode #59.  http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=51

[SVoid]

Thanks, I'll have to listen to that. Hadn't heard of this before.

[MikeHz]

Just how do you jib plate tectonics with the hollow earth theory?

[SVoid]

I think the SGU covered this way, way, way the hell back.  Like in the first 50 episodes.  They either had Neal Adams on to talk about it, or they spent a lot of time covering it.  O..there it is...Episode #59.  http://www.theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=51

Oops, episode 51. I didn't follow the link and typo'd 59 and listened to it twice and didn't find it (I was doing some work in the background and thought I'd missed it). Thanks again for finding this.