Question is in the title, but for more info: i'm not speaking of general possibility of simulating that, but of in-game possibility, like, when world generates first time it will simulate it's tectonics and then, after some time, result will be used as a game world. In my opinion - such calculations are very powerconsuming, but I may be wrong
Title, pretty much
Okay, the question is a bit vague but hear me out. So this part of my world used to be on a massive plate, but when the war between the Primal and the Greater gods ensued (and continued until the birth and victory of the New Pantheon against the Greater gods), this region was massively damaged and affected.
So I'm asking if tectonic plates can be broken down and have their own directions, colliding, diverging, and converging with one another.
I'm in this dilemma because I need to know the mountain range, volcanic, and rifts locations to be able to put in other terrain features(and settlements later on).
Mountains during the Proterozoic were different from mountains at any other time in Earth's history, The authors argue that with thin, hot crust, mountains could still form as relatively weak crust slid past itself in collisions that were more like glancing blows rather than head-on collisions. That behavior would have been thanks in part to the lower part of the hot crust "flowing" like a highly viscous fluid on geologic timescales, even before modern plate tectonics started. This explanation of an extinct style of plate tectonics knits together the geological and geochemical evidence, describing a relatively flat world that persisted for a billion years.
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-extinct-style-plate-tectonics-early.html
I'm wondering if there is a source that explains how far have the tectonic plates moved since the breakup of Pangaea. I know all in all there is something like 75 tectonic plates, but I'm currently only curious about the major and minor continental plates. I've tried to google it but I just keep getting results for evidence for continental drift. I know continental drift occurs, what I want to know is how far have all the continents moved.
Sorry that's my fault.
(This cracked me up)
I've heard about 'lost' continents like Atlantis and Lemuria before, mainly in pseudo-scienfic literature (and occasionally science fiction). Strangely though, I've fairly recently found out that the ideas of these continents were once taken 100% seriously, and were still talked about in even the scientific community until the 1960s.
In regards to this, all I can find is that these theories were disproven after radar allowed humans to finally map the sea floor. I wonder though, what did the scientific community think of continents before this? How could they think that a continent could 'sink'? Did they think continents were just floating on the ocean surface? Did they not realize that continents are actually just colossal mountains whose bases are on the ocean floor?
All I know about the history of these 'theories' was that Atlantis was mainly used to explain American structures like Chichen Itza so white people wouldn't have to accept the idea that non-white people built such things (I've even read one scientist had his credentials taken from him when he claimed that the Aztecs must be descended from the Atlanteans, even though he originally got a lot of praise for his theories on Atlantis). Lemuria apparently has far more innocent origins, originally being proposed to answer the distribution of Lemur fossils around the Indian ocean. Atlantis too was apparently once used to explain fossils found along the coasts of South America and Africa where the two would've joined long, long ago.
This is of course patently absurd, and the only people who take it seriously at all are obvious crackpots like the type you see on the History Channel. I was honestly surprised to find that not too long ago scientists did actually take such theories completely seriously.
How however, did they explain this? How did they think continents work? If continents couldn't move, then how could they sink? What did they think lay on the bottom of the ocean during this time? I mean, these theories did persist for a surprising amount of time. I think humans had in fact realized there was animal life down there long before the theories of Atlantis finally left scientific discussion. The closest thing I've found to an answer is Lovecraft's story Dagon. The story has the protagonist exploring a large area of the sea floor that somehow had come to the surface. The protagonist speculated that it was caused by a 'volcanic upheaval'. Given that Lovecraft loved to read scientific literature
... keep reading on reddit β‘So, maybe dumb question as I don't know a lot about the mechanics behind tectonic plates and their movement but seems like this could be a valid question. The way I think about is if you have two sets of very heavy "plates" , one with gaseous pressure in them (against eachother) and one with no pressure....in my mind the set of plates with all that pressure would slide considerable more easily than the one without. Similar to opposing magnets but with pressure instead. Lol I used to work in the gas fields so I catch myself thinking about it sometimes and I cannot believe that taking the amount of gas out of the earth as we do (it's an Incomprehensibly large amount) that there aren't negative things we don't forsee. It really does burn cleanly and it's great for that purpose but, in my mind, there HAS to be something negative from taking it out the ground. Maybe microbial, maybe the pressure serves some purpose like my post is asking, I mean there has to be something....right?
What it says in the title. It's a bit of a niche question, but I've been struck by a sudden curiosity and just have to chase it for a bit. If anybody has any official, unofficial, or just speculative information, feel free to share!
