“Many of the objections are long standing but apparently unknown to many geophysicists, while some are peculiar to the new global tectonics. The conclusions drawn, in order of probability, are (1) the continents have almost certainly not moved with respect to each other; (2) convection is not active throughout the whole mantle; (3) even if convection is active in the upper mantle it cannot account for drift; (4) pole positions derived from paleomagnetism, and results of this method of investigation in its global form generally, are afflicted with an unknown cause of error and are in any case too inexact for drift reconstructions.”

(Wesson, 1972)

I don't think it should be said that the theory of plate tectonics is wrong, but it is the place where it is found to be inadequate and needs to be supplemented.

Liu

I don't think it should be said that the theory of plate tectonics is wrong, but it is the place where it is found to be inadequate and needs to be supplemented.

Liu

Plate Tectonic theory is fine, I mean the concept it-self on existing Plates is correct. Main open questions arise not on static, but from Plate dynamics. Here is main problem domain, which should be revised soon!

"Tecton" and "tectonic" means "structure" in Greek, and the structure of the planet has been discovered, so the theory is brilliant and definitely NOT wrong. Now, it needs to be refined and studied further to see exactly how things are structured and how some parts are moving.

I am also agreeing with the Liu statement. Most of the geological features of the earth is explained by the plate tectonic theory but at some places it may be supported with the additional parameters.

The Plate Tectonic theory is not the issue, there is a huge body of evidence that continues to be added to that supports this theory, such as palaeomagnetism, age dating of ocean magnetic domains, modern surveying of plate movements etc. The problems that arise are smaller issues within the overall framework that need further clarification, such as the depth of origin of hotspots, that may be below the main plate bases so can be seen as relatively fixed compared to plates.

It is always easy to shoot down a theory if you take a small enough part of it and demonstrate that the current interpretation is inadequate.

The theory of Plate Tectonics is not wrong, but needs to be supplemented by an increase in global radius. The evidence for this relies on the South Atlantic plate fit.

Africa and South America pulled apart like a zip, opening from the south where Falklands unwrapped from around Cape province then extended gradually northwards to Ivory Coast where transform movement took over.

The plate edges of the respective continents do not fit closely together across this range of latitude on a globe of the present diameter, but they fit much better on a globe that was 80% of the present diameter in the Valanginian, when the opening of the South Atlantic was initiated.

The Plate tectonic in actual form is very wrong:

- it formulation was abandoned the geosinclyne theory which basic was built on totally direct observation. its four three face is very concordant in continental area

- The Earth have been expanded in last 250 million years but the rate was more smaller that is written down in most EE or Growing Earth literature.

- The plate tectonic subduction phenomena does not exist

- The plate tectonic cannot explain: the planet erosion process (theory of mine) or Tom Van Flandern’s type exploding planet model which give a good explanation to the formation of Inners Asteroids Belts’ asteroid which are formed in rocky planets condition.

- The actual plate tectonics’ plates are wrongly determined (their area extension and their thickness example South America can be divided in two parts on to the East of Andes orogenic belt), because existing more and smaller plates…

…..

Conclusion: The actual Plate tectonic, with the geochemical methods without the stratigraphy, palaeontology hiding real structure and possibilities from those researchers who are not have modern geophysical equipments,

Best, Regards,

Laszló

Dear László Attila Horváth, thanks so much for your deep answer, are you hundred percent for sure plate tectonic theory wrong, could present more simplistic evidences plz.

Dear Ass. Prof. Dr. Haithem A. Minas,

We do not need to use percent! And I will never respond to such a question with 100 % percent!…

The term of plate was present in geosyncline theory like oceanic crust (SIMA), and continental crust (SIAL)…

The main problem of geosyncline theory (GST) was that in there was not present the permanent ‘movement’ interaction between the (SIAL-SIAL ; SIAL-SIMA and SIMA-SIMA)… But there was an important phenomenon description: an orogenic cycle which was well determined in the continental condition…

If we are fragmenting the mentioned crusts (oceanic and continental) concordant with the direct observation and we are introducing another term (secret) too… The gotten crusts we can named like plates (here the plates are only those macro lithological units which are above mantle [above discontinuity of MOHO ] and they are not part of mantle)… Such a way can get another ‘PT theory’ which should contain the better parts of GST, EE, GE and the actual PT too… Here the plates are only crustal units, here does not exist subduction…

Best regards,

Laszlo

Dear László Attila Horváth :

I hope if you dont mind, explain why PT theory should contain the better part not all parts, and why the actual PT, if we dont contain the actual PT what should that mean?

Best regards,

Haithem A. Minas

Dear Ass. Prof. Dr. Haithem A. Minas,

Thank you for your questions.

In my explanation the ‘PT theory’ is not equivalent with PT theory (actual plate tectonic theory.

In the ‘PT theory’ the plates are not containing upper mantle, in the mentioned theory does not exist subduction.

And same time the ‘PT heory’ is not ready. Needs something in plus and will get another theory… (but that is not exist in literature, for this it is mine secret)

Regards,

László,

Not all parts (I do not have time to explain because, I am working like a clothes seller, and do not have time for it). But I invite you here (Libya is not so far from Hungary and we can discus about it)

La théorie est toujours valable, ce qui les observations mal ou non expliquées, c'est la superposition de plusieurs cycles orogéniques qui résultent des différents épisodes de la tectonique des plaques. Il faut contraindre par des datations, des études paléomagnétiques combinées aux études géologiques classiques afin de rattacher les phénomènes locaux aux phénomènes.

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 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

Jorge, in the article I have presented four lines of quantitative evidence that the Moon (and probably the Sun) are substantial drivers of Plate Tectonics. As far as I can tell, your evidence includes the notion that convection processes make a lot of sense and so you wave your hands a lot declaring a major contribution to the lateral motions of plates. I have challenged everyone with a relatively simple problem (given above). If your group needs help with the math, you might ask your Statistics Department. If you don't want to test the new paradigm, you can just continue arguing forever about mantle convection as the preeminent driver and continue to contemplate the many contradictions such a paradigm presents.

