I think we might have to look around the tidal effects and other gravity induced factors.

The Earth is a hot and geodynamically active planet, revealed greatest by widely accepted Plate Tectonics’ theory. If you are thinking that seafloor spreading, and subduction have operated in modern plate tectonic mode only since late Cambrian or early Ordovician time (W.B. Hamilton, 2011), Earth still hot by Plumes.

The three main forces that drive Plate Tectonics on Earth are:

• Convection in the Mantle (heat driven)

• Ridge push (gravitational force at the spreading ridges)

• Slab pull (gravitational force in subduction zones)

Convection in the mantle, unquestionably plays a main role, but doesn’t explain in what manner some plates move faster than the convective flows beneath them. Current dynamic models have plates moving as part of a gravity-driven convection system that pushes young hot plates away from spreading ridges and pulls old cold plates down into subduction zones.

The Moon’s Mantle, too cool to move easily, has no convection and no active tectonic plate motions, due the Moon's smaller size and cooler interior than Earth. The surface-to-volume ratio in thermal physics (Planinsic and Vollmer, 2008) is a central concept related with the size of the Moon if you compare with Earth: the smallest volume has the largest surface-to-volume ratio and hence, the cooling for small volume is more efficient than for large volume. Therefore, on the Moon, the thermal equilibrium is reached much faster, shorter in geological time and no core hot of molten metal to help an active dynamo’s mechanism and plate tectonics.

Best wishes Haithem, I hope my answer can help to you. Mario E. Sigismondi

It is certain that the composition of the core of the moon differs from the composition of the core of the earth.

Dear Haithem: this is a very interesting question you ask. But we can add to it: why don't Mars, Venus and Mercury have plate tectonics? Size or mass is the main factor, as it controls the rate of heat release from the interior of planets to space, so the smallest terrestrial (rocky) planets are Mars, Mercury and the Moon, which have lost most of their internal heat long ago, eons ago, infact. Venus has a size comparable to Earth's but it doesn't have plate tectonics, since one of the most important lubricants for plate motions, which is water, is lacking there. Water, even in very small percetages in the mantle, favours the existence of the viscous-plastic layer, the asthenosphere, which allows most of the plate related movements, without water in the mantle planets don't have any possibility to develop plate tectonics. Mars has a very thick lithosphere, which only cracks, and allows static hot spot volcanism forming giant shield volcanoes, Venus is still enigmatic, but no surface features similar to ridges, trenches, and the like have been found on its surface, only rifts and hot spot volcanism, like in Mars. Certainly in planets even smaller, there's no possibility of any plate tectonics to occur, though some initial see-floor expansion like process seems to have occurred in Mars more than 3 Ga ago, which even left magnetic anomaly stripes... in the northern latitudes, but it was a short duration process. The Moon has a partially molten layer in the base of its mantle, but it is not enough to start generalised convection, like on Earth.

Regards, Sebastian.

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

The answer is very simple: because the actual plate tectonic theory is very wrong.

Best regards,

Laszlo

Mr. Laszlo, nobody in the science world can say that any theory or model is 100% correct, we scientists don't believe in dogmas, but in evidences, experiments and proofs. This is not religion, you know. I teach Petrology and Tectonics and I always begin the semester stating the following to my students: nobody has seen a plate subducting, no well or apparatus has been yet be able to penetrate not even the swallowest mantle, all we have is indirect evidence, mostly seismical, and recently also of conductivity, gravimetry, and other geophysical properties of the lower crust and upper mantle. Seismic tomography is giving sharper images of the whole mantle circulation, which improve each day. All that evidence shows is impossible to be ignored: something very big and tabular, with low attenuation (low Q), sinks in deep ocean trenches, generates an inclined plane of intermediate to deep seismic focuses (the Wadati-Benioff zone), and about 80-150 km behind of this trench a volcanic arc arises, either on former oceanic or continental crust. Also, nobody has ever seen how magma forms below a volcanic arc, but this magma does reach in part to the surface, and the explanation for its very existence is very close linked to the sinking of that big "low Q" body, which we recognize as an oceanic lithospheric plate some 100 km thick whose upper part is metasomatized oceanic crust containing quite an amount of H2O, CO2, and other volatiles.

Thus the evidence of plate tectonics is overwhelming, it began in the late 60's with the first paleomagnetic proofs of sea-floor spreading (Vine and Mathews), then followed by all the models by Wilson, Mc.Kenzie, and Dewey, among others. This evidence is increasing day by day, nobody can deny this! Surely, there are some local phenomena which are not well understood yet, there are many controversies to be solved, and many hyperbaric experiments still to be performed, but from these minor faults to abbandon decades of research in many fields, and the main global tectonic scheme there is an abyss, as big as a deep ocean trench, indeed!

Think before you write something, please. Sebastián.

Dear Sebastian,

Thank you for response,

Yes, Sebastian, I have thought 21 years in case of actual form of plate tectonic, 23 years of in case of gravitation of Earth, 32 years of geological situation from Transylvania (Romania)

(

Between 1981-1986), at the university of Babes-Bolyai Romania I had been taught strongly onto base of geosyncline theory, but same time was mentioned Plate tectonics theory like a new and alternative theory… Being a young man, I thought that all main concept which had been formulated in occident are better like in socialist countries. So I accepted rapidly the mainstream plate tectonics.

I wanted to make an original map of Europe onto the interpretation of plate tectonic, But I do not was able (because the actual plate tectonic theory did not permitted it!) Only after last week, after of 32 years thinking I could explained a situation in (Austrian-Hungarian-Romanian) geology, but it was resolved without plate tectonic, with a new tectonic process which I did not observed in the universal literature (my secret). With it very easily can demonstrate that the geological interpretation onto base of ‘ACTUAL’ plate tectonic can be easily exceeded in case of geology of Romania and Hungary.

I have abandoned the plate tectonic after 12 years being outside of my so loved profession (geology field) being like a Chinese clothes seller. But getting the God help, some big inspiration moment: 2006, helped me to discover a very simple process: planet erosion which was made me able to explain the inner asteroid origin.

Are you accept: that the asteroids of inner asteroid belts are build up lithologically like a lithospheres of rocky planets? And if you accept how you can accept that they was formed by an incomplete accretion? (and this material why was not subducted on a pre-existed rocky planet?)

How much tectonic process do you teach which can be observed onto rocky planet’s surface?…

If you want: read my new article:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327201504_Gravity_a_paradym_shift_in_reasoning

and you will understand, that exist easily responses, more naturally responses to the earth’s phenomena. (You have to love strongly Gaia, to be able accept her: how is she).

Sometimes: selling clothes is good for to get over what you were wrongly learnt, and inspirational appears its correction.

If you want to learn correct science only trust in your sensor shapes when they use only in observing of the our nature!

Best Regards,

László,

Very simple there was no heat trapped in the interior of the moon to generate phenomena like we see in plate tectonics.

That‘s a good answer, Michae, but ir only Worden in small bodies, in Venis heat was plenitud, but the lack of water difn’t allow plate tectónica. Sí the ingredients for PT are heat and water, of which Earth has enough. Regards, Sebastián

What type of rocks are made Lithosphere of the Moon?

