avs76 Posted January 8, 2007 #1 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Can someone please explain to me how continental drift works without the planet falling apart? What I mean is if, say, the land mass of Africa is moving north, what happens to the south, where it used to be? Do we get underwater volcanoes and such? And if this is the case, wouldn't there be underwater volcanoes in the wake of all land masses that are moving? And what happens at the 'front', the direction in which the continent is moving? What causes these land masses to move? The continents aren't just 'floating' on the earth's crust - are they? I have been reading about the hypothesised 'super-continent' Pangea. All the continents in their present, above-water images would fit together pretty well to form Pangea, but the continents look very different with variations in sea levels. Were sea levels the same at the time of Pangea as they are today? I feel like a dummy as most people seem to be able to grasp this concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carini Posted January 8, 2007 #2 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Can someone please explain to me how continental drift works without the planet falling apart? What I mean is if, say, the land mass of Africa is moving north, what happens to the south, where it used to be? Do we get underwater volcanoes and such? And if this is the case, wouldn't there be underwater volcanoes in the wake of all land masses that are moving? And what happens at the 'front', the direction in which the continent is moving? What causes these land masses to move? The continents aren't just 'floating' on the earth's crust - are they? I have been reading about the hypothesised 'super-continent' Pangea. All the continents in their present, above-water images would fit together pretty well to form Pangea, but the continents look very different with variations in sea levels. Were sea levels the same at the time of Pangea as they are today? I feel like a dummy as most people seem to be able to grasp this concept. Yep the continents are basically just floating. As they move into each other the create mountains like the himalayas and where they move apart they create things like the red sea. Thats an oversimplification, but its the general idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverCougar Posted January 8, 2007 #3 Share Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) Easy to read site... I'm beginning to wonder if earth science is tought in school anymore... Edited January 8, 2007 by SilverCougar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted January 8, 2007 #4 Share Posted January 8, 2007 What I mean is if, say, the land mass of Africa is moving north, what happens to the south, where it used to be? Do we get underwater volcanoes and such? And if this is the case, wouldn't there be underwater volcanoes in the wake of all land masses that are moving? And what happens at the 'front', the direction in which the continent is moving? The continents sit on huge "plates" and it is these plates that are floating. Where plates are moving apart (divergent boundaries) you get volcanoes. As the crust moves apart magma can escape. A good example of this is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Where plates are moving together (convergent boundaries) either the edges of the two place rise up and form mountain ranges (for example the Himalyas) or the edge of one plate is forced under the other (subduction). As the subducted plated is forced into the magma it will melt. The upper plate can have it's edge forced upwards which also causes mountain reanges (for example the Andes). More on this can be found on the US Geological Survey site: Understanding plate motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avs76 Posted January 8, 2007 Author #5 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Thanks all contributors, the links posted were easy to follow and help shed some light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avs76 Posted January 8, 2007 Author #6 Share Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) Easy to read site... I'm beginning to wonder if earth science is tought in school anymore... I don't know about anymore, but when I was at school 15 years ago, we learned a bit about continental drift and such...but I haven't revised about the topic since then. I can remember putting paper cut outs of silhouettes of the continents together so they formed Pangaea (see image below and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea), then broke apart to form Gondwana ("most of the landmasses in today's southern hemisphere, including Antarctica, South America, Africa, Madagascar, Australia-New Guinea, and New Zealand, as well as Arabia and the Indian subcontinent") and Laurasia ("most of modern North America, Baltica, Siberia, Kazakhstania, and the North China and East China Cratons"). (source: Wikipedia sites for Pangaea, Gondwana and Laurasia) The problem I have with this is that the shapes of the continents today would be different to the shapes they had in times past. For example, "the microcontinent of Avalonia, a landmass that would become the northeastern United States, Nova Scotia, and England [by England I assume they mean Britain and Ireland], broke free from Gondwana and began its journey to Laurentia" which "would become North America". However, maps showing tectonic plates don't show any division between "most of North America" and "northeastern United States, Nova Scotia, and England". (see image below and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_plates) Surely there would be evidence of such a division? Why is the Rocky Mountain Range so pronounced when there is no tectonic plate activity where it lies? Why do the continents today look basicly the same as when they formed Pangaea 250 million years ago? Where did some plates come from (e.g. the pacific plate and nazca plate) after the continents split up (e.g. Australia and South America)? Edited January 8, 2007 by avs76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samael Posted January 8, 2007 #7 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Can someone please explain to me how continental drift works without the planet falling apart? What I mean is if, say, the land mass of Africa is moving north, what happens to the south, where it used to be? Do we get underwater volcanoes and such? And if this is the case, wouldn't there be underwater volcanoes in the wake of all land masses that are moving? And what happens at the 'front', the direction in