Dear all,

I have next three strong objection points against current PT:

- The PT has weak explanation to the plate’s motion.

- The subduction physically seems absurd process.

- The gravity anomaly is strongly negative in the beginning seduction zone when logically there should be positive… (concordant to the actual gravity model, and in case of my gravity model to)…What are your opinion about them?

Regards,

Laszlo

As a physicist turned quasi-geologist (I worked 30 years for the U.S. Geological Survey) I delight in the questioning of the validity of plate tectonics as it is parallel to those in physics who question the validity of Einstein's theories of relativity! My first comment is that Nature has many secrets and it is with reluctance that she is willing to give them up to us who dare to probe her realm.

Relativity has enjoyed ~100 years of applications and testing whereas plate tectonics (PT) is relatively new with only ~50 years under its belt since its formal birth. It is one thing to dislike a theory on aesthetic or other grounds and another to present evidence that the theory fails in a major way to represent reality. I would argue that in the main PT has gotten it right but the devil is in the details and details abound in the seafloors and on land. I live in Mexico amidst eroded older volcanic terrain of the Basin and Range Provence to the east and at the foot of the siliceous volcanic terrain of the (uplifted?) Sierra Madre Occidental to the west. I don't think that either of these terrains find the details of their origins and evolution within the framework of PT. PT, however, does address satisfactorily many aspects of the planet's upper crustal morphology and based on that I would recommend continual questionning acceptance of PT as a working hypothesis.

Dwight, to expose a fundamental flaw, try this for quantitative evidence of an alternative driving mechanism for the lateral motions of plates:

Preprint Spectral, spatial-statistical, and graphical evidence that g...

Dear Jorge,

I am having a hard time understanding your objections. Perhaps, I can clarify somewhat.

1. The link to the IERS webpage gives you Earth's mean-pole drift coordinates. One just has to perform a spectral analysis on the IERS data to replicate our graph, Figure A1. A spectral analysis is a standard statistical technique that would be commonly known by those in your Statistics Department. They can assist you in its interpretation with respect to lunar-orbital periodicities.

2. You talk about "mantle current" and "mantle convection". At the time of the writing of this paper, I really wondered how pervasive global-scale mantle currents were. As others have stated, the 'fixity' of world-wide hot spots seems to argue against large-scale mantle currents.

From our work on "Part 2" we have found evidence that there are no global-scale mantle currents and that there haven't been any for at least 1 Ga. Convection currents may be local to hot spots, descending plates, and apparently mid-ocean ridges.

The mechanism that we have proposed to drive lateral motions of plates by the Moon and Sun is described in section [27], Proposed Mechanism of Bulge Forcing. It involves only equipotential adjustments of the brittle crust as Earth's rotational axis drifts in a secular manner. No global-scale mantle currents are needed.

3. Your statement, "Another problem is that as gravitational force "is felt as if the whole mass is in the planet's center". That is an approximation that may be used for spherical bodies at great distance and is absolutely untrue for the Earth-Moon system.

I hope that this helps.

Those questions are all answered in the paper, which I don't want to rewrite, here, with my thumbs! If you don't want to read it, good luck in trying to understand the conundrum!

Let us all keep in mind that the present accomplishments of human wisdom (such as lithospheric plate theory) are doomed to be revisioned-enriched-modified-and maybe overcomed by the future new revolutionary or not ideas. This is an endless procedure which the current topic cannot escape, luckily, thanks to scientific way of thinking.

Kind regards

Ioannis A.

Dear Ioannis,

You have posted a wisdom conclusion. Interesting that you have mentioned ‘the Plate Tectonics as present accomplishments of human wisdom…’ As I know the Plate Tectonics was invented in United States in America in the time when the world was near to create a new theory: Expanding Earth theory (EET) which in its basics was able to explain such surface’s tectonic, which are explained with PT too. The EET did not need give up Geosyncline Theory (GT) which had direct observation experience more than of 100 years. Interestingly this experience it is not clear built in PT, when the science community scientifically rule is: the new theory has to incorporate in it’s inside the over-went theory… In case of physics we can find this situation in case of Newton gravity theory and GR of Einstein.

So from the next immediately we have the next question: Why appears this situation in Science? Why in the science we saw those signs which are present in current European Union’s Leader politics.

I think with your post you provide a support for PT… It is correct … If you want to get your PhD you should be good to be supporter of PT … I had similar situation in case of my MsC project… but I had some good teachers who woke up my attention… That lot of times in the mainstream science the rule not prefers to permit the acceptation the most objective resolution. Later I forgot their advice, for this I have become a clothes seller… One thing is good: that I am free to think what I want to think, not others tell me what have to think! I do not need to invent obscure scientifically explanations…

The Best Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Lazslo,

indeed, I am a supporter of plate tectonics theory (PTT), but I am also supporter of the evolution in science. I am not aware of the EET, although I have heard of it. The current acceptable status in the scientific community of geoscientists is this: " there are some rigid plates on the earth's crust which are moving and interact with each other, and this interaction explains the vast majority of our real-world observations".

As far as I know there are no signifficant inconsistencies of the theory with the observations. PTT explains metamorphism, magmatism, crustal evolution, seismicity, gps observations. Geophysicists have monitorized the interior of the earth and proved the theory right.

I agree with you in one aspect. That we are all trained to think in the way our scientific community thinks. But this is just a way for all of us to speak a common language and understand-collaborate with each other. It is reasonable that there will be different consideratrions that will think different theories but they should speak the same language. In the other hand, it is logical that the rest of the scientific community should expect eplanations and proofs, better than these provided by the use of the PTT.

Interesting talk! The best!

Ioannis A.

