🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <648@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk>  (Bennett) writes:
>
>There is a problem with tectonic plate theory and continental drift due to the
>conservation of energy. Consider the theory that the Himalayas are caused by
>the Indian plate hitting the Asiatic plate. A substantial amount of potential
>energy is generated in raising the Himalayas, which has presumably come from
>the kinetic energy of the Indian plate. Given we can work out the kinetic
>energy of the plate, we can calculate the height of the mountains this would
>raise if converted to potential energy with 100% efficiency. Although the
>Indian plate is large it moves exceedingly slowly (a few centimetres a year at
>most).  Calculation would suggest that within an order of magnitude the
>Himalayas should be one millimetre high. Observation refutes this. At least in
>this case continental drift is not a good model.

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT

If I push a cart with my hand, does it get all its energy from
the kinetic energy of my hand???

It gets its energy from what drives the motion of my hand.

Same for plates. I have seen a couple of proposals for driving energy for
plate motion.

Ex.: Potential energy as the plate moves down from the
mid-ocean ridge crest (where it is formed) and then gets subducted into
the mantle. It has been proposed that the subducting end falling into
the mantle (it is heavier, mostly because it's colder) creates the
plate motion by pulling the plate down.

Ex.: Mantle convection. Upwelling at ridge crests, downwelling near
subduction zones, energy driven by internal heat of the Earth.

    ridge
    crest         subduction
      ->>>>>>>>>>>>   zone
     ^            \/
     ^            \/
     ^            \/
     ^            \/
     <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

			Bob Myers