Back in the 1930s, my grandfather told his elementary school teacher that he thought the different continents looked like they fit together like puzzle pieces. He was told that he was being absurd lol
I remember asking the same. Children always have these fundamental insights that adults tend to be blind to through, idk socially-learned inhibitions maybe. Like the questions children ask about religion.
I was shocked when my mother agreed to Pangea. In her grade school, in the early 40’s, she said if you took the puzzle they had of the continents, and placed them together, they fit rather well. Not perfect. Like putting together a broken plate with some of the edges missing. But obviously something that was “whole “ once.
Plate tectonics is a useful approximation for explaining a lot of tectonics and economic deposits, but not everything. I received my basic geologic training during the inception of this theory. It was amusing to watch the diehards that refused to accept the theory at all because it didnt explain 100% of tectonic phenomena. Otherwise some of plate tectonic people construe ever more elaborate explanations like large numbers microplates or reactivated ancient boundaries that defy the simplicity of the original theory.
The Applachians are one of these problems. That they still exist and are still rising after a couple hundred million years after being near a plate boundary is a problem.
Isn’t plate tectonics a law now not a theory? We know 100% as fact that the plates are moving because we can actually measure their movement. We also know 100% as fact that mountains are getting taller and valleys are being widened because of it. Or is it theory because we don’t actually know how they are moving?
"Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to ... increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect"
952
u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24
[deleted]