what is the theory behind plate tectonics?
446224
The basic idea is that the earth's land mass was unified hundreds of millions of years ago, but has been gradually pulling apart since then.\nAnd large land masses are resting on huge plates. The plates bump against each other, and when one of them shifts,\nyou have an earthquake.\nThink of it like a jigsaw puzzle, but with continent-sized pieces.\n\nFor lots of pictures of plates, and faults, visit here:\nhttp://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/plate-tectonics.html
964505
The earth's hard surface (commonly called the crust) can be composed of oceanic crust or continental crust.  The two types of crust can form to create plates.  (Refer to plate tectonic theory)\n\nThe creation of the earth's crust can be a result of many processes such as: volcanism (Hawaii/Mt.St. Helens), Rift Zones (Mid-Atlantic Spreading Center), or combinations of the two.\n\nThe boundaries of these plates can convergent (come together), divergent (move apart), or transverse one another (slide past one another). \n\nOne of the most famous boundary between plates is the transverse or strike/slip fault that commonly creates earthquakes in California. The two famous faults are the San Andreas and Hayward faults.  \n\nEarthquakes are simply a build up of forces on these plate boundaries and eventually break.  The "break" is the earthquake  that we feel, the aftershocks can continue after the initial break, but are usually less intense or less strong (see Richter Scale)\n\nTsunamis are the result of deep earthquakes on/or near the ocean floor.  The movement of the fault will move massive amounts of the oceans water table is shifted. This forms a wave that will generate out in all directions.  When the tsunami travels thousands of miles thru the ocean and comes into contact with land it produces large scale waves (anywhere from 20-300+ feet) in height.
164797
this is a vague queston. But I believe i know what you are asking. Well He already believed that Pangea had formed and broken apart. Evidence from Glacial Striations and rock formations, not to mension an almost perfect mactch of shorelines. I guess it would have more support for his theory. He concluded that the continents were moving. What he could not prove was the mechinism for the movement. it is not actually the continents moving. They are hitching a ride on the techtonic plates.
842265
Pangaea is the name of the original super-continent.\n\nPlate tectonics describes how the continents move.\n\nRead here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
525704
look up plate tectonics
435645
A, because it's the division between two tectonic plates. the plates move apart and magma from inside the earth comes up and piles up in the form of mountains.
707879
The tectonic plates are "floating" on a liqid mantle that has convection currents.  These convection move the plates around the globe.  This is the science behing plate tectonics
794138
The continental plates do not actually 'drift' as you may think of an ice cube 'drifting' in water. Nor are the plates all connected together like one would view a jigsaw puzzle.\n\nThe first idea you have to realize is that the continental plates overlap each other. The 'outlines' you see that appear jigsaw-like are more often than not areas where two plates meet, and one plate is actually going under  the one next to it- this is called 'subduction'.\n\nWhich plate goes under which plate depends on the age and weight of the plates-- continental crust is lighter than oceanic plate, so more often than not it is the oceanic piece of the plate that will 'subduct'.\n\nThere are areas, however, where the plates do actually meet like a jigsaw puzzle-- these places are known as "Strike-slip" faults, where two plates slide past each other rather than 'subducting'.\n\nAs for the plates moving, that happens due to the upper mantle (the liquid part under the crust) creating convective currents-- these 'currents of mantle material' cause the plates to move and subduct (or slide past each other!)\n\nAnd yes, there are plates where continental crust and continental crust meet. What happens then? More often than not, mountains form-- The Himalayas are a prime example of this situation (the Indian plate smashed into the Asian plate).\n\nThere's more to it, but I hope this helps a little bit!
894274
The idea of Continental Drift was the forerunner of Plate Tectonics Theory. At the time that Wegener proposed the idea of Continental Drift, he did not have sufficient information to explain the physical mechanisms that would have allowed continents to break apart and drift apart. He did have fossil evidence, and shape-of-the continents evidence, and matching-rocks-on-both-sides evidence that the continents had indeed been juxtaposed. "A fatal weakness in Wegener's theory was that it could not satisfactorily answer the most fundamental question raised by his critics: What kind of forces could be strong enough to move such large masses of solid rock over such great distances? Wegener suggested that the continents simply plowed through the ocean floor, but Harold Jeffreys, a noted English geophysicist, argued correctly that it was physically impossible for a large mass of solid rock to plow through the ocean floor without breaking up."http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html\n\nLater, when scientists discovered magnetic striped on the ocean floor, learned more about the seismicity at trenches, and so forth, they were able to put together a more comprehensive model of the actual physical processes that could and do cause the continents to "drift" apart, or collide together. These processes come under the heading of Plate Tectonics--which includes the ideas of three types of plate boundaries, including the divergent boundaries with spreading ridges required for continents to "drift" apart. \n\n"From seismic and other geophysical evidence and laboratory experiments, scientists generally agree with Harry Hess' theory that the plate-driving force is the slow movement of hot, softened mantle that lies below the rigid plates. This idea was first considered in the 1930s by Arthur Holmes, the English geologist who later influenced Harry Hess' thinking about seafloor spreading. Holmes speculated that the circular motion of the mantle carried the continents along in much the same way as a conveyor belt. However, at the time that Wegener proposed his theory of continental drift, most scientists still believed the Earth was a solid, motionless body. We now know better. As J. Tuzo Wilson eloquently stated in 1968, "The earth, instead of appearing as an inert statue, is a living, mobile thing." Both the Earth's surface and its interior are in motion. Below the lithospheric plates, at some depth the mantle is partially molten and can flow, albeit slowly, in response to steady forces applied for long periods of time. Just as a solid metal like steel, when exposed to heat and pressure, can be softened and take different shapes, so too can solid rock in the mantle when subjected to heat and pressure in the Earth's interior over millions of years."http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/unanswered.html\nThe website below will give you illustrations and discusses both continental drift and plate tectonics.