What kind of physical phase was the material from which

formed majorities of the Lunar rocks ?

If there not was trapped heat and water onto Moon, what is made materially the Moon?

Take a look onto the rapidly selected next two examples:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259664968_Evidence_for_a_high-Th_evolved_lithology_on_the_Moon_at_Hansteen_Alpha

‘Abstract

The Moon has been volcanically active for most of its 4600 million-year history. Lunar volcanism is dominated by the production of basalt, erupted as flood lavas from fissure vents at very high rates of effusion, resulting in the creation of the visible maria, the dark, smooth lowlands of the Moon. Smaller central-vent basaltic constructs are also found but are of much less volumetric importance. Pyroclastic deposits on the Moon are the result of fire fountain eruptions from volatile-laden basaltic magmas rapidly ascending from deep mantle sources and erupting as a spray of magma, forming tiny glass beads. This volatile phase apparently included water vapor, which recently has been discovered trapped in lunar pyroclastic glass. Mare volcanism occurred on the Moon between 4300 and about 1000 million years ago, with peak rates of extrusion between 3800 and 3000 million years.’

[The Encyclopedia of Volcanoes (Second Edition)

2015, Pages 689-700

Paul D.Spudis

Show more

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385938-9.00039-0]

Best regards,

László

Correction to a former answer, due to the "corrector functions" of my iPhone:

That‘s a good answer, Michael, but ir only works in small bodies, in Venus heat was plentiful, but the lack of water didn’t allow plate tectonics. The ingredients for PT are heat and water, of which Earth has enough. Surely, as Mario Emilio said, ridge push and slab pull are recently recognized gravity controlled mechanisms which explain the lack of synchronism between plate motions and mantle convection speed. Regards, Sebastián

The nature every time shows its own easily response to the tricky explanation of It:

The plate of Africa is surrounded by rift (the continental Africa by water)….

But this situation shows clear logically contradiction of actual PT… I think the experts of actual PT can easily without contradiction explain the next situations too:

‘• Convection in the Mantle (heat driven)

• Ridge push (gravitational force at the spreading ridges)

• Slab pull (gravitational force in subduction zones)’

AND

They also will not forget to mention the East African Rift in their explanation.

Best Regards

Laszlo

Plate Tectonics does not occur on the Moon because it is too small yet for the surface stretching to occur. Mars is just now reaching the minimum allowable size for Surface Stretching Tectonics to occur and remain Visible as it does on Earth, and on Venus.

Dear Dorcas:

Your statement should be corrected, as follows:

"I think it's because of not enough internal heat (in the Moon) as there is in the Earth's interior". There's still some heat in the Moon, the lower part of the lunar astenospheric mantle is in a state of incipient fusion, and as in any rocky body, some small proportion of radiactive elements are still generating radiogenic heat. Earth has been losing internal heat through plate tectonics and volcanism, but the rate this heat is lost is less than in smaller bodies, like Moon, Mars, and Mercury. Nontheles,s in the far far future (1.5-2.0 Ga), the Earth will cease to have plate tectonics, and any volcanism left will be of the hot spot "Martian or Venusian type", but eventually even that will be extinguished, and all what will remain is some terrestrial mantle convection. Until the Sun becomes a red giant! Regards, Sebastián.

I think it's because of not enough internal heat (in the Moon) as there is in the Earth's interior.

Plate Tectonic was driven by the Impact Event that occurred at 252.17 Ma. Most Likely a large Uranium Impactor that Fragmented on impact and distribute 28 (or more) large chunks of Uranium to the current location of the 28 Hot Spots. It also distributed finely divide Uranium dust that washed down and collected in numerous Basins around the world. The Primary Impact location is in Antarctica at Wilkes Land, and secondary, antipodal energy focus was at Siberia ( Siberian Traps ). Antipodal meaning it is located at a point 180 degrees away from the impact site in all directions. Continents "flee" the location of the largest impacts, if the impacts can produce excessive heat, and thus asmmetric thermal growth and expansion. That is why 70 % of Continental Surface Areas are in the Northern Hemisphere. Impacts are fairly common, but Uranium Impacts are rare.

Dear Michael: I don't agree with your "uranium impactor" theory, as this is geochemically impossible! No meteorite ever found, no comet or asteroid ever sampled as yet, has shown an overabbundance of uranium (nor of Th, K or Rb, as well). Most bodies are metallic, ultramafic, or mixed, therefore they have only trace amounts of radioactive elements. So a uranium-rich impacting asteroid is an impossibility. There's plenty of heat inside the Earth that make unnecessary an outside radioactive heat source, like the one you're proposing. Uranium has been enriched in the Earth's continental crust by magmatism, and sedimentary-metamorphic or hydrothermal processes, as shown by the known main deposits of this element worldwide.

Regards, Sebastián.

Sebastian

I worked Archaeology for a Company that was going to drill a shaft at Crown Point, New Mexico, USA. for Phillips Petroleum.

They intended to mine the Uranium deposit from an Artesian Basin in that area. We did the Archaeology, and then they started the shaft. It was going to pass through a thinner Uranimum deposit at 2200 feet deep, and they were headed for a much thicker deposit of Uranium at 3400 feet deep. They drilled the shaft to 22 feet in diameter, and concrete cased it to 18 feet in diameter. They drilled and completed the shaft to 1800 feet deep, then the Price of Uranium went from $ 45.00 to $ 16.00,

and they plugged the hole with a 70 foot tall column of concrete, and went away. That was in winter 1973 and spring of 1974 if I remember correctly. Uranium does collect in Layers, and in basins, it is also soluable in ground water, and, is found in Dinosaur Bones when they petrify. The Impact Event at 252.17 million years ago killed off 94 %or more of all life forms on Earth, which at that time were mostly all in the Oceans, as Oceans covered almost everything, except for small areas of land that had trees, and some bushes, very small animals, and lots of Insects. Antarctica at that time was not over the South Pole, but was still in the southern hemisphere, and Siberia was farther from the North Pole than it is now. The important thing is that they were antipodal to one another, so the Impact at Wilkes Land was 180 degrees away from Siberia where the Siberian Traps occurred ( in all directions ). A similar, but smaller, event occurred 66.043 million years ago, at Chicxulub, and the Antipodal leakage was at Deccan Traps in western India. The antipodal location is the focal point of tremendous energy concentration from all the reflecting, and refracting inside the Earth, of all the various wave forms. Wilkes Land was a 480 km Impact ring even, and Chicxulub was a 182 km Impact Ring event.

Three things can affect energy Imput. Combined Velocity, Mass and Volume of the Impactor, and Density of the Impactor's materials. All will detonate upon Impact. What we receive on Earth is what was made in the last few second of many Stars life.

Major Extinction Events occur every 186.6 million years apart on average when we pass through the Crux Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy. The average time between extinction events is 186.6 divide by 8 = 23.325 million years, but fortunately our journey through all 8 arms of the Milky Way Galaxy usually has minor extinction events, and they are space very randomly. I would suggest obtaining a copy of the wall chart:

A CORRELATED HISTORY OF THE EARTH. It has been very useful for solving many apparent conundrums.