Dear Ioanis,

Thank you for response…

I think you have read the before written comments, example the comment of Jorge Costa-de-Moura:

‘How and why mantle or crustal basis melt are still a mystery, no matter the uncountable theories that try to describe it.’

Another observation: You have a good knowledge of Post-Neogene kinematics of the southweastern parts of the Rhodope Massif, northern Greece. The real tectonic evolution of the mentioned zone positioned in an extended dimension cannot be explained with the PTT… On the Direct Extension ( I am meaning the territory surface with states Central and South East Europe,)

Can you Explain the Earthquakes of Vrancea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_Vrancea_earthquake

The ophiolites presence in East Europe… The scince community explain their presence with obduction… An open minded person immediately ask: why did they not subduct? In your well known area can be demonstrate existing such a tectonic processes which cannot explained with the PTT. The GT and EET theory same has their problems if they are positioned in the accepted modern science environment (gravity theory, accretion theory, geochemical theory, Earth inner structure theory,…) But if you observe the picture of asteroid of inner asteroid belt, immediately your geological insight tell you that is a rock similar which we observe onto surface of Earth… The accretion theory says that is not proper accretion… The problem is that the lithological structure demonstrates that it was formed in a condition of Rocky planet surface… You can call the first chief of the science community he never be able to demonstrate me in normal environment (here I am saying normal, because existing way for forcing), that it was formed by accretion… This discovery made me to become an opponent of PTT in 2006. Before it I was 22 years proponent of PTT…

Best Regards,

Laszlo

Dear All,

Jorge is very tricky person: Should be recommended for it *There is no need for animosity among us all here. We all want the same. Science is made of believers and non-believers. The non-believers are actually the ones that turn the wheel on and force science to evolve. When one of us do not believe in something the others who believe try to force their believes and sometimes they succeed but sometimes they see they're really wrong and that is the way theories gain strength or fall into disuse.* Is a correct and ideal approach, but the real environment shows other sign…

They are (were) developed onto base of political and economical reason: one feature is the result of research is secret (Chinese style) and other to gives false explanations (occident style, Chinese style)… Exist difference between the occident people and Chinese people. The majority of Chinese know about the presented situation; when in Occident believes that the science developed in the best way, they do not accept that the science were (is) developed such a way to give apparently good, but in reality wrong response.

So in such a condition we cannot concur correctly: you do not know correctly me have in our head because of occident and Chinese style (I am using Chinese style) which give better result if someone pay for it… About current PTT can anyone speak ‘good things’, because the theory will give only general responses for the geologist and never lead to a considerable decrease of geological research’s cost. (I have something for you for free but it is not ready, yet… perhaps will be ready in few months.) : (There is not emphasized PTT or EET, GT).

Interesting that we have small information about Jorge’s Earth model, after of its speaking, it is seems that is very objective, valuable concept, Jorge same are using Chines style even he has not taught by Chinese teacher. We know lot of Jorge vision made before two days ago in first comment to Douglas:

Best regards,

Laszlo

Dear Ass. Prof. Dr. Haithem A. Minas

Personally, I believe in plate tectonics. Yes, some scientists are sceptical about some of their paragraphs, but they do not give up on them, but demand their development.

While there are some scientists who do not believe in plate tectonics and still rely on the theory of geosyncline or other, as with some scientists in the Russian Federation and Romania and scientists from other countries.

With my respect.

To All:

Geology and the physics of the Earth's interior occupy a strange place in the annals of science because the object of study literally is beneath our feet yet our store of confirmed knowledge of geologic events and processes remains highly incomplete if not still rather rudimentary. Virtually every geologic map, of whatever geologic terrain wherever made, contains unanswered questions. We are trying to decipher a sequence of events and processes spread over time frames of millions of years. It should come as no surprise that some of our current thinking and theories will be proven wrong over time and new ones will arise. Such may be the case with the theory of plate tectonics (PTT). However, it appears to me that in the main PTT has pretty much got it right but for details that remain problematic and, of course, "the devil is in the details".

As to the original question "how could Plate tectonics theory [be] wrong?" one might attach degrees of "wrongness" - is it completely altogether "wrong", in which case it should be discarded, or is it the case that it fails to account satisfactorily for some detail? To say that PTT is completely wrong would require somehow rejecting the considerable body of accumulated evidence in its favor and replacing it with something that could account equally well for this evidence. One must always be vigilant in applying theories to specific problems and be on the look-out for instances where the theory fails. The danger arises when theories become too much the norm and it becomes the evidence that is wrong not the theory.

At this stage of the game I suggest that PTT be reduced from "theory" to "working hypothesis" that retains the notion of possible error and promotes continued vigilance by the practioners. Recall that theories can never be "proven", they can only be "disproven".

Dear Douglas Zbikowski thank you, could you plz send me a copy of your paper ?

Hi!

To : Dwight H.

Good remarks, I agree with status of Hypothesis for Plate Tectonic formalism.

Dear Jorge,

Thank you for response, you and Dwight has more saw like me that is why you have more practical knowledge like me… I do not have chance to continue practising my job that is why remained a hobby to read and examine and try to get responses to question which arisen in time of studying at university… and in time of writing my philosophical book, Only after 19-20 years got responses to them… So it was a practising my profession not on field. practising into my head: I have got lot a resolutions to my question, but I did not have occasion to verify, test them: Example: the Dinosaurs extension, cannot ne excepted the explanation with huge meteoritic impact. The ‘Chinese behaviour’ the Chinese are very practical peoples, their writing made capable them to copying with head, same ability of resolution is quickly… If one of them get a good resolution he never will tell for outsider only such a response which seemingly good, but you are not able to know correct information about resolution.

I would like to know about your experiment 1 first pluton: What type of rock was What quantity of U (mentioning the quantity of U205 and U208 isotope) and Th had same the pre-existent magmatic rock…

The Best Regards,

Laszlo

Here is evenig... I wish you Good Afternon!

