After more than a century of accepting plate tectonic theory I think It's time to questioning and discussing this theory in order to understand more precisely the nature of the Earth, based on this theory the Earth’s mantle is convicting in an endless loop, 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.
Dear Shaheen
I am completely agree with your point, for this is the way of science.
If we think that this theory is an unchangeable law, than where is the point of innovation in science?
Dear all,
I agree that it's time to understand some disadvantages of plate tectonics such as subduction, plumes and hot spots and building mountains. For this purpose I encourage interested people to see the site newgeology by John Michael Fischer
email: [email protected]
Dear Shaheen
Is very interesting your question. There is an interesting publication related to mantle convection. I recommend you their 2d numerical simulations.
The paper is:
Maxime Maurice, Nicola Tosi, Henri Samuel, Ana-Catalina Plesa, Christian Hüttig, Doris Breuer, 2017. Onset of solid-state mantle convection and mixing during magma ocean solidification, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 122, Issue 3 March 2017 Pages 577–598.
It is wrong to say that plate tectonics is 100 years old. In fact it is only about 50 years old and has been recognised by 50 year anniversary conferences and sessions recently.
Dear Christopher Harrison ,
The origin of plate tectonic theory from Wegener’s theory of continental drift years Early in the 20th Century, Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) also proposed that the continents at one time had been united, but subsequently had separated and drifted through the ocean floor to their present positions. Wegener’s theory of continental drift was systematically ignored for fifty years. Finally, after half a century of silence, debate erupted in the 1960s. Alfred Wegener’s idea of continental drift re-emerged, cast into a new form called plate tectonics theory, with more detail and with new supporting observational data( J. Marvin Herndon, 2005).
Continental Drift is NOT plate tectonics. It had no information about sea floor spreading at ridge crests, no earthquake first motion studies, essential items in plate tectonics.
In agree with Jorge, plate tectonic concepts work fine. Some details may change as we understand it better, but the great aspect of the model is that it can explain observations. Mantle flow due to convection is due to the temperature diffrences between the earth's core and mantle. We do not (yet??) understand many details, but I think, in essence, mantle convection is a main driving force for plate tectonics.
Dear all,
We have to admit that plate tectonic explains many observations
especially in oceanic crust, and I think that mantle convection maybe its
main advantage. However, it fails to solve intracontinental deformation.
Plate tectonic considers plates as rigid. That is the main shortage.
Geological and Geophysical observations suggest that plates are sub-rigid
and probably non-rigid in specific locations.
In Iraq for example, the late seismic events indicate that the Arabian plate
is sub-rigid, and the plate tectonic could not resolve the location and
magnitude of the 7.3 event. USGS used to locate the Arabian – Iranian
boundary to the east of the event. However the latest finite fault
map locates the boundary to the west of the event. And that is not
accepted for a well known and much studied setting in the world.
I also need to mention that plate tectonic doing much better than shock
idea reported in newgeology site mentioned earlier in my answers.
I suggest that new generation scientists need to wake up to start questioning and providing relevant answers to evidences and facts about both past and present evolution and Earth processes.
David Pratt in his research article Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat on 2000 states the lithosphere has a highly complex and irregular structure. Far from being homogeneous, "plates" are actually "a megabreccia, a 'pudding' of inhomogeneities whose nature, size, and properties vary widely" (Chekunov, Gordienko, and Guterman, 1990, p. 404). The crust and uppermost mantle are divided by faults into a mosaic of separate, jostling blocks of different shapes and sizes, generally a few hundred kilometers across, and of varying internal structure and strength. Pavlenkova (1990, p. 78) concludes: "This means that the movement of lithospheric plates over long distances, as single rigid bodies, is hardly possible.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers