Jorge,

There is a You Tube video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh8W4vGLQ0

which I think answers your questions.

I think that plate tectonic geology has a certain mechanical basis. It has a clear mechanics explanation for the formation of mountains and basins, or for extended structures, extruded structures, and sheared structures. But for some structures it shows its deficiencies. I think it may be based on this, the Mantle Plume will be proposed.

Definitely. The mechanical basis is inherent in motion of plates (whose velocities you can compute), stresses that are generated in the relative motion of plates within and at the boundary of the plates, and the consequent deformation that is observed within and between plates. Near the surface the deformation is brittle and as you go deeper, the deformation is ductile. The only question you need to worry about is the scale at which you want to look at the stresses, strains and rheology. If your interest is at 1000s of km scale you need to take a geophysical approach where you look at plate motions on a spherical earth. If you are interested in scales of 100s of kilometers or less, structural geology is the way to go. Also, Plate motion is driven by mantle convection cells that have been modeled using numerical thermo-mechanical models. So in short, the answer is yes. There is a strong thermo-mechanical basis for Plate Tectonics and its consequences.

Dear Malay Mukul,

Convection is assumed to take place in the mantle as solid-state flow instead of liquid-state flow. is there any indication at the Earth’s surface of the formation of convection cells? And are there any findings or evidences from new research papers of mantle convection?.

I am not completely up on the Mantle Convection research literature as that is outside my research interest at present and I refer you to the following 2014 book: Introduction to modeling convection in planets and stars: Magnetic field, density stratification, rotation” by “Gary A. Glatzmaier” and also to the research of A Manglik for more recent information on Mantle Convection models. Plate Tectonics is accepted as the surface evidence of mantle convection. There is also suggestion that the convection may involve two cells instead of one.

Dear Malay Mukul,

I very much agree and I am also very interested in suggesting that plate tectonics may be the embodiment of mantle convection on the surface. But I think it may be affected by the existing deep detection technology. We cannot achieve the desired depth. At the same time, I don't think the current interpretation of the magma's underground storage mode and generative mode is very strong. I have always wanted to understand the storage characteristics of magma below the crust and the mechanism of intrusion.

Best wishes,

Liu Chenming

We obviously don't have direct access to the Mantle (except to some mantle derived magmas and xenoliths) and a lot of what we know is based on seismic tomography and numerical models. It is likely to remain so. It is a fascinating area of research and I am sure you will find where things stand if you get into the relevant literature.

I think there is no accepted mechanisim Explains all plates motion, There has been much debate over the years about the exact mechanisms that drive the lithospheric plates. the most widely accepted mechanisms supposes All the forces acting on the plates can be categorised into two main classes: driving and resisting forces, one of driving forces is slab pull and This force occurs as a subducting plate sinks into the hot mantle beneath it. The subducting plate, usually basalt, is denser than the material it is subducting into, purely due to its difference in temperature. As the plate sinks into the mantle, it acts to pull the rest of the plate behind it. This force is considered by some to be the primary force driving plate motion at collisional zones (Wilson, 1993). However, there are some plates where there is little or no subduction occurring such as the Antarctic Plate. This plate motion needs to be explained by a different mechanism.

Shaheen,

Until now the cylinders theory is not proved. The movement happens, tectonic environments are formed and very well explained. No doubt about continental drifting and continent-continent shocks and specific characteristics or subduction environments it is ok. It is everything to be proved. But the engine that put the masses in movement is a very week far away from being proved theory.

I do not know about the existence of adequate mechanical bases for plate tectonics. All existing models are fundamentally unsupported: "it may be so, but it can be otherwise." Hypotheses pile up on hypotheses, the models are confirmed only by the invention of new models. The facts that destroy plate tectonics are ignored. Simple physical laws, according to which long-distance plate movements are impossible (for example, the ratio of energy and mass, the presence of friction, the solid state of the mantle), are simply "forgotten". Plate tectonics now exists only thanks to a large number of interested scientists and the total use of administrative resources.

Anokhin,

It is not true that "Plate tectonics now exists only thanks to a large number of interested scientists and the total use of administrative resources."

We CLEARLY observe THE MOVEMENT. Fossils and same continued rock structures, for instance, in South America and Africa prove that both continents were once together. No doubt they are moving apart from each other after they have been together. Andes age and its rocks composition proves its origin as a result of subduction. No doubt at ll!!!!!! To deny it would be stupidity.

