reply to post by TrueAmerican
It cannot withstand the pressure of the gigantic Pacific plate on the move northwestward.
OK, you brought this up so.....
The Pacific plate is moving North-westwards is it? Can you explain how it can move in many different directions at once at different speeds, and yet
at some points around the plate there is no movement and no spreading on the eastern side of it? This is something I have been looking for an answer
to for a very long time.
Alaska - bearing 344 (58mm pa)
Aleutians - bearing 325 (73mm pa)
Okhotsk - bearing 319 (78mm pa)
Japan - bearing 301 (92mm pa)
Maraianas - bearing 253 (65mm pa)
Samoa - bearing 291 (237mm pa)
Kermadec - nearing 282 (88mm pa)
At others such as Endeavour (Eastern side) the spreading is 29mm. But where is the massive spreading that would be needed to accommodate these rates?
It is never mentioned anywhere.
What happens of the coast of California? Is there spreading? Where is it? There is no fault line between it and Japan so if the Pacific plate is
moving North west then there has to be spreading unless the speed of the American plate moving South West exactly matches the Pacific plate moving
North West. They say that the Pacific plate is sliding north here, i.e. the Pacific and American plates are passing each other and rubbing off the
edges! So no spreading and no subduction - and yet this is moving North West?
None of that actually adds up when you look at all the figures. Sure the plates are flexible so they are (my foot) and so they bend to accommodate the
Ever since this daft plate tectonics theory was introduced it has had problems and areas that just don't fit. Not that other theories are any better -
they also have problems.
Spherical lensing goes a little way to explaining the so called subduction zones and fits in with the Benioff zones. The main point is that Hugo
Benioff came up with his zones BEFORE plate tectonics. He died in 1968 when plate tectonics was the new-fangled theory was was being presented and had
not taken full hold yet. True the precursor continental drift was taught, but when he made his discovery it had nothing whatsoever to do with
subduction, and yet has been commandeered by the plate tectonics/subduction crowd. This theory (lensing) however may have problems with spreading.
As has been said so many times, no one really knows the answers when it comes to Mother Earth. It is perfectly possible that the 'subduction zone'
earthquakes are in fact caused by lensing as the Earth cools. Either theory fits the bill, but mainstream has it at present. As with subduction you
could also have sticking, none of the current accepted 'results' are negated by this theory - except one - which is slab pull.
Another school of thought says that the core of the earth rotates faster than the crust. Makes sense in a way. This means that the movement of the hot
spots, and thus the derived plate movement is actually from the core moving the asthenosphere under the lithosphere and not the other way round. One
would then have to query if subduction could take place it the subsurface is moving east?
Somewhere between expanding earth and plate tectonics lies the real answer. Somehow I doubt we will find and accept it in my lifetime. Is tit tectonic
surge? Don't know. I have been looking for a long time.
The point of all this is to say that there would not actually be immense pressure if plate tectonics is incorrect, at least not in the directions that
you believe it to be.
All figures taken from the USGS Google Earth overlay for plate boundaries.
edit on 20/4/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)