Why is there no comprehensive 3d model of the Plate Tectonics theory? - and why no one can make one

[BlueCollarConcept]

 

Hello everyone. 

It has been more than a century since the foundations of the Plate Tectonics theory were laid. Yet, to this day, there is no all inclusive model of it.

These days, even enthusiast can produce computer generated models of highly complex mechanisms. Car engines, Jet engines, Turbines and prototypes of any kind.

So why is it that no one can produce 3d model of the Plate Tectonics mechanism?

If you tried to make one you would immediately run into a very unexpected problem - There is no theory!

As i understand, there is a certain limit to file size i can upload here. for that reason only and with your permission i will provide the link to a youtube video where I try to explain the problems with Plate Tectonics and possible solutions. I invite you to share your thoughts.

url removed

 

 

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

with your permission i will provide the link to a youtube video where I try to explain the problems with Plate Tectonics and possible solutions

!

Moderator Note

From rule 2.7 (emphasis added)

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.

 

37 minutes ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

So why is it that no one can produce 3d model of the Plate Tectonics mechanism?

How much of an effect is there in the radial direction?

[BlueCollarConcept]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

oderator Note

From rule 2.7 (emphasis added)

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.

Hello Swansont. Yes, the rule is well understood and no intention to spam the thread here. However, the post relies heavily on 3d modeling ( visualizing ) and would be otherwise incomplete and difficult to explain in words

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

Hello Swansont. Yes, the rule is well understood and no intention to spam the thread here. However, the post relies heavily on 3d modeling ( visualizing ) and would be otherwise incomplete and difficult to explain in words

I feel sure you should be able to explain, in words, your assertion that “there is no theory”. 

[studiot]

7 hours ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

So why is it that no one can produce 3d model of the Plate Tectonics mechanism?

If you tried to make one you would immediately run into a very unexpected problem - There is no theory!

I usually say "it's complicated", but in theis case a simple question deserves a simple answer.

The clue is in the word 'plate'  -- Which refers to two dimensional objects.

See for instance the classic work

 

The theory of Plates and Shells

Timoshenko and Goodier.

Edited October 4 by studiot

[BlueCollarConcept]

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

feel sure you should be able to explain, in words, your assertion that “there is no theory”

Hello Exchemist

 "there is no theory" means I couldn't find one

If there was one I assume  someone should be able to provide a link to it .Yes, there are bits and pieces all over the place but they are for the most part useless and even contradictory to each other. Lets put it this way, if you wanted to review the Plate tectonics theory, how would you do it?

If you noticed, even here in fringe science and speculation forum there are certain standards that should be met. Moderator immediately reminded that one should be able to describe what one is trying to say. Others shouldn't have to go different places to try and figure it out.

So how about actual scientists?- should there not be a comprehensive description of their theory?

[zapatos]

33 minutes ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

If there was one I assume  someone should be able to provide a link to it .

Here is a nice overview of the theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

[sethoflagos]

11 hours ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

So why is it that no one can produce 3d model of the Plate Tectonics mechanism?

No-one? How about Tectonic Explorer?

I can make no qualified judgment of its correspondence to reality, but it is fun to play with.

Quote

About: Tectonic Explorer

Geologists use models to explore the mechanisms and physical processes that shape Earth’s surface. This model allows you to explore how the movement of tectonic plates and their interactions shape a planet’s surface features, such as mountains, trenches, and volcanoes. The tectonic mechanisms in this model are similar to the forces that continue to shape Earth today.

First, choose between the Plate Tectonics and the Plate Tectonics Plus Rock Formation versions of the Tectonic Explorer. The Plate Tectonics version features tectonic plate interactions with a synced cross-section. The Plate Tectonics Plus Rock Formation version includes an exploration of rock distribution and the environments in which different rock types form.

Use the Planet Wizard to set up a model planet. Select the number of plates, draw continents, assign forces to the plates, and change the plate densities. Click the play button to see how the plates interact with each other. How do density differences affect plate interactions?