The problem is that, Hawaii hot spot, for example, is stuck while the plate is moving towards North. Why? How comes that a convection current forms it self is not really believable. Etc...

But the explanations why rocks and environment is forming is everything proved; by geochemistry, geochronology, structural geology, fossiliferous data, geomagnetism, etc, etc...

But the "force" behind it is still unknown.

I recommend you to read:

Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat. David Pratt, 2000 (First published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 307-352, 2000).

This is the trouble that some scienctists have no doubt. Doubt is the basis of science. For somebody playtectonics are no a science, but a religion.

Therefore, officials from science do not allow "heretics" with their inconvenient facts in highly rated journals and oral reports. Is it frightening that air castles suddenly dissipate under the pressure of facts? Pratt's article will also be scary to read. And there is about everything - about structures, and about fossils and other. To explain all this, you do not need to move the continents. And the apparent movements do not correspond to the global kinetics that playtectonists paint. They often have to forge even field data to match tectonics of plates. I have been studying geotectonics for a long time, I have my results, which no one could dispute. These results indicate the impossibility of long displacements of plates. "As a field geologist, I more believe what I see than what I read in books" (W. De Sitter). And for 40 years of field and ocean works I saw a lot with my own eyes. And I'm not alone. Look at the materials of the General Assembly of YSU (Vienna, April, 2018, TS Division).

Anokhim,

I do not say you are wrong. And also not write. I also believe more in what I see than in what others say, so, sorry, but here I must also include you, at least by now. Anyway. You are right in something. Science is dominated by very sheriffs nowadays, no doubt about it.

Regarding to what we both have seen, and believe me, I have seen I lot, learned geology when the "accepted" theory was still "The

Geosynclinal Theory". This theory could not explain many things. So, when tectonics started explaining everything, I mean everything geossynclinal could not explain, I adopted plate tectonics. But not because it is perfect. It is not. I have always been suspicious about a theory which can not explain why itself starts. And the cylinders never convinced me. For many reasons that are unnecessary to point here.

But, pls, remember that any theory is only valid when it is empirically continuously verified. In the moment you present here one single fact regarding to rocks that tectonics do not explain, then the theory is no longer valid. it is not the same to explain same facts by means of other theories. No, the has to be a fact, regarding to rocks, that tectonics cannot explain. I am eager to here about.

I don't care who else is with you not against you. I am connected to facts not to groups. But for me, when you say you have proves and you're not alone it sounds the same your opposite will say too. So, I suggest to keep this discussion among the ones here who are maybe interested. But, pls, let listen to what they have to say, let's not simply refuse their arguments. In the end I think we must always in mind that anyone can make mistakes, anyone can be right or wrong and anyone maybe is right and we are wrong.

Just in advance I tell my position. I believe in plate tectonics. For me it explains everything in Earth geology. What I don't believe is the cylinders theory, convection currents, this is the most stupid thing I heard in my whole life. But do not forget that "plate tectonics grew from Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift, which had been, at first, rejected by the majority of Earth scientists and pressed by only a minority throughout much of the early twentieth century. This minority included Arthur Holmes (1890-1965), who was perhaps the most influential advocate of mobilism among British scientists, and R.A. Daly (1870-1956) and Beno Gutenberg (1889-1960) in the United States."

"We have to notice a distinction which is found to prevail in the progress of true and false theories. In the former class, all the additional suppositions tend to simplicity and harmony; the new suppositions resolve themselves into the old ones, or at least require only some easy modification of the hypothesis first assumed: the system becomes more coherent as it is further extended. The elements which we require for explaining a new class of facts are already contained in our system. Different members of the theory run together, and we have thus a constant convergence to unity. In false theories, the contrary is the case. The new suppositions are something altogether additional; not suggested by the original scheme; perhaps difficult to reconcile with it. Every such addition adds to the complexity of the hypothetical system, which at last becomes unmanageable, and is compelled to surrender its place to some simpler explanation.

William Whewell, The philosophy of the inductive sciences, founded upon their history (1840)

Dear Mr. Jorge Costa-de-Moura,

Thank you for your serious conversation. Indeed, this field is not very suitable for detailed discussions - we forgot about the question of Mr. SHAHEEN MOHAMMED ALCHIRMIZI, to which I answer "no."

