"This is the cat that killed the rat .. "

House  malt  rat  cat  dog  cow  maiden  man  judge  rooster  farmer  HHH

'Whalebacks'
( .. of oceanic crust as gap-fill between continental fragments .. )

---

Hoisting Plate Tectonics on its own petard :=:Ocean floors are essentially *symmetrical* about the spreading ridge. The implications for Plate Tectonics are fatal.

'Plates on the left, .. 'whalebacks' of mantle filling the gap of continental displacement on the right.   ("A plate with a crack in it is One PLATE!").

Where the dichotomy between Plate Tectonics and Earth expansion begins. And finishes.  Almost no need to say more.

(Saying more .. )

house  malt  rat  cat  dog  cow  maiden  man  judge  rooster  farmer  hhh

cow

House  malt  rat  cat  dog  cow  maiden  man  judge  rooster  farmer  HHH

" This is the cow with the crumpled horn .."
( .."That skewered the dog of subduction'.")

---

A single mountain belt encircling the Earth

Mantle breakout focussed initially on Tibet progressed to develop the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans, increasing the size of the Pangaean Earth by these extents.

House  malt  rat  cat  dog  cow  maiden  man  judge  rooster  farmer  HHH

"This is the rat that ate the malt .. "

House  malt  rat  cat  dog  cow  maiden  man  judge  rooster  farmer  HHH
But first, we're going to have to talk about Clive ..
( .. then come back  .. )

---

"Plates have plates and smaller plates and smaller plates upon them.And plates have plates and more plates And so ad infinitum."

Fig.1.  Clive's doublethink .. is locked by the limitations of a spherical Earth, continents that somehow morph into plates that "move" (crash-bang-wallop as well as a whole lot of other locomotions) "independently" (but are at the same time fixed), .. and is penalised with a 'Pinnochio' for inventing subduction zones to ameliorate the contradiction.  (a) Earth's rocky crust (/'lithosphere'; yellow).  (b) Continents assembled (green).  (c) Plate Tectonics' best dressed version of 'plates'; variation in colour tones distinguish continental lithosphere (light tone) from oceanic lithosphere (darker tone). ["Continents shrinking" + "subduction" = Plate Tectonics]

"Oh! How much? Are you sure you're not overcharging?"
"No Ma'am, we charge by the plate here."
"But, ..but, ...I only had noodles, ..one plate of noodles."
"No Madam. You had five plates. You see? This is one plate and here's another."
"Well I saw that when you served it. ..a crack running right down the middle and at least two others. .What sort of establishment is this, I thought to myself, ..serving cracked plates.. "
"Madam, I can assure you this establishment is of the highest integrity. You had five plates."
"But how can you possibly insist, .. when it is clearly one? The five you are insisting are merely cracks in one plate. It is One Plate."
"No Madam, I must insist. ...five plates."
<.....>
"I say, .. over there, ..How many plates am I holding in my hand?
"One plate, Ma'am."
"One plate. Thank you. And you over there?"
"One plate, Darl., ...Wanna root?"
"No thank you. ..There, you see? One Plate."
"No Madam, ..we disagree.  Five plates."
"Well, I never! How are we to resolve this?"
"It's very simple really. May I?"
"Oh dear! Now you've broken it."
"Yes, Madam, ..unfortunately we always have to do this. You see? Two plates. Now, you see? ..three plates, ..and four, ..and five.."
"B..but.. "
"No 'butts', .. unless you would care to take up that gentleman's offer. This establishment ensures Value for Money."
"But I only had one... I'm sure. "
"Madam, ..if you insist on not availing yourself of the extras... well, ..you can hardly say you are not getting value for money."
"I say, ..what can you possibly mean, sir? That I should be literally *screwed* as well?"
"Exactly Madam. Now, if you would be so kind, .. the Bill."

One plate? ... or several? Unity ( or not) is the question that underpins the dichotomy between Earth expansion and Plate Tectonics. ( "A plate with a crack in it is still one plate.") (Especially if that crack is growing.)

(Links to *bill/*semantics.)

house  malt  rat  cat  dog  cow  maiden  man  judge  rooster  farmer  hhh

"This is the malt ..

House  malt  rat  cat  dog  cow  maiden  man  judge  rooster  farmer  HHH
..that lay in the house that Jack built .. "

---

 Synoptic Simplicity

"What-you-see-is-what-you-get" - an Earth getting bigger.
Crustal dislocation, spreading by extension and mantle growth.

