This is such a nice topic for visualisations, but not a single drawing or visual explanation. That’s unfortunate. The main pic is impressive but without context it’s disappointing a bit
The main pict is generated by AI and a misleading hallucination, or as we use to call it "totally wrong".
I'm not a geologist, so I have to take a few guess to read the main paper <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ady8347" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ady8347
<IIUC>
When the slab in the subsection one goes under another slab, it does not get destroyed, but goes down quite intact. But from time to time (every few million years?) a part split. See figure 8 D. So the split is already covered with a huge layer of soil (like 10kn?) and above that a swallow sea (like .1km). Note also that they split is a very different way
/\ ----
/ \ ----
Press Research
So the main graphic of the press article is wrong in many aspects.
ucyo · · focus · HN ↗
gus_massa · · focus · HN ↗
I'm not a geologist, so I have to take a few guess to read the main paper <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ady8347" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ady8347
<IIUC>
When the slab in the subsection one goes under another slab, it does not get destroyed, but goes down quite intact. But from time to time (every few million years?) a part split. See figure 8 D. So the split is already covered with a huge layer of soil (like 10kn?) and above that a swallow sea (like .1km). Note also that they split is a very different way
So the main graphic of the press article is wrong in many aspects.</IIUC>
dylan604 · · focus · HN ↗
gus_massa · · focus · HN ↗