IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

17 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Plate Tectonics And Continental Drift., And I thought I knew all about it...

lunk
post Apr 26 2008, 03:22 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Plate tectonics and continental drift have been taught to me from a very early age.
I frequently found myself staring at geological formations, wondering how on earth, they were formed.
It sort of made sense, and what I didn't understand, I figured that it had all been studied, and some expert had already figured it all out, and there was no point in exploring the subject any further.
Now, I have recently discovered that there were other theories floating around:

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lau...98/EARTHEXP.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Warren_Carey

Now there are stories, of the Earth being only 6000 years old,
and a huge flood that covered the world, and predictions of a firery future...
However, I find little, outside a few human scribbles,
to support these stories.

But, I do see a grain of truth in the demonstration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJzic3kk4_g

Proof that the Earth has become larger.
...and that's about all.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post May 1 2008, 09:30 PM
Post #2


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



I don't know. There's just too much crap to think about. Even if another theory is devised, it, too, is just another theory.

Everything in the universe is moving. Our galaxy is a part of the expanding 'sphere' of space-time -- which contains the physical universe.

Science tells us that 'atoms' are made up of sub-atomic particles but the vast majority of an atom is 'empty' space. Could it be that as matter travels further and further away from the cosmic source it 'expands' in some sense? But then, if everything 'expanded' at the same rate, then nothing, compared to anything else, would get any larger. Relative sizes would remain the same. So, how could the volume of the earth as a mass increase while the land masses that make up its crust NOT expand?

Besides, if Earth was once half the size it is today, where did all the water come from? Is it the water that is expanding??

I note that, unlike most substances, water (at least in my freezer) expands when it freezes where, so I'm told, must other materials contract.

Ugg. I don't know nothing. I'm tired of knowing sh*t. Just give me a warn sandy beach with the southing sound of surf and the rustle of palm trees, a hammock and a blow job*.

*
Ingredients:
1.5 oz Amaretto
Whipping cream

Directions:
Pour Amaretto into shot glass, top with whip cream.
Drink with hands behind back in one smooth motion

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 1 2008, 10:16 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



The Earth is getting bigger,
all the pieces fit- go figure.

OK, we have determine this...
now, the question becomes, "how?"

If I was to somehow dig a hole, all the way through the Earth,
then jumped into it, I would fall almost all the way through to the other side... then, like a pendulum, I would fall back to this side, back and forth, until I ended up in the center, where I would be pulled from all sides equally.
If the center of the Earth is being pulled in all directions towards the surface, due to gravity...
this could mean that the Earth is hollow.

That's enough to nibble on for now.

cheers, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 7 2008, 12:30 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I don't understand exactly how it's growing,
but this is the only way to explain almost all
historical happenings;

dinosaurs were bigger than land animals today.

the "splitting up" of the continents coincides with the extinction of the dinosaurs as they could no longer migrate across widening oceans.

There is nothing much older than 70 million years under the oceans, yet parts of the continents are up to 5000 million years old.

Take away the oceans and everything fits together, perfectly...
on a smaller globe.

(The continents DON'T fit together well on the same size globe, as in Pangaea)

Fossil records match across oceans.


The Earth grew.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 7 2008, 11:32 AM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ May 5 2008, 03:30 AM) *
dinosaurs were bigger than land animals today.

And the majority of the creatures on earth before their period were smaller.

Some human races are taller than they were just 500 years ago. Viewing old English houses demonstrates this from the sizes of the beds and the height of the timbers supporting upper floors.

BTW gravity tends to pull all earth matter towards the centre.

Sure the earth has become bigger, it has after all absorbed a number of meteorites over time (and to a lesser mass extent many, many meteorites have disintegrated in the upper atmosphere to add their small contributions although there are thousands a day that come our way - I have seen estimates of a million or so), but not enough to make that much difference in size. Large ones though would have had a significant effect on plate techtonics.

Now the welling up of mantle to expand and form fresh crust, some at the sea bed, would increase the volume slightly but against this one has to offset that crust going back down into the mantle at subduction zones. The overal effect on size, i.e. volume, not being of great import.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sb5walker
post May 7 2008, 03:06 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 60
Joined: 12-October 07
From: Connecticut, USA
Member No.: 2,360



The increase in the Earth's diameter that has lately been observed likely results from a redistribution of mass: not an overall increase.

The Earth is not a perfect sphere but is slightly oblate - flattened at the poles. The equatorial diameter is about 40 km greater than the polar diameter. This fact is thought to result from the force of the Earth's rotation and the fact that the vast majority of the Earth's mass is fluid rock. Except for a few areas, most of the crust is remarkably thin: only 30-40 km thick in most continents and less than 10 km (6 miles) in much of the ocean basins. At this moment you are likely closer to a gigantic ocean of red hot liquid magma than you are to a town a half-hour's drive away.

What this means is that the crust is remarkably sensitive to the gravitational effects of external bodies like the Sun and to any other galactic gravitational forces that may exist. It also means it will move in response to any changes in the poorly-understood dynamics of core and magmatic motion within the Earth. And apparently, in 1998, something about those inner dynamics did change.

Satellite-based laser range-finders had been showing for two decades that there was a steady redistribution of mass within the Earth from the equatorial to the polar regions: Mother Earth was becoming thinner and taller. In late 1998, that trend abruptly reversed and since that time the opposite has been happening: the equatorial diameter has been increasing and the polar diameter decreasing. This news was reported by scientists Christopher Cox and Benjamin Chao, in the August 2, 2002 issue of Science magazine. If you want to find info on this try searching "dynamic oblateness" but most of the information is on pay sites.

There is no consensus regarding WHY this change occurred. Most scientists believed the slimming trend resulted from melting of the polar ice caps and called their theory "postglacial rebound". I'm not sure how they explain the abrupt change in 1998: while in a few areas increased ice mass has been observed, in other areas fairly dramatic melting continues to occur.

I believe the change in 1998 to be connected to changes in the Earth's magnetic field. I have quite a lot of information about this and Painter has been bugging me for some time to share it with you. I will do so one of these days when I have the energy: it's a LOT of information. The short version is that there is a magnetic pole shift underway in the Earth and the Earth's magnetic field has very much more physical effects in the Earth than is generally understood.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 7 2008, 03:20 PM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (sb5walker @ May 5 2008, 05:06 PM) *
The increase in the Earth's diameter that has lately been observed likely results from a redistribution of mass: not an overall increase.

I agree with that but the increase is not of a sufficient magnitude to account for the gaps between earth’s land masses as some here seem to be trying to suggest.

QUOTE
The Earth is not a perfect sphere but is slightly oblate - flattened at the poles.


As a child, quite a few moons ago now, I understood the term to be 'oblate spheroid'

QUOTE
I believe the change in 1998 to be connected to changes in the Earth's magnetic field. I have quite a lot of information about this and Painter has been bugging me for some time to share it with you. I will do so one of these days when I have the energy: it's a LOT of information. The short version is that there is a magnetic pole shift underway in the Earth and the Earth's magnetic field has very much more physical effects in the Earth than is generally understood.

This is my take on it too, with the earth's magnetic field currently becoming weaker which is thought to be the pre-cursor.

However how long we have before the flip, if indeed it is a sudden flip or more of a weakening to nothing and then a gaining in strength reversed is uncertain, AFAIK.

Interesting experiments have been done by spinning globes full of molten sodium and monitoring the magnetic flux produced.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 7 2008, 11:19 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



The rate of the Earths' growth is very slow, when looked at over centuries. It must be looked at from the point of view of tens of thousands of centuries, or in terms of millions of years.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sb5walker
post May 8 2008, 12:05 AM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 60
Joined: 12-October 07
From: Connecticut, USA
Member No.: 2,360



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ May 5 2008, 05:20 PM) *
QUOTE (sb5walker @ May 5 2008, 05:06 PM) *

The increase in the Earth's diameter that has lately been observed likely results from a redistribution of mass: not an overall increase.

I agree with that but the increase is not of a sufficient magnitude to account for the gaps between earth’s land masses as some here seem to be trying to suggest.

Yes, there do seem to be some rather large tears in the crust - more than can be accounted for by a few km movement here or there. The rip running down the middle of the Atlantic Basin for instance. However I just have a hard time believing the Earth could have grown in mass enough to cause that rend: I tend instead to believe the Earth is a much more dynamic place than we realize.

Look at the alternating layers of red and yellow sandstone in the Grand Canyon, for example: red laid down when the area was under water, yellow when above. The crust there has risen and sunk countless times over the past several hundred millions of years. Look at topo maps of Pennsylvania, southern New York state and Connecticut and you see signs of lateral compression of the crust into parallel wrinkles of ridges and valleys. I live in such an area and the local geology is EXTREMELY youthful: the surface was obviously violently changed very recently: no more than a few tens of thousands of years ago. The crust recently sank all along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard: the coast of the former continent can now be seen under water 50 to 100 miles out from the current coastline, and the former bed of the lower Hudson river can be seen along the sea floor before it drops off the former edge of the continent. Most geologists seem to claim that as evidence of an increase in sea level, but where would all the extra water have come from? I think it's much more likely that instead of the sea rising, the crust sank. At least in that spot. It rose in others, as in southern California, Nevada and Utah deserts, for example, which are covered in salt flats where land-locked sea water evaporated.

QUOTE
As a child, quite a few moons ago now, I understood the term to be 'oblate spheroid'

As a child you were running around spouting terms like 'oblate spheroid'? Sheesh!

QUOTE
This is my take on it too, with the earth's magnetic field currently becoming weaker which is thought to be the pre-cursor.

However how long we have before the flip, if indeed it is a sudden flip or more of a weakening to nothing and then a gaining in strength reversed is uncertain, AFAIK.

Interesting experiments have been done by spinning globes full of molten sodium and monitoring the magnetic flux produced.

I think the weakening may be in average field strength and may reflect a loss in coherence of the poloidal field, rather than a weakening of magnetic activity in general. There may be as much magnetic energy as ever but it's all discombobulated with stray loops popping out all willy-nilly. And causing some locally spectacular weather effects, by the way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 8 2008, 01:01 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (sb5walker @ May 7 2008, 09:05 PM) *
Most geologists seem to claim that as evidence of an increase in sea level, but where would all the extra water have come from? I think it's much more likely that instead of the sea rising, the crust sank. At least in that spot. It rose in others, as in southern California, Nevada and Utah deserts, for example, which are covered in salt flats where land-locked sea water evaporated.


North America had the weight of kilometers of thick ice sheets on top, during the last ice age. That would sink the continent down a little, I should imagine.

How pure is that salt? If it is from the evaporation of sea water there should be lots of organic impurities in it, is there?

The continental crust is hard, and as the Earth grew, the surface needs to re-curve, or flatten.
As a result the surface buckles up, forming mountains.
If this is the case, then one would expect to find the tallest mountains on the largest continent, as this continent would need to do the most buckling, because it covers the greatest percentage of the globe.

Asia = largest continent.
Mt. Everest = tallest mountain.

Look at your hand when you unmake your fist, it wrinkles where it flattens the most, at the knuckles.
On a global scale these would be mountains.

It must be growing from the inside.
I don't fully understand how.

One explanation is that a natural atomic reaction is happening within the Earth and the daughter elements formed are adding to the volume of the Earth.

I don't think this is the correct explanation though.

But there is no point in discussing how it grew until
we have confirmed that it has grown.

That's what I'm trying to do, first.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 8 2008, 06:11 AM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ May 6 2008, 03:01 AM) *
North America had the weight of kilometers of thick ice sheets on top, during the last ice age. That would sink the continent down a little, I should imagine.

Ah! I am glad you mentioned that Lunk and what I am about to write would more properly belong in a climate change thread.

The reduction of overlaying masses of ice through melt brought on by climate change has a bearing on some perceptions of sea level rise. The resultant glacial isostatic adjustment can mask a real mean sea level (MSL) rise along coasts where tide gauges are used to measure MSL. This can be one reason why some think that sea level has fallen.

An international team studying this in the Gulf of Bothnia using GPS data and a computer model to track the vertical change in both land and sea found that a rebound of 10 mm per year was five times greater than the increase in MSL over the same period.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 8 2008, 06:30 AM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ May 6 2008, 03:01 AM) *
It must be growing from the inside.
I don't fully understand how.