Fig.1.  Three axes of Earth rotation result from Pacific extrusion (/mantle growth) and pivoting apart of Earth's hemispheres. Further complication results from crustal dislocation, differential rotation of northern and southern hemispheres, and Atlantic dilation (not shown).

( "Reading the Runes" => 'Cow' )

house  malt  rat  cat  dog  cow  maiden  man  judge  rooster  farmer  hhh

This is the house that Jack built

House  malt  rat  cat  dog  cow  maiden  man  judge  rooster  farmer  HHH

"What you see is what you get .."
( .. an elephant that cannot speak its name .. )

---

The Elephant in the room
Blind men and an elephant 
"It's a scale thing"

Fig.1.  The Elephant in The Room -  Planet Earth, getting bigger than it used to be.  [Mechanism unknown - so nobody talks.]

The edifice of the mind and its structuring of common sense (or rather its 'un-structuring') - the way it goes round-and-round in circles talking around something that everybody knows is there to be talked about, but because we don't know exactly what it is we don't know (or refuse to admit or recognise it), we can't properly talk about it - .. has form of course .



=> Read more

house  malt  rat  cat  dog  cow  maiden  man  judge  rooster  farmer  hhh

Sumo wrestlers - India and China

 Mountain 'building' in the Himalayas 
( .. Continental collision - suffused in the golden glow of wishful thinking .. )

---

"... Among the most dramatic and visible creations of plate-tectonic forces are the lofty Himalayas, which stretch 2,900 km along the border between India and Tibet. This immense mountain range began to form between 40 and 50 million years ago, when two large landmasses, India and Eurasia, driven by plate movement, collided. Because both these continental landmasses have about the same rock density, one plate could not be subducted under the other. The pressure of the impinging plates could only be relieved by thrusting skyward, contorting the collision zone, and forming the jagged Himalayan peaks...." (link)

Fig.1.  Mount Everest. This is the image offered by the USGS to illustrate the point  of "thrusting skyward, .. contorting the collision zone". (Image from the website of the USGS) (20170927). [Nice pic., but not very informative re."thrusting skyward".]

"Contorting"? "thrusting skyward"? - indeed, .. Just in case you would like to see what is meant by 'contortions' and 'skyward thrusting', the USGS show them suffused in the golden glow of sunset.  Nice pic., but not very informative re. "contorting".  Here is better.  You really have to hand it to them, don't you, ..for sheer unadulterated nonsense. (I always thought the jagged peaks were a result of erosion.  You? ..  And just see that flat horizon!) (smooth Earth) ("flatter than it used to be.")

T.L. Morton (1996) spices it up a bit, likening it to gladiatorial combat:-

Fig.2.  Continents in collision at a convergent plate boundary.  "Like the meeting of two Sumo wrestlers, continental collision stands the crust straight up, slowly giving rise to high mountains.  As the crust is forced upwards it bends, buckles and twists..."

"The two sumo wrestlers enter the ring. Crouching, they watch each other like strange dogs meeting in an alley. Slowly they circle, grunting and flexing, beads of sweat glistening on their broad, oiled shoulders. In a sudden explosion of muscle they charge forward, flesh collides with flesh and the Earth shakes. The impact stands both wrestlers straight up. Straining and pushing they jockey for leverage and position - bulk against bulk = huge and proud. 

 "India and Asia met in this manner. Buckling, bending and twisting the crust the collision stood the two continents straight up and the Himalayas slowly rose. Continent colliding with continent forms mountains of buckled, bent and twisted rock; the Appalachians are mere remnants of such a collision, whereas the Alps, still tall, speak proudly of the collision between Africa and Europe."(Extract from T.L. Morton, 1996, Music of the Earth, Plenum Press, 312pps)

Well, ..you know, ... What can you say? The point is that publishers actually publish this stuff, in the interest of educating the public, and then scientists complain about Christian fundamentalism taking hold in our schools (footnote*). Why shouldn't it (take hold), with rubbish like the above being peddled to appeal to the public, and prepare schoolies for the real deal once they go to uni to 'study' how. There's probably a case for a kindergarten 'activity' in there too, given the "clashing" and "trashing" that masquerades as 'sport' these days. 

This is every bit as ludicrous as the ten centimetres of dyke intruding the ridges every year moving the continents, or helping to push the ocean floors down subduction zones, ..and would be funny if it were not firmly ensconced in the sanction of academia, and were it not factually incorrect: the mountains of the Himalyan front are as much flat or slightly tilted as is much of the Alpine region of Europe, as they are bent, buckled and twisted.  Moreover the pull-apart of the Mediterranean lying between Africa and Europe mark this as as a zone of extension, not compression, ...as does the Persian Gulf lying between Saudi Arabia the Zagros Mountain chain - and the Ganges Basin in front of the Himalayas.