Dear Michael: all you say in the preceeding letter is quite logical and probably true, the cause and effect of forming LIPs' after a large impact is quite likely to happen in the antipod of the strike, but correlating solar system events, like asteroid or comet impacts, with the movement of the solar system in the galaxy is not so straightforward, I would think... But all these things mnetioned don't have anything to do with the original question posed: Why there's not plate tectonics in the Moon (and in Venus and other small terrestrial planets)? Besides, the uranium found in those wells in New Mexico is perfectly logical, especially if the formation drilled is of continental-fluvial origin and contains uranium-vanadium deposits similar to those of the Colorado Plateau, or other in Texas and Wyoming. (UO2)2+ is a very soluble complex with hexavalent U6+, which is precipitated in reducing conditions (like presence of organic matter, tree trunks, pyrite, and the like) as UO2 tetravalent uraninite, coffinite, pechblende, and other minerals, all of them black. Regards, Sebastián.

Why do plate tectonics not occur on the Moon?

This is an interesting question for me, because I am now a proponent of the Moon being a substantial driver of lateral motions of tectonic plates on Earth—why shouldn’t the opposite occur? (See link below.) Certainly, as answers have already mentioned, several other attributes and conditions may be required for successful PT lateral motions. A differentiated structure, consisting of a brittle crust over a layer of much lower viscosity, adequate to allow relative motion over geologic time, when driven by, in our paradigm, astronomical gravitational torques. Also required is an adequate radial temperature profile, which may involve an internal heat source that is sufficient to compensate (somewhat) for radiated thermal losses during the time of PT activity.

However, if all these material and thermal conditions are met, would the Moon experience sufficient torque from the Earth-Moon gravitational exchange to drive PT on the Moon? I hypothesize no, because the kinematics, dynamics, and gravitational interactions between Earth and Moon in the Earth-Moon system are not mutually symmetrical.

1. Earth is spinning rapidly enough to distort its figure into an ellipsoid of revolution (oblate spheroid). The equatorial radius is 21.3 km greater than the polar radius. Thus, a distant body (e.g. Moon), depending on its mass, distance, and declination may impart a significant polar torque on Earth. The polar torque applied to Earth by the Moon shows up in nutational components that reflect the lunar-nodal and lunar-perigee cycles with respect to the celestial frame. Statistically, the same nutational periodicities show up within the secular drift of Earth’s rotational poles. Hypothetically, and most importantly to PT, the movement of the rotational axis forces figure migration via equipotential adjustments. This action drives some lateral motion of the plates via crustal deformation processes. The Moon is not spinning rapidly and so has no ellipsoidal figure. Further, Moon’s mass distribution may now add some stability to being tidally locked to Earth.

2. Because of Earth’s rapid spinning, tidal forces applied to its crust by the Moon—hypothetically, by crustal deformation processes—generate E→W longitudinal force components that commensurately drive tectonic plates. The Moon is not spinning with respect to Earth and so an analogous effect on the Moon doesn’t exist.

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

Not quite reading everything you wrote, but the Moon is locked with one face always facing Earth, because it's core is offset toward the Earth, and its crust is thinner on the side we always see, and thicker on the side we can never see without space photography.

The Moon helps to pump the surface of the Earth up and down by about 2 feet twice a day. More when the Moon is closer, and less when it is farther away.

The Earth, being larger, can rotate on its own axis, and it's layers can slide over one another. The outer layers slide westward relative the core, and the core gains one additional revolution inside the Earth every 400 years. If I remember right,

which is becoming more doubtful, the March 2000 Issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Magazine shows this westward layered slippage of the Earth's layered system. The layers from curved trapezoids inside the Earth that are progressively more and more trapezoidal, and more curved the farther you get away from the Core of the Earth, up to the bottom of the Crust. The Crust flows to the west in a more rigid fassions as it is too cold anf brittle to creep like the hotter internal layers. The surface evidence is the trail of Volcanoes left as the hot spots stay put, and Crust migrates westward over the more stationary hot spots.

The Moon, and the Sun, both help the Earth, by pumping the surfaces up and down as the Earth spins about its own axis. It is like rocking a rubber stopper to get it out of a bottle.

The Earth would also not have this differential layered motion if it did not have a magnetic field the interacts and is torqued by the magnetic field of the Sun. The Sun can only torque the Core of the Earth, not the mantle or the Crust, so for their to be westward motion, there must be a tendency for these upper layers to slow down.

It is the normal growth and expansion of the Earth that move layers outward, so that they want to slow their orbital momentum. The applied torque at the core wants to prevent the slowing down of the Earth's orbital momentum as the layers move up and farther from the axis of rotation. When you have opposing forces in a warm layered environment, there will be differential rates of motion between adjacent layers, and, the farther you get from the axis, the greater the differential forces, and the more pronounced will be the slippage between layers.

I suspect this process is somewhat new to the Earth, as it has been only growing larger in an amplified rate in about the last 252 million years.

For example: using the Base 0.996 558 283 ^ " N " MYa between 0 and 1 million years give a growth rate of just under 22 meters of delta Radius in the last million years. Now we can check between 251, and 252 million years ago.

0.996 558 283^252 = 0.419 450 968

0.996 558 283^251 = 0.420 899 586

The Delta is the difference between the two multiplied by the current weighted average radius: 0.001 448 618 X 6372.4567 = 9.231 256 381 Km in the one million years. The Delta / Delta is 21.932 192 560 / 9.231 256 381 = 2.375 862 142 to 1, or inverting the growth rate was 42.09 % of the current growth rate, or less.

The Moon does not have the differential applied torque to allow differential stratification of materials into a multilayered semi - fluid system. In short, it does not have the applied torque, pumping action, growth, expansion, friction, internal heating, differentiation, layering, slippage, and a transition from a Pangaea Crust to a highly fractured, and separated Crust.

Mars is just above the minimum radius to start the Growth Acceleration Process.

However...... Mars is too far from the Sun, and it does not have a big Moon to pump it up and down to make it grow bigger.

Michael,

"Not quite reading everything you wrote . . ."

. . . and then writing twice as much for others to read? How do you know that you didn't repeat a lot? Is current GPS, which is accurate to within cm, showing Earth expansion? You spin wonderful stories, but lack sufficient evidence to support them.

Dear Michael Clark: there are too many unknowns in what you wrote, all those explanations about torque, and the like. The only explanation possible is that the Moon, due its smaller mass as compared to Earth's, doesn't have enough internal energy to keep going such an energy consuming process as plate tectonics. Period! The same thing can surely be said about Mars and Mercury. Venus is another odd-ball mysterious planet, and nobody is quite sure of how it works! But the only big mistake I found in the long letter you wrote is that you talk about the rigid "crust" moving around in the Earth, forgetting that tectonic plates are lithospheric plates, not crustal plates, and that the lithosphere is quite thicker than the crust alone, being made by the crust itself underlayed by a thick rigid lithospheric mantle, also called mantle lithosphere or LID, the sum of both (any type crust + LID) makes oceanic plates about 100 km thick (6+94 km), and continental plates up to 150-300 km thick (45+105-255 km). Regards, Sebastián.

