評論
打印
Even the model supporters are uncomfortable claiming that it explains every volcanic anomaly,
雖然這個模型的支持者們都不愿宣稱這個理論能解釋所有異常的火山，
and like any popular theory, I suppose, it has some determined critics.
像所有的流行理論一樣，我認為它也有一些很堅決的批評家。
These critics have put forth a number of alternative theories, all unproven so far.
這些批評家提出了大量的可替代理論，所有的這些理論目前都未得到證明。
But one well-regarded theory is the Crack Hypothesis,
不過有一個很值得考慮的理論，那就是裂縫理論，
which assumes that hot spots are created when a piece of the crust gets stretched thinner and thinner and the resulting stress causes small cracks
這一理論認為當一塊地殼被拉伸得越來越薄時就產生了熱點，同時產生的壓力導致小裂縫
to open up at weak spots in the crust,
在地殼不牢固的地點打開，
and it’s through these cracks that magma pushes up to form volcanoes.
而巖漿正是通過這些裂縫上涌形成火山的。
Proponents of the crack hypothesis consider this a widespread phenomenon and believe that magma’s not coming up from deep within the Earth’s interior,
裂縫理論的支持者們認為這是一個廣泛分布的現象，并相信巖漿不是從深層的地球內部出來的，
but rather from just beneath the surface crust.
而只是從表面的地殼下噴涌而出的。
This hypothesis is attractive, because
這個理論很有吸引力，因為
it fits with what we already know about plate tectonics and it fits what we know about some secondary smaller hot spots, but
它符合我們已知的關于板塊構造論的知識，而且符合我們對一些次要的更小的熱點的了解，但是
how well does it explain the Hawaiian Islands?
它在解釋夏威夷群島方面表現如何呢？
Could a series of random cracks produce that same particular string of Islands that’s sequenced so neatly from old to young?
一系列雜亂的裂縫能產生同樣特殊的按照形成時間長短排列得如此有序的島嶼群嗎？
You know, it worries me when a theory depends on coincidence to produce results.
當一個理論要依靠巧合才能得出結果時，真的令我憂心忡忡。
