Various articles mention that Greenland may be 3 islands under the icecap instead of one, but are very sketchy with the details.
I have tried to find a reliable source for this hypothesis and have failed, and wonder if anyone knows of any.
Here’s what I know:
English Wikipedia entries provide little documentation. The Geography of Greenland cites a LA Times article from 2006, which claims that “not until recently did scientists discover that Greenland actually might be three islands” without any additional information.
The Greenland entry cites an obscure newspaper, the Ellensburg (Washington) Daily Record, with a short article published on Oct 24 1951, pg 6.
This article says that the three-islands Greenland possibility was based on a French expedition led by Paul Emile Victor. It reports that Victor’s close collaborator, one Captain Gaston Rouillon as the source of the information, with the implication that Rouillon was not a member of that expedition. Why not Victor himself?
Searches on English Google reveal little more than repeats of the alleged discovery, with some hypothesizing about where the boundaries of the islands might be.
So we move on to France. French Wikipedia for Greenland (Groenland) does not mention the 3 islands idea, but does mention Victor as a famous explorer of Greenland. The Géographie du Groenland entry mentions the possibility without a reference. The entry for Paul Emile Victor does not mention the theory.
The Wikipedia discussion for Groenland claims that recent radar results show Greenland to be 3 islands.
Paul Emile Victor’s personal website also does not mention this theory. He is a very prominent explorer in French history, so there is much information about him, but nothing linking him to the supposition that Greenland is 3 islands.
Searching for “Groenland trois iles” also brings up another couple of references to a “recent” discovery that Greenland is 3 islands under the ice.
So what is going on here? It seems that the determination that the world’s largest island is actually 3 smaller islands would be an important discovery. Indeed, the number of mentions of this in the popular press and on various websites discussing islands indicate that this idea has spread throughout the general culture. Papua New Guinea anxiously awaits its chance for the title.
But if this discovery is so important and popular, why is English Wikipedia citing a second-hand tale about a French explorer in an obscure news article from 1951, while information about that explorer does not mention this discovery?
And if there was recent radar evidence for this, there should be an academic journal report as well as discussion in science magazines. It should also be an easy job for the Wikipedia crew to find and cite.
So then, where is the actual evidence for the number of islands composing Greenland?
The blue area in the middle is the interior of greenland, which is below sea level due to the weight of the ice sheet above it.
It’s possible that if you snapped you fingers and removed the ice sheet , you might have at two islands, maybe three, depending upon where it’s depressed.
The things I have read have made me thing that the weigth of the ice depresses the land, as Earl Snake-Hips Tucker sez. But of course if all the ice melted, the sea level would rise.
It depends, of course, on your definition of “island.” The usual definition is an area of land surrounded by water (and smaller than a continent).
Is ice regarded as land or water? I would say that a case could be made that solid ice resting on bedrock is essentially a mineral (albeit one with a very low melting point), so that Greenland qualifies as a single island. (Ice shelves that float on water would not qualify as part of the island.)
And also, consider Death Valley in the United States. It is below sea level but is “land”. If you removed the ice from Greenland and/or Antarctica, would the land depressions that go below sea level necessarily fill with water, or is it possible that they could end up as dry land below sea level?
If you scroll to the foot of this page, you’ll see a map from 1380 with a 3-island Greenland!
But this is a National Geographic map from 1981 showing it as basically a big ‘C’ shape with the opening to the west.
And then there’s this map from last year, (Earl’s link, btw) again showing the ‘c’ shape, but with low points that could split it into separate islands if the sea level rose a bit more, half way up the west coast and high up on the north-east coast… In that the bedrock will presumably rise without the ice holding it down, this would seem unlikely though.
The claim that Greenland is 3 islands doesn’t seem to rest on the “if the ice were removed, these bits would be lower than sea level” notion.
Victor was crossing Greenland over the ice cap using dog sleds and feet. He wasn’t taking a radar survey of the nature of the topography in comparison to sea level. So the 3 islands claim from his work would fit what people generally would think that the 3 islands claim was: under the ice cap, there is currently water flowing between the 3 sections of land.
This kind of reasoning, using the normal meaning of the term “island”, has been used to revise maps of areas in both Antarctica and Greenland, to reflect research that has indeed shown that there is water separating certain sections of land masses that were formerly thought to be contiguous with the main landmass. But this has been a matter of small islands near the edges of the ice cover, not any huge revisions to the maps on paper or in the mind.