Come to Vienna in April 2019 at the General Assembly of EGU, at the session of the Division "Tectonics, Structural Geology", and we will discuss it. I fully agree with the judgment of William Whewell. But his statement points to the inaccuracy of plate tectonics. Do not you see how this theory has become complicated and distorted since its birth? Each new fact forces us to invent a new complication, a new hypothesis that once again saves the basic theory from destruction. It's time to abandon dogmas and step back to the basics, rethink all geotectonic theories for their conformity to facts. My address: [email protected]

Regards - Vlad Anokhin

Dear Anokhim,

I no longer can plan my life according to my wishes. I am employed in the Brazilian Nuclear Commission, Senior Geologist-Technologist, and here this is a full time job. I am only allowed to take 20 days for vocation every semester and such days, after 35 years of work I really prefer to go to a very sunny hot place and that is not exactly the Austrian April, isn't it? But who knows?

I think this discussion is pertinent to Shaheen's question unless he says it is not. Until now he did not.

I fully agree with your arguments, difficulties to the theory is everyday increasing. But except for mainly to hot spots and the continental drifting engine the rest of the theory has been kept.

Anyway, it sounds very awkward to defend a theory that does not explain how its basic source of energy is originated. Instinctively I fell the theory is wrong and unsupported. But it is necessary to prove that there is no prove and this is really difficult, specially when results seems to answer according to it.

regards

The discussion seems to have taken an interesting turn. First, hotspots do move. Please look at John Tarduno's work on the Hawaii hotspot. Second, the continental drift hypothesis was in the doldrums for decades because they could not explain how continental crust would plough through oceanic crust as proposed in the Continental Drift theory. Plate Tectonics suggested lithospheric plates and motion on asthenosphere which was reasonable. The approach highlighted above that a theory becomes completely acceptable only when it can explain EVERYTHING would wipe out almost all of Earth Science. Earth Science inherently has large uncertainties because we only get to see the end result or finite state of processes that have operated for Billions of years. What has worked in Earth Science is the philosophy that we build hypotheses that explain our observations at that point of time. The hypothesis must get modified as our understanding grows and we access new observations. As a scientist we need to have an open mind and not make our theories dogma or religion. However, when we say a theory is wrong we also need to suggest an alternative that explains the observations better. It is not enough to say this theory is wrong as it does not explains some things. The onus is on you to suggest what works. What explains everything Plate Tectonics does and also what it does not? As mentioned above, you should also have a full understanding of the mechanics of the alternative process. I would love to know of such a theory that explains all the observations for the journey of India from the southern hemisphere to its present location for example.

Dear Malay Mukul, Jorge Costa-de-Moura, Anokhim,

What you think abouth the follwoing points:

1_ Do you think that the height of the mountains were important in slowing of convergence at mountainous plate boundaries?

University of Michigan geomorphologist and geophysicist Marin Clark suggests in her published paper in the journal Nature

the link Article Continental collision slowing due to viscous mantle lithosph...

that the strength of the underlying mantle, not the height of the mountains, is the critical factor that will determine when the Himalayan-Tibetan mountain-building episode ends. Until now, conventional wisdom among geologists has been that the slowing of convergence at mountainous plate boundaries was related to changes in the height of the mountains

2_ One Big problem with plate tectonics MUST BE ANSWERSD and FIXED?

I want to ask those geologists who insist to prove that no rocks older than 200 million years (Jurassic) have ever been found in the oceans, well thousands of rocks of Paleozoic and Precambrian ages have been found in the world’s oceans, large areas of continental crust such as Bald Mountain at 45°N on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which has an estimated volume of 80³ km and appears to be of Proterozoic age see (Dickins et al., 1992; Choi et al., 1992; Choi, 1999, 2001) there must be great efforts to drill the ocean floor to much greater depths to see whether there are more older sediments beneath the basalt layer.

3_ Is there any answer to another deep question about plate tectonic theory ?

because of associated frictional sliding on faults and colder temperatures of earth's crust ( most brittle part of the earth) the large and great earthquakes can occur there which has many fault systems .The subducting slabs Earthquakes the parts of the tectonic plates that are being pushed down into the earth, the depths of These slabs are 700 km. the higher temperatures at these depths make rock softer It is not yet understood how frictional sliding can occur there?

4_ Again we must look deeper and questioningly to plate tectonic theory?

If the Earth is not getting any larger, then what is happening to all that seafloor that is plunging downward? I mean the observed basalt rock, which erupting from the mid-oceanic ridges, and creep slowly across the ocean basin to subduct .