Laszlo, please check the numbers of U istope ;-)

Dear Timur,

Thank you for correcting…

Saturday I got up in wrong bus. Yesterday, I was before the sleep, when I wrote the mistake about U isotopes:

Correct form my query:

‘I would like to know about your experiment 1 first pluton: What type of rock was What quantity of U (mentioning the quantity of U335 and U238 isotope) and Th had same the pre-existent magmatic rock…’

I never forced memorize data because.

Actually I am writing an new article, and I am sad because in last two weeks I have mad to lot similar mistake.

Best Regards,

Laszlo

Well in my opinion PTT still not clear enough to convince, Dear all According to plate tectonics theory which i still believe with , the Earth’s mantle is convecting, turning over and over in an endless loop. But is it? Is it really? Is there any direct evidence that the mantle is convecting?

Dear Ass_Prof_Dr_Haithem_Minas,

You may regard the evidence to be circumstantial but the most obvious evidence for convection within the mantle is upwelling along the mid-oceanic ridges, seafloor spreading and downgoing subduction at plate boundaries. Such is the behavior in a convecting fluid where hot (less dense) parcels of fluid rise and cool (dense) parcels of fluid sink. Convection would seem to be a logical explanation for the observations although it is convection that takes place very slowly - but then Nature does have all of the time in the world! Large scale convection is known to occurin in the upper regions of the Sun and is important in transporting energy from the deep solar interior to the Sun's surface.

Dear Dwight Hoxie kindly accept my sincere regards, the earth expansion occurred during the last 200 million years as no seafloor is any older than that. How can that be reasonably explained?

Dear Ass_Prof_Dr_Haithem_Minas,

My understanding is that the time for a complwete cycle of convective overturning within the mantle ranges from 50 to 200 million years. Thus the 200 million year-old seafloor represents the slowest of the convective cells within the mantle A colleague of mine has found evidence of what he interprets to be a ~1.65 billion year-old subduction zone in southeastern Arizona. This would suggest that mantle convection and associated plate tectonics have been going on in some form or another for quite a long time. Nature, of course, does reveal her secrets readily so I suppose that the whole edifice of plate tectonics could one day come tumbling down and be replaced by a new paradigm.

Dear Dwight Hoxie thank you so much for your response using scientific practical knowledge, did your colleague who found ~1.65 billion year-old subduction zone in southeastern Arizona published this evidence(very interested point), however I believe in what suggested by J. Marvin Herndon that Convection is assumed to take place in the mantle as solid-state flow instead of liquidstate flow. But there is no indication at the Earth’s surface of the formation of convection cells. Indeed, decades of research has yet to find any direct, unambiguous evidence of mantle convection. Is the idea of mantle convection simply a contrivance to make plate tectonics seem to work? Is there another way of looking at the dynamics of the Earth? These are serious questions to consider.

Dear Dwight Hoxie you believe to reduce PTT from theory to working hypothesis , on the other hand you present a very strong evidence from your colleague who found ~1.65 billion year-old subduction zone, this might support PTT to work in same leve as theory.

By the way Jorge Costa-de-Moura and László Attila Horváth which also have a practical knowledge mention here a very interest idea and scientific discussion.

Best Regards,

Minas

Dear László Attila Horváth, Jorge Costa-de-Moura , Dwight Hoxie , Ilie Sandum, Rzger A. Abdula , and Ahmad S. Yasien Al-Gurairy, thank you for your scientific responses, as you all know the plates can be mapped, observed, and even measured moving. We can WATCH sea floor spreading at surface in Iceland. We can locate earthquake epicenters on some map plate boundaries, what do you think, is that be enough to believe with PTT completely

Dear Ass. Prof. Dr. Haithem A. Minas,

Please, never ever believe in a scientific theory completely! Always keep some distance and be skeptical even in cases where the scientific evidence seems overwhelming. Even the most hallowed of theories may one day be falsified or otherwise may encounter problems. Of course, we ourselves should always be vigilante to be sure that whenever we are concerned with an application of a theory to a problem that we accord with the procedures followed and the results obtained. I here mean "theory" in a very general sense that includes hypotheses and even Maxwell's equations.

Dear Ass. Prof. Dr. Haithem A. Minas,

I tell you do not believe in actual PTT. Their third part, subduction theory is a totally hoax (try to find rhe works of Hugo Benioff or Kiyoo Wadati in this topic… Take around in your country; try to explain the ‘recent’ volcanic activity in Libya… The plate tectonic theory cannot explain these volcanic activities!

The Best Regards

Laszlo

Dear Ass. Prof. Dr. Haithem A. Minas

There are three volcanoes or volcanic fields in Libya all apparently of "recent" age (in the past few thousand years). This volcanism likely had nothing to do with plate tectonics and in no way supports or refutes plate tectonics. Intraplate volcanism (that is, within the interior of continental plates) is not uncommon and is associated with processes that may be independent of or indirectly connected with plate tectonics. Plate tectonics, if true, is only part of the overall near-surface dynamics of planet Earth and local volcanism by no means should be accepted as contrary to plate tectonics. You don't "believe" in plate tectonics but assess it on its merits as explaining what is observed while accepting that it may not be correct as it is formulated today and either will be corrected or replaced in the future as more evidence (not speculation!) accumulates. Science does not entail "belief" but is founded on evidence and all theories and hypotheses are tentative and subject to continual testing agaist evidence.

The Plate tectonics theory has another name: Global Tectonic theory such a way it has to give responses to all tectonic observable phenomena. It has to explain: ‘the three volcanoes or volcanic fields in Libya all apparently of "recent" age (in the past few thousand years)’. The before existed Geosincline theory was able to explain the mentioned volcanic fields… That is why n honest scientist can ask the next question… Why this resolution is not appears in actual Global Tectonics theory?... Why the Global Tectonics cannot explain the Yellowstone Supervolcano of USA?

