I must be missing something because how, exactly, does fluid dynamics not account for plate techtonics? Yes, it is impossible to prove but from what we see on the surface, it appears to be a match. Actually, it wouldn't be very hard to produce a computer simulation and attempt to map out all the currents in the magma that would create the plate techtonic movements on the surface.
There are thousands of such models, and they are anything but simple, unless you are talking about a mere visualization. I can do that with a simple rendering program, but it would be scientifically meaningless. I can also do a numerical simulation, but which assumptions do I plug in, and using which physics?
One of the best, most respected modelers in the business is Paul J. Tackley of UCLA - I'll let him do the speaking on that one.
None of the following is considered controversial: (pdf, part 2)
The Quest for a Self-Consistent Plate Tectonics (emphasis added)
Lithospheric plate tectonics and mantle convection are
different aspects of the same, coupled system, yet mantle
convection simulations do not exhibit plate tectonic behavior
unless it is imposed by the modeler. This is because present
convection models assume that the mantle is a viscous fluid,
and ‘realistic’ temperature-dependent viscosity results in an
stiff, immobile, rigid lid. Thus, for example, the present plate
treatment in TERRA requires the direct specification of plates
by the modeler, with the plates then being tracked using
particles, and rules governing the interaction of plate particles at
the plate boundaries. While such approaches are facilitating
some important research, it is ultimately necessary to identify
the correct self-consistent description of plate tectonics and
mantle convection, in which both components arise naturally
out of a unified material description of rock deformation as a
function of temperature, pressure, and stress. Team members
Tackley and David Bercivici at the University of Hawaii have
been investigating such approaches, with some success
(Bercovici 1998; Tackley 1998).
The rigid lid problem is just one problem geodesists and geodynamicists face with models. There are many others - so many variables, known and unknown, especially at depth, with so many observable behaviors of the lithosphere which must be interpreted correctly and accounted for by any model.
It sounds to me like Warren Hamilton was unintentionally describing the need for the expanding Earth theory. Personally, I believe plate tectonics are a result of fluid dynamics and the expanding Earth theory. The expanding Earth theory can explain the annomalies in age, especilly under the Pacific Ocean. Fluid dynamics can explain other annomalies like the New Madrid Fault.
Warren Hamilton, an absolutely brilliant man whom I have talked with at length, has a very specific general theory of his own which is explicable, plausible, and which he believes accounts for all observable lithospheric behavior. But to interpret a call for new paradigm cannot be interpreted by anyone as a call for their favorite paradigm.
Hamilton's problem, one faced by so many in his position
in the mainstream, is not that he must dethrone the PT paradigm itself; only a few major governing assumptions surrounding that paradigm, which have become untenable, fraught with problems, and do not fit with what we now understand after 30 years of PT enthronement. That is a daunting task on its own,
even for one in the mainstream.
Once the fictitious monster was erected and given putative life, every governing assumption, right or wrong, became vital enough to be defended, even with numerous ad hoc repairs if it was later contradicted by numerical modeling or observation.
I don't personally dismiss out of hand alternate theories of any plausibility, regardless how outlandish seeming at first. That includes Expanding/Growing Earth theories, in all their forms, which offer explanations for many observable phenomena while giving rise to many new problems -
big ones, like how to account for the expansion itself, which cannot be volume alone, due to gravity problems, but in some cases a seven or eight fold increase in the mass of the Earth which would be required over a relative short span of geological time (~250My). Furthermore, if a theory involves the assumption of a changing constant, or completely new physics with no foundational support (like in the case of Neal Adams), even then it does not mean that their theories are not true; only that the worker championing that theory is faced with even more daunting tasks -
ones usually left to others (e.g., "My theory of FTL travel can explain everything -
all we/you all need to do is find a way to make dilithium crystals..."
One of the major problems with paradigm enthronement, rather than a continued Multiple Working Hypotheses approach, involves conclusions that are hastily and prematurely drawn based on observations that falsify an existing theory. The work of Wegener, Hess, Vine, Matthews and many others had successfully and conclusively established that at least some continents were, at one time connected, and had since been displaced -
by whatever mechanism which was yet to be established. That much was proved to everyone beyond all doubting. Wegener's "continents plowing through oceanic crust" was untenable (mere conjecture, Wegener did not propose this as part of any theory, but just threw it out there as one plausibility based on what was known at the time).
Another plausibility was "slag floating on molten mantle", with rolling convection cells, and the cyclical creation and destruction of oceanic crust. It was so visually and intuitively plausible, in fact, that it became enthroned as part of the theory
just because it makes sense - even though we had no way of knowing at the time if it was true. When that happens, what is known and unknown, including fundamental untested assumptions, are conflated to form the skeleton of a hypothesis which must be later fleshed out - on the
a priori assumption that it is all essentially correct. Thus, anything that falls outside that paradigm can, and often is, dismissed without further inquiry.
In this way, science can often be like a friend who asks you to dinner, takes you to McDonalds, lets you know that anything on the menu is available for selection, and then asks you "What kind of a small orange soda would you prefer?"
Anyway, I'm rambling now, and need to stop. All this to say that I think that the
pouncing onto and latching hold of anything based on a visually intuitive plausibility is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just a lead; one more avenue to explore, so you follow it. But you don't enthrone it. You don't seal off all other avenues of exploration, and channel all resources into a favored channel, regardless how compelling. If it is truth, it will need no defenders, but will reward all adherents - as it reveals itself as such over time.