I want to know, is it the flow in the mantle,that initiates or triggers the movement that propogates to the crust as fractures or eventual slip causing earthquakes. Otherwise, how deep focus earthquakes is located in rather a ductile regime. Inintiation of slip in a brittle regime for causing an earthquake is understood. But what is initiated when the focus is at great depth!

Brittle and Ductile behavior is a function of mineralogy as well as fluid content. So the strength of the continental lithosphere is driven by quartz while oceanic lithosphere by olivine/pyroxene. Brittle-ductile transition of different minerals may vary and ductile of one may be brittle for others. For example, even in continental crust, if you look at mylonites, quartz gets ductile at much lower temperatures than feldspar. As long as your dominant mineral is breaking you can support earthquakes. If your rock goes ultra dry for some reason then you can get earthquakes too as occurrence of fluids supports ductile behavior. Usually it is a combination of these features that end up producing in unusual depths.

Dear all,

I do not know the geotectonic concept explaining all existing facts. But I am convinced that the time for the replacement of the platetectonic paradigm is approaching, since it is also chronically unable to explain all the facts. For example, a number of ancient pre-Jurassic rocks on the ocean floor have now been found, which it is already indecent to explain by ice transfer, as it has been done for decades. And the "movement" of emission centers in some ocean archipelagoes is easier to explain by moving the vector of the mantle jet than moving the whole ocean plate for this. Use the Ockham Blade! At a minimum, tectonists should think about an alternative. I think about alternative concept as the junction of classical geosynclinal theory and plume-tectonics. From the platetectonics we can take macroplates interacting through collisions (local subduction is a particular case of collision), obduction, local spreading, shifts, etc. I think, to find the mechanism of horizontal movements of 10-100 km less problematic than 5,000 km. And I really hope that we can live without "distributed spreading"! And without the "hidden" plate boundaries. And without multi-storey convection in a solid mantle. And I ask everyone - come to Vienna in April 2019, at YSU, we will have our own section on tectonic concepts, we will talk personally.

Since plate movements can be measured, I believe the movement is at an average of some 12 cm/yr (= about the rate at which a finger nail grows), the question is not whether plate tectonics exist, but how to explain it. The old concept of a hot earth interior, generating convection currents still makes sense. The basic physics of heat generation has a lot going for it and the associated mechanics of convection and plate movements also make sense. Heat generation follows from gravitational compaction in the earths interior, and from radiogenic heat generation in the earths interior. Together these processes generate the heat that is required to drive convection and plate tectonics. Given enough time even a small force can move a large tectonic plate. Think of the mirror patterns of magnetic anomalies that have been detected on either side of the mid-Atlantic ridge. To the best of my knowledge, this oldest proof of rifting is still valid. I repeat myself: "The question is not whether plate tectonics exist, but how to explain it".

Dear Mr. Nieuwland,

Are you say that convection in a solid is possible? And it is two-story (because the mantle is two-layered)? And how much energy do you think is needed for this? And if this amount of energy is available, then does not this energy completely melt the Earth? Then, of course, convection will be possible ... You write: "The question is not whether plate tectonics exist, but how to explain it". You are right in one thing: Plate tectonics do not so much explain the facts as it requires an explanation for itself. And these explanations of plate tectonics require too much already. It's time to raise the question of whether there is a plate tectonics.

I feel Plate boundaries are the hard fact but Plate tectonic is more theoretical that tries to satisfy all that we see .... so needs more explanation / understanding. Best example is " egg and Hen has no connections in there morphology, physics, chemistry and even biology .....but then earlier one is initial form where as later one is final form.

1. Asthenoshere / Low velocity zone is not a continuous across earth similar to other mantle discontinuity. so there is no ready made molten material on which lithosphere can move!! convection model is under question

2. Roots of most of cratons reach 600 km to 700 km into mantle. So if lithosphere has to move, cratons need to plough through mantle !!

3. Super plumes 2 upwelling well and 2 downwelling well do not show any relationship with plate boundaries and LIP.

4. Amount of push on one end of plate does not have corresponding stress on opposite side, for much of stress is absorbed within the plate

It questions force edge model !!!

I feel present model force edge mechanism can be said as best fit theoretical model but not the actual/ final one.

So, it is still the same. In resume, plates move, tectonic environments exist, tectonic forms rocks well with the theory. But what makes it all happens is still a mystery!

Malay, sorry, but convection current, only of heat or only of magma, would not move any plate. It would only melt the plate at the point. Think about the size of some huge plates.