The Himalayas are collapsing from a once-curvature of the Earth that was tighter than that of the present day.


Mountain *building* by plate collision is a *MYTH*

Subduction - the Convenient Assumption

 Plate Tectonics as Junk Science
   (... Begins by assuming the conclusion .. )

---

"If  the creation of new oceanic lithosphere at oceanic ridges were the only process operating, the Earth clearly would have increased in volume and surface area at a remarkable rate in the comparatively recent geologic past" . "...large scale expansion is extremely unlikely...."   "Thus, an important element of the  seafloor spreading hypothesis from the outset has been the assumption that oceanic lithosphere is being returned to the mantle landward of the deep ocean trenches."    F.J. Vine 1987.  Encyclopedia of Structural Geology and Plate Tectonics (Seyfert), p.712  (confirming subduction was, and still is, an assumption.  [In other words, an ocean equal in size to the one we see at the present day is assumed to have disappeared down that thick red line - which is an oblique projection and therefore much thinner in reality than shown.]

Fig.1. Subduction zone and spreading ridges :-  As the statements of the Fathers of Plate Tectonics (above and below) show, the heavier trace of earthquakes around the Pacific and the Alpine - Himalayan region are assumed to be the zones of  corollary destruction of the ocean floors partnering the spreading ridges (lighter red trace).  They are not.  Click here for the wysiwyg alternative view according to Earth expansion.   [Image courtesy of USGS.]

".. It is convenient, in the context of plate tectonics, to emphasise underthrusting (subduction) of one plate rather than overthrusting (overriding) of the other, although kinematically both are equivalent" John G. Dennis 1987. Encyclopedia of Structural Geology and Plate Tectonics (Seyfert), p.503 (emphasising convenience and underthrusting - exactly a decade later than [1] and [2])

And again :-

" ..The theory of plate tectonics is based on several assumptions, the most important of which are :-

• New plate material is generated at ocean ridges, or constructive plate boundaries, by sea-floor spreading. 
• The Earth's surface area is constant, therefore the generation of new plate material must be balanced by the destruction of plate material elsewhere at destructive plate boundaries. Such boundaries are marked by the presence of deep ocean trenches and volcanic island arcs in the oceans and, when continental lithosphere is involved, mountain chains. 
• Plates are rigid and can transmit stress over long distances without internal deformation – relative motion between plates is accommodated only at plate boundaries."  (Link)  (March, 2010 => Nov.2017)

There it is - JUNK SCIENCE (!)  :-: assume your conclusion  before you even start looking. It's called the scientific method. Spin an idea off the top of your head and see if you can discover something or other to support it, and call it causation.

This matter of assumptions, ..highlights the difference in approach between Geophysics and Geology. Geophysicists are clever, and reckon with some paper and pencil they can figger it out, and don't worry too much about the geology; get the 'rithmetic rite and the facts are sure to follow. They have to make assumptions, usually at the top of the page ("Let this be that and that and that be this") so the arithmetic will work. And then they think they're smart (and pretty) when the conclusions equal the assumptions. Geologists on the other hand are pretty ugly (and dumb) and mostly wouldn't know how, and as well, knowing the relative sobriety imposed by outcrop, look askance at the scribbled eurekas shoved under their nose by jubilant geophysicists creaming themselves over their beautiful inventions (repeat links for [1]  [2]).

The top of the page:- Growth of the ocean floors uncompensated by subduction means that the Earth is getting bigger.   Plate tectonics says, "This is impossible because we can't figger out how this can possibly be". Therefore, since there is no known mechanism by which the ocean floors can grow to create (not less than) two thirds of the entire surface area of the Earth, Plate Tectonics simply says:- "So, we can dismiss the possibility. Out of hand. Instead we will assume that subduction occurs. That way we do not have to consider the possibility of something we know nothing about, and what we think we do know, remains intact. Besides, we can see subduction in the seismic tomography. It is well documented."

Fig.2. Circum-Pacific subduction zone. Showing the plethora of earthquakes encircling the hinge of Pangaean opening (Pacific / Indonesian / Himalayan and Mediterranean regions). Apart from the accompanying rubble of destruction, these epicentre plots on the map are literally the only physical evidence for subduction. (Image from USGS, July, 2010) (Any day of the week.)

