I also liked it when they started asking what kind of evidence would convince you that in fact the other theory is better - that's the kind of better and more productive debate that we need so much in many fields of science but outside of science as well.

This debate says a lot about the place where we are with modern geology - there are so many things to still uncover and to test, to verify.. The fact that we cannot be that certain when did plate tectonics and subduction actually start says a lot about this amazing field of science.

I think crustal plate movement started from very early on. The collision that created the moon must have left the earth white hot. The moon must have been very close (10 times closer than today) and both stirred the molten earth surface to a more uniform temperature and increasing it’s rotational velocity. As it cooled a crust must have formed similar to ice covering the North Pole today, but 100 meters thick (consider how fast molten lava loses heat and solidifies). This sheet would tend to get dragged along by the magma underneath. The pieces would be much smaller than the cratons today but would get pushed into other solid surface patches and begin subsiding and making patches thicker. Thicker patches would grow in surface size because the thickness increases the rigidity. When plate tectonics starts depends on the definition of a plate. The Greenland plate 3.7 billion years old must be one of the first ones to not be subsided/buried.

I tend to believe that the very hot Earth and the soft crust and mantle of the Archean would mean a vigorous motor for plate tectonics. As soon as liquid water could condensed then plate tectonics processes would then start to operate. When was it the case?

A very interesting debate. I thought the "young" tectonics team did itself a bit of a disserve with its funny reference to impotence, as well as the mentions of "psychology" implying confirmation bias - those are both ad hominem attacks and don't belong in such a setting. I don't recall hearing a good refutation of the generation of granites during PaleoArchean. So, I am persuaded to the "older" start at this time. Thanks for posting this.

Great debate. I'm curious as to why Planetary Collision Dynamics isn't a factor? Active-phase comets atomize H/O/C/N, Methane, Heavy & Precious Metals, rock/dust, etc., Impact-phase comets smash into Earth at Mach >30. This would lead to cataclysmic damage to Earth's magnetic-field, atmosphere, crust, lithosphere & athenosphere. Impact temps > surface of the Sun's temps. Vaporization of crust, melt & magmatic effects, including ejecta and a Mach shockwave plus, Shock-bubble expansion/collapse would effect the entire planet. Depending on the mass & volume of the comet nuclei. Newton, Gay-Lussac & Thermodynamic Laws will apply to an Active-phase Comet slamming into Earth. Fundamental physics. 🖖🤔♻

You do not need chickens, but you have around 100 Planets, Moons, Satelites, and Dwarf Planets to look at to be able to view the Earth as it may have appeared in previous time periods over most of the past geologic time periods. Planets form, and grow in groups. The surface features of the Earth at previous time periods can be viewed by observing the surface features of smaller worlds in the solar system that are younger models of the Earth.

Really Interesting debate.

The Earth is gradually expanding, and all the discussions of the plate tectonics are funny. I think when the geologists would wake up and decline a primitive and erroneous concept of continental drift or duck swimming?

@AlexanderStubai

Жыл бұрын

Because the earth is obviously cooling the earth would not expand but shrink.

@user-ez3cu2vp2v

Жыл бұрын

@@AlexanderStubai You say "obviously"? Please look at the map of the age of the oceanic floor. You will see that younger oceanic crust (up to 20 mln years) occupies much larger areas than older oceanic crust (100-150 mln years). It means that the ocean spreading speed is increasing! Why this happens at the aging Earth??? I think that we also have to seriously consider a hypothesis of energy inversion in the universe! In fact, evolution of the universe is hardly clear for thinking people.

@xiphosura413

Жыл бұрын

@@user-ez3cu2vp2v So you're willing to trust age measurements of the rocks done by geophysicists, but not willing to trust plate tectonics done by the same geophysicists. Interesting, how do you decide what's real and what isn't?

@user-ez3cu2vp2v

Жыл бұрын

@@xiphosura413 Sorry, but you talk about different things! I am a geophysicist myself and let me state that it's not our business to determine the age of the ocean-bottom rocks. But it's physics, and I do believe in the results (relatively young ocean bottom as compared to the continents). So, according to the age measurements, the ocean expansion process (spreading) happens simultaneously in all the oceans of the Earth during the last 150 mln years. Do you agree? It was logical to suggest that the whole Earth is expanding together with its oceans! And such hypotheses appeared more than a century ago. But official science was not ready to offer a plausible/proven mechanism of the generation of new matter (hydrogen -> natural gas -> hydrocarbons; hydrogen -> water) in the Earth interior. That's why a physically unrealistic, but easier-to-accept hypothesis of continental drift was accepted by humankind... Alas! It was the biggest mistake in geosciences in 20th century. New version of this falsy hypothesis, "plate tectonics", poorly explains relative shifts of the continents and it is not able to reconstruct supercontinents in the past as well as to predict future "supercontinents". Rubbish! Please read the book of great Italian scientist, G.Scalera: "The expanding Earth: a sound idea for the new millenium" (2001).

If you look at the CAUSE for plate tectonics rather than the EFFECT of it, you will logically arrive at a simple fact that there is no beginning for plate tectonics. Heat convection from earth's interior CAUSES the tectonics. And earth has been even hotter when young. Earth was born, therefore, with tectonics from day one. In fact, it must have been many many times stronger in the earlier times, with earth interior being hotter, the Moon being a lot closer (gravitationaly churning the earth by gigantic tides), and has been gradually slowing down to the present level. In the future it should become even less active, and eventually very much less active as earth cools down and Moon moves farther and farther out

@xiphosura413

Жыл бұрын

The problem with that (and the reason why neither side argued for plate tectonics in the hadean) is not only a complete lack of anything we're willing to call evidence, but one of the crucial causes for plate tectonics is the movement of *rigid* plates. We can see with a high degree of certainty that before a certain point in time circ. 4 Ga at the earliest, the crust was literally too hot and soft to form plates. We did not have plate tectonics from day one, of that everyone is sure. You are correct that heat movement is the primary driver of tectonism, and that it will die down in the future, but tectonic activity is not plate tectonics! Rocks can move around without being locked into the plates we know from today.

@user-ez3cu2vp2v

Жыл бұрын

@@xiphosura413 We NEVER had plate tectonics, since it was a primitive tale for children to escape serious discussion of the reasons of obvious Earth expansion. Adult people, especially professionals (geologists) should understand that continental drift is not real at all, and another supercontinent would never be accurately biult (without an external force or God!). Unfortunately, GPS specialists are not ready to honestly measure the Earth size and report that the radius of our planet is increasing by 2 cm every year!!!

@xiphosura413

Жыл бұрын

@@user-ez3cu2vp2v come now, yawn, such a boring conspiracy theory! Invent something new and exciting for once, like maybe the moon is getting smaller, or the sun is actually on fire!

@user-ez3cu2vp2v

Жыл бұрын

@@xiphosura413 Why do you believe that the Earth is a sphere if your personal everyday experience rather supports a hypothesis of the flat Earth??? I wait for honest GPS measurements which should definitely prove the annual increase in the Earth radius by TWO cm. I see that the ITRF and other reference models are regularly "corrected" - sure, to hide the Earth expansion! 😟