Click the play button to see how tectonic plates interact with each other. Rotate the planet to see what’s happening on the other side. How does the surface change as plates interact?

Make a cross-section to see a three-dimensional view of a region below the surface. How do interactions at the surface of the model planet reflect what is happening below the surface? Use this model to gain an understanding of how tectonic forces on Earth’s crust caused by plate movements have changed Earth’s surface features over time.

Your notion that earth's continental crust was formed on the dark side of a tidally-locked planet that was subsequently spun up by 'space-whips' is not supported by the geological record. Counter evidence just on geological grounds include ancient deltaic tidal rhythmite deposits etc 

[studiot]

31 minutes ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

Hello Exchemist

 "there is no theory" means I couldn't find one

If there was one I assume  someone should be able to provide a link to it .Yes, there are bits and pieces all over the place but they are for the most part useless and even contradictory to each other. Lets put it this way, if you wanted to review the Plate tectonics theory, how would you do it?

If you noticed, even here in fringe science and speculation forum there are certain standards that should be met. Moderator immediately reminded that one should be able to describe what one is trying to say. Others shouldn't have to go different places to try and figure it out.

So how about actual scientists?- should there not be a comprehensive description of their theory?

 

If you were not bent on criticising others you might be more prepared to discuss the subject that apparantly interests you.

That involves replying to those who have bothered to answer you.

What do you want from yhis three dimensional model ?

 

Remember a model is not the territory it is an attempt to represent one or more characteristics of the 'real thing' only.

Obviously one (those much criticised scientists) will choose a characteristics that are of interest and ignore or only treat lightly the rest.

 

For example here is a model that studies the effect of plate tectonics on organic evolution.

 

[exchemist]

45 minutes ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

Hello Exchemist

 "there is no theory" means I couldn't find one

If there was one I assume  someone should be able to provide a link to it .Yes, there are bits and pieces all over the place but they are for the most part useless and even contradictory to each other. Lets put it this way, if you wanted to review the Plate tectonics theory, how would you do it?

If you noticed, even here in fringe science and speculation forum there are certain standards that should be met. Moderator immediately reminded that one should be able to describe what one is trying to say. Others shouldn't have to go different places to try and figure it out.

So how about actual scientists?- should there not be a comprehensive description of their theory?

There are countless  books on it and numerous summaries on the internet. If you couldn’t find one you must be either an idiot or someone trying to redefine “theory” in a way that excludes the available descriptions. I don’t know which it is. It seems to me the onus is on you to show you are not the former of the two. 😄

[BlueCollarConcept]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

usually say "it's complicated", but in theis case a simple question deserves a simple answer.

The clue is in the word 'plate'  -- Which refers to two dimensional objects.

Hello Studiot

nothing really "complicated" about it

Look at it this way; A sphere is broken up into 15 pieces, all you have to do is to show how they are moving relative to each other. And I mean all of them

Again, people can 3d model extremely complex mechanisms. This should be a piece of cake

There are thousands upon thousands of geologists and its been a century, yet they can not produce this

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

Hello Studiot

nothing really "complicated" about it

Look at it this way; A sphere is broken up into 15 pieces, all you have to do is to show how they are moving relative to each other. And I mean all of them

Again, people can 3d model extremely complex mechanisms. This should be a piece of cake

There are thousands upon thousands of geologists and its been a century, yet they can not produce this

Rubbish.

A sphere is a two dimensional object.

 

If you want to ask questions please do so but stop criticising what you clearly do not understand.

Also 'should' is not a scientific term.

Edited October 4 by studiot

[TheVat]

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/plate-tectonics/

Various aspects of the theory deal with processes that happen in three dimensions, e.g. molten rock rising from the asthenosphere.  3D mechanisms are very much part of the theory.

