Talk:Timeline of the development of tectonophysics (before 1954)

Quality of prose

The level of English is not up to encyclopaedic standards. Sentences such as "The problem too, was the specialisation. Arthur Holmes and Alfred Rittmann saw it right [...]. Only an outsider can have the overview, only an outsider sees the forest, not only the tree" need to be expanded and clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.47.239 (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hangon

I'm working on it, fixing it soon. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Name

Hey,

Just popping in to remind everyone that none of this is proven — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:8200:8120:618B:690E:C88B:AFEC (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the current name is appropriate. A timeline of the Earth Sciences should address everything to do with the earth sciences, not just continental drift. Maybe something more like Timeline of the development of the continental drift/plate tectonics theory, but that's a bit wordy. I'll try to come up with some other alternatives. Mikenorton (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but it is still not complete. I have a section with the more recent history in my sandbox. Still working on it... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, although I was actually thinking of other things such as neptunism/plutonism, catastrophism/uniformitarianism, the identification of past ice ages, the recognition of thrusting, the age of the earth, that had a major impact on the understanding of the earth (big topic though). Mikenorton (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A never ending story... Too big for me... Relevant is Yellowstone and the Big One San Francisco Earthquake. I want to understand better, both... I think, that I have not the time for all the rest... How about 'Timeline of the Geodynamics'? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All of "earth sciences" is so immense that it really would take an expert to get anywhere near proper coverage, and to work out proper weight. You started from continental drift, and have since expanded it enough that 'geodynamics' is, I think, not beyond reach. But perhaps better to pull back a bit to something like "development of plate tectonic theory". - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the new title really works either Chris, how about ' Timeline of the development of tectonophysics' (geodynamics would also be fine I think, but definitely without the 'the'). Mikenorton (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, boss. I'll wait at least a weekend, then i'll change it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Small comment from my side: The overlap with "Continental Drift" page and "Plate Tectonics" page is considerable. Furthermore, the title looks quite correct, its a sort of time line of ideas on Global Kinematics and Dynamics, so why not start with ancient civilizations?Jpvandijk (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Geology is not so old and everything began by trying to clarify the sequence of events/ publications on the Continental drift article. I did not know what u r going to do in the plate tectonics article at that time ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations

Hi, Chris. I see you're still tweaking your citations – which is a good thing. But I would like to suggest, again, that it would be generally easier and more efficient to put all your citations (that is, the {{citation}} template with all the bibliographic details) in a separate section at the end of the article, and link to them with {{harv}} in the text. Ask if you have questions. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult, in a way this article is about the development o knowledge mirrored by the scientific publications. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But I think you would find it less difficult, less work overall, and more efficient to group your bibliographic details in a single area, then link to them. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A funfamental flaw in the citations is the following: They are mixed between "the real article of this and that author" and "the one who says that another article says that..." etc. I understand the difficulty, but in scientific literature there is a strickt rule that they should be separated. Now there are lots of citations of books that cite other books that cite articles that cite etc. Circular reasoning is easy. Lets try like this:

• Wegener (1926) <ref.............. etc. means the reference to Wegeners original book.
• Wegener (1926) in Pippo (2003) <ref................ etc. Means that Pippo cites Wegener.

This page is a real rich page full of an enormous amount of really high quality information. Lets try to create some order, and integrate it with the pages related to the arguments that discuss the contents itself and the relation between of all these precious references. Jpvandijk (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx. Your ideas improved the chronology too. This is a never ending work, you never end your learning... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But most of all: My compliments! Jpvandijk (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx again. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I studied the page a little bit and I see you found a solution for the problem already, sorry I was a bit hasty. If I understand well, the footnote is like "this is referred in", wheas the link on Pippo (2002) is the direct paper, in the references list. I agree with this solution. Jpvandijk (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Chris. Hey, I am a little concerned for you, as it seems you may be coming awash in details but without fully understanding the material or its significance. E.g., the paper by Menard (1967): what is the purpose of that? As far as I can tell its only significance is as an example of how folks were floundering trying to understand the tectonics, or that as late as 1966 some scientists were still completely ignoring (ignorant of?) plate tectonic theory. It hardly seems to support your mention of Euler. Would you mind a suggestion? You might want to stay closer to the secondary sources, and rely on them to evaluate the primary literature. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I read quite a bit. Menard (1967) is cited on Morgan (1968). "Rises, Trenches, Great Faults, and Crustal Blocks". McPhee, John (1998). "Annals of the Former World" told that when Morgan saw the long faults on a paper by Menard, he saw the logics of the Euler's rotation theorem. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you really should be citing McPhee, right? You are talking about McPhee — who is talking about Morgan talking about Menard's paper. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?" I think that this overview is ok. Holmes and Vening-Meinesz are the key. In a way, you overvalue Scheidegger on Continental drift. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  Hey, I'm not questioning your mention of Morgan being influenced by Menard's paper. I'm just saying that the paper itself does not show that. The datum that Morgan was influenced by that paper is something that YOU learned from McPhee. So you should be citing McPhee on that point.

