为什么最初的板块构造理论争议呢?- 江南体育网页版- - - - -地球科学堆江南电子竞技平台栈交换 最近30从www.hoelymoley.com 2023 - 04 - 05 - t03:48:28z //www.hoelymoley.com/feeds/question/4431 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/rdf //www.hoelymoley.com/q/4431 26 为什么最初的板块构造理论争议呢? 鲍勃Eret //www.hoelymoley.com/users/2592 2015 - 02年- 20 - t11:04:57z 2015 - 05 - 11 - t18:42:57z < p >我已经设置的任务研究板块构造,特别是:<我>“为什么发现如此重要的时间和有争议的吗?”< / i >我不需要回答,尽管更多的细节总是赞赏。< / p > //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/4431/-/4432 # 4432 21 由弗雷德回答最初的板块构造理论为什么那么有争议吗? 弗雷德 //www.hoelymoley.com/users/2470 2015 - 02年- 20 - t13:52:18z 2015 - 02年- 22 - t00:04:37z < p >板块构造的关键因素之一是大陆漂移。< / p >

The person who came up up with the theory of continental drift was Alfred Wegener. He published his theory in 1912.

One of the issues with the theory that geologists at the time had, was that Wegener was not a geologist, but a meteorologist. He was publishing a theory that wasn't associated with his field of science. The other issue the geologists had was based on the commonly held opinion:

that the oceanic crust was too firm for the continents to "simply plough through".

When he published his theory, Wegener did not propose a means by which the different land masses could break away from each other.

Initially, some geologists could only conceive the idea that ocean waves might be responsible for breaking up land masses, but they couldn't reconcile the fact that the lack of sediments and the clean breaks in land masses would not support Wegener's theory. Without knowing about plate tectonics the theory of continental drift was difficult to support.

Another reason why Wegener's idea was not initially accepted was because of the way he proposed that continents used to fit together. This was because of the assumption most people had was that the continents split along the lines of coast lines and not the 200 m isobath proposed by Wegener.

Wegener came up with the idea of continental drift by noticing that all the major land masses appeared to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.

It wasn't until the early 1950s when data from paleomagnetic studies of India showed that India had once been in the southern hemisphere that data started to support Wegener's theory. Also, it wasn't until the 1960s that sea floor spreading data was available to support the theory.

//www.hoelymoley.com/questions/4431/-/4434 # 4434 11 由haresfur回答最初的板块构造理论为什么那么有争议吗? haresfur //www.hoelymoley.com/users/1242 2015 - 02年- 20 - t23:41:22z 2015 - 02年- 20 - t23:41:22z < p >板块构造理论集成数据等地球科学的许多学科的新领域paleomagnatism如上所述,还地震学、构造地质学、水深、地层学等。我有一本关于地震的1960年代早期,清楚地显示了沿俯冲带的地震,但作为一个好奇的观察,因为俯冲的概念没有被开发出来。板块构造心烦意乱地槽等以前普遍模型结构或至少要求他们修改。的观察和测试理论随着时间发生的最初本质上有可疑的方面。这是科学。< / p >

One could speculate on controversy due to people ferreting around in their own area of expertise and developing explanations that are at odds with data from other areas but much is due to the development of extensive data sets to show the big picture. But certainly people have a tendency to be personally vested in their own theories and that, too, is needed to demonstrate the robustness of new ideas.

I'm not sure the discovery is so important 'in its time' - it made its own importance and would have been so whenever it was developed. It did have importance in providing models for resource exploration to meet the rapidly increasing demands of the time. It also provided tangible benefit from the large government and private investment in science and technology of the period.

//www.hoelymoley.com/questions/4431/-/4437 # 4437 13 回答大卫Hammen最初的板块构造理论为什么那么有争议吗? 大卫Hammen //www.hoelymoley.com/users/239 2015 - 02年- 22 - t19:12:38z 2015 - 02年- 22 - t21:57:39z < blockquote > < p >初始板块构造理论为什么那么有争议吗?< / p > < /引用> < p >板块构造是有争议的。仅仅四或五年到期之间最初的提议在1963年由j.t威尔逊和其在1967年或1968年几乎普遍接受。< / p > < p >争议是魏格纳的大陆漂移理论。他不是板块构造理论。板块构造了几乎所有的问题的答案,韦格纳的理论不,不能解决。< / p >

Wegener's theory was based partially on the shapes of the eastern coasts of the Americas versus the shapes of the western coasts of Europe and Africa. Wegener was hardly the first to notice this similarity. What Wegener added was fossil evidence; there appeared to be something much deeper than a mere random similarity of coastlines. What Wegener didn't add was a mechanism.

