[Bikini Polaris]

What FE maps actually comply with the tectonic plates composition? For example, what are the maps such that South America and Africa can be put one aside the other fitting like a jigsaw puzzle? Apparently the standard monopole model doesn't show that, as the two continents don't look like fitting together at all, but other may do, like the bipolar model. Any other one?

[Pete Svarrior]

For example, what are the maps such that South America and Africa can be put one aside the other fitting like a jigsaw puzzle?

Notably, this should never be the case, and is not the case in RET. You're asking us if there are any maps which conform to an urban myth, and the answer should be "no".

Also, this is not what FEI is for.

[ChrisTP]

Pangaea is an urban myth? I mean I know it's yet to be a proven fact but the map does show evidence of continental drift. I'll admit I kind of assumed it was the more popular theory. It seems to make sense and we've seen in our lifetime costlines changing and shifting from earthquakes. We also obviously have evidence of the tectonic plates which do move about (hence earthquakes).

[GreatATuin]

We also have fossil evidence: https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Plate-Tectonics/Chap1-Pioneers-of-Plate-Tectonics/Alfred-Wegener/Fossil-Evidence-from-the-Southern-Hemisphere

[Bikini Polaris]

Notably, this should never be the case, and is not the case in RET. You're asking us if there are any maps which conform to an urban myth, and the answer should be "no".

Regarding tectonic plates here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes it is written:

"The Flat Earth's crust is made up of huge slabs called plates, which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle."

So I'm asking if this important bit of information is used to discern the likelihood of a map with respect to another one (some maps are wildly different from others, see: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps) . For example, as GreatATuin is suggesting, if we know that two continents have similar fossils, we can increase the likelihood they were quite close in the past, and that would give the burden of proof back to maps where such continents are too far apart.

It would be just a nice Occam's Razor tool in the toolbox.

[Tom Bishop]

The coastlines of the continents only vaguely fit together. Fossil evidence could be explained by migration.

Have the continents ever been physically measured to move? If the continents can move at a rate of 'one to two inches per year', this is theoretically measurable by a 'set and forget it' experiment of some manner. There should at least be a screw which snapped on a fence on a fault line somewhere connecting the continents.

If there is no direct physical evidence of movement, we know how credible that theory is. Don't you think with the hundreds of universities and thousands of people interested in plate tectonics, that they would have attempted to find such direct evidence?

Since we have not heard about it, we should assume that they were unsuccessful with their experiments. We know that they attempt to test everything. Negative experiments are instantly justified by "oh that could be explained by xx" and often go unreported. They want a positive experiment, not a negative one. The key to science is what they are not telling you. We must accept nothing less than direct evidence.

[Pete Svarrior]

Pangaea is an urban myth?

No.

"The Flat Earth's crust is made up of huge slabs called plates, which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle."

Continents and tectonic plates are not one and the same. The question, specifically, asserted that South America and Africa "can be put one aside the other fitting like a jigsaw puzzle". This is not the case.

[JSS]

The coastlines of the continents only vaguely fit together. Fossil evidence could be explained by migration.

Have the continents ever been physically measured to move? If the continents can move at a rate of 'one to two inches per year', this is theoretically measurable by a 'set and forget it' experiment of some manner. There should at least be a screw which snapped on a fence on a fault line somewhere connecting the continents.

If there is no direct physical evidence of movement, we know how credible that theory is. Don't you think with the hundreds of universities and thousands of people interested in plate tectonics, that they would have attempted to find such direct evidence?

Since we have not heard about it, we should assume that they were unsuccessful with their experiments. We know that they attempt to test everything. Negative experiments are instantly justified by "oh that could be explained by xx" and often go unreported. They want a positive experiment, not a negative one. The key to science is what they are not telling you. We must accept nothing less than direct evidence.

Just because you haven't looked for any evidence or are ignoring it doesn't mean it does not exist.

There are a lot of large scale projects measuring the movement of tectonic plates some of which have been running for decades.  GPS based, satellite laser ranging and even using the VLSI telescope array to measure the movement of all the telescopes relative to each other.  And they all agree with each other. So yes, thousands of people HAVE thought of measuring the movement and they did, and are still doing it. Lots of time.  For years. Using many different methods.

