How the crust moves(my theory)

We'll I will begin by saying I'm a geologist by hobby. With that being said, let me jump right in. Most mordern theories of the crust rely on information on the mantle and core. But on average the crust itself is miles deep. Therefore not much is known of said contents. However, my theory of the tectonic plates and crusts movement is similar to a water bead on a pain of glass. Notice how mountains were formed, now picture the land(crust) as a solid but since it's mass is so large essentially it is liquid in nature. Now the land has magnetism and so does are planet via the core/mantle( giant battery) so if the atmosphere is charged in a certain way and the earth another, the land/crust would move similar to water beads on glass, that's my thoughts anyway. Now for yours

Feel free to move mods, but I thought this forum was a fit....

Im no geogologist but I think the analogy doesn't work well.....
There seems to be a little more work needed to flesh out your theory......

reply to post by stirling


How about water pressed between two panes of glass. |[| and it slides like ice. ( better) we'll thanks for the input, I am drawing out a diagram I will share soon.

reply to post by Acousticsasylum


try compare your theory with this one...

reply to post by ZakOlongapo


Thank you.

reply to post by ZakOlongapo


I don't believe that for a second, but, if I was to entertain it, would it not seem more plausible that the Earth was just a ball of water and as is expanded the land appeared as the water struggled to cover the surface?

Acousticsasylum
Now the land has magnetism and so does are planet via the core/mantle( giant battery) so if the atmosphere is charged in a certain way and the earth another, the land/crust would move similar to water beads on glass, that's my thoughts anyway.

If you're saying opposites attract, yes that happens between the Earth and the atmosphere, and the result is lightning, which is when those opposing charges partly equalize and try to resolve the electrical potential difference.

There's no evidence electric charge causes plate tectonics, which can be explained via convection, which an effect resulting from a temperature gradient, fluid dynamics, and the flotation of the less dense crust. There is a hypothesized possible relationship of Earth under tectonic stress creating something like a piezoelectric effect, as Earthquake lights are sometimes observed associated with Earthquakes, but if this association exists then you have cause and effect backwards, as electrical effects might result from tectonics.

If geology is really your hobby it wouldn't hurt for you to study the findings of mainstream geologists. I don't have my own theory because most of them know far more about the topic than you and I with our hobbyist perspectives, and their theories sound logical to me. You don't seem to be familiar with them though from what you said in the OP.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I am quite familiar with mainstream findings. But like I sad originally, not much if anything is known for sure just " theories". And for the crust to move like it is thought to (convection), the surface would have sank into the. " molten/ liquid mantle a few million years ago. My 2 cents anyway.

reply to post by Acousticsasylum


Or perhaps the plates act as giant magnets floating atop an even bigger in( mantle/ core) resulting in opposite attraction and free movement. There is only about 30 or so plates we know of. Just a theory. But I will have a diagram on here later today.

Acousticsasylum
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I am quite familiar with mainstream findings. But like I sad originally, not much if anything is known for sure just " theories". And for the crust to move like it is thought to (convection), the surface would have sank into the. " molten/ liquid mantle a few million years ago. My 2 cents anyway.

Apparently you're not as familiar with mainstream theory as you think, because it says that parts of the crust did go down into the mantle millions of years ago, and in fact this is an ongoing process in subduction zones.

The rest of the crust doesn't sink because it's less dense:

Crust

The upper part of the mantle is composed mostly of peridotite, a rock denser than rocks common in the overlying crust.

Why would a less dense material sink into a more dense material? Well, you can grab a piece of wood and force it underwater, which is sort of analogous to what is happening in subduction zones, but otherwise the less dense wood tends to float, as does the less dense crust.

I'm not saying everything about the earth's geology is fully understood, it's not. But far more is understood by geologists than is reflected in your posts, which haven't demonstrated your claim that you are "quite familiar with mainstream findings", rather they demonstrate very little familiarity with mainstream findings.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That would be " my argument" and of coarse I will try to disprove all if not everything I come across. Let facts point they way, but intuition saved the day. Well that's what I always say. Anyway.