Plate Tectonics: The Asthenosphere and Lithosphere

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhysicsPost
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Plate
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concepts of the asthenosphere and lithosphere within the framework of plate tectonics. Participants explore the mechanisms of plate movement, the historical context of the theory, and the observable evidence supporting it, while also addressing misconceptions and assumptions related to the theory's acceptance.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines the structure of the Earth, describing the lithosphere as the crust divided into plates and the asthenosphere as a hot, less dense layer of magma that drives plate movement through convection currents.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that plate tectonics cannot be observed in real time, arguing that earthquakes and GPS technology provide measurable evidence of plate motion over shorter time scales.
  • Some participants reference Alfred Wegener's initial proposal of plate tectonics and the subsequent evidence that emerged to support the theory, including the fit of continents and fossil distribution.
  • There is mention of different interactions between plates, such as collisions, diversions, and subductions, and their geological consequences, including mountain formation and volcanic activity.
  • One participant emphasizes the long timescales involved in plate tectonics, noting that significant changes in continental positions occur over millions of years.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the observability of plate tectonics, with some asserting that it is measurable in the short term through technology, while others maintain that the theory's acceptance relies on long-term geological evidence. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these observations.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the visibility of plate movements and the historical context of plate tectonics are not fully explored, leaving room for further discussion on the evidence and methodologies used to study these phenomena.

  • #31
Geo101, we're slipping towards the ad hominem stuff again in the other forum. The other forum is Science-a-go-go. It lacks the "gravitas" of PF, but I have indicated that I might ask you to give us a look-in rather than relay stuff in both directions. If you do, the thread in which the main activity is concentrated at present is "Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG". You would recognise me as Bill S.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #32
It looks like you are going up against Mr Mansfield himself. You will never convince him. While "preearth" may not give you any of his details, ask about Dr Kevin Mansfield. He has a BSc in mathematics and chemistry, and a PhD in mathematics... where did he get his geology/geophysics degree.

Also, where has this theory been published? I don't recall it being in any published textbooks (I've read quite a few), or having seen in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, why is this?

The general language used in the theory is bad.. "the outer core weighs 9,900 kg/m³"... weight is a measure of force in scientific terms, in common language it often refers to mass, but here he is talking about density, pffft! Sloppy.
Don't tell him this! He will just change it and that may fool others into buying into to his crazy ideas.

There is a reason why I joined PF and not other forums, crackpots like this get shut down! As I said before, no matter how much effort you put into it, how many peer-reviewed articles you throw at him he will never be convinced. You're wasting your time. And that is what I'll stop doing now :wink:
 
  • #33
Endervhar said:
Geo101, we're slipping towards the ad hominem stuff again in the other forum. The other forum is Science-a-go-go. It lacks the "gravitas" of PF, but I have indicated that I might ask you to give us a look-in rather than relay stuff in both directions. If you do, the thread in which the main activity is concentrated at present is "Proof that PLATE-TECTONICS is WRONG". You would recognise me as Bill S.

I wouldn't even attempt to argue with him, just a waste of time
An old saying comes to mind...

"Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience! "

cheers
Dave
 
  • #34
Thanks for your input and good advice. I know I will never convert Preearth, but I have learned quite a lot from trying get to grips with the theory. Also, I think I am something of a "crackpot" at heart - fortunately I recognise that fact - so I'm reasonably safe on SAGG.
It's good to have somewhere to go for some sanity, though.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
729
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K