And that, in a nutshell, is plate tectonics' position.  But can we see subduction?   Is it well documented?  The answer is no, ...we can't.   And it isn't.   What we can see (that is well documented) is a zone of earthquakes that releases about ten times as much energy around the Pacific rim as spreading ridges and transform faults combined, and that reaches down to about 760 - 800km, and whose relative first motions of displacement are in fact much more ambiguous than the 'carrying down' of subduction says, and many of which are as much (if not more) 'sideways' (along the zone) than down.  But plate tectonics assumes that these earthquakes (= brittle behaviour) mean that the zone of mantle in which they occur  (which they call a  'slab'/  'mantle slabs') is cold, and is therefore more dense,  and is therefore sinking.  So when Plate Tectonics uses the term "subducting cold mantle slabs" as shorthand for what it intends to convey, it is being highly misrepresentative of the facts.  It is in fact saying no more than "..a zone of Earthquakes that reaches down to 800km".  It can pontificate all it likes about the theory of "anomalous seismic zones"  (again in case you missed them [1]/[2]), but the palpable fact(s) is/are the distribution of the earthquakes

There are ways of interpreting that distribution (as described on this site)  other than Plate Tectonics says.    The mantle is not necessarily 'subducting', nor even  (as it supposedly 'descends') is it cold, .and the 'slab' (if described as such) is actually constituted of the entire ocean floor right back to the ridge, not simply the turned-down sector that Plate Tectonics chooses to label 'slab'.  If coldness and slabness is the point, why doesn't the entire ocean floor just sink?   It is after all cold and more dense than the mantle on which it is sitting. Why must it travel so far from the ridge before it is cold enough to sink?  It's pretty cold right where it is - on an Icelandic slope, say, ..even in the sunshine.  And why (if it is cold) must it always sink on a line (a continental margin)?  Why doesn't it just sink anyhow, ...like a 'plate' - and zig-zag to the bottom of the mantle?  Because there is a space problem?  ...no room for all that ocean floor at the surface to sit on the much smaller curvature of the core-mantle boundary?  Or maybe, because gravitational force tapers off with depth so it will tend not to sink at all after a while?

Nope, ..that's not it.  According to Plate Tectonics it's not cold (/dense) enough.  To become cold (/dense) enough it has to be pushed down into the hotter regions of the mantle where it can undergo a phase transition to its denser equivalent of eclogite.  THEN it can sink ("because it's cold" - "because it's dense").

What?  It has to sink into the hot mantle and soak up heat so it can become cold /dense enough to sink?  Yup!  That indeed is Plate Tectonics' logic.   And just in case we need another bit of logic in order to swallow that one we have to consider another bit of PT-ers' logic, ...that to get down there in the first place the slab has to be forced down.  How?  Well, ...by the continental lithosphere at a 'plate boundary'.  What's that?  By the continental lithosphere that is lighter than ("floating on")  the asthenosphere, do I hear you ask?  Well, .. yes again.  That's more Plate Tectonic logic.  It goes on and on, this logic, .. a bottomless Christmas Stocking jamboree of Wonderland Possibilities to aid publication and career advancement.  Can there be any wonder it's considered the greatest thing since sliced bread? [The Gift that keeps on Giving.]

"The development of plate-tectonic theory certainly warrants a Nobel Prize," said Dr. Marcia McNutt, president-elect of the American Geophysical Union. "There is no doubt that it ranks as one of the top ten scientific accomplishments of the second half of the 20th Century." http://ftp.kermit-project.org/cu/pr/00/01/vetlesen.html

What Ms. McNutt means here is for the way Plate Tectonic theory has unerringly served the career interest of decades of geologists - or more exactly, geophysicists. An alternative explanation and (given the setting) a far more likely one for these earthquakes (and the crustal brittleness of 'slab' they represent), is that they simply express a fast rate of deformation. Even mud when pulled quickly will fracture, so it seems rational to regard that the rapid application of stress to any normally ductile viscous (or brittle) material will respond (within reason) in a similarly brittle way. And if there is any doubt about the fast rate of deformation around the Pacific just consider the daily number of earthquakes going off around it (well, ..month, according to the image above; makes no difference on a geological time-scale). On the scale of geological time this is a *horrendously* fast rate. Even on a daily rate it is horrendously fast (how fast do your fingernails grow?) Anybody who thinks those earthquakes represent the build-up of stress over geological time just needs to ask anybody living around the Pacific, where Earthquakes are going off every day (just about), especially the Indonesians who live on the cusp of global hemispherical twist, the devastated battlefield of Pangaean crustal severance.

