Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - Fact or Fiction?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22622
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 271 of 301 (226872)
07-27-2005 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Philip
07-27-2005 5:54 PM


Re: inflationary universe
Philip writes:
Recall, I’ve already conceded and *lost this debate* when I (personally and/or professionally) have failed to prove *hyper-Newtonian and hyper-naturalistic* mechanisms for CPT.
No one believes you made an informed decision when you accepted CPT, and now that you're conceding no believes this is an informed decision, either.
Probably few here think you won or lost. Your level of understanding was never sufficient for anyone to consider you a legitimate participant in the discussion. My guess is that most are bemused by your participation in this thread. Your time would be better spent working at understanding what geology actually says. You don't have to believe it or accept it, just understand it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Philip, posted 07-27-2005 5:54 PM Philip has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 272 of 301 (226882)
07-27-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Percy
07-27-2005 4:55 PM


Re: Off Topic, But: "Prayer vs Medicine"
US Medical laws: OBRA, HIPPA, JCAOH, and the Office of the Inspector General of Medicare do enforce that: A doctor treats all persons with dignity and not as mere objects (i.e., of science, money, or whatever). Thus, I can’t dispassionately go into a nursing home and inquire to the Director of Nurses:
Got any fungal toenails for me to wack off your demented diabetics?
Besides being medically necessary, I apply scrupulous technique and bedside manner (essentially) or I get in big trouble.
Admittedly:
1) *I Pray like crazy* (in my mind) when on the floor wrestling with a thrashing Alzheimer’s diabetic person’s infected toenails.
2) Pray out-loud with my patients before ALL difficult surgeries, i.e., diabetic ingrowns, bunionectomies, syndactilizations, etc., here in Alabama.
3) Pray out-loud (in Haitian Creole) before ‘doctoring’ patients in Haitian church-clinics and orphanages. But in Haiti (unlike the US), prayer (often in evangelical song) and laying on of hands is the norm for virtually all Haitian schools and clinics Observe some pictures of Haitian orphans (Page not found | Doctor Professional) and you’ll probably agree prayer is an acceptable mechanism used in conjunction with philanthropic medicine.
4) I don’t compassionately pray enough, quite frankly. Yes, I’m certain *gospel* prayer helps *fix* persons and persons’ feet (or whatever).
--Philip Traynor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Percy, posted 07-27-2005 4:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Percy, posted 07-27-2005 8:16 PM Philip has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22622
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 273 of 301 (226890)
07-27-2005 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Philip
07-27-2005 7:27 PM


Re: Off Topic, But: "Prayer vs Medicine"
That's nice. Any chance of a reply to the point I was making? Does it need to be explained?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Philip, posted 07-27-2005 7:27 PM Philip has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2980 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 274 of 301 (227019)
07-28-2005 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Philip
07-27-2005 5:54 PM


Re: inflationary universe
I stand by my objection to the use of conjecture used in describing a viable scientific theory. There is no "how it seems", no "guessing" about it. A conjecture does not offer a set of falsifiable predictions, a viable scientific theory does. Your example of the agnostic speculating about the existence of a deity just shows that you are still confused about the definition of a scientific theory. The belief in the existence of a deity is based on faith. Faith has nothing to do with scientific theory. I am not interested in who "won" or who "lost" the debate. There was no real debate anyway. You made some assertions about CPT and some off-topic subjects. Different posters on the board explained why your assertions were not logical or scientifically viable. The fact that you are still maintaining that CPT is a viable theory shows that you don't really understand what happened.
edit to remove extraneous word.
This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-28-2005 09:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Philip, posted 07-27-2005 5:54 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Philip, posted 07-30-2005 1:41 PM deerbreh has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 275 of 301 (227815)
07-30-2005 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by deerbreh
07-28-2005 9:57 AM


