[Bored chemist]

The earth as any living organism grows mainly due to the mass of light.
For this reason, there is a movement of continents and earthquakes.
The formation of planets involved the laws of mechanics, which are still poorly understood.
And the plates in my opinion, can not be formed.

Do you realise this is a science site?

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The earth as any living organism grows mainly due to the mass of light, as the planet's mass increases, the temperature of the planet also rises.
For this reason, there is a movement of continents and earthquakes.
If South America and Africa were a single continent, then where the two largest rivers, Amazon and Congo fell, and whether there were any traces from the sea.
In the formation of planets, the laws of celestial mechanics are involved, which have not yet been fully studied. (The three-body problem, and the cause of the axial and orbital rotation of the planets is not yet revealed).
And tectonic plates, in my opinion, can not be formed.

Do you realise this is a science site?

Opportunity asked the question, I responded to it as I could, given that I'm on a branch of a new theory, I think that the old theory of very few people are interested.

[Kryptid]

The earth as any living organism grows mainly due to the mass of light, as the planet's mass increases, the temperature of the planet also rises.

The Earth receives light from the Sun at a power of 174 petawatts. The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (143 quadrillion seconds). If the power received from the Sun has been constant over that time (even though it hasn't, as the Sun's luminosity was lower in the past), that amounts to a total of 2.049 x 10³⁴ joules reaching the Earth. If we assume that every last joule of that energy was absorbed and retained by the Earth (and it hasn't been, not by a long shot), then we can calculate that the total mass increase of the Earth (due to E=mc²) is 228 quadrillion kilograms.

That may sound like a lot, but the total mass of the Earth is 5.97237 x 10²⁴ kilograms. So the maximum possible theoretical mass gain from solar radiation over the Earth's entire lifespan assuming perfect absorption is only 0.0000038% of its current mass. This is the equivalent to adding the mass of a mosquito (2.5 milligrams) to a 66 kilogram person. It's practically nothing.

And tectonic plates, in my opinion, can not be formed.

They must be capable of forming somehow, as they are indeed there.

[Bored chemist]

The earth as any living organism grows mainly due to the mass of light, as the planet's mass increases, the temperature of the planet also rises.
For this reason, there is a movement of continents and earthquakes.
In the formation of planets, the laws of celestial mechanics are involved, which have not yet been fully studied. (The three-body problem, and the cause of the axial and orbital rotation of the planets is not yet revealed).
And tectonic plates, in my opinion, can not be formed.

Do you realise this is a science site?

Opportunity asked the question, I responded to it as I could, given that I'm on a branch of a new theory, I think that the old theory of very few people are interested.

What you call a "theory" is just a guess.

As Kryptid has pointed out, your ideas don't make sense.
They do not fit with reality.
This is not because reality has made a mistake.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The theme of tectonic plates I think should be transferred to an already existing topic, or create a new topic.
I do not know this topic well.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

If South America and Africa were a single continent, then where the two largest rivers, Amazon and Congo fell, and whether there were any traces from the sea.

[opportunity]

The guys who landed on the Moon said it was like walking on ash, and it smelled like a camp fire.

The only thing that can do those yards is something very close to the sun, like Mercury.....

Point being, no one's really made that point.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The drift of India stopped the continent, thanks to which the highest mountains were formed.
And what stopped Madagascar and Australia.

[Kryptid]

And what stopped Madagascar and Australia.

Whoever said they have stopped?

[Colin2B]

And what stopped Madagascar and Australia.

Whoever said they have stopped?

You are right @Kryptid none of the plates have stopped. Eg the mid atlantic is moving apart at around 2cm a year.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The drift of India stopped the continent, thanks to which the highest mountains were formed.
And what stopped Madagascar and Australia.

India first moves to the south, then to the east, then turns, then goes north crossing the equator, now presses on Asia creating the Pamir mountains.
The main question is what kind of power is behind this complex movement.
There should not be such a force in nature.
Cyclones and anticyclones can move in all directions, but they can not cross the equator.

[guest39538]

The drift of India stopped the continent, thanks to which the highest mountains were formed.
And what stopped Madagascar and Australia.

India first moves to the south, then to the east, then turns, then goes north crossing the equator, now presses on Asia creating the Pamir mountains.
The main question is what kind of power is behind this complex movement.
There should not be such a force in nature.
Cyclones and anticyclones can move in all directions, but they can not cross the equator.

Because like in any spinning disk, the disk is a plane and the energy is directed outwards. Cyclones etc use field lines that curve, is like hitting an invisible barrier.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

To find out the reason for the continental drift.
We must first know the cause of the formation of the planets, and then find out the cause of the formation of continents and oceans, only then talk about the drift of the continents.
Otherwise, there will be no end to polemics.

[Colin2B]

The main question is what kind of power is behind this complex movement.
There should not be such a force in nature.
Cyclones and anticyclones can move in all directions, but they can not cross the equator.

As with your incorrect theory of tides you are again missing the true cause of these continental movements. 

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

And I know this well:
If a couple of billion years ago, the Earth did rotate faster, then the precession of the whirlpools was more significant.
The Mariana Trench and the Mariana Islands, I believe, is the result of precession of the whirlpools, and as a rule, on the edge of all depressions in the ocean, there is an arch of islands, and around the islands, a fairly powerful whirlpool rotates.
At the bottom of the Mariana depression there is no hydrogen sulphide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench

[Bored chemist]

The Mariana Trench and the Mariana Islands, I believe,

You can believe what you like; but this is a science web page.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide evidence.

[Kryptid]

The main question is what kind of power is behind this complex movement.

Convection currents in the mantle.

There should not be such a force in nature.

According to who? Chaotic motion is pretty easy to observe in many systems.

Cyclones and anticyclones can move in all directions, but they can not cross the equator.

Tectonic plates are not cyclones nor do they behave like them. The forces involved are different.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

And I know this well:
If a couple of billion years ago, the Earth did rotate faster, then the precession of the whirlpools was more significant.
The Mariana Trench and the Mariana Islands, I believe, is the result of precession of the whirlpools, and as a rule, on the edge of all depressions in the ocean, there is an arch of islands, and around the islands, a fairly powerful whirlpool rotates.
At the bottom of the Mariana depression there is no hydrogen sulphide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench

There is a strict pattern:
Over the ocean trenches moves a rapid current, and there are tides and vertical movement of water.

Trenches are generally parallel to a volcanic island arc, and about 200 km (120 mi) from a volcanic arc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_trench

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Many will probably agree that the river water has created rivers.
If we assume that a couple of billion years ago the whole earth was covered with water and rotated faster, then the precession of the whirlpools was more significant, and the whirlpools could create the oceans, and the Mariana trench. And as a rule, on the edge of all trenches in the ocean, there is an arch of islands, and around the islands, a fairly powerful whirlpool rotates.
(The laws of nature are universal.) Lao Tzu.
There is a strict pattern:
Oceanic trenches are formed along the perimeter of the oceans, and over them a rapid current moves, tides and vertical movement of water are formed.
At the bottom of the Mariana depression there is no hydrogen sulphide.
Trenches are generally parallel to a volcanic island arc, and about 200 km (120 mi) from a volcanic arc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_trench

[Bored chemist]

If we assume that a couple of billion years ago the whole earth was covered with water

What happens if we don't make impossible assumptions?
Why would we make silly assumptions like that?