Thanks Professor. I have a suggestion for a future video. I would like to see a video that shows your opinion of the strength of supporting data for these illustrations. For example, you could rate regions 1-10 for your level of confidence in the supporting data, and assign them a position around a color wheel. I believe an illustration like this could be interesting for the layperson like myself to better understand the current state of this science. Thanks, -Jake
Dear Sir, I can see some major problems with this reconstruction: 1.while the depth of seismic tomography image is falling with time, you should shrink the globe and so this map or let continents extend. Thus we will see the Earth expansion. 2.Stating there's a subduction doesn't make it to be there. There might be some...but what we actually see is upwelling mantle flow (red), delaminated and usually horizontally layered continental lithosphere (blue), sometimes resting below continents as if they never moved from their original position and sometimes forgotten in the middle of Pacific. In certain depths you can find continental lithosphere connected exactly as we think continents were joined (Africa and South America below Southern Atlantic). Why is that? Simply because Earth grew and expanded radially and asymmetrically as described by James Maxlow, Jan Koziar, Giancarlo Scalera and many others. Lithosphere from West coast of both NA and SA delaminated and was swallowed by upwelling mantle in East Pacific. Australia and Antarctica, the same in SE Pacific. Ok you might say there are nice pictures of subduction. No, check once again, there's always continental crust on one side of the trench and what looks like sinking oceanic plate is actually vertically delaminated continental keel. Before you start to be personal or erase this comment, spend some time looking for arguments. I might be wrong...and you can show to everyone how, if so. Anyway, I follow and admire your work for years.
Since tectonic motion is generated below the crust, have palaeogeologists found any correlation between magnetic reversals and motion, or do those reflect even deeper processes?
Ok this time the music works , bravo ! Yet we're this not about subduction zones the sardonicness might be missed-an- the jest fall flat - really keep dancing in mind - goode tunes make you wanna dance ! Press on comrade!
Chris, the way it has been traditionally presented, all landmasses are basically on one side of the planet, moving away from each other, and then coming back. Why? Why can't they just move away to the other side of the globe? So there is always a gigantic Pacific Ocean, just getting bigger and smaller, but always a gigantic no-go zone for th continent. Either explain why not, or this type of reconstructing the past is an "easy way out" of a reconstruction. Which one?
Clarence -- contained in this essay is an answerto your question. www.researchgate.net/publication/323511465_Atlas_of_Future_Plate_Tectonic_Reconstructions_Modern_World_to_Pangea_Proxima_250_Ma
Thanks Chris. That is very helpful. You must have put tons of work and your time into it. Fab. Unfortunately, the atlas too doesnt answer the question I asked since it too shows all continents piled up on one side of the planet, leaving behind a huge Pacific Ocean on the opposite side!! Why?
@@TWOCOWS1 I guess its just convention, taking Greenwich, in our modern day world as an arbitrary midline and reference point. ( 0 longitude ) In reality the continents do move to the other side, but i guess this projection is the best way to represent it. Similarly taking the melting and boiling point at sealevel as 0 and 100C is similarly arbitrary.
Tthere are so many movements and would the Earth have remained the same size since its primordial formation? If so, the Earth would be like a baby that over time became a child, then a teenager, an adult and senile, but remained with the baby's original size at birth. I think geoscientists should review ideas if we want to free ourselves from dogmas and thus advance towards a better understanding of the planet.
I like the music! I'd say - very accurate!
Love it! Have you ever given thought to what may have been operating pre plate tectonics?
Venus-like.
Thanks Professor. I have a suggestion for a future video. I would like to see a video that shows your opinion of the strength of supporting data for these illustrations. For example, you could rate regions 1-10 for your level of confidence in the supporting data, and assign them a position around a color wheel. I believe an illustration like this could be interesting for the layperson like myself to better understand the current state of this science.
Thanks, -Jake
Dear Sir, I can see some major problems with this reconstruction: 1.while the depth of seismic tomography image is falling with time, you should shrink the globe and so this map or let continents extend. Thus we will see the Earth expansion. 2.Stating there's a subduction doesn't make it to be there. There might be some...but what we actually see is upwelling mantle flow (red), delaminated and usually horizontally layered continental lithosphere (blue), sometimes resting below continents as if they never moved from their original position and sometimes forgotten in the middle of Pacific. In certain depths you can find continental lithosphere connected exactly as we think continents were joined (Africa and South America below Southern Atlantic). Why is that? Simply because Earth grew and expanded radially and asymmetrically as described by James Maxlow, Jan Koziar, Giancarlo Scalera and many others. Lithosphere from West coast of both NA and SA delaminated and was swallowed by upwelling mantle in East Pacific. Australia and Antarctica, the same in SE Pacific. Ok you might say there are nice pictures of subduction. No, check once again, there's always continental crust on one side of the trench and what looks like sinking oceanic plate is actually vertically delaminated continental keel. Before you start to be personal or erase this comment, spend some time looking for arguments. I might be wrong...and you can show to everyone how, if so. Anyway, I follow and admire your work for years.
interesting that there was a subduction zone off the coast of California for awhile.
Since tectonic motion is generated below the crust, have palaeogeologists found any correlation between magnetic reversals and motion, or do those reflect even deeper processes?
the latter: the core is what drives magnetism; the tectonics is largely mantle driven.
@@Albukhshi Quite right. Thanks. In other words, drift and magnetic reversals are (almost?) completely disconnected.
Ok this time the music works , bravo ! Yet we're this not about subduction zones the sardonicness might be missed-an- the jest fall flat - really keep dancing in mind - goode tunes make you wanna
dance ! Press on comrade!
Chris, the way it has been traditionally presented, all landmasses are basically on one side of the planet, moving away from each other, and then coming back. Why? Why can't they just move away to the other side of the globe? So there is always a gigantic Pacific Ocean, just getting bigger and smaller, but always a gigantic no-go zone for th continent. Either explain why not, or this type of reconstructing the past is an "easy way out" of a reconstruction. Which one?
Clarence -- contained in this essay is an answerto your question. www.researchgate.net/publication/323511465_Atlas_of_Future_Plate_Tectonic_Reconstructions_Modern_World_to_Pangea_Proxima_250_Ma
Thanks Chris. That is very helpful. You must have put tons of work and your time into it. Fab. Unfortunately, the atlas too doesnt answer the question I asked since it too shows all continents piled up on one side of the planet, leaving behind a huge Pacific Ocean on the opposite side!! Why?
@@TWOCOWS1 I guess its just convention, taking Greenwich, in our modern day world as an arbitrary midline and reference point. ( 0 longitude ) In reality the continents do move to the other side, but i guess this projection is the best way to represent it.
Similarly taking the melting and boiling point at sealevel as 0 and 100C is similarly arbitrary.
Just waiting for you to close the Pacific.
I wish I had a spherical computer monitor.
What world is that
Tthere are so many movements and would the Earth have remained the same size since its primordial formation? If so, the Earth would be like a baby that over time became a child, then a teenager, an adult and senile, but remained with the baby's original size at birth. I think geoscientists should review ideas if we want to free ourselves from dogmas and thus advance towards a better understanding of the planet.
@dominikkatona7386 you lost me at expanding earth. You have no business saying that your opinions are scientifically supported.
Ufjru