In the Dr. Hoxie’s before made post second part contains contradiction, and looks la bit circular reasoning: Plate tectonics’ if true, is only part of the overall near-surface dynamics of planet Earth and local volcanism by no means should be accepted as contrary to plate tectonics.’ The Plate Tectonic (Global Tectonic) creators formulated this theory to resolve all observable tectonic phenomena in the lithosphere-asthenosphere of Earth… Where comes its plate moving source?... Which hyposentre was the deepest Earthquake?

‘Science does not entail "belief" but is founded on evidence and all theories and hypotheses are tentative and subject to continual testing agaist evidence.’- I believe into the Nature and take with strong critics such a states like USA and China supported Global 'scientifical' theories… Should be better do to explain the subduction process, without contradiction!!!… Was a supporter of GT who wrote the next: ‘in this forum I wrote sometime ago that NOBODY has ever seen or will see a plate subducting’,

Write me a continental or arc Island example of tectonic process which explained without fundamental contradiction by Global Tectonics theory!

So are you are accept the subduction theory does not entail "belief" but is founded on evidence…? What Kind of Evidence? Why is hard to find literature of Hugo Benioff or Kiyoo Wadati in this topic? Why Hugo Benioff or Kiyoo Wadati works is not appears in the scientifically literature of Global Tectonics theory… It seems well that in the works of Hugo Benioff or Kiyoo Wadati works exist such a part with can be easily contradict by a normal thinker scientist!

The Best Regards,

Laszlo

Dear All,

I have found very hard the next texts:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JB073i018p05855

Seismology and the new global tectonics

Bryan Isacks Jack Oliver Lynn R. Sykes

First published: 15 September 1968 https://doi.org/10.1029/JB073i018p05855 Cited by: 817

’Abstract

A comprehensive study of the observations of seismology provides widely based strong support for the new global tectonics which is founded on the hypotheses of continental drift, sea‐floor spreading, transform faults, and underthrusting of the lithosphere at island arcs. Although further developments will be required to explain certain part of the seismological data, at present within the entire field of seismology there appear to be no serious obstacles to the new tectonics. Seismic phenomena are generally explained as the result of interactions and other processes at or near the edges of a few large mobile plates of lithosphere that spread apart at the ocean ridges where new surficial materials arise, slide past one another along the large strike‐slip faults, and converge at the island arcs and arc‐like structures where surficial materials descend. Study of world seismicity shows that most earthquakes are confined to narrow continuous belts that bound large stable areas. In the zones of divergence and strike‐slip motion, the activity is moderate and shallow and consistent with the transform fault hypothesis; in the zones of convergence, activity is normally at shallow depths and includes intermediate and deep shocks that grossly define the present configuration of the down‐going slabs of lithosphere. Seismic data on focal mechanisms give the relative direction of motion of adjoining plates of lithosphere throughout the active belts. The focal mechanisms of about a hundred widely distributed shocks give relative motions that agree remarkably well with Le Pichon's simplified model in which relative motions of six large, rigid blocks of lithosphere covering the entire earth were determined from magnetic and topographic data associated with the zones of divergence. In the zones of convergence the seismic data provide the only geophysical information on such movements.

Two principal types of mechanisms are found for shallow earthquakes in island arcs: The extremely active zone of seismicity under the inner margin of the ocean trench is characterized by a predominance of thrust faulting, which is interpreted as the relative motion of two converging plates of lithosphere; a less active zone in the trench and on the outer wall of the trench is characterized by normal faulting and is thought to be a surficial manifestation of the abrupt bending of the down‐going slab of lithosphere. Graben‐like structures along the outer walls of trenches may provide a mechanism for including and transporting sediments to depth in quantities that may be very significant petrologically. Large volumes of sediments beneath the inner slopes of many trenches may correspond, at least in part, to sediments scraped from the crust and deformed in the thrusting.

Simple underthrusting typical of the main zone of shallow earthquakes in island arcs does not, in general, persist at great depth. The most striking regularity in the mechanisms of intermediate and deep earthquakes in several arcs is the tendency of the compressional axis to parallel the local dip of the seismic zone. These events appear to reflect stresses in the relatively strong slab of down‐going lithosphere, whereas shearing deformations parallel to the motion of the slab are presumably accommodated by flow or creep in the adjoining ductile parts of the mantle. Several different methods yield average rates of underthrusting as high as 5 to 15 cm/yr for some of the more active arcs. These rates suggest that temperatures low enough to permit dehydration of hydrous minerals and hence shear fracture may persist even to depths of 700 km. The thickness of the seismic zone in a part of the Tonga arc where very precise hypocentral locations are available is less than about 20 km for a wide range of depths. Lateral variations in thickness of the lithosphere seem to occur, and in some areas the lithosphere may not include a significant thickness of the uppermost mantle.

The lengths of the deep seismic zones appear to be a measure of the amount of under thrusting during about the last 10 m.y. Hence, these lengths constitute another ‘yardstick’ for investigations of global tectonics. The presence of volcanism, the generation of many tsunamis (seismic sea waves), and the frequency of occurrence of large earthquakes also seem to be related to underthrusting or rates of underthrusting in island arcs. Many island arcs exhibit a secondary maximum in activity which varies considerably in depth among the various arcs. These depths appear, however, to correlate with the rate of underthrusting, and the deep maxima appear to be located near the leading (bottom) part of the down‐going slab. In some cases the down‐going plates appear to be contorted, possibly because they are encountering a more resistant layer in the mantle. The interaction of plates of lithosphere appears to be more complex when all the plates involved are continents or pieces of continents than when at least one plate is an oceanic plate. The new global tectonics suggests new approaches to a variety of topics in seismology including earthquake prediction, the detection and accurate location of seismic events, and the general problem of earth structure.’