  As to Scheidegger: I cited his paper as showing the argument that influenced many scientists. Should I also document this particular paper as having influenced other scientists? That would be a little difficult, because my sources about the argument don't mention the paper. And the sources that do cite the paper (lending it credence) don't explicitly evaluate it regarding influence. I think there is secondary and perhaps even grey literature that cites Scheidegger, But I wasn't trying to show that Scheidegger was influential, I was illustrating the argument (the source of which I cited). So I think it's adequate (albeit barely). But perhaps you think more documentaiton is needed? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I did this article because I needed a backbone to orient myself on Plate tectonics and Continental drift. Now it is clear for me that there is a transition: Holmes to Vening-Meinesz and Umbgrove, and Vening-Meinesz to Hess and the Princeton University group. I never thought to achieve the high quality of Featured Article. I think the history in the article is as near to the truth as possible. Of course, the last 25 years are more difficult to weight. You wanted Harvard citation, it seems ok for me now ;) Scheidegger (1953) has only 9 citations on Google scholar ;) The arguments are similar to Jeffreys' ones, and Paul Sophus Epstein, Bailey Willis and William Bowie. Maybe u have to put it in the perspective of the older citations. It is interesting that people use the data only to defend their point of view. User:Jpvandijk brought to attention that, before Hess, all seemed to prove that the reference frame of the continents was fixed. Scheidegger used Vening-Meinesz's data to defend the fixist idea, although they implied that the crust is in motion. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, Harv works pretty good, once you get used to it. (And allow for a fraility or two.) And having the actual citations grouped in one section means you can write/edit without having to dink with citation details, or do citation maintenance without having burrow through a lot of text.

  You'll note that in the continental drift article I cited Scheidegger as an instance, without commenting on his significance or influence (for the reasons given above). But he does seem to have been a lot more influential than that article's citation count indicates (I know of at least one omission). (Googling on "Scheidegger orogenesis" returns about 400 hits.) He also wrote several books; you might find [1] of interest. Bad luck for him that plate tectonic theory completely undercut his work.

   As to "people use the data only to defend their point of view": omit the "only" and I would agree there is such a tendency. But in science one is expected to account for opposing evidence. And what little I have read by and about Scheidegger suggests that he wasn't so much arguing for any particular theory as laying out evidence that needed to be accounted for. That some of these observations were misinterpreted (e.g., the Mid-Atlantic basalts) shows a core issue in science: how do you know when it's not the theory but the "data" that's "wrong"? Quite often the problems are very subtle, and what now seems "obvious" became so only when the questions were reframed. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, do have access to the GSA Bulletin? Or a university library? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I could try. Do u need many? If u mean, if I have direct online access, I do not. But one or two favours I could do for u. In the continental drift theory many things could have gone smoother. The uncertainty of the established paradigm was enormous. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking more in terms of you being able to get copies for your own perusal. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeline nappe tectonics

(Copied from wikimedia commons, modified) Hi Chris, I saw your work on the history of tectonophysics on the English Wikipedia. I once made a small timeline for the "discovery" of nappe/thrust tectonics that may be interesting for you too. The idea was to have some overview who did what and when. Unfortunately, in the Swiss accounts their countrymen, although important, are often given undue weight. The same is probably true for British accounts. It's an interesting story, because it illustrates the fact that 70 years before the break-through of plate tectonics, geologists fought a similar battle about the smaller scale. Of course, the idea of having large scale horizontal dynamics in the crust should have automatically been an important argument for plate tectonics, but somehow noone had the insight just yet (or dared speak about it - geologists were a very conservative mob). I don't claim my list to be complete, it's probably far from, but it is enough to give a broad insight in what happened. Here it is:

• 1841 Arnold Escher is the first to describe the Glarus Thrust in the Alps of Eastern Switzerland (now an UNESCO world heritage) as a thrust. He was hesitant to publish his unconventional idea (geopark association).
• 1848 Escher shows Roderick Murchison the Glarus thrust. Murchison is convinced and enthusiastic about Escher's theory.
• 1866 Escher finally publishes his work on the Glarus thrust, but he describes the structure as a double anticline. The idea follows the conventional geologic theories of the day, but Escher privately admits it is absurd. He never dared to publish his real ideas.
• 1883 Charles Callaway (1903 Murchison Medal#Murchison medalists) interprets the Glencoul Thrust (Scotland) as a thrust (Glencoul Thrust is one of the major structures in the Moine Thrust Belt).
• 188? Charles Lapworth discovers a ductile thrust at Ben Arnaboll (Arnaboll Thrust in the Loch Eriboll area, Moine Thrust Belt) and is the first to use the word mylonite.
  • Lapworth C. (1883) "The Secret of the Highlands". Geological Magazine, decade 2, 10, 120-128.
  • Lapworth C. (1884) "On the structure and metamorphism of the rocks of the Durness-Eriboll district". Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 8, 438-442.
  • Lapworth C. (1885) "The highland controversy in British geology". Nature, London, 32, 558-559.
• 1884 Marcel Bertrand shows that observations on the geology of Glarus by Escher and Albert Heim (Escher's pupil and successor) are easier to explain with thrust tectonics. Though Bertrand never visited Glarus, he knew about the Faille du Midi, a large thrust fault in Belgium. Bertrand is ignored by Heim and August Rothpletz, who think the idea to be absurd.
  • Bertrand, Marcel Alexandre (1884). "Rapports de structure des Alpes de Glaris et du bassin houiller du Nord". Société Géologique de France Bulletin. 3. 12: 318–330.
• 1883-1897 Benjamin Peach and John Horne (both 1899 Murchison medalists) map the thrusts of Scotland in a major survey.
  • Peach, B.N., Horne, J., Gunn, W., Clough, C.T. & Hinxman, L.W. (1907). "The Geological Structure of the North-west Highlands of Scotland". Memoirs of the Geological Survey, Scotland. Glasgow: His Majesty's Stationery Office.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• 1884 Archibald Geikie (1881 Murchison medalist) becomes convinced by the thrust theory for Scotland.
• 1893 Hans Schardt discovers that in the west of Switzerland Jurassic layers are on top of Tertiary flysch, which matches the prediction of Maurice Lugeon. Lugeon was an adherent of Bertrands ideas. With the new found prove, the thrust theory is for the first time proposed as a geologic model for the Alps.
• 1894 Rothpletz also describes the Glarus thrust as a major thrust. He is viciously attacked by Heim.
• 1902 Albert Heim finally converts himself to the thrust theory.
• 1903 Pierre-Marie Termier describes the Hohe Tauern window as a thrust fault.

Notes:

• Professor of geology in the polytechnic school at Zürich: Arnold Escher (1856-1873), Albert Heim (1873-1911), Hans Schardt (1911-1928)
• Professor of geology in the Academy of Neuenburg, later University of Neuenburg: Hans Schardt (1897-1911), Émile Argand (1911-1940)
• University of Lausanne: Émile Argand pupil of Maurice Lugeon

All the while, these geologists constricted themselves to the study of their own backyard (Alps, Ardennes or Scottish Highlands). For some reason, the nappe theory was only very slowly put into practice at other places worldwide. Even in the 1980's, some geologists in places like Russia still ignored the idea when studying the geology of the Caucasus or Pamir mountains. Woudloper (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Role of Latitude in Mobilism Debates

Hello. I have found Edward Irving, The Role of Latitude in Mobilism Debates, PNAS, Feb. 8, 2005, but I don't know if it is worth including in the article. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice, a free PDF. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

19th Century views

I came across this interesting passage in Alfred Russel Wallace's Darwinism (1890):

Sir Charles Lyell, in the last edition of his Principles of Geology (1872), said: "Continents, therefore, although permanent for whole geological epochs, shift their positions entirely in the course of ages;" and this may be said to have been the orthodox opinion down to the very recent period when, by means of deep-sea soundings, the nature of the ocean bottom was made known. The first person to throw doubt on this view appears to have been the veteran American geologist, Professor Dana. In 1849, in the Report of Wilke's Exploring Expedition, he adduced the argument against a former continent in the Pacific during the Tertiary period, from the absence of all native quadrupeds. In 1856, in articles in the American Journal, he discussed the development of the American continent, and argued for its general permanence; and in his Manual of Geology in 1863 and later editions, the same views were more fully enforced and were latterly applied to all continents.