As the magma flows through the mantle and carbon is subsumed at subduction zones [1] the carbon content increases. Now if this carbon took on the carbon polymorphism (or allotrope) of (Buckminster) fullerene where even a small molecule version of 60 carbon atoms which forms a spheroid shape, hollow by definition, then carbon can take up an increasing amount of space. A fullerene can be composed of between 20 and 600 atoms of carbon. That latter demonstrating how much more volume a given number of carbon atoms could take up if in this form. Is there an issue with logic here I wonder?

Polymorphs, allotropes, of elements can have interesting properties with often unexpected and disastrous consequences.

One of the allotropes of tin is ‘white tin’, the familiar variety, which is stable above 13 deg’ C. As the temperature drops a polymorphic change can take place. Organ pipes in St Petersburg collapsed into grey dust as the organist played. Also the fate of Peter Scott’s Antarctic expedition was linked to the loss of fuel which leaked out of the soldered containers when the joints failed.

[1] Consider the huge quantities of carbonate material locked up in the remains of foraminifera that have died and drifted to the oceans floors and form a veritable carpet.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: May 8 2008, 07:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 9 2008, 10:06 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Here is the official government theory of plate tectonics:



Notice the direction of the arrows?

(Why am I thinking of flight paths...)

This makes no sense to me.

The continental plates end at their continental shelves.
They stay exactly in the same place on the globe,
while more land is being created at the mid ocean rifts,
that are found between nearly every continent on Earth.

Does the bark of a tree float around?
No. It stays exactly where it was
and new bark is formed underneath,
as the tree grows.

There is no subduction.

If there was subduction, then all the continents
would not fit perfectly together on a smaller Earth,
there would be chunks missing, if that were the case.

I know this is hard to grasp,
but the evidence is there.

(edit) what an as I am

This post has been edited by lunk: May 9 2008, 10:09 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post May 9 2008, 11:07 AM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ May 7 2008, 01:06 PM) *
Does the bark of a tree float around?
No. It stays exactly where it was
and new bark is formed underneath,
as the tree grows.

Oh! Please! A moments thought demonstrates the fallacy of such statements.

The growth of a tree trunk and the processes of the earth have nothing in common.

A tree grows by using solar energy to process compounds extracted from its environment. The tree as such is not a closed system as far as input of matter is concerned whereas the earth too a large extent is.
QUOTE
There is no subduction.

Well somebody is being subduced if they believe that.

What do you suggest is raising the Andes and driving the fault-lines along the Calofornia coastline?
QUOTE
If there was subduction, then all the continents
would not fit perfectly together on a smaller Earth,
there would be chunks missing, if that were the case.

A much smaller earth is not much of a possiblity.
QUOTE
I know this is hard to grasp,
but the evidence is there.

Hard to grasp because such ideas have no substance.

You're barking up the wrong tree with this one Lunk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 9 2008, 12:18 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



The Earth is a sphere,
A tree is a column, this is a difference
that must be kept in mind.

Both grow in diameter.

The Earth has 2 outer layers of crust a lighter granite (last years bark)
and a denser basalt (this years new growth) , underneath.

If the comparison between the bark of a growing tree and the crust of a growing Earth, is true...
Then there should be similarities between the patterns in the bark of a tree
and geological formations on the Earth.

If the Earths' growth is happening on a large scale
it must also be happening at a more local level as well.

Google satellite picture of snow covered mountain tops and valleys,
and a few bark shaped islands separating from past Earth expansion:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=56....amp;t=k&z=7

The high lands are snow covered showing the (relatively) new growth of the valleys, between.

This is a tree:

(edit) replace picture of tree.



The older bark is higher up and ripped apart by the new growth of the tree.

The reason that these pictures look similar is because the same forces are at work.
The differences in the pictures are because one is a growing oblate spheroid
and the other is a growing column.

If either of these shapes had solid crusts and were to "grow"
these are the patterns you would expect to see.

This post has been edited by lunk: Sep 27 2008, 11:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 17 2008, 01:44 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



U shaped valleys and V shaped valleys,
formed by glaciers and rivers?

The glaciers went over the harder rock and chewed away at the softer rock, leaving wide U shaped valleys. Rivers cut paths in a V shape, through mountains that were pushed up by massive subducting plates.

That's what I was taught about the origination of valleys.

Using the same logic, one could conclude that water shaped the glass you are drinking from, or the ice trays in your freezer were formed by the ice.