[exchemist]

51 minutes ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

Hello Studiot

nothing really "complicated" about it

Look at it this way; A sphere is broken up into 15 pieces, all you have to do is to show how they are moving relative to each other. And I mean all of them

Again, people can 3d model extremely complex mechanisms. This should be a piece of cake

There are thousands upon thousands of geologists and its been a century, yet they can not produce this

You seem to be ignoring the continual creation of new lithosphere at constructive plate margins and the disappearance of old lithosphere at subduction zones. It's far from a matter of just moving fixed shapes around on the surface of a sphere.  

As for geologists being supposedly unable to do simulations, what do you think all these search results are about?: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=plate+tectonics+simulation&t=osx&ia=web 

 

[BlueCollarConcept]

Hello TheVat and Exchemist

Images you provide are small and separate segments of the theory, which is something I emphasize in my video. Problem is they don't work as a whole.

Lets put it this way, if one was to pay an engineer to model this mechanism as whole, he could not do it. and He could not do it because the main condition would be to conform to the laws of physics

 

[exchemist]

24 minutes ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

Hello TheVat and Exchemist

Images you provide are small and separate segments of the theory, which is something I emphasize in my video. Problem is they don't work as a whole.

Lets put it this way, if one was to pay an engineer to model this mechanism as whole, he could not do it. and He could not do it because the main condition would be to conform to the laws of physics

 

By “model” you seem to mean a computer simulation.
 

But there are huge numbers of theories in science where the factors involved are too complex to permit computer simulations to be useful. That does not mean there is “no theory”, as you put it. It just means quantitative calculation is either not possible or not worth the effort.

[iNow]

It seems clear the intent here is drive views to a video, not to learn, engage, or correct misunderstandings. 

[exchemist]

Just now, iNow said:

It seems clear the intent here is drive views to a video, not to learn, engage, or correct misunderstandings. 

Certainly looks like it. 

[studiot]

I am reporting this video as it contains so many fallacies I couldn't count them all.

 

So here are a quick few

 

Why is Mars shown bigger than the Earth ans quite a lot bigger than Venus ?

Where did the varous constituent elements of the planets come from ?
The video say 'fusion induced by proximity to the Sun' 
The planets were apparantly derived from gas plasma balls ejected by the Sun.
So what is the fusion pathway involved ?

The american cordillera is ascribed be created as a mid pacific ridge.

So why are all the rocks of the wrong type?

And so on.

At the end of the video other crank videos such as viruses came before life.
Yet viruses require life to replicate?

 

I agree this is just advertising the OPs You Tube panel.

 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

Look at it this way; A sphere is broken up into 15 pieces, all you have to do is to show how they are moving relative to each other. And I mean all of them

Again, I ask how important is radial movement? 

[Externet]

Now a story...   When I was like 12,  saw at a construction site they were doing some masonry/concrete work and a bucket of water received cement dust on its water surface.   Later, the surface with the cement powder layer floating on the water became a two dimensional layer of hardened plates that when someone touched the bucket, or wind, or a flint fell in it, the 'surface plates' cracked, separated, mounted on top of the one next to it, collided, sunk...   

Found it interesting at that age to learn the effect that later related as 'tectonic plates' movement, understanding it well.

[zapatos]

10 hours ago, BlueCollarConcept said:

If there was one I assume  someone should be able to provide a link to it .

Were you able to take a look at the summary of the theory you asked for?

[BlueCollarConcept]

On 10/4/2024 at 5:54 PM, swansont said:

Again, I ask how important is radial movement? 

it is important. Plate tectonics would be impossible otherwise

From what I can tell, many forum members are up in arms because they perceive this post as some sort of Plate Tectonics denial. That's not the case. Plate tectonics are real and they work. But they work for the oceanic crust only. That's because  oceanic and continental crusts are separate layers of lithosphere, they are very different in many ways and in my video I try to explain how that happened.

[zapatos]

Were you able to take a look at the summary of the theory you asked for?

[BlueCollarConcept]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Were you able to take a look at the summary of the theory you asked for?

Hello Zapatos

Off course. I used some images from there. That is a Wikipedia page about Plate tectonics