How ‘exact’ can this science of determining the location by ‘ancient’ magnetic residuals in rock be when we know that the magnetic poles move, all the time, unpredictably, and may have even ‘flipped’, maybe more than once or twice, or a hundred times during it’s existence in the solar system?
It seems, from text in the article, that scientists believe that all continents are floating islands, free to wander the globe. That all mountain ranges are the product of crashes between ‘continents’ as if they were bumper cars at Disneyland.
Now... if they can explain how the continents or islands, which sit on tectonic plates, can move when the tectonic plates themselves all butt up to one another, and interlock better than the pieces of a puzzle, then I am all ears.
The fact that they get contradictions and wildly different opinions from their own ‘tests’, tells me that they must not have the right ‘methodology’, or that I am very unclear about their ‘concept’.
A concept of a ‘growing’ Earth would make more sense as an explanation of tectonic plate ‘movement’. The existence or non-existence of land masses is mostly due to up and down movement in the crust and the subsequent redistribution of the ‘water’.