Water is a liquid and will flow to the lowest point. Glaciers behave like rivers and flow downhill, too. Pour water into a dry valley, and you will get a river at the lowest point of that valley.

Here is a new way of looking at valleys.

As the Earth grows, the upper crust must re-curve, this causes the older crust to "wrinkle" in places. This causes mountains and V shaped valleys at the same time, the Earth is getting bigger, so even these wrinkled areas stretch apart in places, forming U shaped valleys, flattened at the base. U shaped valleys are tectonic spread areas (rift valleys), relatively new crustal growth. Water or snow accumulate at the lowest point and erode and round off the rough ledges at the edges of these spreads.
Where there are spreads with little erosion; the edges of these valleys tend to be stepped, like stairs. A good example of this is the Grand Canyon. This is a tectonic spread area, where the Earths' growth has pulled apart the upper crust. As there has been no glaciation there, the edges of the Grand Canyon take on the appearance of stairs. If glaciation had been present there, after the rift had spread, we would see a classic U shaped valley.

That's right, the Grand Canyon was not formed by water,
it is a rifting of the Earth, a tectonic spread area.
The water just flows to the lowest point, and rounds out the rough edges that are left when solid rock is ripped apart.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=U...mp;t=p&z=10

(edit) punctuation!

This post has been edited by lunk: May 17 2008, 01:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 17 2008, 03:04 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (sb5walker @ May 7 2008, 01:06 PM) *
There is no consensus regarding WHY this change occurred. Most scientists believed the slimming trend resulted from melting of the polar ice caps and called their theory "postglacial rebound".

Atkins diet maybe? biggrin.gif JK- carry on.

EDIT: Lunk has got my ear- and I've seen my share of U-valleys, V-valleys, L-valleys, buttes, mesas, the Grand Canyon, and much more wonderful scenery/geology in the Western US. I don't know if I will reach a definitive conclusion either way in my lifetime on this one, however. As some might guess, I do have a fundamental issue with "dogmatic" mainstream science for its own "traditionalist" sake. "Professor Nutbutter taught me that his professor taught him that 'all the experts' came to the conclusion in 1928 that... "

The box is small, and science (or is it more properly "history" in this case?) is broken, after all...

[Not so "deliberately dumbed down" anymore...]

This post has been edited by dMole: May 17 2008, 03:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 17 2008, 09:12 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I know it's amazing.
Once you see global growth on a large scale, like the continents all fitting perfectly together, on a smaller, earlier Earth, you start to realize that this must have been going on, even previous, to the continental breakup.
The same growth processeses can be seen on the continents.

The same growth is happening on, or in, all planets and moons, and probably stars.
Everything is growing...
logarithmically.

The bigger an object is the faster it grows.

I do not know if this is expansion, (like a balloon) or growth like a crystal, (solid).
I think both.
So mass is not increasing quite at the rate of volume increase.
Or, as things get bigger they decrease in their density,
but there is still an incremental gain in their weight.
Thus, things are growing, not just expanding.

Now, we just got to figure out how.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 20 2008, 12:29 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (lunk @ May 17 2008, 06:12 PM) *
The same growth is happening on, or in, all planets and moons, and probably stars.


imo, lunk


This is our moon:



The lower dark smoother areas are newer growth regions.
The higher lands are older and have more craters.

This our Earth:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UT....150391&z=6

The lower lighter (in this case) smoother areas are newer growth regions.
The higher lands are older and are more mountainous.
Notice how there always seems to be mountains between the lower flatter growth areas?
Almost as if the new growth areas are pushing the mountains up.

If this is the case, then there will be new rock pushing against old rock and one would expect to see earthquakes and volcanoes around these spreading areas.
Where is the largest spreading area of Earth?
The Pacific ocean.

Ever heard of the ring of fire?



Same facts, better reasons.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post May 21 2008, 12:56 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Tectonic spreading on Mars:

http://geology.com/nasa/mars-plate-tectonics.shtml

"To see this characteristic magnetic imprint on Mars indicates that it, too, had regions where new crust came up from the mantle and spread out across the surface. And when you have new crust coming up, you need old crust plunging back down, ­the exact mechanism for plate tectonics."

Unless of course it's growing,
I would add.

There is no subduction on Mars.
It's growing too.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

17 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th April 2014 - 11:13 PM