Dear Sebastian,

Take a look onto the next photos and tell to Michael what kind of plates are Africa and South America plates? I think that you are teaching that the Earth was formed by actretion? So why the all surface is not made by constant - similar lithosphere, because the theory of accretion and theory of Inner Earth structure imply such a lithosphere?...

How you can imagine physically the subduction process?

Yesterday I have spoken with Columbo and he tell me to ask you… He observed That the plates onto Earth was positioned onto a bigger sphere… And so he cannot understand: How can a plate from a bigger surface sphere pushed into inside when inside the sphere surface decreasing onto base of next formula T= r2 (pi) and he does find in text of PTT book resolution of this situation.

Best regards,

Laszlo

Dear Lazslo: in this forum I wrote sometime ago that NOBODY has ever seen or will see a plate subducting, nor a magma chamber crystallizing, nor how diamonds form in the deep mantle, nor a mantle plume, and many other geological phenomena out of our reach. All we have and will ALWAYS have are indirect evidences, of which the most revealing is undoubtely, seismic. Seismic waves, especially the body waves P and S, cross through the Earth and give geophysicists a kind of "X-ray" picture of its insides. Digital methods have been developed recently that have increased resolution and can really image plates subducting, plates stalling mid way in the mantle, and even plates sinking all the way to the mantle/core limit! But these are images obtained which lots of processing of strong seismic waves, they are not photos! So, we have models, and models can be adjusted to fit what is observed: plates do exist, plates do cause intermediate and deep focus earthquakes, plates subducting are clearly related with magmatic arcs and deep ocean trenches. And this model works quite well, maybe it is not "perfect", but it is perfectible, as more research and findings are done the model can be improved every time more. But as I often state to my students: nobody has ever seen a tectonic plate!

The problem in this forum is that the original question is getting almost out of sight, and now the answers have nothing to do with it! The problem seems now to be not the lack of plate tectonics in the Moon, but if plate tectonics does happen on Earth!

Regards, Sebastián.

Dear Sebastian,

You have written lot of times: -I wrote sometime ago that NOBODY has ever seen or will see a plate subducting, nor a magma chamber crystallizing, nor how diamonds form in the deep mantle, nor a mantle plume, and many other geological phenomena out of our reach- Why have been the process of Subduction accepted when this a process seems well is against of fundamental law of physics (I am referring to such a law which is similar to II law thermodynamic) and NOBODY have been seen or will see? The meaning (such acceptation) of subdiction violates the meaning of science words, the process of science work, formulation of scientifical conclusion… In short term the subduction is a vulgarisation of ‘real geotectonical’ processes… the situation is same with saying: That The Earth is flat… The actual plates was invented onto a plane map geographical projection, the again the before made comment (Colombo question) For a better imagination take a look on the sent photo about the sphere… Imagine the subduction of Nasca Plates under South America. in case of flat Earth seems correct, but in case of Geoid is not correct because tectonically we have do not observe such a factures onto surface which needs in case of subduction process in a Spheroidal Earth connected to the … So you can say anything that is the best-easiest understable prove against actual plate tectonic… Same the extension of plates, moving of plates only onto a flat Earth works. Clear can be observe that the actual plates tectonics was not formulated by an Earth scientist…

Another thing how you can permit to make similarities between clearly objective (magma chamber crystallizing, diamond formation) phenomena with clear subjective phenomena… We know well that that the magma rocks and diamond has a well determined objective process… we can simulate them in real condition… we have created artificial diamonds… Goldschmidt its geochemical classification… But we observe clear that subduction is totally no-proved getectonical process and has scientific rank. The Colombo question answer shows well that the Subduction phenomena has no seismical indirect evidences…

As alternative scientist do not permission to work in such institute, where your examination is made, For this I am remaining to evidences which can get directly for everyone… I am poor man I do not have possibility for buying exploration concession on chip price from poor (but in oil and in other substance rich) state like (autocensored)

Best Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Sebastian,

With an apple can be demonstrated that the subsuction process causes lot of problem to the PTT:

Take a look onto photos and ofter that try to verify the subduction process in case of South America. The subduction on North part of South America can be accept concordant to PTTT, but in case of South part of South America you will have contradiction because there you need a plane of Benioff perpendicular to the Surface of Earth… That is a contradiction such a case in mathematics prove invalidity of theory of PTT (I think you do not negate basics of Mathematical induction)

Best Regards,

Laszlo

Dear László Attila Horváth , thank you so much for your explain, can you plz give another example to understand exactly your idea?

Dear Laszlo: rock doesn’t behave as an apple skin, the rheology of big masses of rock, like plates or the mantle, occurs in a scale of size and time almost imposible for us, little humans, to understand!!! One thing is sure: the most recent seismic tomography images clearly show huge slabs of cold and dense rock sinking in the mantle, some as far deep as the base of the mantle, so the subduction process does ocurr!!! Moreover, the same images show huge blobs of hot matres raising from the base of the mantle, so mantle plumes also exist!!!

Regards, Sebastián

Dear Sebastian,

I am appreciating you lot for your knowledge connected to the lithology… We are opponent in question of plate tectonics. In your position and for your rest scientifically carrier you have to protect PTT4 I am not in such a position, I lost my profession (exist two variant: my philosophical book PUBLISHING or my working field which was privatized) … In that time I have developed of model for petroleum exploration (which was better than the existed) actually It was developed more,,, using of it I am able to have imagination for petroleum places prospection only in few hours (recent history in Libya was similar with my job finish history: (self censored)

‘… rock doesn’t behave as an apple skin, the rheology of big masses of rock, like plates or the mantle, occurs in a scale of size and time almost imposible for us, little humans, to understand!!!'How you can accept something if you are not able to understand?]]'One thing is sure: the most recent seismic tomography images clearly show huge slabs of cold and dense rock sinking in the mantle, some as far deep as the base of the mantle, so the subduction process does ocurr!!!’ [Such an explanation I do not can accept: because every change under us will have primary effect onto surface: geomorphology, earthquakes, tsunamis, Earth tides, volcanism… If you are saying so, that is mean we have a misinterpretation!!!, Take a look onto the subduction explanation of Hugo Benioff about Tonga Strench (Photo):

https://source.wustl.edu/2017/01/release-water-shakes-pacific-plate-depth/

This video is same with your explanation… Now take a look onto apple analogy in case of subduction: the plane of Bennioff needs to be perpendicular to Earth Surface, if accept existence of rhe Bennioff Plane. I have make a draw on to it can be more better what I want to explain with apple analogy see it again in new photo tomorrow…Bennioff invented his theory far from Euope and North America Samuel Warren Carey who was in nearby to the mentioned place did not accept explanation of Bennioff, he did not accept such a theory which contradict basics of thermodynamics; Dear Haithem the existence of East European offiolites same contradict the subduction of Africa Plate Under Eurasian Plate]

'Moreover, the same images show huge blobs of hot matres raising from the base of the mantle, so mantle plumes also exist!!!’ [This sentence seems ‘absolutely’ correct! I have geological proves (lithological no-tested onto base my concept of Earth formation; and tectonically if exist possibility of mine professional rehabilitation I will tell them, or exists other possibility: business…]

The Best Regards,

Laszlo

P.S.

