CharlesChandler wrote:Aardwolf wrote:Earth expansion does explain mountains. If you take a flat piece of land at a specific curvature then flatten that curvature the top layer of land will fold like a concertina along the weakest point.
But why wouldn't the crust also rift at the weakest point, separating the plates instead of scrunching them together?
The continent crust is much thicker than the ocean crust. The pressure from expansion is already relieving itself at the rifts. The pressure within the continents caused by flattening crumples at the weakest point
of the continent not the weakest point of the entire global crust. However, new rifts within continents are possible hence the East African rift.
CharlesChandler wrote:Still, if we take a close look at the geologic features, the expectations of the EEH are not met. We'd expect mid-ocean ridges between all of the continents,
Why do we expect them to be all
mid-ocean? The East African rift isn't even in an ocean.
CharlesChandler wrote:and we wouldn't expect any of the plates to be converging -- they should all be diverging. And yet the evidence for converging plates is unmistakable (thanks to GPS measurements).
Do you have data for this? And a theory as to how exactly that would even be measured?
CharlesChandler wrote:So why isn't there a mid-ocean ridge in the Pacific Basin? The one in the Atlantic is quite clearly defined, while the ones in the Pacific are small and irregular. And the Asian plate is converging with the Pacific plate.
Again, why central and where's evidence for convergence?
CharlesChandler wrote:This is where Shock Dynamics pulls ahead, because Fischer looked quite closely at all of these features, and showed that there is really only one model that accounts for all of it -- that everything is moving away from Madagascar, where there is an impact crater.
So it must be able to explain what direction the African and Antarctic plates are heading. So what direction are the African and Antarctic plates heading?