You can see well the term of subduction = (under - thrusting of the lithosphere at island arcs) was introduced later… It was a trick: to destroy the term of subduction which was well explained by Geosyncline theory. (same trick we can observe in case of Eaxpanding Earth Theory and Growing Earth Theory, where the Growing Earth Theory was invemted to destroy valability of Expanding Earth Theory)

The Names: Bryan Isacks, Jack Oliver Lynn R. Sykes, (fathers of Global tectonics), same an important name is Peter Molnar,

The Hugo Benioff and K. Wadati. Names using in the Global tectonic theory, but in reality they had nothing common with the mentioned theory. Take a look onto their articles… For this how can believe in the mainstream science, when I dip a bit inside, can observe something like a misleading!

Literature:

H. Benioff. Seismic evidence for the fault origin of seismic deeps. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 60(12):1837–1856,

1949. doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1949)60[1837:SEFTFO]2.0.CO;2. 1, 5

K. Wadati. Existence and study of deep earthquakes (in Japanese). Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan, Series 2, 5:

119–145, 1927. 5

K. Wadati. Shallow and deep earthquakes. Geophysical Magazine, 1:161–202, 1928. 5

K. Wadati. Shallow and deep earthquakes. Geophysical Magazine, 2:1–36, 1929. 5, 11, 12

K. Wadati. On the activity of deep-focus earthquakes in the Japan Islands and neighbourhoods. Geophysical Magazine, 8:

The best regards,

Laszlo

Dear László Attila Horváth I am really appreciate your time and amazing scientific response,

The best regards,

Minas

The Tectonic Plates can not be wrong, but some of the scientific bases on which they were based can be updated according to the scientific facts, which have been recently recorded !!

Dear Ahmad,

Before a few minutes I have read your work: ‘Source Rock of the Volcanic Fragments in Wadi Al-batin, Iraq: Geomorphological, Petrographical and Geochemical Evidences’

I have written comment to your article… Another thing If you have any possibility to try to read those works which were written before 1970 in the mentioned subject… In majority cause if I'm not wrong have to exist metalogenic source in Saudi Arabia, did not verify it… The described volcanic rocks by you same cannot be explained by current Plate Tectonics theory … they have a better description in geosyncline theory (but in the geosyncline theory same is not clear how the mentioned volcanic rocks were formed.

‘On the other hand, basalt (classified as trachyte and dacite) are tholeiitic peraluminous reflect the geochemical characteristics of orogenic arc type’˙( from conclushion) [but in your area of study you do not have such a type of volcanism!!]

‘This study deduce that the volcanic rock fragments at Wadi Al-Batin came from the highlands of W and NW Saudi Arabia, especially from the areas around Ha'il, namely Hadn formation type locality, Jabal Aja and Sarrah alkali rhyolite) and Al-Qassim, namely Jabal Aban al Asmar (Samra rhyolite). These rhyolites exhibit many are faces ofsimilarities to Wadi Al-Batin rhyolites.’[I think: you are good direction. Now you have to demonstrate it, but without plate tectonic because in Saudi Arabia does not exist ‘arc type volcanism’, but in your work onto base of geochemical characteristic you got orogenic arc type.

Conclusion: The rhyolites in your article contradict strongly the actual plate tectonic! But I think you want to get your PhD, for this you have to find some misleading explanation, or you will force the geosyncline view, and other view without forcing example an explanation wich is concordant with the real situation]

Best Regards.

Laszlo

Dear Dr. Minas:

Regarding your above past request:

The Institute for Celestial Geodynamics (IfCG) has a new website from which our latest revisions of articles are downloadable. (I don't put a preprint on the new site until it has been reviewed again.) Just look under the 'Research' link at the top of the Home page. If you are using a mobile, you have to click the ‘Menu’ button first to get the links. Please let me know if you like the new site design.

celestial-geodynamics.org

Cheers.

Dear Ass. Prof. Dr. Haithem A. Minas

(cc: Laszlo Horvath)

Lazlo submitted the following to you based in part on an answer that I also submitted to you. Lazlo does not agree with what I said and I hope you will permit me an additional comment and explanation.

"So are you are accept the subduction theory does not entail "belief" but is founded on evidence…? What Kind of Evidence? Why is hard to find literature of Hugo Benioff or Kiyoo Wadati in this topic? Why Hugo Benioff or Kiyoo Wadati works is not appears in the scientifically literature of Global Tectonics theory… It seems well that in the works of Hugo Benioff or Kiyoo Wadati works exist such a part with can be easily contradict by a normal thinker scientist!"

The first point is that the textbook Global Tectonics by Philip Kearey, Keith A. Klepeis and Frederick J. Vine references extensively the work of Hugo Benioff and Kiyoo Wadati that Lazlo claims does not appear in the literature of "global tectonics". Hugo Benioff's original 1949 paper is available from its publisher the Geological Society of America and this paper has received considerable attention the geological literature contrary to Lazlo's claim.

Lazlo was not clear on who it was that said "‘in this forum I wrote sometime ago that NOBODY has ever seen or will see a plate subducting’,". Strictly speaking this may be true because most subduction zones are under water. However on 11 March 2011 the effects (Magnitude 9 earthquake and devastating tsunami) were experienced in Japan as the Pacific plate made a sudden descent (subduction) beneath the plate underlying Honshu, Japan.

The active subduction of plate tectonics generally takes place beneath the ocean

on the plate margins. The continents are intra-plate land masses in which volcanism can occur that is not connected with plate tectonics' Yellowstone Park in the US and Hawaii in the Pacific basin, for example, are considered to be hotspots whose formation and maintenance are incompletely understood.

OK. Dwight Hoxie,

Excuse for the critics… I do not know why you forgot to mention the time of ‘first’ publication of the work of the textbook Global Tectonics by Philip Kearey, Keith A. Klepeis and Frederick J.?

