Earth Rotation in Plate Tectonics

Fig.1.  Tomographic sectional view of orthogonal configuration of higher (blue) and lower (purple-pink) density distributions of mass within the mantle .   Configuration relates mantle dynamics to the scale and symmetry of the Earth's differentiated shells and the planet's spin far more than it does to the much smaller scale and 'displaced' symmetry of subduction zones.

 

---

 

"Plates move at the surface of Earth, but we still do not know what energy source accounts for plate tectonics. ..........    ..........   The main energy seems to come from Earth’s cooling and associated mantle convection. Earth’s rotation however seems to contribute as well, both in terms of direction of plate motions, and possibly also in terms of energy."
 

"Plates move faster in the Equatorial and tropical areas than in the Polar Regions, suggesting that the movement is controlled in some way by Earth's rotation, at least in terms of direction.

"...Lateral heterogeneities in the asthenospheric viscosity are a possible mechanism to justify this phenomenon, although its real causes are not yet fully understood. (It might for example be related to Earth's rotation.)"

" The energetic contribution of the Earth's rotation is still controversial, in spite of the westward drift of the lithosphere."  ( e.g. )
 

" ...none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. Plates appear to follow a main  stream, both now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonal shape. Earth's  rotation is also able to generate a possible polarity in the kinematics of the cores, mantle, and lithosphere, a sort of railway path."

"The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle. Mantle convection models show the uprise and sinking of the mantle with fixed cells, with steady vertical plumes and polygonal shapes in an horizontal view; plate tectonics rather show linear features at the surface, and plate boundaries moving one respect to the other, and unstable. These tectonics are erroneously linked to horizontally moving uprising plumes and subduction zones, which are not predicted by physical convection models. In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics. A more robust contribution of the Earth's rotation in combination with mantle convection could be envisaged."

Doglioni C. & Sabadini R. (2003): Mantle dynamics and plate kinematics. In Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, www.eolss.net.

---

 

You can see in the quotes above how Doglioni and Sabadini are reaching towards incorporating the Earth's spin in mantle dynamics.  However you can also see their dilema when publication is only possible through the lingo of plate-speak, when convectional  and rotational models are mutually exclusive, and when whatever is said has to be framed within the context of consensus acceptance of plate tectonics.  The evidence that supports the Earth's rotation unambiguously negates convection so publications will forever be locked in obfuscating conundrums until some child says, .."But loOok, ...the King is naked,  he has nothing on at all!"   In other words, when it is realised that there is no justification whatsoever for plate tectonics beyond the gratuitous assumptions that underpin it, namely the gratuitious choice of subduction in place of its obvious logical alternative 'overriding', and the assumption of Panthalassa.   Simply on grounds of scale and location alone it is nonsense to suggest that the interior mechanics of the planet is driven by subduction - the configurations depicted from tomography completely preclude any notion of convection under spreading ridges (Doglioni and Sabadini link above).  Clearly we are looking at a  symmetry and scale of mass distribution that is related to a configuration of planetary 'shells' and their decoupling, where large amounts of lower density material appear to be 'spalling off' the liquid external core.

The point has been made elsewhere on this site: when the role of spin in the Earth's deformation is fully recognised then expansion follows axiomatically.    The two are hand-in-glove, ...opposite sides of the same deformational coin.  If we take the direct route of what-we-see-is-what-we-get, then expansion is obvious even to a child - the crust has been distended to the extent of the ocean floors.  If we take the more indirect route of recognising the global torsion and retrofits on transforms, the model still leads to expansion.  So Earth expansion is a 'lay-down misere' whichever way we look at it.   And this is obvious, ..probably even to academics.  But professionally speaking they have painted themselves into a corner.   They can do little about it, short of hari - kiri.   If they  drop convection,  they earn rejection.
 
 

But don't worry boys, ..we read you  (citations above).  Loud and clear.  So keep going, .. God may Save the King, but nothing can save Plate Tectonics..

This page posted March, 2005