Re: Hyper-naturalistic Bigotry ... the Cornerstone of CPT?
I can't believe the 3 of you (Percy, Jar, Deerbreh) are hung up on my grammar/oxymoron! So now I’m back into this *dinner conversation of CPT/origins*, *endless geneologies*, and total vanity.
Percy, you need a nice grammar checker when you stated: No one believes you made an informed decision when you accepted CPT, and now that you're conceding no believes this is an informed decision, either.
Deerbreh, Jar (et al), I’ll always maintain CPT is feasible and viable, until you or someone *sincerely* demonstrates all of the following:
1) Existential Radiometric dating is 100% viable under all Newtonian, relativistic and non-Newtonian conditions including under that ad-hoc *inflationary phase* of our universe (that thoroughly violates respectable Newtonian and relativistic theory)
2) There is absolutely no God who judges His creation (the geosphere) and sin-infested persons with global floods, catastrophic events, catastrophic deaths, global curses, etc.
3) There never was a phenomenon of a Christ who rose from the dead. (That separates you proto-Christs from you anti-Christs when speculating proofs of Catastrophic global or universal phenomena)
(Oh no, did I just violate science and the US Constitution when I invoked those theistic G and C words?)
or
DON’T RESPOND TO THIS!
COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC AND MAYBE IN A ZONE OF HIS OWN:
Someone pleeeeeze at least attempt to address this existential dilemma (unto myself and *lay-readers*) and concede your own hyper-naturalistic and hyper-Newtonian bigotry, *death and the curse*, *redemptive phenomena* and adjust your radiometric (C)PT calculations accordingly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by deerbreh, posted 07-28-2005 9:57 AM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Percy, posted 07-30-2005 2:07 PM Philip has not replied
 Message 277 by edge, posted 07-30-2005 7:12 PM Philip has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22622
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 276 of 301 (227823)
07-30-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Philip
07-30-2005 1:41 PM


Re: Hyper-naturalistic Bigotry ... the Cornerstone of CPT?
Philip writes:
Percy, you need a nice grammar checker when you stated: No one believes you made an informed decision when you accepted CPT, and now that you're conceding no believes this is an informed decision, either.
I've learned to live with the fact that I'm not a nice guy, just as you've learned to live with the fact that you're a...whoops, there I go again!
Philip, I sort of have two choices here. I can suspend you from the science threads for being hopeless. Or I can try to cajole you into a better effort. Providing information hasn't worked. Encouragement to read up hasn't worked. Insults haven't worked. You're yet more evidence for my theory (fast becoming an axiom) that people are not able to improve their performance.
On the other hand, you're so pleasantly harmless that suspension seems cruel, and just letting you chatter on may be the best course of action.
Any plans to respond to my point? Did you understand it, or did you actually think I was wondering whether you prayed while treating patients?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Philip, posted 07-30-2005 1:41 PM Philip has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1793 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 277 of 301 (227956)
07-30-2005 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Philip
07-30-2005 1:41 PM


Re: Hyper-naturalistic Bigotry ... the Cornerstone of CPT?
Deerbreh, Jar (et al), I’ll always maintain CPT is feasible and viable, until you or someone *sincerely* demonstrates all of the following:
1) Existential Radiometric dating is 100% viable under all Newtonian, relativistic and non-Newtonian conditions including under that ad-hoc *inflationary phase* of our universe (that thoroughly violates respectable Newtonian and relativistic theory)
This is kind of silly. First of all, what do you mean by radiometric dating being 'viable'? If it weren't viable, it wouldn't be conducted...
Second, what do you mean by 'all Newtonian...., including...', etc., etc.? Setting the bar pretty high aren't we? Do you do the same with CPT?
2) There is absolutely no God who judges His creation (the geosphere) and sin-infested persons with global floods, catastrophic events, catastrophic deaths, global curses, etc.
And how is this relevant to CPT? There are plenty of believers who also adhere to conventional plate tectonics with absolutely no problem.
3) There never was a phenomenon of a Christ who rose from the dead. (That separates you proto-Christs from you anti-Christs when speculating proofs of Catastrophic global or universal phenomena)
Again, the connection to CPT vs PT needs to be explained.
Basically, you are telling us the the one and only reason you prefer CPT is your religious viewpoint. It really has nothing to do with science.
Someone pleeeeeze at least attempt to address this existential dilemma (unto myself and *lay-readers*) ...
I see no dilemma. The only real problem is in your head, with an erroneous interpretation of what Christianity really means.
...and concede your own hyper-naturalistic and hyper-Newtonian bigotry, *death and the curse*, *redemptive phenomena* and adjust your radiometric (C)PT calculations accordingly.
If respect for the truth is bigotry, then I suppose I must plead guilty. I'm just wondering what God will say you when you tell him/her/it that you refused to use the mind given to you for your short stay on earth. Or, maybe you are a troll, in which case, my time is doubly wasted...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Philip, posted 07-30-2005 1:41 PM Philip has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 278 of 301 (227965)
07-30-2005 7:54 PM