So I’m going to consider this case closed. If Greenland was 3 islands, in the standard sense of what an island is, we would know it, and maps would be revised accordingly, as has been done with other areas under the cover of ice.
I too have been following Greenland info and had noticed the claim for the 3 islands and nothing since. What I think is that politics are playing a major part of Greenland’s future. Denmark is one of the EU members and creating 3 islands would be problematic. Canada could claim one, maybe the US or Russia could too. Ms
I believe as India sped north to impact Asia so Greenland raced north to impact part of Canada. Could a meteor have impacted at the Isuua rocks?
Is there now evidence that radioactivity/electromagnetism can alter the radioactive clock? The myths could be proven true if the radioactive dating is faulty.
I am in particular amazed that the new info such as the Azores bank being continental shelf material and the discovery that the southern part of Greenland is remarkably lacking in thickness of continental base material should go unremarked upon. Where are the 2015 books that use these discoveries?
sincerely
Ms Kate Sisco
Where did Greenland come from?
Take a look at the GROCE map:
See that depression that is the entire Caribbean Sea? Beginning at the Leeward/Windward Islands?
We are told that Africa and South America fit exactly, well that is not quite the truth. The fit stops about the Caribbean and then there is a gap. This gap is where land was
You see per modern interpretation Africa fits lower and leaves a large gap that was in fact land. And the entire land masses around the Arctic show evidence of an inward spiral.
Reconstructions of the continents around the North … - ResearchGate
by TH Torsvika - 2001 - Cited by 171 - Related articles
We suggest a radically new fit for. Greenland in between Europe and North America in the Early Mesozoic. This fit keeps Greenland `locked’ to Europe …
You’ve visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 5/31/13
Herndon has an interest theory that Earth was compressed inside gases and when these blew off, the rebound created the expanded Earth.
This interesting paper shows Greenland in geologic time at 30 degrees North Latitude.
When the blow out occurred, Greenland was shoved north by the energy. This blocked the ocean circulation and made the climate we have today. Of course, it completely iced Greenland.
Science tells us the south Atlantic is in parts only 100 my old. Antarctica ice-age is only 33 million years and before that it was temperate–a paradise.
Reporting today (28 August) in the journal Nature, scientists at the University of Bristol and the University of Leeds show that only changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are able to explain the transition from the mostly ice-free Greenland of three million years ago, to the ice-covered Greenland of today.
Science revises ice cover of Antarctica down to 12 million years ago.
33 million years ago is just yesterday in geologic terms. For us humans, anything older than 500 years is the same for any amount of zeros you want to add. The only way we can make sense out of it is to apply the same environment we know to what we don’t.
What caused the blow out? A heated core that released more gases?
GREENLAND ICE IS ONLY 3 MILLION YEARS OLD
“Prior to that, Greenland was largely ice-free and probably covered in grass and forest. Furthermore, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were relatively high. So the question we wanted to answer was why did Greenland become covered in an ice-sheet?”
Not only why but how? The how would have required extremely high atmospheric content of water vapor just so it could fall as snow. Where did it come from?
The Messinian stage of the geologic record shows that almost 6 million years ago the Med dried and did not refill for half a million years There were no ice caps at that time. Greenland was bisected with sea ways.
Where was the water? In the air, in the rivers in the sky. The water veil was in full operation. If water in the atmosphere protected the Earth from solar radiation, then what produced the mutations that resulted in the pygmy elephants of Cyprus?
Earth gases: carbon dioxide, methane, particularly in areas where the sea floor was exposed: the Med.
Instead, the new research suggests that the dominant cause of the Greenland glaciation was the fall from high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to levels closer to that of pre-industrial times. Today concentrations are approaching the levels that existed while Greenland was mostly ice-free.
Why levels fell no one knows, but I can guess.
They fell because they were abnormally high due to the long term lasting effects of a gas blow out. I believe the high levels will be shown to have a sudden onset. That sudden onset was due to a heated core of Earth unable to retain the produced gases inside and swiftly expelled them in a blast outward. The length of time the gases existed on the surface then would be how quickly the gases were managed by the natural storage lockers of carbon dioxide.
That is why you have the sudden appearance and sudden fall, it is a huge event of specific duration.