The planet is obviously forming crustal less dense rocks and minerals. So, it is expanding. But not everywhere. And if this was the case for drifting there would have no movement at all. All sides would push all sides and nothing would move at all.

If the hot spot move how did Hawaiian islands form?

I think that no one questions the movement, the question is how does it move? What makes it move?

Jorge,

There is a You Tube video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uh8W4vGLQ0

which I think answers your questions.

Alastair,

Thanks for the video.

Look, I taught this at the university many times. I am geologist. But I used to explain to the students that the "cylinders theory" is ACCEPTED but is not believed.

You are an engineer. Can't you see that a heat convection or a magma flow going up would simply melt the crust and not push it?

Most of us geologist accept continental drift, but this convection cells or Cylinders Theory as being the engine of tectonics must of us do not.

What is sure is that the plates move. What moves the plates is surely not these convection cells. Surely not. There many mechanical properties that forbids it. But it is a nice idea. And it is something simple and usefull to convince those who want to have an explanation. That's all. Thesse convection currents pushing a continent would be like an electrons' current moving without any conductor. Possible to imagine, nothing else.

Like I said earlier, my research interests are quite far away from Mantle Convection. The following papers may shed more light on the issue:

A mantle convection perspective on global tectonics

Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 165, 2017, pp. 120-150

The generation of plate tectonics from mantle convection,

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

Volume 205, Issues 3–4, 10 January 2003, Pages 107-121

No. of papers can be referred. But I am not getting the proper answer to what I am asking. Ductile flow: what is the initiation , if the mineral phases behave ductily, will that be enough to carry the movement ( movement in what form?) to the shalower level. I am searching an explanation for explaining a deep focus. The initiation of movement still appears to be a tough question for me. The explanation whatever given here need more clarity. Please be explicit.....

Tapos I would think you would need a shear zone. People have worked on mantle shear zones. Read Texas A and M work. Andy Kronenberg. Julie Newman.

Jorge,

As an engineer I have no problem with what drives plate tectonics. The convection cells lift the plate, which splits, and the two parts slide away pulled by gravity. As a geologist you must be aware of this happening in volcanic craters when the lava is molten. As you say, the rising magma does not push the plates, it only lifts them, but they then slide away under the force of gravity.

But there is also another force acting on them - the centrifugal force produced by the Earth's rotation. This drives the continental plates away from the equator, which has resulted in India colliding with Asia.

You can see plates of solid lava here being moved by up-welling in a volcano. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3784406/Lava-lake-visible-atop-Hawaiis-Kilauea-volcano.html

Tapos,

I cannot help because I do not know what happens. All attempts to explain it have failed.

The most reasonable is that explanation that states that when the rock melts the "liquid"volume is bigger than the previous solid volume. So, melting forces the resultant magma to move. It moves upwards because of lower geopressure above. This could be the beginning of the movement. But as soon as liquid and fluids move up pressure around the point goes down. This should stop the flow. Maybe there is enough force to start the movement but surely has no continuous flow to maintain the movement. Specially when you observe 100-200 million years of continuous movement.

The movement is supposed to be of crust, continental or oceanic, being pushed by this magma flow. The magmatic region is settle between crust and mantle. Asthenosphere. The region is there. Waves prove it. But the simple existence of such "discontinuities" or of a more or less ductile environment does not imply that it provides a continuous flow of magma pushing a few thousands kilometers long and 100 km thick terrain.

The shear zones Malay is mentioning are also a result of the movement and not its cause. So, I am not able to answer you properly.

Does anyone?

Dear Alastair,

when you say

" As an engineer I have no problem with whst drives plate tectonics. The convection cells lift the plate, which splits, and the two parts slide away pulled by gravity. As a geologist you must be aware of this happening in volcanic craters when the lava is molten. As you say, the rising magma does not push the plates, it only lifts them. They then slide away under the force of gravity.

But there is also another force acting on them - the centrfugal force produced by the Earth's rotation. This drives the continental plates away from the equator. which has resulted in India colliding with Asia."

Unfortunatelly, it all does not happen as you think.

1st, the rock response does not permit the magma to lift the plate. Not all the plate. It, at maximum, make a "tumor-like" elevation above and surrounding the magmatic chamber. Nothing more than that. Especially because the plates are huge. Just a few km far from the chamber and the magmatic activity is no longer "felt" by the rocks. Imagine at the distance of hundreds or thousands km. The plates should be much more rigid and much more refractory than they are. Therefore, the gravitational sliding you suggest does not happen. Besides that, if it would, if the plate were rigid enough, the opposite plate's side would sink below the magmatic "level".

