Undeniable evidence: Mid Atlantic Ridge hoax

[Avallaine]

I realize you may take exception to this, but it should be noted that plate tectonics is the mechanism by which plates move. Meaning that a plate does not necessarily have to have a continent upon it in order for it to move. The Pacific plate being the largest without an actual continent on it. As noted by Harte in a different thread continents themselves do not move.

cormac

Now, now, no splitting hairs. The continents are just the parts of the plates that stick up where we can see them. No one said anything about a continent being "required" for a plate to move...least of all Wegener, who (like everyone else in his time) could have no idea that "plates" existed.

Wegener had evidence that the continents had moved relative to each other, and he was correct. His evidence was rejected because the scientific consensus of the time was that the continents are fixed in place, immobile. That was just wrong.

Was Copernicus "wrong" because he still included circular orbits and epicycles in his theory? Technically, yes, but no one blames him for that. He may not have been 100.0000% right, but he was certainly more right than anyone else at the time. And so was Wegener.

[cormac mac airt]

Now, now, no splitting hairs. The continents are just the parts of the plates that stick up where we can see them. No one said anything about a continent being "required" for a plate to move...least of all Wegener, who (like everyone else in his time) could have no idea that "plates" existed.

Wegener had evidence that the continents had moved relative to each other, and he was correct. His evidence was rejected because the scientific consensus of the time was that the continents are fixed in place, immobile. That was just wrong.

Was Copernicus "wrong" because he still included circular orbits and epicycles in his theory? Technically, yes, but no one blames him for that. He may not have been 100.0000% right, but he was certainly more right than anyone else at the time. And so was Wegener.

You've obviously never met Mario_Dantas here at UM, who either doesn't understand or purposely ignores how the whole subject of plate tectonics works. You think I'm splitting hairs? He can't even find the head on which they reside, and sadly he's just one of many.

cormac

[stereologist]

No, Wegener's work was correct. The continents did move. "Continental drift" was just a name assigned to phenomenon of movement.

Plate tectonics is the mechanism by which the continents "drift"--a mechanism that Wegener could not produce, which caused the scientists of his day to flat-out reject the massive amounts of geological and fossil evidence he had uncovered, as it violated their preconceived notions of how the earth behaved.

Not true. Wegener's continental drift has the continent adrift and plowing through the oceanic crust as if the continents were boats in an ocean. Plate tectonics is very different and is NOT the mechanism for Wegener's continental drift.

Wegener's continental drift was rejected for valid reasons.

[stereologist]

Now, now, no splitting hairs. The continents are just the parts of the plates that stick up where we can see them. No one said anything about a continent being "required" for a plate to move...least of all Wegener, who (like everyone else in his time) could have no idea that "plates" existed.

Wegener had evidence that the continents had moved relative to each other, and he was correct. His evidence was rejected because the scientific consensus of the time was that the continents are fixed in place, immobile. That was just wrong.

Was Copernicus "wrong" because he still included circular orbits and epicycles in his theory? Technically, yes, but no one blames him for that. He may not have been 100.0000% right, but he was certainly more right than anyone else at the time. And so was Wegener.

I think it is rather clear that you do not understand how Wegener conceived of the continents moving. I'm not splitting hairs because the manner in which he thought that continents moved had left a trail of evidence which was in fact wrong. Other people at the time thought that continents moved relative to each other. That is where the expanding Earth concept came from. This was also the time of land bridge ideas such as Lemuria. In other words, there were lots and lots of ideas about how to explain the fossil and geological evidence.

Wegener was not "certainly more right than anyone else at the time." I read his book and examined it in the context of the geological understanding of the time. The biggest problem for all geologists at that time was that 70% of the Earth's surface was unknown.

[stereologist]

Let's begin with this notion.

The continents are just the parts of the plates that stick up where we can see them.

That's simply not correct. Continents are very different from the crust that composed most of the plates. Continents are less dense than the material composing plates. Continents ride on top of the denser oceanic crust.

To Wegener the oceanic depths were a mystery. He though of the continents as ships plowing through the oceanic crust. He pointed out that the shapes of the continents seemed to match across the Atlantic. Not only did the outlines seem to match, but the geology seemed to match up as if they really had been connected.

A good example that differentiates Wegener's idea from plate tectonics is seen in the archipelago at the southern tip of South America. Wegener saw the continents as ships. As South America plowed across the face of the Earth he imagined that the tip of South America was weak and that pieces broke off leaving a trail of islands. Plate tectonics does not see a continent breaking up that way. Instead the archipelago is due to a plate boundary. According to Wegener those islands should have had evidence of being attached to South America. Plate tectonics suggests that those islands would not be part of South America. The latter is correct.

Also notice how the tip of South America is bent to the right as if the tip were encountering resistance from plowing across the face of the Earth causing the continent of South America to bend.

Edited October 12, 2013 by stereologist

[Avallaine]

Not true. Wegener's continental drift has the continent adrift and plowing through the oceanic crust as if the continents were boats in an ocean. Plate tectonics is very different and is NOT the mechanism for Wegener's continental drift.

Wegener's continental drift was rejected for valid reasons.