Discussion with Philip remains nonsensical. I've removed Philip's privileges in the science forums.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 279 of 301 (241819)
09-09-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
07-02-2005 8:03 AM


How much energy would it take to accelerate the North American continent from a speed of 3.22x10-7 cm/sec (4 inches/year) to 1.53x10-2 cm/sec (3 miles/year). The kinetic energy of the continent moving at 3.22x10-7 is:
mv2/2
= (1.96x1024 g) x (3.22x10-7 cm/sec)2 / 2
= 1.02x1011 g-cm2/sec2
The kinetic energy of the continent moving at 1.53x10-2 cm/sec is:
mv2/2
= (1.96x1024 g) x (1.53x10-2 cm/sec)2 / 2
= 2.29x1020 g-cm2/sec2
The difference in kinetic energies, and the amount of energy that TB's particular CPT scenario adds to the North American continent is:
2.29x1020 g-cm2/sec2 - 1.02x1011 g-cm2/sec2
= 2.29x1020 g-cm2/sec2
Sorry for the thrwad necromancy, but I've been thinking about the energies involved with CPT for several days now.
It doesn't seem to be possible to get a true representation of the energy involved in such an undertaking - we are talking about movind a huge amount of mass, but we are doing it in a friction-filled environment where plates rub against each other and collide, yt keep moving.
Don't forget, we have to form the mountains and other geologic structures through this massive ordeal as well.
Percy, your numbers look good, except that they ignore any force of friction. Your calcs work if we are simply accellerating the mass, but we need to apply sufficient force to move that mass in spite of the enormous friction and constant collisions.
I can't hope to model that sort of thing accurately, but I can give an ultra-simplistic model that could perhaps be used as a lower limit.
I'm going to use the normal coefficient of friction for granite, since most of the Earth's crist is made of similar material. I'ts not going to be highly accurate (the planet is hardly a homogenous mixture, and friction behaves differently under the extreme pressures we are talking about), but it can give us an idea of the energy required. THis calculation also ignores the forces introduced by plate collision and the effects of same. I am also assuming an average distance of 1250 km for the movement of the plates (which is obscenely low - the India plate has continued to move about 1600 km after it hit the Asian plate), and a time period of 1 year. This will not be highly accurate, but should be by far lower than the real numbers, and as such chould work as a lower limit.
The coefficient of friction for granite is 0.41.
The mass of the upper crust is about 1.365e23 kg.
Friction force = coefficient of friction * normal force (in this case, the weight of the mass)
F = .41 * 9.8 * 1.365e23
f = 5.48e23 Newtons
Joules = Newtons * meters
E = 5.48e23 * 1250000
E = 6.86e29 Joules.
So, we have an energy requirement of roughly 6.86e29 Joules, which is the equivalent of 1.64e14 megatons of energy.
Let's do the full calc to get power.
Power = energy / time
P = 6.86e29 / 31536000 (seconds in a year)
P = 2.18e22 Watts
The total power output of the sun is 2.8e26 Watts, as a comparison.
Now, let's do the same calculations for the current rate of continental motion, so that we can see the difference.
The force of friction is the same, but we need to recalculate the energy to reflect the smaller distance covered in a year.
As Percy mentioned, the North American plate is moving at a rate of about 4 inches/year, which comes to about 0.1 meters.
Energy = force * distance
E = 5.48e23 * 0.1
E = 5.48e22 Joules
So, the energy total has dropped by seven orders of magnitude. Let's calculate the total power.
Power = energy / time
P = 5.48e22 / 31536000
P = 1.74e15 Watts
So, the power requirement has also dropped by over seven orders of magnitude.
The question, then, is how did we go from a normal 1.74e15 Watts, jump suddenly to 2.18e22 Watts, and then drop back down to normal? We have to assume that the original rate was the same as the present rate (or at least very similar) because otherwise the Earth would be undergoing a constant earthquake.
Just to back up that claim - a typical magnitude 6.0 earthquake releases roughly 1 megaton of energy, which amounts to 4.18e15 Joules, will slip the fault by about 30 cm, and will damage an area with a diameter of roughly 100km. The kind of motion we are talking about here would be similar to over 4000 magnitude 6 earthquakes happening every 100 km (for simplicities sake covering 10000 km^2) per year. That's about 2.12e14 earthquakes per year globally, and converting 2.12e14 megatons into Joules gives us 8.89e29 Joules - a little higher than what I calculated with the coefficient of friction, but in the same order of magnitude. We know that civilization could not possibly stand to tolerate 4000 magnitude 6 quakes every year, so the rate of continental motion must have been more like the current rate.
So, we are left with requiring some mechanism that would generate an additional 2.18e22 Watts (1.74e15 being soo insignificant in comparison to even make a difference when subtracted)for a year, and then suddenly stop (applying some miracle-brakes on the entirety of the plate system) and return to the normal rate of motion we see today, all without generating enough waste heat to fry the planet.
The only mechanism proposed in CPT is "runaway subduction." How exactly does a process that has remained constant since the time of the Flood (playing Devils Advocate and assuming a scenario where the Flood actually occurred) suddenly not just double or triple in power output, but suddenly generate seven orders of magnitude more power than normal (to those who don't understand magnitude offhand, we are talking about a mutliplicative difference - roughly 10 million times more energy)? Why do we see no evidence that the rates of subduction can change so rapidly and to such a powerful magnitude, not once but twice in a year?
Next we need to consider what we should see if this sort of event took place, so that we can make falsifiable predictions. The sort of increased power and the force required to accellerate it should exceed the tensile strength of the tectonic plates and shatter them (remember, we are talking about seven orders of magnitude difference - rock isn't that strong). So, we should see many tiny plates rather than several large ones floating around.
But what do we actually see? We see several very large tectonic plates, along with a few smaller ones at the edges where the plates collide. This does not match what we would expect to see if "runaway subduction" suddenly added that much force.
Since we don't see a myriad of tiny plates shattered by the catastrophic event, CPT should be falsified.
Unless someone can give an actual mechanism that could cause this much chang in power output, as well as leave several of the tectonic plates relatively intact, I think it's safe to consider CPT total garbage.
I really wish I had been able to post this before the discussion hit 19 pages and got so close to shutting down, but I suppose we can always start up a Part 2 if need be.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 07-02-2005 8:03 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by gene90, posted 09-13-2005 11:13 PM Rahvin has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3910 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 280 of 301 (243177)
09-13-2005 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Rahvin
09-09-2005 1:23 PM