Our planet’s microbial life and biological systems have acted just like our 911 responders; they immediately swing into action, clean up the mess, and go dormancy when its over until next time.
8/12/2013
Aug. 11, 2013 — The Greenland ice sheet is melting from below, caused by a high heat flow from the mantle into the lithosphere. This influence is very variable spatially and has its origin in an exceptionally thin lithosphere.
Why does Greenland have an exceptionally thin lithosphere? Because of its slide north.
Thinking about this and plate tectonics and wondering about the continental movement that placed Antarctica into the south pole area, I am inclined to believe that a spiral vortex was responsible, not the simplistic continental drift. It appears to me that these two spiral vortexes, one at the north pole and one at the south, acted to draw continental mass to the polar areas.
Yet even if this were at all possible there are still the issues of the continent’s orientation and overscaling which demand an explanation. Finé’s Antarctic continent is rotated roughly 20 degrees counterclockwise from its actual alignment with South America, but much more troubling is the fact that Finé renders the continent 2-1/2 to 3 times its actual size. Hapgood attributes the error of overscaling to a copyist confusing the 80th parallel on the source map with the Antarctic Circle. It would seem that Hapgood spent little time investigating this particular theory. Had he done so he would have realized how flawed this idea actually was. If the copyist confused the 80th parallel with the Antarctic Circle—66.6° latitude—and the source map was inscribed with additional latitudinal delineations as Hapgood also suggests, this would mean that the source map had very little resemblance to Finé and Mercator’s rendering of the continent and in turn have very little resemblance to Antarctica.
What possible reason for overscaling could there be? Perhaps it is not overscaling at all; perhaps it is the actual known size. How then could a land mass be consumed?
We have sea floor spreading where the material being produced is offset by the material being consumed.
What possible mechanism could there be that would allow mass to fail to maintain itself at the poles? Is the spiraling vortex responsible for mass deterioration, perhaps even removal? Let us consider how a star off loads mass. The material rejected by the star is dirty gas, and it is held off far from the star at a distance on the accretion disk where it is jetted light years away as a quasar. Now consider our Earth, is a similar mechanism of jetting material from the poles through a spiral vortex possible? Wouldn’t the material first have to transmute to basic elements? And then be exited as hydrogen and oxygen, water?
As we have seen in our solar magnetic reversals, there is a delay in the actions of the solar hemispheres. Clearly this is the reason for the complete coverage of the magnetic pole with the land of Antarctica as opposed to what appears to be the delay of the land mass arriving at the north magnetic pole.
Let us conjecture the appearance of the Arctic if the mass of Greenland had indeed arrived; the mass of Greenland would sit over the polar area. The deep chasms and rifting in the sea floor in this area completely surrounding Greenland would seem to indicate massive disturbance of the lithosphere. Is Greenland actually the gathering of material from the spiraling vortex? Would the material of Antarctica also have been the foci of the southern spiral? Did both of these spirals originate much closer to the Equator? And move apart from each other?
What is the result of this imbalance between polar masses?
Is the fact that fission fails due to turbulence that sets in and disrupts the pressure applicable here? Even our famous graphene shortcoming is now understood to be an infinitesimal disruption in layering. Is this imbalance reflected in the macro world between land masses on the poles on Earth? How would this imbalance be shown in the macro solar system? Is the fact that the sun has an imbalance between hemispheres relevant?
Uranus is known to disturb the sun the least, and even sun diving comets provoke a full CME. So would our water provoked wishy-washy world be the cause of the sun imbalance?
If the periods between the one-two punch are indeed shortening, as the periods between the extinction events, then would that indicate that an initiating event occurred and has been reducing in long term effect and slowly diminishing to the original condition? Or to the new state without any referencing material to what was?
What caused the original disturbance? Proxima Centauri’s ejection from its place next to Sol?
Is the fact that the photons streaming in from the sun to the North Pole in any way changed due to the fact that hydrogen and water meet them instead of metalized earth?
2013 review news from NASA:
This astonishing rift that serves to create the 3 islands of Greenland is clear evidence of the Thunderbolts.com claim of plasma strikes on the face of the Earth creating chaining. Add this to the strangely thin lithosphere under Greenland.
Were the Grand Canyon and this unique feature of Greenland created at the same time?