Frankly, I feel like I'm being trolled here, how can you possibly honestly say that nobody has ever tried to measure it, did you not even spend 15 seconds to look? I'd love to know how long you spent researching this subject before declaring that nobody ever tried to measure it.

If you want even more direct evidence, I've seen the the San Andreas Fault with my own eyes when I lived in California. It's real. You could go visit yourself if you wanted.

You can also see with your own eyes that fault line, and how large features on one side are offset on the other.  Heck, there is an entire ancient volcano that is split right in half and is now far apart for the large scale, and for small scale there are roads and buildings being slowly ripped apart.

Here is a curb that has photos taken of it over the years, from a town called Parkfield that straddles the fault line.  It has countless other interesting buildings and bridges and structures you can observe with your own eyes, it's fascinating.



Earlier you mentioned wanting to see evidence of a fence with a screw being pulled out?  How's this, way more than just a screw has moved here.

[AATW]

The coastlines of the continents only vaguely fit together.

Well sure, there's hundreds of millions of years of erosion and changing sea levels. But they're close enough to indicate that it probably isn't just coincidence.

Fossil evidence could be explained by migration.

Migration. Across oceans? How do you think that would work?
And it's not just animal fossils, there are things like fern fossils which are found on both sides of what is now an ocean.
And mountain ranges continue across where we now think areas would have once been joined.

Have the continents ever been physically measured to move?

Yes.

https://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/structure/dynamicearth/plates_move/active_tectonics/index.htm

[JRowe]

'Either plates don't move at all or the continents should fit together like a jigsaw' is about as blatant a false dichotomy as you can get.

[Tom Bishop]

Those images are interesting, and anecdotal, but not really sufficient as scientific evidence of plate movement. If they are on earthquake fault lines one could easily say that the earthquakes shifted those areas over time, not constant perpetual movement of plates. Have you never seen a foundation of a building shift, splinter, or crack after an earthquake? A more in depth study would be required as to the cause of those shifts.

A desert road shifted from the 1992 Landers earthquake:



I found a shift! Is this, therefore, proof that it was caused by a constant perpetual movement of plates?

No.

The University of Leeds website that was shared above says that they have a difficult time measuring it: "Direct measurement of plate motions is difficult."

The link seems to go on to talk about "some approaches" which are being used, but the results are not shared. If it was known and measured these websites would be saying "plate movement was demonstrated by x experiment in 19xx" at the very top of their pages, not "measurement is difficult, here are some approaches that are being used."

If a science source is not referencing direct experimental evidence, it's just theory imagination.

Worse than that, if a science source is claiming that people have been trying to measure it for ages, but isn't presenting the required evidence, it means that those people tried and failed.

Arguing about fossils is indirect evidence since we don't fully know the conditions of Earth in the past (lower oceans, frozen oceans, higher land ridges, etc).

[JSS]

Those images are interesting, and anecdotal, but not really sufficient as scientific evidence of plate movement. If they are on earthquake fault lines one could easily say that the earthquakes shifted those areas over time, not constant perpetual movement of plates. Have you never seen a foundation of a building shift, splinter, or crack after an earthquake? A more in depth study would be required as to the cause of those shifts.

I gave you the name of the town so you could go visit and see for yourself, so if pictures are not enough for you then that is not my problem and nothing I can say is going to fix it.  Get a plane ticket and go investigate.

As for earthquakes, you DO understand what causes them?  Tectonic plates shifting.  What do you think earthquakes are?

All your questions have been studied and answered in detail from years and years of observations, it's all out there if you wish to look it up, or go visit sites and do your own observations. Build fences over a dozen fault lines and come back in 10 years and see what happened.

[Tom Bishop]

You showed us some random pictures of things shifting on the ground and declared that it's proof of constant movement of the plates. What kind of proof is that? You are ignoring that things are seen to shift for other reasons. You should show evidence of this constant movement directly, rather than provide anecdotal information.

You tell me to prove you wrong, while ignoring that science admits that providing evidence of this constant movement is difficult and references no experimental evidence in favor of such. Science provides evidence that it does not occur by providing no experimental evidence for this, despite searching for it over the years.

Explore what they are not telling you. People were searching for direct evidence of this since the inception of the theory. If there was direct evidence, it would be referenced at the very top of all of the science information sources on this subject -- Duh.