Another approach you could try is through thermodynamics. We know the temperature at which MORBs solidify. We know that the oceanic crust is made of the stuff, and we know from bathymetry, guyots, etc that there is a significant degree of thermal subsidence between the point at which the crust cools and the crust at the continental margins. And we know the rate at which heat passes through rock.
So if you really wanted to delve into the math you could estimate how much heat has left the system since formation and model how long it takes to generate that degree of subsidence.
I'll tell my non-mathematical prediction now: plate tectonics takes millions of years because of all that subsidence. If tectonics were running fast enough that all the oceanic crust were essentially the same age there wouldn't be much of a topographical gradient across mid-ocean ridges: the ocean crust would be uniformly warm, and the ocean basins would have a much smaller volume.
gene90 enjoys editing his messages and this one is no exception
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-13-2005 11:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2005 1:23 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Rahvin, posted 09-14-2005 1:44 AM gene90 has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 281 of 301 (243209)
09-14-2005 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by gene90
09-13-2005 11:13 PM


Another approach you could try is through thermodynamics. We know the temperature at which MORBs solidify. We know that the oceanic crust is made of the stuff, and we know from bathymetry, guyots, etc that there is a significant degree of thermal subsidence between the point at which the crust cools and the crust at the continental margins. And we know the rate at which heat passes through rock.
So if you really wanted to delve into the math you could estimate how much heat has left the system since formation and model how long it takes to generate that degree of subsidence.
That sounds great, but unnecessary. Honestly, I just have no desire to do the research and math again if nobody is going to refute me
I'll tell my non-mathematical prediction now: plate tectonics takes millions of years because of all that subsidence. If tectonics were running fast enough that all the oceanic crust were essentially the same age there wouldn't be much of a topographical gradient across mid-ocean ridges: the ocean crust would be uniformly warm, and the ocean basins would have a much smaller volume.
By "uniformly warm," I would bet on "too hot for life to exist on the surface." My calculations wouldn't heat the crust that much - less than 1 C as I recall. But I'd be willing to bet that a more precise calculation, like what you are proposing, would make my energy requirements look like pushing a rock across a driveway.
In any event, if there is no possible way the plates could have moved as we observe in such a short period of time, the YEC position must then hold that the Earth was created with the appearance of age specifically to mislead us. Are there any YEC's who would refute that, or the conclusion that CPT is impossible?