which the continent is moving? What causes these land masses to move? The continents aren't just 'floating' on the earth's crust - are they? I have been reading about the hypothesised 'super-continent' Pangea. All the continents in their present, above-water images would fit together pretty well to form Pangea, but the continents look very different with variations in sea levels. Were sea levels the same at the time of Pangea as they are today? I feel like a dummy as most people seem to be able to grasp this concept. Actually, continental drift is what stops the planet from falling apart. Think of it as crisps (potato chips) on cling film, which is floating on custard. Some of the custard solidifies, adding extra crust to the landmass. If you put a key in between two crisps floating on a single piece of cling film, they drift together. That's kind of like continental drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m. Moe Posted January 8, 2007 #8 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Easy to read site... I'm beginning to wonder if earth science is tought in school anymore... For the most part it is. But whether or not the individual pays attention is the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 8, 2007 #9 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I'm beginning to wonder if earth science is tought in school anymore... It's mandatory in my district unless you test out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 9, 2007 #10 Share Posted January 9, 2007 It's mandatory in my district unless you test out... I saw an article on the state of scientific education in the US in New Scientist, they where graded statte by state and 20 states failed and only 5 got an A (Mass, R.I, N.Y, California and Connecticut) and only 4 got a B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 9, 2007 #11 Share Posted January 9, 2007 It's much more accurate by District For example, Detroit Schools bring all of Michigan down, but we have the best HS in the nation, The International Academy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 9, 2007 #12 Share Posted January 9, 2007 It's much more accurate by District For example, Detroit Schools bring all of Michigan down, but we have the best HS in the nation, The International Academy. Yes but a failing grade for scientific education for a state shows that it has some really educational problems. States like Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkinsas, Texas, Alabama will have problems in university from high school because of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avs76 Posted January 9, 2007 Author #13 Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) For the most part it is. But whether or not the individual pays attention is the question. Obviously, in this case, the individual did not pay attention...man it's hot today...look what's happening outside...sorry, what were you were saying? I kind of lost my train of thought there. Edited January 9, 2007 by avs76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samael Posted January 9, 2007 #14 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Science is definitely taught in my school. And it's easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 9, 2007 #15 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Yes but a failing grade for scientific education for a state shows that it has some really educational problems. The DISTRICT has science problems, not the state. For example, Detroit schools have been closed for weeks because they have no superintendent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor Posted January 9, 2007 #16 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I'm beginning to wonder if earth science is tought in school anymore... Depends what you mean; it's being taught, but whether it's being learnt or not is a different matter, e.g. at my last school only 35% of 14-16 year olds averaged a C or above in 2006. The previous year was even worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverCougar Posted January 10, 2007 #17 Share Posted January 10, 2007 (edited) Depends what you mean; it's being taught, but whether it's being learnt or not is a different matter, e.g. at my last school only 35% of 14-16 year olds averaged a C or above in 2006. The previous year was even worse... I was the bane of my english teachers. Try as hard as they or myself might.. spelling still evaids me. Mostly because dyslexia hounds me. However, It was manditory in my school oh.. about 15.. 16 years ago. I believe it still is, atleast last I checked the teacher was still there. And we learned everything that was up to date back then. We spent a month on continental drift. I loved that class =( Edited January 10, 2007 by SilverCougar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted January 10, 2007 #18 Share Posted January 10, 2007 its unfortunate but in the calif. public schools its not covered either not much, the chartters do offer ti intensely... How can you not know about the planet you live on.....most of the curriculims are based in the 60's and not up to date.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 10, 2007 #19 Share Posted January 10, 2007 In my mind, Earth Science was a blow-off and a waste of time...So I just tested out. Now I know why schools make it mandatory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverCougar Posted January 10, 2007 #20 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Hmm.. yeah. I can see how learning about the Teutonic plates moving, how various rocks are formed along with how fossils are made along with which type of rocks you're most likely to find them in. Not to mention how various islands are formed, how erosion works and how it effects certain areas, how the glacier during the ice age made lakes, islands, and rivers... was a blow off and waist of time. Nope.. nothing good to learn there... not a single thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 10, 2007 #21 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I can see how learning about the Teutonic plates moving, how various rocks are formed along with how fossils are made along with which type of rocks you're most likely to find them in. Not to mention how various islands are formed, how erosion works and how it effects certain areas, how the glacier during the ice age made lakes, islands, and rivers... was a blow off and waist of time. Yes, especially since I got a 96 on the Opt-out test. Now I can take more science classes, like AP Physics and Honors Zoology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now