This isn't reflected in this history of the subject. The only mention of Lyell is a rather irrelevant comment about uniformitarianism. I'm no expert on this but it does seem to tally with the breadth of support in early days and starts to explain what changed. Any comments? Chris55 (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thx Chris55, I don't know that to think about this quote. Timeline of the development of tectonophysics was born through a discussion with User:J. Johnson about Continental drift by Alfred Wegener. Before that time, things aren't so clear. It seems that a professor of geology could only be a fixist, something like a dogma. Maybe some landbridges between continents disappearing over time, not more. Dally, Argand, Holmes, Bertrand and Murchison, allowed in a way thrust faults. Have in mind that the time in plate tectonics is incredibly long (Age of the Earth#Early calculations, unknown at that time), the forces are incredibly enormous (Earth's internal heat generation by radioactive decay, unknown at that time) and the motion is incredibly slow (uniformitarianism equals no catastrophic continental motion (an assumption, true if u know tsunamis and megathrust earthquakes) instead of no measurable motion). I think the problem was also that Washington, New York, Chicago, Paris, London (Cambridge) and Berlin don't have "mountains" and "major" faults. Some professors of geology weren't out in the field, at least not enough (same problem at Missoula floods, distance is a problem if u walk or ride). It was right to test the Wegener's hypothesis, but it was overseen that the Dana's hypothesis ("In 1856, in articles in the American Journal, he discussed the development of the American continent, and argued for its general permanence; and in his Manual of Geology in 1863 and later editions, the same views were more fully enforced and were latterly applied to all continents.") wasn't tested as hard. Simply, it wasn't fair. On the otherside there was no technology available to proof or disproof any hypothesis. The fixist view prevailed, no motion to the sides, only up and down movement is allowed. Lyell's statement ("Continents, therefore, although permanent for whole geological epochs, shift their positions entirely in the course of ages;"), like the "fixist dogma" was just foggy, no solid ground, just thin air. The professors didn't know, they couldn't know it but they talked as they knew it all. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris.urs.-o, I've now had a quick go through the 1853 9th edition of Lyell as well as Dana's Manual - which are both available on the web (archive.org). Certainly Lyell didn't have a 'modern' view of plate tectonics - but he certainly believed in the movement of continents. It would seem a natural consequence of the observations that whole parts of continents could be under the water in one age and high up in another and it also easily explained the relative heat and cold at different times if they could be at the poles or equator.

Dana on the other hand draws a deduction from the existence of volcanoes at the edges of continents - very largely extrapolating from North America which he knew best - to conclude that "the outlining of the continents was one of the earliest events; dating even from the Azoic age" (p. 743). He certainly sounds dogmatic. His was a distinctively American manual - possibly to avoid competing with Lyell which was the bible for most of the 19thC.

So he could be the origin of the 'fixist' position you describe.Chris55 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to find ur citations

• Scotland and North America
• Palaeoclimates C. P. Summerhayes doi: 10.1144/​gsjgs.147.2.0315 April 1990 Journal of the Geological Society, 147, 315-320. 12th ed Principles of Geology (Lyell 1875)
  • Quote: Continents therefore, although permanent for whole geological epochs, shift their positions entirely in the course of ages. b. 258
• Manual of Geology by James Dwight Dana: with special reference to American Geological History
  • Quote: "In the history of the globe, which has been given on page 196, the outlining of the continents was one of the earliest events; dating even from the Azoic age" (p. 743).
  • Quote: Finally, in the last stage of development, the Alps, the Pyrenees and other heights, received their majestic dimensions, and the continents were finished to their borders. p. 739
  • Application to North America: The geological progress of North America was an evolution of a continent under the two great systems of forces, the Atlantic and the Pacific. p. 736 and so on, assumes a static continent
• --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember, before Wegener, permanent continental locations hypothesis wasn't questioned because no geology professor openly challenged it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris, I think you're confusing 19th and 20th centuries. I'm not arguing about the reception of Wegener, which everyone knows was, with hindsight, very wrong. But it would appear that the dogma of fixed continents was only about 60 years old when he wrote: ie about 2 working generations.

The timescale is of course vast and wasn't understood properly before the 20th century. Lyell's quote must be seen in that light. But I'm surprised that nowhere is there much consideration of any views before the late 19th C: not in this article, nor Plate tectonics#Continental drift nor in Continental drift is there any reference to earlier 19th C views. But it's probably those articles that need improvement first. The reference to Kelvin here as a catastrophist is dubious & irrelevant: he got the age of the earth wrong but was in no way a '7 day' believer. Chris55 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I mean that mobilism or permanentism was no issue, it had no priority. Until Wegener wrote a paper with "some meat on the bone" ;) Cheers

After Krill (2011) Lyell was a fixist, allowing only up and down motions and Dana was a fixist and creationist. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The web page cited for Krill doesn't say why he considers them as either (haven't bought the ebook - and I don't see why I should since the author doesn't claim to have read the documents). The judgement on Lyell is palpably false. He has illustrations of the same continents at the poles or equator - he obviously considers them to move. And Lyell uses the word 'continent' despite your unwillingness to.

Reading a bit more of Wallace (his Island Life) explains more of the discoveries between 1840 and 1880 that made people cling to a fixist position. I haven't been able to look at the books written about the continental drift controversy but I would hope they cover this. It makes it easier to understand why they didn't want to go backwards - though of course plate tectonics as developed doesn't do this. Chris55 (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Krill's introduction (70 pages) is free, I didn't buy the ebook either. He read Lyell. Lyell just shows that the continents surface fits in the tropics as well in the arctics, there is enough space. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of the development of tectonophysics (before 1954). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806140625/http://www.rpi.edu/~mccafr/plates/reading/wilson_1965.pdf to http://www.rpi.edu/~mccafr/plates/reading/wilson_1965.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)