27689
Plate tectonics: Just remember this: SUBDUCTION LEADS TO OROGENY. \nThat's all you need to know. \n\nYour love life: Just remember : SEDUCTION LEADS TO EROGENY.\nNothing more.\n\nYour career as the group heartbreaker dancer #21: Just remember this:EROGENY IS CAUSED BY SEDUCTION\n\nYour b.f. name: Just try to remember it!\n\n(Yes I know there is no such word as erogeny- but there should be)
1063417
The beginnings of the theory of plate tectonics date to around 1920, when Alfred Wegener, the German meteorologist and geophysicist, presented the first detailed accounts of how today's continents were once a large supercontinent that slowly drifted to their present positions. Others brought forth evidence, but plate tectonics processes and continental drift did not attract wide interest until the late 1950s, when scientists found the alignment of magnetic particles in rock responded to the earth's magnetic field of that time. Plotting paleomagnetic polar changes (see paleomagnetism) showed that all continents had moved across the earth over time.\n\nSynthesized from these findings and others in geology, oceanography, and geophysics, plate tectonics theory holds that the lithosphere, the hard outer layer of the earth, is divided into about 7 major plates and perhaps as many as 12 smaller plates, c.60 mi (100 km) thick, resting upon a lower soft layer called the asthenosphere. Because the sides of a plate are either being created or destroyed, its size and shape are continually changing. Such active plate tectonics make studying global tectonic history, especially for the ocean plates, difficult for times greater than 200 million years ago. The continents, which are c.25 mi (40 km) thick, are embedded in some of the plates, and hence move as the plates move about on the earth's surface.\n\nThe mechanism moving the plates is at present unknown, but is probably related to the transfer of heat energy or convection within the earth's mantle. If true, and the convection continues, the earth will continue to cool. This will eventually halt the mantle's motion allowing the crust to stabilize, much like what has happened on other planets and satellites in the solar system, such as Mars and the moon.
638210
I agree with the above posters that Plate Tectonics is a theory that has achieved a broad scientific consensus, and that there is no debate about its general accuracy among geologists. But that doesn't really answer your question, does it?\n\nThe answer to your question is "yes," lots of people don't believe in Plate Tectonics, or at least don't believe in the scientific theory of plate tectonics as understood by geologists. These people are Creationists. If you believe the earth is only 5,000 years old, you can't well believe the continents spent 5 billion years drifting to their current locations. (Well, I guess you could, it's not much of a stretch compared to the rest of creationism. </editorial opinion>). \n\nSo Creationists tend to not believe the continents move at all, or to come up with alternative, Biblically consistent alternate theories to try to reconcile observable facts with their religion. They come up with things like "catastrophic plate tectonics," a non-scientific creationist theory that during Noah's flood, the continents moved 3,000 miles apart in a couple of months and then stopped.
1117362
tectonic plates or continental drift
1089394
earthquakes occur when the tectonic plates that cover the earth noticably shift. These movements can also form volcanoes and trenches
234822
earthquakes ... \nseismic activity ... \n\nand these happen when PLATES move! It's not movement in the rocks that causes earthquakes.  And the dynamics of plate movement is called "plate tectonics".\n\nMoreover, plate tectonics include volcanic behaviour, continental drift, and mountains (making, destrucion, etc)\n\nBut then again, I really don't know what you're trying to ask!
207440
Types of plate movement:\nlateral (ie., San Andreas fault in CA) - side by side\nconvergent (ie.,Himalayan Mts.) - pushing together\ndivergent (ie., mid Atlantic Ridge) - pulling apart.\nCheck this site:\n\nhttp://www.northstar.k12.ak.us/schools/joy/denali/DAuria/plate_mvmt.html
95629
You should look into the definition of scientifc theory and laws. Plate tectonics will never become a Law because that terminology does not apply to Plate Tectonics. The fact that it is known as a theory does not mean it is still hypothetical or based on conjecture. This is the common meaning of the word theory (that so confuses the creationists) but is not the scientific meaning of the word. Plate tectonics is well established and well tested. There are some causative parts that are still not completely understood because we have not been able to obsverve the interaction between the mantle and asthenosphere, but that fits well into the definition of a scientific theory. In many fields of science a THEORY is the highest level of certainty and the term LAW does not apply. \n\nI quote:\nIn science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it\n\n   1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,\n   2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,\n   3. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,\n   4. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and\n   5. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Ockham's razor.\n\nThis is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; those that meet only several or none at all, cannot be said to be scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.\n\nPhysical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory attempts to deal with why or how it happens."