[JSS]

You showed us some random pictures of things shifting on the ground and declared that it's proof of constant movement of the plates. What kind of proof is that? You are ignoring that things are seen to shift for other reasons. You should show evidence of this constant movement directly, rather than provide anecdotal information.

I have you pictures, and enough information to look up the science behind it.  You act like the only evidence that exists in the entire world is two pictures. There are thousands of papers you could read, thousands of locations you could visit. Your big retort is that scientists said something was hard to research? Wow. Hard things take effort, imagine that.

You keep demanding 'proof' but never explain what that is.  What 'direct proof' of tectonic motion you would accept?

[Tom Bishop]

I would accept that there is scientific evidence for this motion if you can find a science information source on the subject that references experimental evidence showing it. You are asking us to ASSUME that this evidence exists.

The last link from Leeds only referenced increasingly elaborate approaches people are using to try to find it, rather than experimental results which would have been presented on that page if it was in favor of the theory.

If there was evidence those experiments would be presented and referenced in these articles as a feature, not hidden away, and which we must assume to exist somewhere. It is very unfulfilling that we must assume that experimental evidence exists for something, rather than having it presented to us.

If this is part of the 'mountains of evidence' for Mainstream, those mountains appear nowhere in sight. This isn't even about FE or RE. It's just about standards of evidence. My standard is that you have to at least reference it in a discussion, and not wave your hands around and plead with others to assume that it exists.

[JSS]

I would accept that there is scientific evidence for this motion if you can find a science information source on the subject that references experimental evidence showing it. You are asking us to ASSUME that this evidence exists.

Ok, there are several methods currently in use.

One uses the VLBI radio telescope network which can track the position of each telescope with millimeter precision.  Here is an abstract of one article discussing the method and the data collected.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0040195193902248

Another way is to use GPS. And yet another is to bounce lasers off of reflectors on other satellites.  Here is some information on both of those.

https://cddis.nasa.gov/docs/2009/HTS_0910.pdf

[gurnb]

What about the Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO, 2003-2018) that use(d) GPS to measure tectonic plate movement?

[Tom Bishop]

Space radio telescopes and Space GPS is evidence, sure. I do consider that to be evidence.

About VLBI:

https://space-geodesy.nasa.gov/techniques/VLBI.html

Over its 40-year history of development and operation, the space geodetic technique called very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) has provided an unprecedented record of the motions of the solid Earth. VLBI is unique in its ability to define an inertial reference frame and to measure the Earth's orientation in this frame. Changes in the Earth's orientation in inertial space have two causes: the gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon and the redistribution of total angular momentum among the solid Earth, ocean, and atmosphere. VLBI makes a direct measurement of the Earth's orientation in space from which geoscientists then study such phenomena as atmospheric angular momentum, ocean tides and currents, and the elastic response of the solid Earth.

VLBI is a geometric technique; it measures the time difference between the arrival at two Earth-based antennas of a radio wavefront emitted by a distant quasar. Using large numbers of time difference measurements from many quasars observed with a global network of antennas, VLBI determines the inertial reference frame defined by the quasars and simultaneously, the precise positions of the antennas. Because the time difference measurements are precise to a few picoseconds, VLBI determines the relative positions of the antennas to a few millimeters and the quasar positions to fractions of a milliarcsecond. Since the antennas are fixed to the Earth, their locations track the instantaneous orientation of the Earth in the inertial reference frame. Relative changes in the antenna locations from a series of measurements indicate tectonic plate motion, regional deformation, and local uplift or subsidence.

The heritage of VLBI is 40 years of NASA-led technology development that included the highly successful Crustal Dynamics Project, during which the first contemporary measurements of tectonic plate motion were made. Today VLBI observations, analysis and development are coordinated by the International VLBI Service for Geodesy and Astrometry (IVS), comprising some 80 components (including 45 antennas) sponsored by 40 organizations located in 20 countries. The IVS Coordinating Center is located at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenblet, MD. VLBI determines with unequaled accuracy the terrestrial reference frame (antenna locations on the Earth), the International Celestial Reference Frame (quasar positions on the sky), and Earth's orientation in space. In the future, VLBI development will continue in measurement systems technology, research on the neutral atmosphere, and integration with other space geodetic techniques.

