webolife wrote:RM,Robertus Maximus wrote:The link between Madagascar and India is reconstructed with an imaginary land- Mauritia. Past reconstructions depend on such imaginary lands Pangaea, Pannotia, Rodinia etc. are testament to geologists’ imagination.
I think you are still misreading the information.
Mauritius is not imaginary, it is a volcanic island east of Madagascar. The discovery of zircons [intrusive igneous formations that form the core of continental masses] beneath the lava surface is an indicator that the island was previously connected to a continent. The further identification of its continental bedrocks with those of
Madagascar is a very strong indicator of the two islands having once been joined; and further evidence of similarities with the African continent and Indian subcontinent would have jump-started the continental drift theory if it hadn't already been formulated.Robertus Maximus wrote:The fact remains, evidence of continental crust is found where there should be none. Continental material is considered to have been recycled through deep mantle convection- how likely is this? Continental crust was originally thought to ‘float’ over the denser oceanic crust and upper mantle, now ‘lost continents’ are being recycled in the mantle. Over the past 50 years evidence that would subduct the theory has been woven into its fabric. From simple beginnings the plate tectonic paradigm, in the light of new evidence, has grown increasingly complex as geologists continue to add more and more epicycles, error is better than confusion.
Quite contrarily, the finding of continental crust on Mauritius is exactly what one would expect. The rest of your paragraph is simply not founded. What "epicycles" are you referring to? What evidence against continental drift are you reading about, and who are the researchers presenting it? I have been studying the continental drift theory since the publication of magnetic striping at the mid-ocean rifts in 1970, and am not aware of any controverting evidence for the concept of seafloor spreading. Alternate theories galore, and I have one of my own, but what evidence can you cite?
Mauritius is not imaginary, however Mauritia is. Mauritius, and the Mascarene Plateau are supposedly remnants of this imaginary land, here is the reconstruction: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14086/figures/1
Evidence of similarities between Africa, India and the Southern Continents was mistakenly used to initially support the idea of Gondwanaland. Discoveries since the early 20th century reveal many of the ‘unique’ Gondwana flora and fauna existed on the Northern Continents. There is evidence that India has never been anywhere else but its current location, moreover, the geology of the region is difficult for Plate Tectonics to explain- except in cartoons, for example: http://www.isaacpub.org/PaperInformation.aspx?ids=9&pid=1125&jqy=Volume%201,%20Number%201,%20November%202016&JShortName=GR
Plate Tectonics in its earliest form posited the existence of 12 plates comprising the Earth’s crust, at the last count it was 52. Tectonists add new plates to account for newly discovered features that require hitherto unknown and imaginary plate motions; so much for the predictive power of the theory.
Thankfully, alternative theories do exist. I lean towards the ideas of Russian geologists, for obvious political reasons the Plate Tectonic hysteria never made it to the former Soviet Union. Russian geologists never experienced the ‘Fear Of Missing Out’ need to publish papers on the subject. Western geologists who published evidence contrary to the consensus found themselves marginalised- today they would be labelled ‘deniers’. I’m interested in the work of V. N. Larin and I. A. Rezanov, see: http://www.ncgt.org/
One area I disagree with the geologists at the New Concepts in Global Tectonics group is that many continue to view the Earth as being essentially isolated from its environment (although there are signs of some changes) hence the requirement for a primordial internal heat source, Earth expansionist see the Earth as a closed system when it is know that Earth is losing material to its environment. I see the relationship between the Earth and its environment as an open system and THE driver of global tectonics.