Well, Neal's theories on how plates shift...or are formed, and not under-shifted....is interesting. I would like to see what actual scientific and geological proof he could provide to back these theories up. Also, why wouldn't the geological community be interested in exploring this, unless it was complete wank? If there is something of scientific merit to this, what purpose would it serve to cover it up and arbitrarily debunk it? That makes no sense. There is nothing to gain on the sci-communities part by ignoring actual empirical data. If there IS any actual empirical data to back this theory up. The plates shift under each other. Or, the planet is expanding. What's the pros and cons of each? Isn't it negligible?
This is an interesting theory when you take into
account this recent article, as well.
I think this is something be considered and pondered on. And, as it has nothing to do with politics, I see no reason why it cannot share space in the Deep Thoughts forum...