VLBI is a valuable asset in NASA's mission of science-driven technology leadership. Earth science research requires VLBI's Earth orientation data coupled to a stable, accurate terrestrial reference frame.

About the Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_Boundary_Observatory

The Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO) was the geodetic component of the EarthScope Facility. EarthScope was an earth science program that explored the 4-dimensional structure of the North American Continent.[1] EarthScope (and PBO) was a 15-year project (2003-2018) funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in conjunction with NASA.

...PBO precisely measured Earth deformation resulting from the constant motion of the Pacific and North American tectonic plates in the western United States.

...PBO measured Earth deformation through a network of instrumentation including: high-precision Global Positioning System (GPS) and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers, strainmeters, seismometers, tiltmeters, and other geodetic instruments.

But why is it that only NASA can seem to prove it?

Here is a story:

https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/oreskes_science_and_public_policy.pdf

From continental drift to plate tectonics: the proof of moving continents?

When Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912 as  a  unifying  theory  of  earth  sciences,  he  also  provided abundant evidence of it (Wegener, 1912, 1915, 1924, 1929). Besides  the  obvious  “jigsaw-puzzle”  fit  of  the  continents,data from paleontology, stratigraphy, and paleoclimatology strongly  suggested  that  the  continents  had  once  been  unified, then broken apart, and drifted into their present configurations. Despite cavils over the details of the data by some specialists, most of this evidence was broadly accepted as factual by earth scientists, and had been used by other scientists to support alternative explanatory frameworks (Marvin, 1973; Le Grand, 1988; Oreskes, 1999). Despite widespread acceptance of the bulk of the evidence and widespread discussion  of  the  theory,  continental  drift  was  generally  regarded as unproven. What would have constituted proof?

Wegener’s own answer was the direct measurement of continental motion. His inference about drift was abductive—the observed phenomena would be expected if continental drift were true—but the resistance of many geologists led Wegener to conclude that indirect reasoning was insufficient. One needed direct proof. One needed to see the thing happening. Happily, geodetic measurements in Greenland seemed to reveal a westward drift, and Wegener planned to take further measurements in a return trip in 1929–1930.Unfortunately he died on that expedition (Greene, 2004).

Wegener’s conclusion was not idiosyncratic; others also believed  that  direct  measurement  of  continental  motions constituted the definitive test. In 1926, a group of international scientists organized the Worldwide Longitude Operation  to  prove  or  disprove  continental  drift  by  measuring inter-continental  distances  through  radio  wave  transmission  times.  While  the  scientists  involved  were  admirably patient,  after  a  decade  the  results  were  still  inconclusive (Oreskes,  1999;  Dick,  2003).  Then  global  political  events made further work impossible.

In the late 1950s, the question of crustal motions was reexamined. In the mid 1960s plate tectonics became the unifying theory of earth sciences,  and  moving  continents became established scientific fact. By the early 1970s, text-books had been rewritten in the framework of plate tectonics,and historical treatments were being published (Cox, 1973;Le Pichon et al., 1973; Hallam, 1973; Frankel, 1979, 1982,1987; Laudan, 1980). Plate tectonics was now accepted by scientists  as  true,  but  was  it  proven?  Not  by  the  standard demanded in the earlier debate.

Like  the  evidence  of  continental  drift,  the  evidence  of plate tectonics was indirect. It consisted of terrestrial rock magnetism,  which  showed  that  the  continents  had  altered their  positions  vis-à-vis  the  magnetic  poles,  marine  magnetic  measurements,  consistent  with  the  creation  of  new oceanic crust at mid-oceans ridges and its lateral displacement,  and  seismic  first-motion  measurements,  consistent with large crustal slabs moving outward from the mid-ocean ridges  and  downward  under  the  continents  in  subduction zones. Again, the relevant inferences were abductive: these phenomena  were  things  that  would  be  observed  if  plate tectonics were true, and would be very difficult to explain if it weren’t. Finally, the data became so abundant and the patterns so clear that no one doubted that it was true. But scientists in 1960s had no more direct evidence of continental motions than they had in the 1920s.³