Another point:

A good scientist does not focus onto a slip of the pen of  other scientists explanation:

See again your last post mister mentioned in last post:

L A. H: So are you accept the subduction theory does not entail "belief" but is founded on evidence…? What Kind of Evidence? Why is hard to find literature of Hugo Benioff or Kiyoo Wadati in this topic? Why Hugo Benioff or Kiyoo Wadati works is not appears in the scientifical literature of Global Tectonics theory… It seems well that in the works of Hugo Benioff or Kiyoo Wadati works exist such a part with can be easily contradicted by a normal thinker scientist!"

DH: ‘The first point is that the textbook Global Tectonics by Philip Kearey, Keith A. Klepeis and Frederick J. Vine references extensively the work of Hugo Benioff and Kiyoo Wadati that Lazlo claims does not appear in the literature of "global tectonics". Hugo Benioff's original 1949 paper is available from its publisher the Geological Society of America and this paper has received considerable attention the geological literature contrary to Lazlo's claim.’ you mention it to the first question:

Why is hard to find literature of Hugo Benioff or Kiyoo Wadati in this topic?  Why you did not mention the work of Kiyoo Wadati? Can you tell me which page is mentioned Kíyoo Wadaty's literature?    I have written two question approximate similar… Se again the first question and please read another comment made by me:

And please take a look onto the next example:

‘Dear all,

 I Have found a map about Earthquakes around New Zeeland

https://teara.govt.nz/mi/map/6630/offshore-earthquakes-around-new-zealand

… Take a look onto map North East corner of the map, where existed two earthquakes onto plate boundary which hypocentre was under 400 km… What are you think about it the plate tectonics supporters, example Dwight Hoxie. It is a great challenge for him not to observe only my minor explainable mistakes … He has to observe that the plate tectonic subduction process not so good as him states.’

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Laszlo,

You almost make it sound as if "plate tectonics" is being touted as the only process under the heading "global tectonics". "Plate tectonics" is a (unproven) hypothesis that has been put forward to account for what, admittedly, is a major chunk of modern global tectonics but there other major processes as well. The Hawaiian and Yellowstone hotspots are distinct from plate tectonics as is the Long Valley caldera in California. To my knowledge the Lisbon (Portugal) earthquake of 1755, the Charleston (South Carolina) earthquake of 1886 and the New Madrid (Missouri) earthquake of 1811 were not associated with plate tectonics. Plate tectonics has been successful were it is applicable but it is no geological "end all be all" theory of everything.

Dear Dr. Dwight Hoxie:

Stresses for great intraplate EQs may be explained by application of the novel concept of 'ellipsoidal demand' which is explained in the RG article: Preprint Apparent Triggering of Large Earthquakes in Los Angeles and ...

As you have expressed, the theory of plate tectonics may evolve further and I would suggest a revision that includes substantial driving of plates by the Moon. I have accumulated multiple lines of quantitative evidence supporting this notion as an adjunct to convection drivers. The article, "Specular, spatial-statistical, and graphical evidence..." is available under the 'Research' link on our website - celestial-geodynamics.org

If anyone thinks that PT is a crock of nonsense, then you'd better come up with an alternative super-encompassing model. I do not think you will do it and I am prepared to bet money that I am right.

Regards, Jason Ali

Dear Jason R. Ali,

Yes, I think that PT as it you know is misleading theory… Actually I am clothes seller, where who wants clothes, is playing for it. So you do not have that money which you can pay for such a theory…

Regards,

Laszlo

Jason,

I think there is no doubt you would win the bet, however it does not yet explain everything satisfactorily. I do believe it is a proven model particularly after the motions of plates can now be directly measured from satellites.

i also think that we still dont have all the details of the answers of how PT works in all circumstances. Plenty more research required!

OK. Boys I invite in Hungary, to

https://www.facebook.com/matildaapartman/ [(free) it is for four persons]

You can use the Plate Tectonics theory (onto base of mondial) bibliography to explain Pannonian Basin (Carpathian basin formation)… I will use only my own theory based onto combined theory ( geo-syncline, expanding Earth, planet erosion theory, plume theory) and we will analyse which theory can give better response to the actual observable situation.

You are welcome to explain the Romanian Earthquakes from Vrancea Mountain… And you can make prediction of these Earthquakes.

Regards

Laszlo

Dear Lazlo,

I refer to your remark of some time ago in which you said: "I Have found a map about Earthquakes around New Zeeland." Below is a map of New Zealand showing the Alpine fault cossing the South Island and the Kermadec trench extending northeast from the North Island. These features mark the boundary between two plates one being subducted beneath the other. Therefore there is much earthquake activity associated with these features both on the land mass of the islands and in the adjacent ocean floor. Your map of the earthquakes is quite consistent with what would be expected under plate tectonics at an intra-oceanic plate boundary such as that on which New Zealand sits.

the question really is about deep mantle processes. We have relative motion between plates with continental areas in parts of Australia with roots of over 300 km depth. This means we are having a driving force from the deep mantle and the magma that we see at surface in mostly not derived from anything like this depth. that we see diamonds at surface which have been derived from depths greater than the mantle root depths indicates that convection in the deeper parts of the upper mantle is present and has a huge volume of convecting material, far greater in mass than the thin lithosphere which is being moved around. That these mantle roots have survived intact in some parts of the world from at least the middle Archaean indicates a very deep source for the driving forces, not something that readily shears off the continent from its underlying lithospheric roots. Look deeper, there is very little we know about the deeper mantle and the recent discovery of major continental scale hotter blobs with huge topographic height sitting on the mantle core boundary is an example of how little we actually know and understand about the mantle and the driving forces within the convecting mantle.

Dear Dwight Hoxie,

I did not forget to respond to you!