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by gene90, posted 09-13-2005 11:13 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by gene90, posted 09-14-2005 2:03 AM Rahvin has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3910 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 282 of 301 (243214)
09-14-2005 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Rahvin
09-14-2005 1:44 AM


quote:
That sounds great, but unnecessary. Honestly, I just have no desire to do the research and math again if nobody is going to refute me.
I understand that. First of all, obviously I don't want to do the math. Second of all, it seemed like a rare opportunity to post something marginally constructive instead of bombthrowing over in Coffee House. There are 82 people online currently but I've only seen two or three Creationists. Not to say this board hasn't come a long way from when I joined, but if we had as many Creationists as we do moderators we would all have more opportunities to have meaningful discussions. But hey, you take what you can get...
quote:
By "uniformly warm," I would bet on "too hot for life to exist on the surface."
Certainly the actual catastrophe, maybe not so much later with ocean to cool it. Rock is a great insulator. This is actually a problem with geothermal power: once the rock around your pipes cools, it takes forever to heat back up again. The Geysers geothermal facility out in California experienced a rapid drop in production because of this.
I expect you would have a cool surface, with a really steep geothermal gradient, and much smaller ocean volume.
quote:
My calculations wouldn't heat the crust that much - less than 1 C as I recall.
Well, I'm sure that it would cause havok in a lot of other ways that would be readily apparent to observation. Thrust sheets would probably be pulverized, for example. After all, rocks have those unfortunate habits of breaking when exposed to too much force.
Good job at any rate.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-14-2005 02:08 AM
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-14-2005 02:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Rahvin, posted 09-14-2005 1:44 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Rahvin, posted 09-14-2005 2:20 AM gene90 has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 283 of 301 (243218)
09-14-2005 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by gene90
09-14-2005 2:03 AM


Certainly the actual catastrophe, maybe not so much later with ocean to cool it. Rock is a great insulator. This is actually a problem with geothermal power: once the rock around your pipes cools, it takes forever to heat back up again. The Geysers geothermal facility out in California experienced a rapid drop in production because of this.
I expect you would have a cool surface, with a really steep geothermal gradient, and much smaller ocean volume.
It depends on exactly how much energy we are talking. If we mean "the crust would melt, or nearly so" then the oceans aren't going to make a difference - they'll evaporate entirely. And the Earth doesn't radiate enough waste heat into space to get rid of that heat in less than several million years.
All supposition unless one of us gets curious enough to bust out the calculators.
Well, I'm sure that it would cause havok in a lot of other ways that would be readily apparent to observation. Thrust sheets would probably be pulverized, for example. After all, rocks have those unfortunate habits of breaking when exposed to too much force.
Yeah. I would expect the plates to be higher in number and smaller in size, like massive, shattered sheets of rock.
Good job at any rate.
Thanks. It's nice to know that I wasn't doing all that work for nothing

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by gene90, posted 09-14-2005 2:03 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by gene90, posted 09-15-2005 12:16 AM Rahvin has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3910 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 284 of 301 (243621)
09-15-2005 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Rahvin
09-14-2005 2:20 AM


quote:
Yeah. I would expect the plates to be higher in number and smaller in size, like massive, shattered sheets of rock.
More than that, I think. Regions of thrust faulting like the Appalachains and a lof the western US I would expect to be pulverized because you're dragging them long distances in very short time scales.
Further, you'd see a lot of orogens closer to the interior of the continents because the oceanic plate being subducted would tend to be more bouyant. You would see phenomena like that Laramide Orogeny a lot more often and expressed more dramatically. In short, we would know.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-15-2005 12:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Rahvin, posted 09-14-2005 2:20 AM Rahvin has not replied

budz4
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 301 (300175)
04-01-2006 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by edge
07-19-2005 6:59 PM


Re: Baumgardner's "Junk Site"
Philip,
You sound pretty learned and bright so I thought you might want to tackle this.
I understand the mid-atlantic ridge is increasingly widening at approximatly three inches per year via monitoring the north american plate and the african plate via gps.
If this is the case then how many years would it take if the plates started moving in the oposite direction to fuse again?
Regards,
Budz4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by edge, posted 07-19-2005 6:59 PM edge has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024