Were the plasma bolts the cause that may have drawn the land in the North Hemisphere toward the north pole? Was there a blue spiral ejection of energy from the north pole? Was this where our antimatter disappeared to?
Was the icing of Greenland recent? Did the water veil lose coherence and collapse as ice? Melting and refreezing of deep Greenland ice speeds flow to sea, study says
Update 12/15/2014
The PETM has been reanalyzed and here the researchers say that the PETM consisted of two pulses of heat, carbon heat. The first was recovered from quickly–1500 years–but the second took 200,000. The best guess is methane release from deep sea floor in perhaps a slip or slide.
This was followed by many other similar but weaker cycles.
Greenland began its trek North.
What enormous pull drew this continent North. Was it a spiral of magnetic energy? The article specifies that there was no ice at the poles at this time, and I am wondering if there was ice afterward as there was land drawn into the Arctic circle where before there was none.
Could the pull have been so extreme that North America and Russia also were
drawn? I look at the Tibetan Plateau and see the same kind of drawing, only there was no ocean to close, only land to spiral up in a mass.
Then what would have been the source? To imagine an outside source is bypassing what is the first choice of prime mover, energy from the core of the Earth. This energy, spiraling outward, magnetic energy, leaving the Earth depleted in magnetism and overwhelmed by gravity.
This draining could be an alignment of our inner and outer planets in conjunction with the sun in its path in the galaxy. We do not have enough information to know if this is even possible. I suggest that line of inquiry is our best choice going forward.
Since the Second Law cannot be subverted, where is the magnetic energy? Our scientists watch the sun and its magnetic energy impacting the Earth’s magnetic field and see the energy from the sun change. Not change once but change several times.
It is possible that our magnetic energy leaving Earth did not go far. Is it in the Van Allen radiation belts? Is it possible that the water on Earth, the water that is more than meets the coastlines but drowns them, is the transmuted magnetic energy?
We in 2014 are experiencing the Uranus and Neptune alignment on the Earth. Scientists have projected a 25 year cold downturn in the Earth weather. If we project that this energy level has fallen significantly since the PETM, could it be that the level of energy we experience would be similar to circular holes in the Earth? Might these be the smoking gun of energy release?
The recent discovery of two Sub-Glacial Freshwater Lakes beneath the Greenland Continental Ice Sheet is highly significant.
Although not interpreted as being related to geothermal heat by the authors, it is clear that geothermal heat is the most likely cause. The two lakes are located in the north central portion of Greenland beneath 1500 feet of ice and 30 miles from the ice-free edge. They each cover an area of five square miles, and most importantly, are oriented in the NNE linear trend, a fault-riddled area.
The evidence for geologically induced geothermal heat flow on the Greenland continent shows that recent reports from NASA on Greenland ice melt from global warming are premature and ill informed.
Also of significant relevance to the geologically induced geothermal heat flow of Greenland is a recently published research project by the GFZ German Research Center for Geosciences.
“… the oldest and thickest part of the Greenland Ice Sheet is strongly influenced by heat flow from the deep Earth. We find that the geothermal heat flux in central Greenland increases from west to east due to thinning of the lithosphere, which is only about 25–66% as thick as is typical for terrains of early Proterozoic age5. Complex interactions between geothermal heat flow and glaciation-induced thermal perturbations in the upper crust over glacial cycles lead to strong regional variations in basal ice conditions, with areas of rapid basal melting adjoining areas of extremely cold basal ice.”
Addition 1/2015
No ice on Greenland for 500 my and then Boom! 2.7 my ago and ICE.
And the reasons are: The reason for that is the interaction of three tectonic processes. For one thing, Greenland had to be lifted up, such that the mountain peaks reached into sufficiently cold altitudes of the atmosphere. Secondly, Greenland needed to move sufficiently far northward, which led to reduced solar irradiation in winter. Thirdly, a shift of the Earth axis caused Greenland to move even further northward.
Greenland migrating, shift of the Earth’s axis
The seismological investigations also showed that the lithosphere in the East of Greenland is especially thin - only about 90 kilometers thick. Earth scientists Steinberger and colleagues reconstructed the position of the tectonic plates 60 to 30 million years ago, and found that the Iceland plume was exactly beneath this part of Greenland during that time. This explains why the lithosphere is so thin. For that reason, the eastern part of Greenland could also be more easily uplifted: Plume material can flow up to a depth of less than 100 km and therefore lift up the overlying lithosphere comparatively easily.