The fourth photo i will send tomorrov if i can...

Dear Sebastian and Haithem A.,

The promised photo I have made again in better condition (natural light)… With it can be idealised the explanation which can provide prove against to the PTT’s subduction phenomena… onto surface the plate subducted has a lateral bigger extension AB (subduction line= the Earth surface ‘plane’ cuts by the subduction plane) the like in case when it get in in 600-800 km deepness CB… Conform with geometry of Euclid (Thales's theorem) can be demonstrated clear that the subduction plane AB is bigger than the subduction line CD in 600 km deep position… This situation is not discussed by PTT theory, this situation does not have visible consequence onto the Earth surface (geo-structure. geomorphology) (1.)

Another observation:

We do not observe solid vortex phenomena in asthenosphere (2) We do not observe fracture like in case of rheological examination of Geo-technics ()https://www.slideshare.net/pramodgpramod/stress-and-strain-ellipsoid) 3.

The points of 1-2-3 is not described in article (alternative scientifical) which negate actual PTT.

I have another explanation too, but I have to verify it first…

Conclusion:

If a theory which cannot be understand buy us (being human) and it exist clear observable sign which shows clear contradiction with geometrical-, thermodynamics-, practical geo-technics observation… and others… cannot be accepted like a scientifically explanation !!!… Such science which accept such an explanation for me is no more science!!!

Best Regards,

Laszlo

Because Plate tectonics requires that the body remain hot long enough for the interior to convect and keep the crust moving. The moon, being relatively small, was not endowed with much heat to begin with, and it cooled relatively quickly.

Instead of forming plates, it formed a solid shell of anorthosite (a rock primarily composed of calcium feldspars). This crust would later be broken up by massive impacts, and in places, some of the large impact basins flooded with basalt. These are simple volcanic processes, though, and not a sign of plate tectonics.

Dear Haithem: I don't know who dared to say that the Moon has the same geologic history as the Earth! The Earth didn't form out of a single huge planetary impact, but of many thousands of minor collisions, that made it grow into a large body in some tens of millions of years, what is called accretion. Instead the material that formed the Moon was expelled into space in a very short time after the collision between Earth and Theia! The real problem is that whatever heat the Moon had in its beginnings, was lost quite rapidly, due to its smaller mass (1/90th that of Earth), so there wasn't enough heat to sustain a plate tectonic scheme, but a localized near-side volcanism that produced the maria, which are huge basalt plains.

and

Dear Laszlo: you wonder why the actual terrestrial lithosphere is not homogeneous. Quite probably the proto-crust of the Earth was indeed homogeneous, but there are no remains of it, as it was recycled by the constant activity of the Earth during the Hadean. The actual lithosphere, and all its thickness variations, are product of the action of plate tectonics since, at least, the Paleoarchean!

Regards, Sebastián.

Dear Sebastian,

I have gotten sadly news for those who are blinded by PTT from a member of RG, (Gokaran Shukla (hard core quantum physicist working in density functional theory)

.

Earth's magnetic field is not about to reverse, study finds

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-earth-magnetic-field-reverse.html#jCp

Now today afternoon I have made nuts picking. form under of two nuts tree… I have verified you’re concept about differences of rocky planets with two nuts originated from the two nuts… One of the nut is big and another is small… After making a photo and eating it, I have gotten the conclusion… The proponents of mainstream theory had given incorrect answer to the question… Their explanation connected to this theory is wrong… Only one theory can be advanced which accept similarities of rocky planets.

The best regards,

Laszlo

Dear Laszlo: planets are neither nuts nor apples, the are made of rocks, which behave quite differently than organic fruits. Moreover, those rocks behave quite differently in the surface than at depth, their rheology is linked to the temperature and pressures which act on them, to the inmense time lapses in which they move and evolve, and to the shear Gargatuan size of such rock layers.

Only recently the diamond anvil press combined with microlasers have allowed geophysicists to simulate the conditions of P and T in which rocks and minerals are subjected in the deeper regions of the planet, and new discoveries are made all the time. It is geology's last frontier, undoubtely!

Regards, Sebastian.

P.D.: emulating Galileo Galilei, I insist: "plates DO exist, they subduct into the mantle, and some founder to the top of the outer core"!

Dear Sebastian,

OK Sebastian I do not want to continue this discussion, because it is not permitted to you do science! Only one thing until I am in actual spiritual stage you are not able to prove such planetary science which does not accept uniformity of rocky planets…We all are living beings onto earth (animals, plants, 'water'). That is why our life cycle from the start to the decline is same with our Earth Mother, Gaia life,,,

Do not forget the next objective true:

‘ Natura est magister dominus optimus’

‘Incorrect science has small vocabulary’ (that is why you are not able to respond to lot of question asked by me...

See the questions:

Are you able to specify which geo-tectonics theory describe the best way the Caribbean Sea’ basement’s a macro geo-tectonics?

Why the planet planets: Earth and Venus have different rotation?

What value of the Earth’s, Moon’s, Venus’s and Mercury’s tides in time of Earth?

Who described the best way the Earth’s tides before 1900?

Why the inner asteroids belt object are litologically same with Earth crust rocks?

and read again questions in the before made posts…

The Nature is glittering at night!

The Best Regards,

Laszlo

At question "why" PT do not occur on Moon, we may answer in following way : on Earth, the shape of Tectonic Plates are defined by dynamics of undercore material - like astenosphe, or upper mantle. The dynamics is hot volcanic emissions of gas and lava, and falure of the crust - as earthquakes. On Moon, such as active margins are not yet descovered, so to define such as tectonic domains become difficult. That's it, and why.

Dear Laszlo: most of my work and research has been done on the tectonics of the Caribbean Plate and the Caribbean Cordillera, where I live, here in Caracas. Our current model specifies that the Caribbean Plate contains a huge submarine plateau formed when a portion of the Farallon Plate passed on top of the Galapagos hot spot. The plateau is made mostly of basalt, but some basaltic komatiite is also present. A block of this Plateau, called CLIP (Caribbean Large Igneous Provinice) has been found only 40 km west of Caracas, embedded in the Chuspita Schists. The block is a complete suite of the CLIP, and includes very low grade metamorphics (prehnite-pumpellyite facies), with the following lithologies: basalt, basalt flow breccia, basaltic komatiite with microspinifex textures, komatiite flow breccia, olivine diabase and stilpnomelane chert. The metachert contains Middle-Late Cretaceous pelagic forams and radiolarians. Only a tectonic collision could have emplaced this CLIP block onto the Cordillera, itself made of a collage of numerous terranes emplaces when the South American NW-N margin collided with the CLIP and the Caribbean Arc.

So as you can see, I live in a mountain range full of evidence of plate collisions, with ophiolites all over, eclogites, high P glaucophanic rocks, metapelagic sediments, metavolcanics, and the like. I do real geoscience, I don't make up anything!

Regards, Sebastián.

Think about the source of the Basalt that covers the submarine Plateau, then compare it to the Siberian Traps, Deccan Traps, and other large surface area, of layered Volcanic Areas. Basalt comes up and out of the Planet after it had depleted the other lighter ( lower specific gravity ) materials like Andesite, or

Granite.