I think it is rather clear that you do not understand how Wegener conceived of the continents moving. I'm not splitting hairs because the manner in which he thought that continents moved had left a trail of evidence which was in fact wrong. Other people at the time thought that continents moved relative to each other. That is where the expanding Earth concept came from. This was also the time of land bridge ideas such as Lemuria. In other words, there were lots and lots of ideas about how to explain the fossil and geological evidence.

Wegener was not "certainly more right than anyone else at the time." I read his book and examined it in the context of the geological understanding of the time. The biggest problem for all geologists at that time was that 70% of the Earth's surface was unknown.

Well, he was certainly more right than the "land bridge" theorists, wasn't he? Or are you saying that Pangeia (which Wegener identified and named) is as much a myth as Lemuria?

I know that Wegener didn't really have a strong theory for how or why the continents moved...the idea of continents plowing through the ocean floor, pushed by tidal and centrifugal forces, was the best he could come up with. What he did have was a lot of physical evidence that rock and fossil strata continued across the oceans, as if they had once been part of one formation.

The mistake most scientists of his time made was that, in rejecting his mechanism, they also rejected the evidence that had prompted it. Because they could see that continents could not plough through the ocean floor, they concluded that continents could not move...despite the overwhelming physical evidence that they DID (do) move.

In other words: Wegener's theory of the mechanism of continental movement was rejected for good reason. But Wegener's theory of the fact of continental movement was rejected for very bad reasons. The theory that held sway in its place--that of static continents and land bridges--was wrong on a far more basic level than Wegener's ice-breaker continents...just as the Ptolemaic geocentric model with large epicycles was wrong on a far more basic level than Copernicus's heliocentric model with circular orbits and tiny epicycles.

That's simply not correct. Continents are very different from the crust that composed most of the plates. Continents are less dense than the material composing plates. Continents ride on top of the denser oceanic crust.

I'm sorry, but that's another hair-splitting argument.

I have a sculpture, a resin figure sitting on a crystal base. The resin figure is less dense than the crystal; it "rides" on top of it, attached by some adhesive. It could be removed, if enough force were applied. But they are still parts of the same sculpture.

If that sculpture moved, and a viewer could only see the top of it, they might say "that resin figure moved." I could respond, "You are wrong; it was the chunk of glass moved. The resin figure is not part of it, it just rides on top. Your theory that the resin figure moved is wrong." Except I wouldn't say something so foolish. The resin figure DID move, relative to everything except the base it's attached to.

To be sure, the resin figure moved because it's attached to a base which moved, but the viewer was correctly describing the facts as they perceived them. They were not "wrong" in any real sense--all they lacked were some additional data. If they had had that data, they would have been entirely correct. But that data was not available to them.

A good example that differentiates Wegener's idea from plate tectonics is seen in the archipelago at the southern tip of South America. Wegener saw the continents as ships. As South America plowed across the face of the Earth he imagined that the tip of South America was weak and that pieces broke off leaving a trail of islands. Plate tectonics does not see a continent breaking up that way. Instead the archipelago is due to a plate boundary. According to Wegener those islands should have had evidence of being attached to South America. Plate tectonics suggests that those islands would not be part of South America. The latter is correct.

Yes, the latter is correct...but we only know that based on modern data, and the modern theories developed from it. Wegener was working with the data available to him at the time.

The core issue to his theory was that the continents moved relative to each other; that's what he had the overwhelming evidence for, and that's what he was correct about. His evidence was ignored and he was ridiculed by people who preferred the theory of static continents...which was wrong.

_{Edit: Had to fix my parallel sentence structure.}

Edited October 12, 2013 by Avallaine

[Avallaine]

You've obviously never met Mario_Dantas here at UM, who either doesn't understand or purposely ignores how the whole subject of plate tectonics works. You think I'm splitting hairs? He can't even find the head on which they reside, and sadly he's just one of many.

Well, I'm still new here. I imagine I'll run into UM's more...colorful...members in time, though.

Plate tectonics is one of my interests. I have only an amateur's knowledge, but I do strive to get down the basics. (If and when I ever complete my first fantasy novel, I'll at least know that the landforms on my map are geologically possible. )

[jaylemurph]

You've obviously never met Mario_Dantas here at UM, who either doesn't understand or purposely ignores how the whole subject of plate tectonics works. You think I'm splitting hairs? He can't even find the head on which they reside, and sadly he's just one of many.

cormac

Once, in 1970, Doctor Who talked about "the Great Continental Drift" like it was a one-time thing. You tellin' me the Doctor is /wrong/? 'Cause the Doctor ain't wrong.

--Jaylemurph

[kmt_sesh]

Once, in 1970, Doctor Who talked about "the Great Continental Drift" like it was a one-time thing. You tellin' me the Doctor is /wrong/? 'Cause the Doctor ain't wrong.

--Jaylemurph

Nah, he wasn't wrong. He was trying to keep it simple so the rest of us could understand.

[jaylemurph]

Nah, he wasn't wrong. He was trying to keep it simple so the rest of us could understand.

I don't know why, but that answer makes me want to make you some tea, and possibly twist my ankle whilst running around outside in impractical shoes.

--Jaylemurph