When did earth scientists finally measure continental motion directly? Nearly 20 years later. In the mid 1980s, very long baseline satellite interferometry made it possible to measure the distances between points on Earth  with  great accuracy, and to detect small changes in these distances overtime. In 1985–1986, a series of papers reported the results,and the general conclusion was that the drift of the continents was now proven (Christodoulidis et al., 1985; Clarket al., 1985; Kerr, 1985; Herring et al., 1986). Given this, it  could  be  argued that for 20 years, earth  scientists  used, taught, and believed in the fundamental truth of plate tectonics without “proof” that plates were moving. Were they wrong to do so? Was this bad science? Of course not. The evidence of plate tectonics was sufficiently overwhelming that direct measurement of continental motion was not required. Plate tectonics was not proven by the standard proposed by the  advocates of the Worldwide Longitude Operation, but it nevertheless met the standards of earth scientists in the1960s, who forged a consensus around it. Geodesists in the1980s received relatively little attention for their work, because they had “proved” what by that time everyone already knew (Oreskes and Le Grand, 2003, p. 406)

No one could really prove it without NASA to tell them that their theories were correct. Funny that.

[JSS]

But why is it that only NASA can seem to prove it?

No one could really prove it without NASA to tell them that their theories were correct. Funny that.

Hmm, why would a technique that relied on satellites possibly involve NASA, who, you know, launches satellites? Very suspicious.

If you have a problem with NASA, that is again, nothing anyone can help you with.

Perhaps in the future when you ask for information, you can provide a list of agencies, companies, people and governments whose involvement you consider renders any of the data as tainted. That would save a lot of time wasted looking things up for you.

[Tom Bishop]

There is nothing wrong with citing and insisting on that as evidence if you want to do that. I just find it interesting that the direct evidence on this topic requires a space agency.

Another source:

https://books.google.com/books?id=uwTFDwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA344&pg=PA344#v=onepage&q&f=false

In conclusion, the actual path to discovery and confirmation of plate tectonics was slow and painful because many of the Cold War tools were not yet available. The continental drift theory of the 1920s was based on the fit of the continental shorelines, matching fossils and stratigraphies on dispersed continents, and glacial deposits on continents that are now at lOW latitudes Where there is no ice. But there was no direct evidence that continents actually moved. Indeed, Alfred Wegener died on the ice cap of Greenland trying to collect such evidence. Forty years later, paleomagnetic evidence and mapping of sea floor anomalies convinced most earth scientists that the sea floor was moving, while earthquake seismology delineated the shallow plate boundaries and deep subducting slabs. Direct proof of moving continents, however, awaited space-age tools.²⁸

Only the Cold War space tools could settle the controversy.

Not all scientists were on board with continental drift theory. From AAPG:

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-abstract/56/8/1552/35710/Geophysical-Illusions-of-Continental-Drift?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The postulated geometric schemes for mobile plates, moving continents, midocean ridges, and convection cells in general are mutually exclusive. Regardless of which scheme of drift, sea-floor spreading, or plate tectonics is adopted, absurd contradictions result. Areas where plate tectonics should be clearly demonstrable—such as Iceland and India—are the very areas where the nonexistence of plate tectonics can be shown clearly and unambiguously. I conclude therefore that the premises of drift are false; that convection does not take place; and that, with so many contradictions and without a mechanism, drift, sea-floor spreading, and plate tectonics are fruitless exercises in nothingness.

...

From the preceding, it must be clear that the drifter theoreticians are too much in the habit of elaborating on moving ocean floors, of navigating the continents, of producing physical anarchy with their clashing ocean cells, of postulating apparently fixed midocean ridges from which they direct crustal segments in mutually contradictory voyage directions (but refuse to voyage with them as they create contradictory motions elsewhere), and of disregarding the fundamental frame of the earth itself. Thus they have created an incoherent global picture, ignoring even such basic considerations as geography, geology, logic, and common sense. They imagine that they have found a panacea; they have opened, instead, a Pandora's box.

It is very difficult for me to believe that arguments presented without regard to simple rules of geometry, physics, and logic can long survive in serious science.

Finally, I am of the opinion that the proofs against continental drift--presented here and by others whose work I have cited--are overwhelming; that drifters should return to the world of reality and reconsider the feasibility of drift, or sea-floor spreading, or plate tectonics.

The advocates of continental drift have gone to unbelievable lengths to explain and rationalize a unified, unique, fossilized global system of oceanic and continental lithic structures.