The Hardest thing you will ever do is to divorce your mind of all Plate Tectonic

connections such as Randomly wandering Continents, and the illusion of recycling materials via Subduction. Continents can only move if there is a driving force that moves them, or rotates them. Subduction is an Illusion created by the

differential Vertical Motions of Continents, and Ocean Floors as Ocean waters reduced depth, as the Earth Grew and trippled its surface area in the last

180 million years. 90 Million years ago, the average depth of the Oceans was 2332.5 meters deep. It is now down to an average depth of 817.5 meters deep.

The Ocean surface areas are now 2.6 times what they were 90 million years ago when Ocean depths peaked . Look at the Videos of the Limestone Plateaus in Venezulea, or Guiana. The Oceans covered the top of these Plateaus, and left sandy layers on top as the Oceans finally began to fall.

It took me 35 Years to abandon Plate Tectonics, and almost 19 more years to

finally start compiling all the observations into a coherent concept.

Mars is about the size that the Earth was around the time that the Earth had a Pangaea Continental Surface area the touched all continents on all sides simultaneously. 180 Ma, the Earth Radius was very close to 3426.05 Km, it is now up to 6372.4567 Km at the tilt angle of 23.439281 degrees.

Dear Laszlo: we can never get to agree on anything, you have you beliefs and I have mine, no problem.

But let me point out that the plateaus (called tepuys locally) in SE Venezuela, Guyana and Surinam are not made of (Mesozoic?) limestone at all: they are 100% siliciclastics, they are the Quartzites of the Roraima Supergroup, and their age is Meso-Neoproterozoic, since they have been intruded by a LIP (Large Igneous Province), the Avanavero Suite (consisting of 400-600 m thick diabase sills and 20-30 m thick feeder dykes encompassing four countries), whose ages U-Pb in zircon and baddeleyite have been determined as 1.75-1.81 Ga! I don't have to look any videos of Roraima, I have been there many times in my life, I have studied those diabases in person, and have a huge bag of rock samples resting in my office, as part of an international project. They have impressive igneous textures, including spectacular "herring-bone" exsolutions in inverted pigeonite... Most of the Roraima Supergroup is fluvio-deltaic, some limolites are present, but a huge thickness of metasandstone (1-2 km), with crossed stratification (some may be eolian, but quite hard to reach in kilometer steep vertical walls), makes up the top of the high plateaus. There is a basal conglomerate and even interstratified rhyolitic tuffs of yellow, green and red colors!, which I also have studied. The top quartzites (Matawi Formation) rest unconformably onto the lower section, but they still have an age of 1.4 Ga. No Mesozoic there at all. Venezuela's top tourist attraction, Angel Falls, drops vertically almost 1 km from the top of one of the largest plateaus of Roraima, the Auyantepuy, or Devil's Mountain, in local indigenous language. Quite a sight!

Regards, Sebastián

Very simple answer, there is not much heat trapped in the interior of the moon after it formed from a cloud of dust and gas (just like any other planet or moon).

Dear Laszlo: Let me apologize, I confused your letter with Michael Clark's wrong statement about the plateaus in Venezuela and Guyana, but at any rate, I explained a few things about the outstanding Roraima Supergroup and its intruding Avanavero Large Igneous Province diabase suite. It is Conan Doyle's "Lost World", truly a world of geological superlatives!

Another strange fact of the Roraima Quartzites is that they have developed the world's largest karst system in siliceous rocks. The plateaus are like sponges, criss-crossed by underground channels, collapsed caves and pits, and very unusual opal-chalcedony speleothems! The karstification mechanism was discovered by a colleague of mine, and consists of the preferential dissolution of the siliceous cement of the quartzite, which sets loose the constituent sand grains. The grains are then easily flushed by underground currents that have slowly carved those huge karst-like formations, and drain out the massifs, making spectacular waterfalls in the vertical edges of the plateaus. But there is no limestone involved!

Regards to both of you, Sebastián.

More Roraima plataeus... and magnificent Angel Falls...

Dear Sebastián,

You have right with the beginning of your comment

Thank you for excellent descriptions… Only a short comment… your territory has lot of common features with the territory of Pannonian Basin…

If you have a geo map about region (I do not need detailed map, only informative map: ‘There is a basal conglomerate and even interstratified rhyolitic tuffs of yellow, green and red colors!’ wake up my attention (Can you tell the relative age of this complex?) The of the riolites. Only Riolite was find there… Example did you find andesite quetier?...

Best Regards,

Laszlo

P.S. I do not know if Hajthem is interested in this discussion. But I think we are gotten very important and well formulated description about of territory which we do not know!

Dear Laszlo: the lithological resemblances between the Pannonian Basin and the Roraima Supergroup are not comparable. The Pannonian is a lot younger, Roraima is Proterozoic, as I stated before. Only rhyolite tuffs, quite silicified by the way, are found into the Roraima unit. In the far south of the country, near the Brazillian border, the Supergroup rests on unconfomity on the Pacaraima Volcanics, where andesites to rhyolites are found, somewhat metamorphosed of course, and with an age of no less than 1.9-2.0 Ga. No comparison with Central-Eastern Europe is possible then.

I hope you enjoyed the breathtaking views of the Roraima plateaus, enmarked in the Canaima National Park, a place of incredible natural beauty, of which we Venezuelans are really proud. Regards, Sebastián

P.D.: hereby I send another highlight spot of the Canaima N.P., the Jasper Creek, it is really pseudo-jasper, a thick layer of silicified and oxidized rhyolitic tuff.

Dear Sebastian,

You have written about silicolite: that was the first reason of my question… It seems that they have are not hydrothermal origin only if you have source of andesitic volcanic activity…

Before post I did not want to propose the Pannonian territory, but my insight are saying that it should be useful for your territory, because is young…

Best Regards,

Laszlo

Dear all: the original question have a long and winding road ... but the pictures that you share with us are more interesting: What a wonderfull world we live!!!! Thank you very much dear Sebastian !!!!! Best wishes, Mario

Good Question

If you look at numerous areas around the Earth from Islands to Continents, there are areas of elevated Limestone, and Coral.

Limestone forms underwater as large tracts of land subside under the added weight of the limestone, or because the Ocean levels are gradually moving upward. When this process ends, and it is a Globally ending process, the Limestone is left elevated

above the Ocean levels. It is not reasonable to conclude the all of the Continents and Islands suddenly decided to move them selves upward above the prior ocean levels. We are left with either gradual, or sudden changes in Ocean elevations as a mechanism of both the formation of Limestone, and the elevation of limestone above the current ocean levels. Glaciation is one mechanism, but it can only account for changes of less that about 200 meters. What is needed is changes that exceed 1,000 meters. The ONLY mechanism that will allow Global changes in excess of 1,000 meters in water elevation is an increase in the Surface Area of the Earth that allows Oceans to occupy vastly larger surface areas, and, thin out the depth of the Oceans, Globally. Remember the 1,000 meter change is a NET change after the ocean floor rose, and the continents fell. The ratio is almost exactly 1.5 to 1 " NET ", so the Oceans really must fall more than 1500 meters to end with a net change of more than 1,000 meters. The current average depth is a mere 817.5 meters with Glaciation. Eliminating Glaciation, it would be 870 meters deep. Adding 1515 meters ( to get a net of 1010 meters) gives

about 2385 meters of depth, with out allowing water atop the continents. Adding the water required to flood the continents to a depth of about 500 meters requires an equivalent depth of 2580 meters of water depth. The ratio is 2580 / 870 = 2.9655 : 1.