2nd. In fact, there is not such level. Seismic waves make clear that the region under the continents, asthenosphere, is not "liquid" but solid. The liquid regions appear in some places. So under the continents you have some "hot molten spots" but it is not at all continuous. So, the "sliding" you propose is not possible as well. By the way, the reason why those hot molten spots are formed remain still unknown too. Many theories tried to explain it but all failed. And this is the main cause that the cylinders theory and/or the convection cells theory fails to explain the continental drifting.

3rd. The centrifugal force produced by the Earth's rotation CANNOT drive the continental plates away from the equator. If it would act somehow this way it would drive them to join at the equator because it is where the centrifugal force is stronger (Zero at the poles and maximum around 1675 km/h at the equator). Some believe it does that because the planet's history shows that most of the time the continents were joined together around the equator. But it is not true.

4th. It cannot because the resultant between centrifugal force and gravity is zero. If it was not zero, the continents would join at the equator and make only one thin very high ring around the planet's equator like Saturn's rings but touching the surface.

The fact is, believe me, no one knows why the plates drift. We only know that they move randomly in geological times.

1. The seafloor is getting older when icreasing distance from mid- ocean ridges => ridges intrude new magma relatively continuously 2. => seafloor is cooler and thus denser when inreasing distance from ridges 3. => gravity pull increases 4. => upward and horizontal push at ridges, gravity pull at edges. 5. Mid- ocean ridges can only be due to very long fracture volcanism / continuous series of hot spots (due to horizontal, generally NS horizontal fault stress?)

Hi, Tapio,

I agree with everything you wrote. But then came another unknown fact:

"can only be due to very long fracture volcanism / continuous series of hot spots (due to horizontal, generally NS horizontal fault stress?)"

How to explain why and how such "continuous series of hot spots" are formed? What could be causing the "fault stress"?

If the magmatic end-member is felsic, and that's the accepted explanation for continents formation, don't you think continents are growing more than sea-floor in the geological time?

I believe more in some kind of horizontal faulting and opening of major, even hundreds of km long fault/ fracture + minor 'en echelon' tupe side faults. Reason I cannot say, but possibly earths circulation, hot spots and density variations in crust creates vertical and horizontal stresses that tears the crust and opens the fauts. I think, continents are end members of the repeated circulation/fractionation of earths material => will grow more.

Mantle convection and plate tectonics are one system, Despite more than three decades of research, some first-order questions regarding the plate mantle system remain largely unresolved major question is how the differing chemical compositions of erupted magmas, which require several chemically distinct reservoirs within the mantle ,can be reconciled with other observational and dynamical constraints favoring whole-mantle convection, which should mix chemical heterogeneities. seismic waves provide a direct probe of structures inside Earth, chemical analyses of erupted lavas and other volcanic products give information about different compositions that exist in the mantle The another question is given that other terrestrial planets such as Mars and Venus do not developed plate tectonics at all but the earth developed

After a great effort, the first episode of the Tectonic Plate Tectonics Series in the YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNTm_VA763g

which has the link above here, entitled plate tectonic theory becomes unchangeable new dogma or religion?!! ," was published in a simplified English language for the understanding of everyone. I would like to thank all scientists and researchers answred my question in this page exactly professor Vladimir Enochim for his contribution to the success of this seminar. and also jorge costa demoure, Malay makul and everyone here.

I recommend Malay's answer

If there is anything that the History of Science teaches us, it is that our understanding of geophysics is ALWAYS rudimentary. And present theoretical possibilities promise more of the same going forward.

Arguably, the most fundamental question in the Theory of Plate Tectonics is, what drives the lateral motions of plates?

A current constraint in planetary physics is not so much rightfully considering Earth’s geodynamics as an open system, including its astronomical context, but in the difficulty of imagining quantitative methods by which to measure geodynamic effects. The RG preprint linked below provides quantitative methods and spectral evidence that should move geodynamics closer to a solution to this long-standing conundrum of what drives plate motions. The second link provides mean-pole data from the IERS website to replicate this intriguing result. A spectral analysis should take your statistics lab less than two hours. Are you ready for a surprise?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322666165_Spectral_spatial-statistical_and_graphical_evidence_that_gravitational_interaction_with_the_Moon_assists_in_driving_Earth's_tectonic_plates-Part_1

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/eop/eopc01/mean-pole.tab