Simply from a conceptual viewpoint earthquakes in a zone that we know is deforming quickly is far more likely to be linked directly to rates of deformation, than they are to be linked (in a crust that gets hotter with depth) directly to coldness (with depth). Hot enough to give partial melting, but cold enough to cause sinking? I think not (!) What about you? Besides there is not one earthquake, and never has been in the time I have been looking at that map, on the cold ocean floor itself away from the ridges. They're all on the transform adjacent the ridges or on subduction zones - the hot parts. So what's all this about 'cold' - brittle stuff? Hot and fast (and brittle) is more like it.

The term "cold subducting slab" is therefore little more than meaningless pterospeak, no more than supposition, but most of all it is code to support consensus: "I speak the lingo. I am one of you."

To understand the extent to which this meaningless pterospeak dogma has permeated understanding of plate tectonics we can juxtapose the quotes at the top of the page with others of teaching institutions today, which supposedly carry authority in this matter of subduction - which as things stand today is the crux of the Earth Sciences. All consensus publications (there are no mainstream others) are written around this fundamentally wrong 'cold slabby' concept of plate tectonics. In them you can see the extent to which the assumption of subduction underpins the position of plate tectonics. There is nothing factual about it.

"The size of the Earth has not changed significantly during the past 600 million years, and very likely not since shortly after its formation 4.6 billion years ago. The Earth's unchanging size implies that the crust must be destroyed at about the same rate as it is being created." (link)

" If the Earth was not to be blown up like a balloon by the continual influx of new volcanic material at the ocean ridges, then old crust must be destroyed at the same rate where plates collide. The required balanced occurs when plates collide, and one plate is forced under the other to be consumed deep in the mantle." (link - originally :-: Now)

"Working together, the spreading and subduction processes make for a great global balance (the earth is really into balance and is good at it - it's been practicing for a very long time). New basaltic crust is produced at the spreading centers, and then consumed (or eaten, if you will) at the subduction zones, where it is purified and converted into granite. This is a real good thing, too! Without both processes the earth would either expand like a balloon (and pop?), or it would eventually eat itself into non-existence. Either result would cause problems for those of us destined to exist on its surface." (link)

"Either result would cause problems for those destined to exist..."?     Well, we can't possibly have that, can we (problems in science)?   That wouldn't do at all.  That is why the subduction myth, as it was originally formulated (top of page), and which has transformed what used to be a subject with a highly empirical quotient, into *Junk Science*,  is perpetuated.   It avoids problems in science.

Find more about "assumptions of Plate Tectonics" [1] [2]

Fig.3. The necessity for the 'convenient assumption' of subduction.. ..Is the need for the removal of a hypothetical Panthalassa to make way for the present ocean floors. If there were no Panthalassa (below the picture) the continents would never separate. An imaginary Panthlassa (that has been destroyed) (so we never see it) is necessary for subduction to work. . (Image courtesy of Nasa.)

Or you could animate it and make it look nice, but it still doesn't work. There needs to be a continent riding on the oceanic lithosphere (green) so continents can collide and build mountains, otherwise Plate Tectonics would never work. But continents sitting on top of oceanic lithosphere is a contradiction in terms since continents sit on continental lithosphere, not oceanic lithosphere. [See how dopey and contradictory (link) all this Plate Tectonic stuff is? Why would anybody want to learn it? http://www.learninggeoscience.net/free/00040/index.htm (Why would anybody want to teach it?) (Classroom mayhem.. that's what they're asking for) (if students have any sense..)
Nothing wrong with the sea-floor spreading (making the Earth bigger), .. it's the subduction (making it smaller) turns it into the nonsense of Plate Tectonics.]

"..If (as seems certain)... the Earth is neither expanding nor contracting, the net rates of spreading and subduction over any great circle on the Earth must be equal, and the pattern of plates and late motion must adjust to keep this so." (link)

Contradictions ==== "If, .. (as seems certain... )" ... (Yes/but..) (Now/then)
Googling < Plate Tectonics Junk Science >  [prescient]

Plates and plate movement

 Kiddies' Korner 
( .. the language of plates, .. as used in Plate Tectonics .. )

---

Nope. Plates don't "move".  Not the way Plate Tectonics says anyway, to "collide and build mountains".  And if the crust /continent on top does, then so what? The crust on top is not a plate, and may 'move' for reasons other than 'Plate Tectonics'.