The Inverse ratio is 870 / 2580 = 0.3372.. These are both depth ratios, and surface are of Ocean Basin ratios.

The current Surface are ratios are about 0.7096 Oceanic, to 0.2904 Land. Taking 0.7096 X 0.3372 = 0.2393 Oceanic, while The Land area has change only a small amount. It was about 0.2895. Adding them together give a Planet surface area of

around 0.2393 + 0.2895 = 0.5288 Surface Area. Taking the square root gives Radius of approximately 0.7272 of the Current Radius. 0.7272 x 6372.4567 Km = 4634 Km radius Earth when

Earth's Oceans Peaked in Water elevation around 90 million years ago. This is a very rough estimate.

The original question asked why the Moon is not demonstrating

the Plate Tectonics that Earth is showing. The Moon is in the very Earliest stages of Planetary Tectonics. Compare images of the Front and Back sides of the Moon, then Compare Images of Mars ( look at it upside down ), then Compare Venus, and Earth.

Compare the Smooth areas to the Cratered Areas, and Fractured Areas. Note the areas of Fractured spreading. Then do the same with all the other Moons.

Remember the Surface of a Planet responds to what is going on inside the Planet. Planets are made of highly compressed and Unstable Star Materials. Planets really want to decay to be all

Silicon Dioxide, or Lighter Materials. Everything made in stars is of a far higher density than SiO2. All this material is very unhappy being inside a low density, low gravity planet, so it decays releasing a whole lot of heat energy, and, forming simpler compounds.

Moving up the scale to the Gas Giants just means more of the really unhappy hot , high density materials inside a thick gas enveloped planet. The larger mass, means a hotter rocky planet inside a thick gas envelope that was created by the intense heat of decay of all the collected materials that are more dense than

SiO2. The Greater the Mass, the Faster the Decay, the higher the Heat, and the more gasses released.

We are about 600 Million years into the Habitable Phase of our Planet. There are about 200 Million Years left until the Planet grows too Hot to support complex life forms. Notice it took

about 3900 Million years to reach conditions where Multi-celled life forms could develop, and flourish.

In the prior 200 million years you can use 0.996 558 283 Y^x 200 to get a good idea of the Radius 200 Ma. ( 0.501 811 530 R ).

You can us its inverse 1.003 453 603 Y^x 200 = 1.992 780 035 R as the Radius 200 Million years in the Future, just less than a 12,700 km Radius ( if Previous Patterns hold ). The Surface gravity will be much higher, the surface pressure, and temperature will be much higher. Life will have moved underground, and into the deepest and coolest areas of the Oceans. Life Forms will all be very small, and have large surface areas for heat dissipation, while having small slender bodies of low volumes. Life will be all about finding, or digging down to get water. Life will come outside in the winter only when the temperature drops enough for it to rain.

Moon as a planet is devoid of motion around its axis (spin).

The strength of the Earth's Gravitational pull has offset the core of the Moon toward the Earth, and thinned down the near side crust compared to the far side crust. Like a plastic sphere with a lump of material glued inside to one surface.

The Earth prevents the Moon from spinning about its own axis.

Dear Michael and Ijaz: one important correction, the Moon does spin around its own axis, the problem is that this rotation takes 28 days and its similar in duration to the translation around the Earth, so our satellite shows always the same face to us. A simple drawing can show this. Another precision: there's also no "Dark Side" of the Moon, when on Earth we have New Moon, the other side of the Moon is totally lighted and points to the Sun. So we better call it the "Hidden Side" not the Dark Side... Regards, Sebastián

No internal heat trapped inside the moon!

The reason that Plate tectonics does not occur on the Moon is that the Moon is still too small for Plate Tectonics to be active at a radius of 1737.4 km. Mars is at the lower limit of Plate tectonics as it is forming an equatorial rift that is as long as the Mediteranian and Caribian rift combined, with a Radius of 3389.5 Km.

The Earth has a radius of 6372.4567 km at a tilt angle of 23.44 degrees.

Note that the density of the Moon is only 3344 kg/m^3, while the Earth has a density of 5510 + for the tilt angle radius. The Volumetric ratio is the cube of

6372.4567 / 1737.4 = 49.3425 :1, but the Mass Ratio is far higher at approximately 81.3 to 1. The Volume Ratio X the Density Ratio = the Mass Ratio.

The Earth has a lot more compression, it has a lot more internal fluid motion, it has a lot more Uranium etc., so it is hotter inside, so there is a lot more active Volcanism, earthquakes, motion of continents, formation of thin oceanic crust,

etc.

Now for the approximate ages: The Base is 1.003 453 602. The exponent is the age in millions of years, and the age is determined by the number of differential counter rotational Galactic cycles. The difference being in the periodicity of the

primary extinction events that are 186.6 million years apart.

Moon = 22 X 186.6 + 66 = 4171.2 Ma.

Mars = 23 X 186.6 + 66 = 4357.8 Ma

Earth = 24 X 186.6 + 66 = 4544.4 Ma

The not quite exact numbers are (1.003 453 602 ^4171.2 )/1000 = 1760.038 Km

for the Moon.

(1.003 453 602 ^ 4357.8 ) / 1000 = 3349.089 Km for Mars.

and

( 1.003 453 602 ^ 4544.4 ) / 1000 = 6372.547 km for Earth.

None of the three are exact, and all of the three planets will have different initial radius , and all three will have different growth rates, and different exposures to available source materials as all three have different orbits around the Sun.

The oldest of the three , Earth, is the largest. Mars has the middle age, and the Moon is the youngest by 2 fewer GRC's.

Also note that Neptune and Uranus are 26 X 186.6 +66, and Saturn and Jupiter are in at 27 X 186.6 + 66. There is no remaining planet at 25 X 186.6 + 66.but I suspect there was one at the asteroid belt that got obliterated when it was young, thus amplifying the growth rate of the Earth, and Jupiter.

To simplify the answer. If an planet is older, it got bigger. The sequence is slow growing smaller rocky planets, faster growing rocky planets, followed by evolution into much larger deep gas enveloped Rocky cored planets ( Gas Giants ).

Now to scare you, the time ratio of Jupiter to Moon is 27.3537 / 22.3537 = 1.223676617 :1. The time ratio of Jupiter to Earth is 27.3537 / 24.3537 =

1.123184567 :1. Jupiter and Saturn are only 12.3 % older than the Earth.

AND

The time ratio of Neptune and Uranus to the Earth is 26.3537 / 24.3537 =

1.082123045 :1 Neptune and Uranus are only 8.2 % older than the Earth, and they

are also gas enveloped planets. A Gas enveloped planet at Earth's current location will be well above the boiling point of water.