Whereas the Iceland plume remained in approximately the same position in the Earth mantle, Greenland moved as a tectonic plate, with a northward component of six degrees of latitude during the past 60 Million years, towards cooler regions.
This northward motion was amplified through “True polar wander”: “Our computations show that the Earth axis shifted about 12° towards Greenland during the last 60 million years” GFZ researcher Steinberger says. Therefore, in combination with the tectonic plate motion, Greenland moved about 18° northward. It was now sufficiently far north, and its mountain tops in the East were sufficiently high, such that glaciations could be initiated.
Well,it says Greenland MOVED over the hot spot Iceland now occupies. But it didnt take 60 my, it ran. Or rather was pulled.
VINDICATION IS SWEET.
Here the authors note that 5 my ago is actually when the uplift occurred when Greenland was largely free of ice: These glaciations began in the East of Greenland. The authors found hints in rock samples that the high mountains in the east of Greenland were only uplifted during the last ten million years, whereby this process happened especially fast since about 5 million years ago. At that time, Greenland was still largely free of ice.
Well, we know that the Med began to fill then also.
I hope we are narrowing down the window for our latest global cataclysm.
Whereas the Iceland plume remained in approximately the same position in the Earth mantle, Greenland moved as a tectonic plate, with a northward component of six degrees of latitude during the past 60 Million years, towards cooler regions.
This northward motion was amplified through “True polar wander”: “Our computations show that the Earth axis shifted about 12° towards Greenland during the last 60 million years” GFZ researcher Steinberger says. Therefore, in combination with the tectonic plate motion, Greenland moved about 18° northward. It was now sufficiently far north, and its mountain tops in the East were sufficiently high, such that glaciations could be initiated.
Steinberger, B., Spakman, W., Japsen, P., Torsvik, T.H., ‘The key role of global solid-Earth processes in preconditioning Greenland’s glaciation since the Pliocene’, Terra Nova, 04-01-2015, DOI: 10.1111/ter.12133
well, here is a combination of plate tectonics (6 degrees of latitude) and 12 degrees of axis shift.
I suspect that our thin lithosphere, alone among all the planets, is going to be the bedrock condition upon which TPW and plate tectonics, and the various other amendments attributed to our speciality rely.
Crustal thickness mapping shows thick crust under south east Iceland of up to 30 km, which is more ‘typical’ of continental crust in comparison to much thinner crust in the surrounding ocean basins and under the rest of Iceland.
The thick crust of south east Iceland extends eastwards offshore and is interpreted as being a sliver of continental crust originally part of, but now separated from, the Jan Mayan micro-continent to the north from which it has rifted during the formation of the north east Atlantic in the last 55 million years.
Professor Kusznir added: “Global crustal thickness mapping, using gravity inversion, suggests that tectonic features, such as Iceland, formed by the interaction of mantle plumes, sea-floor spreading and micro-continent fragments, are quite common.
I recall that Alaska also has some oceanic crust in its mix.
The reason for that is the interaction of three tectonic processes. For one thing, Greenland had to be lifted up, such that the mountain peaks reached into sufficiently cold altitudes of the atmosphere. Secondly, Greenland needed to move sufficiently far northward, which led to reduced solar irradiation in winter. Thirdly, a shift of the Earth axis caused Greenland to move even further northward.
Read more at: Why is Greenland covered in ice?
The authors say that ‘true polar wander ‘ occurred to move Greenland North. Approximately 30 my ago. It would seem tho the move North was accomplished in more recent times.
This break up of Pangea has not been explained. It is more likely that the Earth had experienced expansion. SW Carey found expansion evidence in 50 my old rocks. One may also posit that the continents —only 3 by old --were moved closer to each other by expansion of ocean floor areas. That would then make the story of plate tectonics only correct in as the expansion areas are uneven and unpredictable.
None of the other planets have continents. As I have proposed before, it is our thin lithosphere that allows the movable surface, rearranged periodically thru our heated core. It is obvious that this thin lithosphere allows such features as sliding contents.
