Hm... I seem to have been misinformed myself - my information about minimum size came from years ago. So I did some more searching. I used that first site for mantle & core figures.

Here is a USGS map of crustal thickness - mid-ocean trench thickness shows as 10kms which is about 6 miles. Interestingly is also shows a 50km depth under Scandinavia as the thickest part - not quite the 90km of the other site.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

Just goes to show that x number of sources will provide at least x number of results ... but the ~6-30 miles (~10-50km) range (average ~18 miles - 30km) seems pretty close to what was drummed into me oh so many school years ago (you know, back when Pluto was a planet, and only Saturn had rings) ...

at least, Acolyte, we can agree that the crust is relatively thin, way too thin to seriously upset the orbital disposition of the Earth ...

__________________

Yep!

On the other hand, even Einstein thought the out-of-balance 'wobble' caused by uneven deposition of ice at the South Pole could have been enough to cause crustal slippage. Which would handily explain the mammoth with sub-tropical plants in it's mouth & belly as well as the core samples from the sea bed off ex-river mouths along the coast of Antarctica.

Given the difference in viscosity between crust & mantle, the crustal slippage possibility would seem to provide a number of solutions to puzzles in science.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

but crustal slippage of the magnitude suggested would show up in the geology ... continental cratons, fold belts, abyssal plains - tend to respond differently to the stresses of plate movement ... we can recognise short rapid shifts, and prolonged marginal shifts ...

biospheric response to climate is much faster than crustal slippage; in other words, sub-tropical plants coexisting with mammoths would likely have more to do with global climate and Pliocene/Pleistocene leeuwin-style or gulf stream-style currents, than with a continental mass doing a radical two-step (even half way to the tropics and back to the pole) in anything under 100 million years ...

glaciation can lead to downwarping of the crust ... but that would tend to favour a "digging in", or slowing down of lateral movement, if anything ... isostatic rebound would therefore only allow a return to normal rates ...

__________________

Crustal slippage on the level required to explain a few different phenomena is a global event - the entire crust slips so there would be no deformation events nor would there be stress pressures. It isn't the plates moving individually, it's the entire crust. If I am understanding the terms you are using, there would be no such evidence if the crust moved as a whole, only if it didn't.

There are core samples off Antarctica which defy standard explanations for how there could be plant evidence of that type being washed down rivers at a time when orthodox history insists the islands were ice covered.

Mammoths did not roam sub-tropic or even warm temperate regions - even if they did, the plants didn't exist in ice covered regions - to find a frozen mammoth with such plants still being digested is not easily explained.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

How does the crust move 'as a whole' when it 's in pieces? What you say goes against the evidence. Also why would Einstein be a source for information on Geology?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

from PhysicalGeography.net
Fig 10h-2

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

what is the mechanism for the whole crust moving? What would cause this to happen?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

I say again:
The simplified diagram you've posted shows the lithospheric mantle as a continuous layer - it isn't, but conforms to tectonic boundaries ... both rifts and subducting slabs mark those boundaries ... the asthenosphere is plastic, not liquid, and the partial melt is a tiny fraction of the upper mantle ... there is no mechanism (and certainly not a chunk of ice) which could cause the entire lithosphere to move as a single unit without leaving geological evidence ... even something like the "hot spots" (Iceland, Hawaii) show that crustal motion has not changed radically in about 100 million years - the biggest change was for the Pacific plate - a change of direction, but not of velocity ...

Then the "orthodox" history is wrong ... a history that is interpreted from proxy evidence - like plant remains in sediments ...

I don't know too many people who are experts on the migration patterns and range of mammoths, but from what I understand, the example(s) you've mentioned were believed to have been "snap frozen" - caught in a super-cell ice storm (Day After Tomorrow stuff) ... mastodons, on the other hand, vacationed in California ...

__________________

Hence the models thereof in the La Brea Tar Pits. Also, you know, the fossils thereof dug out of the pits.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

You mean Einstein the physicist? Or was there a geologist named Einstein as well? Otherwise, I don't see why it would add any persuasiveness.

__________________
As above, so below

Einstein the physicist. The reference is probably to the correspondence between Hapgood and Einstein, and Einstein wrote a forward to Hapgood's book.

Here's a short note about it from Immanuel Velikovsky (yes, that Velikovsky ) In Einstein's Study