We had better prepare Mars for colonization by bombarding it with metal asteroids, and water comets, and build a big Moon for Mars to create oceans, or

we and the Earth will go extinct.

MWC

This is, I think, because there are no oceans on the moon, which causes the movement of tectonic plates.

the moon don't have any thermal power motio.

Plate Tectonics is a by product of the interaction of the Moon and the Earth.

The Moon and the Earth are the only two planet co=orbiting system that is ONLY TWO Net Galactic Orbital Cycles Different in age, All of the larger systems are 4, 5, 6, 7 or more Net Galactic Rotational Cycles different in age, so the force of Jupiter's, Saturn's, Uranus, and Neptune's Moons do not impart a big enough force to impart tectonic motions on their parent planets, so the internal heating of the parent planet is too limited to get hot enough to create convection cells.

Between the Sun, Earth, and Moon, the distances, and ages are currently just right to impart the energies, and forces necessary to create Plate Tectonic on the Earth.

Sun = 31.354 X 186.6 My ( Rounded )

Earth = 24.354 X 186.6 My ( Rounded )

Moon = 22.354 X 186.6 My ( Rounded )

Notice that the " Just Right " Age started around 200 million Years ago, and is continuing ( For Plate Tectonic ). This is the Age of the Ocean Floors.

If you look at Mars, it's Plate Tectonics is just commencing as it is 186.6 million years younger than Earth. Look at the equatorial spreading belt around the middle of Mars . Earth had one too, but it is all North of the Equator. Notice how Mars,

pock marked areas are mostly south of the equator.

Dear Michael Clark: really, the Moon is too small to be able to induce Earth's mantle convection, the amount of energy (radiogenic heat and residual formation heat) in the mantle is enormous, and far more than any energy contribution from the Moon (which is only tidal-gravitational energy). Remember that the Moon's mass is a bout 1/90th that of Earth. Our planet has plate tectonic because is relatively hot, so the lithosphere is not too thick or too thin, as in Mars or the Moon, which are one-plate planets with very thick lithosphere. Also, many new models show that mantle plumes could be responsible for subduction initiation, plate rotation, and even plate convergence. Earth has still enough energy to sustain plate tectonics for at least 2 billions years more... Regards, Sebastián.

The Earth and Venus are of similar Age and Volume.

Mars and Mercury are of similar Age and Volume.

Luna is of similar Age and Volume to 4 other Moons of the Gas Giants.

The basic question here is WHY do we observe the Plate Tectonic motions on Earth, and WHY do we NOT observe the Plate Tectonic motions on all the other Planets and Moons?

What is different between Earth, and all seven of the other planets, and roughly 200 Moons ? Part of the answer lies in the Volume of the Water on Earth's surface, but this volume is a by product of the interaction between the Sun, Earth, and Luna. Part of the Answer is that the Moon is relatively large in comparison

to the Earth when compared to all other Planet - Moon systems. Part of the Answer is that the Moon is only 2 Net Galactic Rotational Cycles younger than the Earth, whereas all the 4 Gas Giants have moons that are 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ....... Net Galactic Rotational Cycles younger than their parent planets.

1 Net Galactic Rotational Cycle is about 186.6 million years per orbit. It is very close to the primary extinction event cycle 66.042 Ma, 252.15 Ma, 439 Ma.

The Moon moves the Earth's tide up by about 6 feet, but what is rarely indicated is that it also moves the surface of the Earth itself up and down by about two feet every 6.25 hours. The Other planets do not get this powerful treatment.

The Other planets are not covered with an ocean. The other planets have not had their crust thinned out by trillions of differential vertical cycles.

This is one of those things you have to think out by using both the similarities, and by using the differences between planets, and Moons. Also Math.

The Next question is..... How soon will the Earth become a gas giant ? Why is it import to cool the Earth now? How much time will cooling the Earth buy us ?

Why and How has the Earth been able to maintain a livable climate for larger live forms for the last 600 million years ? Why do we absolutely need to get the CO2 back down to below 380 PPM ?

Sebastian

I agree that the Earth has enough energy to continue with core differential rotation that helps maintain a magnetic field, and the Mantle plumes ( 28 ) do move materials from the core up through the mantle and form hot spots, and volcanic fields, and calderas. This can be a contributor to plate tectonics, movement of continents, continental collisions, and continental rifting.

However, I am not a fan of subduction as it only circulates materials under the ocean floors, and does not acknowledge the cyclical growth, compression, heating, expansion, cooling and contraction of Earth that occurs several times in each Net Galactic Rotational Cycle. We are in an expansion cycle that is waining and slowing down. The byproduct of expansion is the growth of the ocean floor surface areas. This growth requires a slow addition material source. This source is hot plastic materials that come out from under continents to feed the mid oceanic spreading ridges. The result is that ocean floors rise more rapidly than continents, so the edges of the ocean floors curve down, and the edges of the continents curve up. This creates the illusion of subduction, when in reality it is obduction, not subdustion.

This process requires a new term: Iso-dynamic equalibrium rather than Iso-static equalibrium that is related to Plate Tectonics. The process is dynamic in X, Y, Z, an in Continental Rotation.

Ocean floors go UP, up, and up, while Continents go UP, up, and down.

Both go up with both growth and expansion, but move in different vertical directions due to the redistribution of all liquids, gasses, hot plastic rock, and

cold ocean water. The Surface Impact in Antarctica gave us the flood basalts in Siberia. The Surface Impact in Chicxulub gave us the flood basalts in the Deccan Traps in India. The flood basalt actually stop growth, or create a short time period of contraction until the flood basalts heal the antipodal fractures, then heating leads to growth and expansion.

There can be up to 8 growth and expansion events for each Net Galactic Rotational Cycle of 186.6 million years. However, usually only one event is truly catastrophic every cycle. This catastrophy will re occur in about 120 million years in the future. This will be when the Earth reaches 25.0 Net Galactic Rotational Cycles, and all the other planets and Moons reach 28.0, 27.0, 25.0, 24.0 23.0, 22.0, 21.0, ect. Notice that 26.0 is missing. I suspect this was the planet, of planets that were at the Asteroid Belt. There was a collision that preferentially supplied excess materials to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune in decreasing abundance, and to Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury also in order of decreasing

abundance the farther a planet is away from the asteroid belt.

I suspect this is the actual source of the Late Heavy Bombardment of all of the planets, and many of the larger moons. Note that all ( or most of the planet, and moon radius' form is groups that are currently N.354 Net Galactic Rotational Cycles old.

Enough for now.

Dear Clark, There are many reasons for it. 1- Because Moon is too small, 2- Moon's interior is colder than Earth, 3- There is no oceanic crust on the Moon so there is no boundary on which subduction occurs. I would like to add that on the Moon there are clearly craters of giant paleovolcanic structures. These structures have a specific pattern of rock facies 1- Vent facies, 2- Slope facies, and 3- Distant facies. There are many examples of these structures on the Earth but less preserved that have to be reconstructed. For more details on Paleovolcanic Reconstruction check:

Article Reconstruction of volcanic structures: examples from Kazakhs...

Article Paleovolcanic model for the evolution of the basement comple...