Part removed as to make post postable by shortening:
India drawn rapidly across the ocean floor, as was Greenland, both toward the North. What was the unusual configuration of our sun, Sol, that allowed this enormous energy required. I propose that the North Pole was at the time of India’s drawing located in the Himalayan plateau itself evidence of the magnetic energy lifting the surface of the Earth up. Then a polar wander occurred and the pole relocated in the Arctic ocean where was again the cause of drawing as Greenland was drawn north and at this time experienced an increase in physical latitude.
Perhaps this was recent; the Med was dry for 1/2 million years and then refilled 5 my ago. We humans showed up.
Greenland acquired ice only 3 million years ago.
“At the end of the older ice age, 135,000 years ago, we found that a dramatic collapse of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets into the North Atlantic Ocean suppressed the ocean circulation and caused cooling in the North Atlantic.”
“North Atlantic cooling was counterbalanced by Southern Ocean warming that then destabilised Antarctic land ice, causing a continuation of melting that eventually drove sea level rise to several meters above the present,” he said.
The scientists say that the last ice age of 15,000 y ago was very different they state.
Well, for one, the last ice age glaciers melted and were discharged into the PACIFIC OCEAN thru the mighty McKenzie river in Alaska NOT into the Atlantic as long theorized.
It appears that at 135,000 y ago BOTH hemispheres experienced polar melting into SEPARATE OCEANS and the ice age melt of 15,000 y ago, the PACIFIC was the primary melt recipient in both hemispheres.
“If we compare the rate that these glaciers have retreated in the last hundred years to the rate that they retreated when they disappeared between 8,000 and 7,000 years ago, we see the rate of retreat in the last 100 years was about twice what it was under this naturally forced disappearance,” D’Andrea said.
The history captured in the Kulusuk Lake cores shows that a warming period started about 8,500 years ago, when the glacier’s erosion rates fell rapidly, suggesting the glacier was getting smaller. Then, about 8,200 years ago, temperatures began to cool rapidly and erosion rates increased again. That cooling period has been well documented by other studies and has been connected with large changes in ocean circulation.
Shortly after that advance, around 8,000 years ago, the glaciers wasted away and may have disappeared entirely – little erosion appears in the sediment core between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago, according to the study, appearing in the latest issue of the journal Climate of the Past. During the warm period, the core also shows a large increase in organic matter from plants growing in and around the lake.
Shows large undersea plateau that explains why the southern part of Greenland has an exceptionally thin crustal plate. Its left at the Azores Plateau!!
Here we see geology FINALLY!! Realizing that there are completely different causes other than those generated by our ‘plate tectonics.’
“It’s based on the familiar global tectonic map that is taught starting in elementary school,” says Pysklywec, who is also chair of U of T’s Department of Earth Sciences. "What our models redefine and show on the map are dormant, hidden, ancient plate boundaries that could also be enduring or “perennial” sites of past and active plate tectonic activity.”
Now perhaps we can define a date that will allow us to move forward with a complete understanding of when Greenland split off Africa and moved north destroying the early civilization of Atlantis and the dissemination of its rulers to various parts of the world and their fascination with pyramids and mounds and the reluctance to produce writing that would hold the rulers to a vanished standard and even the fascination displayed in the epic Gilimesh with eternal life
What ? That article uses Dr. Rene Malaise, an entomologist … No one accepted that as valid geology…
The plate tectonics articles straw mans, or misquotes, the “conventional” and then says that “perhaps this competing theory is better than that”. yes because it misquotes the conventional theory… The conventional theory is fully compatible with the plates being composed of layers and areas of different origins… with the lower depths of the continent being liable to be totally weird and unpredictable… The conventional theory is that continents are made of cratons… eg Africa and Asia are composed of numerous cratons currently joined together… and that Africa’s continental drift is compatible with the created of the Med, the Red Sea, the persian gulf, and Ethiopia being torn off…
A Life Pictorial Atlas of the World published in 1961 includes a map of the north polar region, showing the area as it would look without its covering of ice. Greenland appears as several islands.
Ice is definitely a mineral, it meets all the criteria (a naturally occurring compound with a defined chemical formula and crystal structure) and can be treated as any other mineral in petrographic studies ( as long as you keep it cold enough ) e.g. you can examine its microstucture under polarised light just like you would do for silicate rocks like this peridotite.
Yes it has, no it isn’t, and anyone who’s still an expansionist in the 21st century, in the face of all the modern evidence for the subduction/spreading model of tectonics, ispractising pseudoscience..
) e.g. you can examine its microstucture 