What he did add was exactly what geologists had been fighting for about a hundred years, which was religion. Nineteenth century geology was a battle between those who believed in the Bible (literally) and those who looked at the geological evidence. Early nineteenth century geologists explained the diversity of the Earth's geology via catastrophism, with Noah's flood playing a predominant role. Later geologists looked at the evidence and saw no signs of catastrophes. They instead adopted a theory of uniformitarianism.

One big problem was the 1920s Scopes trial in the US. Scientists in the US were hard pressed at the time. One counter reaction amongst the American scientific community to the Scope trial was a rejection of anything and everything that remotely hinted of religious catastrophism. This included Wegener's continental drift.


Plate tectonics is not Wegener's continental drift. Unlike Wegener's continental drift, plate tectonics has a mechanism. Plate tectonics is founded on a lot more than a mere similarity of continental outlines. A mountain of evidence had accumulated in the time that intervened between Wegoner's unfounded claims and J. Tuzo Wilson's 1963 article that proposed plate tectonics.

The evidence that turned plate tectonics into the accepted science in five short years included

  • The recognition of a single, globe-spanning mid-ocean ridge.
    Scientists had discovered bits and pieces of this ridge long before, but recognizing that it was continuous and globe-spanning didn't happen until after World War II. (Wars are good for developing technology).
  • The recognition of very deep oceanic trenches.
    These are the flip side of the mid-ocean ridges, and these (along with the mid-ocean ridge) were a key to understanding seafloor spreading. Technologies developed during World War II were once again the key.
  • The recognition of magnetic field reversals.
    Yet again, technologies developed during World War II were key. This showed the oceanic crust originated from the mid-ocean ridges, and died in the deep trenches.
  • The recognition of the Ring of Fire.
    Here it was post-WWII technologies that came into play. While seismographs existed during Wegener's time, they were rather crude devices compared to those needed to determine whether ones enemies (or for that matter, whether ones supposed allies) were conducting illicit atomic tests.
//www.hoelymoley.com/questions/4431/-/4443 # 4443 4 答案由马克Rovetta最初的板块构造理论为什么那么有争议吗? 马克Rovetta //www.hoelymoley.com/users/178 2015 - 02 - 24 t05:45:06z 2015 - 02 - 24 t05:45:06z < p >好上面的答案。我认为科学的历史学家会提出“心理学科学家”和“科研机构的社会学”有更大的贡献比任何的争议问题观察结果的准确性。你可能感兴趣的观看这次采访与科学历史学家威廉·格伦< a href = " https://m.youtube.com/watch?v = u7JNssOvy14 rel =“nofollow”惯性< / > >范式。他的书对板块构造的历史(< a href = " http://books.google.com.br/books/about/The_Road_to_Jaramillo.html?hl=pt-BR&id=SNdQN0ZK_14C" rel="nofollow">The Road to Jaramillo) is based on direct interviews.

//www.hoelymoley.com/questions/4431/-/4448 # 4448 10 由罗恩Miksha回答最初的板块构造理论为什么那么有争议吗? 罗恩Miksha //www.hoelymoley.com/users/2487 2015 - 02 - 24 t21:14:10z 2015 - 02 - 24 t21:14:10z < p >我有点晚了注意到这个问题,但如果OP是感兴趣,这里有一些额外的想法,希望可能恭维的答案已经产生。< / p >

The distinction has already been made, above, between Wegener's 1920s Continental Drift (he actually called it Continental Displacement, the more whimsical term was created later by others to disparage Wegener's idea) and Plate Tectonics which was developed 50 years ago, during the mid-1960s. It took several years for the plate tectonics model to be accepted, but as far as 'revolutionary' scientific theories are concerned, it actually caught on relatively quickly. Marie Tharp discovered mid-ocean rifts (1956); Harry Hess explained how they work and invoked the idea of subduction zones (1961); Morley, Vine, and Matthews proved seafloor spreading by using paleomagnetism (1963); Tuzo Wilson proposed hot spots and transform faults (1963); Isacks, Oliver, and Sykes mapped a subduction zone with seismic (1967); Jason Morgan divided the planet into plates (1968). Of course many others were also involved, but by 1968 only a few stubborn holdouts opposed plate tectonics theory.

To the point of the original question: It took massive paleomagnetic, seismic, and thermal readings to convince most geologists that the crust moves laterally. It took a while before technology reached a level to prove tectonics. Further – and this is important – scientific theories need to be testable and measurable. With advanced technology, it became possible to predict plate movement and with accurate measurement (especially GPS), it finally became indisputable that the crust is moving in the ways the theory predicted.

Baidu
map