Mainstream plate tectonics model is nowhere near quantitatively correct

I'm getting a lot of flak from mainstream geologists here about creationist models of rapid continental drift. They've led me to believe that the mainstream model is as solid as quantum mechanics or something. Interesting what this mainstreamer said about it in New Scientist this month (admittedly he has his own new theory):

quote:

---

"Those convection calculations have never come up with plate tectonics or anything resembling the present situation on Earth."
Don Anderson of CalTech, New Scientist 4th May 2002

---

As a physicist who has recently got into geology as a hobby this actually was the impression I had got myself. On this BBS people would get a far different impression.My point isn't that the current model is wrong but that the current model is basically a possible answer. It is nowhere near as quantiatitive that you all think it is! It's not pythogorus yet!------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

^I don't agree Joe. I understood exactly what you said from the New Scientist article. I understood Anderson's new theory of convection due to the cold crust - makes a lot of sense and I found it scientifically interesting.But I happened to read the article in the train on the way home last night and he also goes on record in the artcile that the current theory does not reproduce the data - that is my point. I know he didn't say it for creationists to quote but he said it! His statement is there in black and white for anyone to read and in the article itself (admittedly written by a science journalist) it goes on to say:"Efforts to model convection based on heat from below have failed". Betsy Mason NS, 4th May 2002.All I'm trying to say is that the current model does not reproduce the data very well! Why do you have to rubbish everything I say just because you know my creationist bias?------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

Thanks Percy that's all I'm trying to say. My only addition is that this means we can't assume that the mainstream model is correct in detail. Of course our model morphs into your model over time - as things cool down our model becomes your model.------------------
You are go for TLI

Ok Joe, I'll try and absorb this over the next few days. I'll have to check out Baumgardner's stuff again too. It's great for both sides that you're putting this effort in.But I stand by the point I raised in this thread.------------------
You are go for TLI

For now let me just add that your comments on your web page about 'unrealistic viscosities' seems to be important to your argument. Is it unrealistic becasue you wont allow for accelerated decay and associated radiogenic heating or is it intrinsically unrealistic?------------------
You are go for TLI

I'm quite ready to admitt that their model is not up to scratch yet. For me it opens a door to possibilities and I await their comments on you and your friend's points. Things unfortunately move very slowly in the creation community - there are only a handful of guys doing this stuff and they're usually doing two jobs. Given their resources I'm impressed with their output. Thank you for your efforts pointing out their problems. I am prepared to let this iterate a few times before dumping the idea.I do have a secret door onto Snellings, Humphries and (Tas) Walkers desktops (I know their secret email addresses) and I'll see if I can get some comment for you on the heat problem. I've never met Baumgardner.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

Come on Joe, Humphreys just drew a Corel Draw sketch to give us some sort of feeling that was in his head. And sure it may be based on that data in a sub-conscious way. He seems to have reverse timed it, shifted the horizontal axis and accelerated the reversals? But he really is just trying to show us what the creationist have in mind empirically. Do you have a diagram on the web somewhere of what the entire time sequence of reversals is from the mainstream POV?BTW - I never said Humphreys was a friend, I'm just in email contact with him and when I emailed him I pluralized his name too ! I have exchanged ideas with Snelling and Walker on multiple occasions and have shared a lunch with De Young. That's all, I promise. I thought Walker was a geologist?------------------
You are go for TLI

Look guys I don't know enough about this stuff, so, for the record, I'm willing to agree that Humphreys was probably a bit sloppy. I'll leave it fro TC to refute that! My gut feeling still is that he was trying to show what creationists expect to be the story in a hand wavy sort of way.By the way, all of this stuff is giving me an interest in geophysics (most of my previous reading has been sedimentation) and I've started reading some basics. Fascinating stuff about the seismological detective work you guys do. ------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-19-2002]

Fair enough.

Nice pic Joe - I'd often wondered what the extrapolation would be.