|
|
|
|
| Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover |
David; Believe it or not, I am aware of the information in the article you linked. That's why I mentioned subduction as one of the forces involved. But you will note that tidal forces were not even mentioned in that article. BTW, would you care to elaborate on how the tides could have broken up Pangea? Seems to me they would have kept it together. Roger Follow Ups: ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - David Thomson 07:28:49 - 12/15/2001 (11987) (3) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Roger Hunter 18:31:58 - 12/15/2001 (12027) (1) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - David Thomson 21:39:17 - 12/15/2001 (12035) (1) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Roger Hunter 07:26:17 - 12/16/2001 (12054) (0) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Roger Hunter 15:16:33 - 12/15/2001 (12009) (1) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - David Thomson 17:04:14 - 12/15/2001 (12020) (1) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Roger Hunter 17:51:47 - 12/15/2001 (12025) (1) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - David Thomson 21:48:25 - 12/15/2001 (12037) (1) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Roger Hunter 07:12:48 - 12/16/2001 (12051) (0) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Don In Hollister 08:55:24 - 12/15/2001 (11991) (1) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Billion Watts 09:27:46 - 12/15/2001 (11994) (2) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - 2cents 15:12:49 - 12/15/2001 (12008) (0) ● Re: Convection cannot be prime tectonic mover - Don In Hollister 09:58:17 - 12/15/2001 (11998) (0) |
|
|
|
|