You have used a very interesting example of such a zone where the plate tectonic theory's subduction can be easily contradicted (this area played a primordial role in the invention of 'subduction process' … I did not respond to your post because here in the clothes shop we have to make a seasonal change of clothes… But I will send you a link and a two photo where exist strong contradiction in explanation of New-Zealand's areas tectonics… Those persons who do not see these contradictions perhaps are brainwashed or layer…

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/australia/new_z.html

Sincerely,

Laszlo

Dear All:

I am correcting my new ready argumentative article with arguments against to subduction process process I would like to ask you: if the next sentence information is correct or not:

The phenomena of subduction was formulated first by Isacks, B.L., Oliver, J. and Sykes, L.R., and accepted onto base of their work [Bibliography: Isacks, B.L., Oliver, J. and Sykes, L.R., 1968, Seismology and the new global tectonics, J. Geophys. Res. 73: 5855–5899] Based on the location of the hypocentres of earthquakes to the west of the KT (Kermadec-Tonga) trench.

Every better and honestly correction is welcome (author, the first article, and time)

This small help is welcome from the supporter of PT, too. (I would like to get response in few days)

Regards,

Laszlo

Hi Lazlo

I think Hess in 1962 published about subduction as the area of oceanic crust destruction in trenches following on his work with the US navy and their ocean floor mapping work. Book called "history of ocean basins" and then in 1963 Vine and in 1963 Vine and Mathews published on magnetic striping that supported Hess' work.

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the response!

I did not verify in deeply the works of Hess and (1962) and Vine and Mathews (1963)… I know that the Hess main contribution was in the formulation of ‘Seafloor spreading theory’ and as you have written, and strong contribution to it was given by Vine and Mathews (1963)… The Subduction theory was accepted only after the contribution of Isack and his collaborators… (1967 or 1968).

One interesting thing that Isack name is not mentioned in Wikipedia (same Bennioff’s and Wadati’s contributions, too) at wiki subduction… That is interesting that such a ‘good theory like PT’ has not a clear history description… It is very suspect: That their main creator's works are not mentioned in current articles! It is getting a lot of time to get a piece of correct information… I do not why the supporter of PT accept this shortcoming of their supported theory?

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Peter,

My assumption has been gotten from the next link:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth520/book/export/html/1757

Regards,

Laszlo

Good link Lazlo. Thanks. It does also state there "the growing theory of plate tectonics" which suggests they were not the first so Hess would have been earlier, but maybe not the first either.

Dear Peter,

You have convinced me, and I have made the correction of the sentence to the next (something similar):

The accepted form of the subduction phenomena was formulated by Isacks, B.L., Oliver, J., and Sykes, L.R., [Bibliography: Isacks, B.L., Oliver, J. and Sykes, L.R., 1968, Seismology and the new global tectonics, J. Geophys. Res. 73: 5855–5899] based on the location of the hypocentres of earthquakes to the west of the KT (Kermadec-Tonga) trench.

The English version of the sentence is not so beautiful, but the Hungarian version, I think acceptable…

Thank you again! I Hope with the Hungarian version I will ready soon!

Regards,

Laszlo

Glad i was of some help. The english version is fine so the hungarian must be superb!

Dear Colleagues,

Here is my new article Hungarian:  ‘A szubdukció jelensége összeegyeztethetetlen a Föld felszíni geometriájával és geomorfológiájával’ (The Subduction process cannot be complied with geometry and geomorphology of  Earth’s surface ).

Article A szubdukció jelensége összeegyeztethetetlen a Föld felszíni...

In Hungarian is explained easily that the subduction process is against to the real (‘spherical’) geometry of the Earth… In the case of Kermadec-Tonga Trench (2) is presented such a proves which shows clearly that the subduction in this zone is a false story…  If I am finding somebody, who is helping me in English version correction, I will translate into English. Regards,

Laszlo

Happy to help Laszlo with corrections into english

Thank you Peter,

I am happy for this, will do it In the next few weeks.

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear All,

I have got great help from Peter (Mr. Temby):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334131717_The_phenomenon_of_subduction_is_incompatible_with_Earth's_surface_geometry_and_geomorphology

The translation becomes better than the original article! Welcome, any comment!

Regards,

Laszlo

Science in general and Earth Science in particular has characteristics:

1. Science does not start with preconceptions / opinions without a base.

2. Science starts with evidence and scientists build theories based on this.

3. Evidence is obtained from observation and/or experimentation. This evidence is treated as fact.

4. Theories are proved/disproved according to whether they correspond to the facts or not.

5. Yes, of course! Plate Tectonics theory could be wrong! but it is the better way to understand, today, our Earth such as a Dynamic planet. Even more: not only the Earth, but also the Interior Planets. And, more: It is a critical condition for searching life at Extra Solar Planets.

6. A paradigm shift is, according to Thomas Kuhn in his influential book “The structure of scientific revolutions”, a change in basic assumptions, within the dominant theory of science.

7. Therefore: to say that Plate Tectonics could be wrong, we must to shift the present-day paradigm and we must build a new paradigm, which has not yet appeared with the dataset that we have.

My best wishes, Mario E. Sigismondi

Splendid breakdown of the scientific process. However, a new paradigm HAS appeared. And that is that a principal driver of plate motions is the gravitational interactions of Earth with the Moon.

(PDF) Spectral, spatial-statistical, and graphical evidence that gravitational interaction with the Moon assists in driving Earth's tectonic plates-Part 1

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

There are many data that do not fit with plate tectonics theory, that seems more a dogma rather a theory

(see: IGC 2004-Urbino International Workshop to discuss some new concepts in global tectonics. Episodes, 2005, 28(1):55-57)

Dear all:

I am very careful to answer so as not to generate controversies, just let me share one picture as a geophysical evidence from gravity anomalies of Western Gondwana merge in a single grid.

The present gravity map in any form cannot explain the Plate Tectonic itself, but this is another physical evidence about the strengths of the theory, beyond its limitations, which undoubtedly exist, as they have detailed in the previous answers.

The challenge is find a better one-grid-model of a whole Gondwana using gravity data, trying to account for present-day regional amalgamation in order to present a revised model for the geological evolution.

I invite any people to share and joint this research.

Best regards, Mario E. Sigismondi

https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-could-change-our-thinking-on-the-flow-of-the-earth-s-mantle