Fig.1.  Caterpillar tracks.  Just because its trax are churning like billy-o doesn't mean this baby is going anywhere. .. just round-and-round like the lithospheric plate of  Plate Tectonics.  It's stuck in mud.  No way can it even make it to the edge of the page to "collide" with and "crumple" another plate'.  So plate *movement* as Plate Tectonics needs it to be, to "build mountains", is a non-starter.  When it comes to "crumpling", *PLATES* simply don't "move".   Not according to Plate Tectonics use of the language anyway.  Convection cells don't move any more than an escalator might move out from the shop on to the street to "collide" with buildings.  And if they're "moving" on the spot then they ain't goin' no-where - much less 'drfting /gliding /diving /riding /smashing /banging /bumping or travelling across the world to collide with other 'plates' (and build mountains). 

Google search	"plates move" + tectonics ~2006       2017
"Plates move"	6,770         201,000
"plates collide	3,800           74,100
"plates slide	2,430           58,500
"plates converge"	1,630           69,300
"plates float"	1,170           28,100
"plates drift"	624              19,000
"plates dive"	624                1,020
"plates ride"	637                2,490
"plates grind"	600              22,000
"plates crash"	423              12,500
"plates crunch"	107                   371
"plates creep"	798                   287
"plates glide"	148                   670
"plates jostle"	78                  1,240
"plates slam"	198                   319
"plates ram"	error                 216
"plates smash"	error              3,800
"plates bang"	lost                   139
"plates bump"	2,940 (2012-10-17)  1,510
"plates travel"	936                1,090
"plates migrate"	2,440                706
("plates scurry")	Did not match any documents (no legs!)

And the language that *should* be used (something like "cycling") (for convection) - or even 'convect' itself, is not used.

Plates don't do any of the above verbs (not even "scurry") (so they win one on that score at least).  So Plate Tectonics runs foul of semantics again (repeat link).  All the words used are words of *translation*, which convey a completely wrong meaning of "plate movement" - particularly when it comes to the Origin of Mountains.

Fig.2. One for that dinner table conversation - Plate movement according to the lingo of Plate Tectonics. If a plate with dinner on it collides with another plate (with dinner on it), then the dinners heap up around the collision ("/crashing /crumpling /creeping) .. (jostling /smashing /ramming /bashing"), .. while one of the plates slides /glides beneath the other.

Well, .. it's what they say, .. not me.  Do me a favour and tell me if that image is basically your understanding of "plate movement" according to the liturgy.)  We can cuddle each other for support in this post-Trumpian apocalyptic /apoplectic Armageddon we're headed for.


====================

[20180609]
I sketched that figure after listening to two programs today, 1 : Universities and private money  and 2 Bespoke bodies  (from about 29mins on the second one for the general overview), in order to highlight the question, how can such practical medical research co-exist with such dopey nonsense as Plate Tectonics?  Somebody tell me it's me that's the dope (I don't mind), because the alternative is unthinkable, except that it is (thinkable). Unfortunately.  Eventually it will be shrugged off as "the way science moves forward", but before that happens the parlous state of Plate Tectonics should be recorded for posterity.  It should not be allowed to slip under the radar and be forgotten about without being held to account, with which in mind the BBC science /Earth department got noticed for its take on "colliding plates building mountains".  [The link on that twitterpost has moved b.t.w. to https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fzsnd ]

 However, its reference to the wikipedia appears to be a disclaimer of sorts apologising for the clips being possibly factually incorrect, and suggesting some correction may be needed.

It's true. They do.

The Wikipedia is in a bit of a bind on that score, being skewered on the semantics of "mountain formation" v. "mountain building", which difference highlights something of the trap that Plate Tectonics has fallen into with its tectonics of crustal crumpling.  Fine, if primary school is the intended level of pitch, but for anything more they need a slap on the wrist because 1. they are abusing the public's intelligence, 2. casting aspersions on Professor Ian Stewart's standing as a science communicator (the script is just a generic consensus view)  and 3. knocking a hole in the public purse by taking him  all the way to New Zealand to read it. The offending passages (about moving plates, continental collisions buckling the crust and building mountains) are highlighted :-

Fig.3.  'Plates', the washing up, and who's doing it, .. the 'boing-boing' of plate collision (Fig.2 above)? .. or the gravitational instability of Earth expansion.  A toss-up?  (No that's not fair, .. just look at that mess on the left.)  In the interest of order, peace and  harmony, Earth expansion will volunteer.

=====================
.