The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?  (Read 33045 times)

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
I researched the mantle again, as to being a liquid. I think you are correct. Many studies, depending where you look... provide the mantle as 'mostly solid' with areas of magma.
An introductory knowledge of tectonics and geophysics would reveal that there is no doubt about this. It is what I have been saying since the outset. I am pleased to see you finally acknowledge this.

Do you find anything strange about the fact that you are proposing a radical new theory to account for mountain building without being aware of such a fundamental datum about Earth structure?

..and please, no need to insult...
I have not insulted you anywhere in my earlier posts. I am not insulting you in my questions above. I am enquiring as to whether it is appropriate to vigorously promote a hypothesis when you lack appropriate knowledge of basic facts.

The moment you use the term 'viscosity' you are referring to a liquid.
Or to something that over long time periods behaves like a liquid.

Therefore, by thermal convection process of diffusion creep poly-crystalline, materials can deform at slow strain rates with Newtonian viscosity?
That is the assertion made by the author of one of the papers I cited above. I suspected that there might be a Power Law relationship at work for the stress-strain relationship. Some brief literature research confirms this as a possibility. e.g.  Schubert, G. et al Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets Cambridge University Press 2004, p 213

 Although the fluid behavior of the mantle is well established, this does not require that the mantle behave as a Newtonian viscous fluid as defined above. In general, a fluid can have any functional relationship between strain rate and stress. In fact, most fluids are well approximated by a power-law relation

de/dt=Aτn

where A is a rheological constant. (e = strain, t=time, τ=stress) If n=1 the fluid is Newtonian viscous and the rate of strain is linearly related to the stress. Alternative mechanisms for the fluid behavior of crystalline solids give either linear or power-law behavior with n≈3.

Quote
Would the slow strain rate have enough force to slowly forge the orogeny of say... the Andes Mountains?
Yes. But the Andes were not build purely by slow movement. Rapid movement, along fault planes, also contributed to their emergence.

Quote
And if so, please tell me...why this particular part of the world?
Because this part of the world had the requisite conditions for the initiation of a long lasting subduction zone.

Quote
Does the diffusion deform the rock in a specific direction?
Which diffusion do you mean? The movement of the solid mantle will be in a direction that tends to lower the stresses. Other than that I'm not sure what you are asking.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
I researched the mantle again, as to being a liquid. I think you are correct. Many studies, depending where you look... provide the mantle as 'mostly solid' with areas of magma.
An introductory knowledge of tectonics and geophysics would reveal that there is no doubt about this. It is what I have been saying since the outset. I am pleased to see you finally acknowledge this.

Do you find anything strange about the fact that you are proposing a radical new theory to account for mountain building without being aware of such a fundamental datum about Earth structure?

I do see your point. 'Introductory' knowledge of tectonics; I am familiar...geophysics, I am not. Yet, I found the proposal of my radical theory on mountain building to be quite accurate. And strange? ...to those, such as yourself; whom have studied well, the subjects of the geo-sciences...I knew before my presentation...it would be strange to some.  And are you telling me, you are intelligent about the datum of every fundamental characteristic of the structure of Earth?

I respect your erudition, yet I again; am contrary to your datum of fundamentals, concerning mountain building. 
 


Now to one of your interesting points; you mentioned, "solid rock moves like a liquid."

Surely, you are not saying, solid rock moves like liquid?
That is exactly what I am saying. This concept is no longer in dispute.

Holmes demonstrated over seventy years ago that thermal convection in the solid mantle was a wholly plausible and practical mechanism.
Holmes, A. Radioactivity and Earthmovements, XVII.Trans.Geol.Soc.Glasgow, Vol.XVIII–PartIII, 1928–3118, 559–606. 1931.
Holmes, A. The thermal history of the Earth. J.Wash.Acad.Sci. 23, 169–95 1933.

If the mantle is 'largely solid', tell me please...how solid continental plates move across a largely solid planet to form mountain belts?
Much of the movement of the continents, or more precisely the plates, is via slippage along fault planes. However, movement at a microscopic level can occur by a variety of mechanisms, facilitated by high temperatures.
For example: Gordon,R.B. Diffusion creep in the Earth’s mantle. J.Geophys.Res.70, 2413–8 1965

Abstract:By the process of diffusion creep polycrystalline materials can deform at slow strain rates with Newtonian viscosity. Creep mechanisms involving dislocations can result in more rapid, non-Newtonian flow, but the diffusion creep rate sets an upper limit to the resistance to nonhydrostatic stresses. It is shown that under the conditions of temperature and pressure expected in the earth's mantle, diffusion creep in close-packed oxide structures leads to a viscosity of the same magnitude as that determined from observations of crustal uplift after unloading. The results also show that it is reasonable to assume Newtonian viscosity in calculations of large-scale flow processes in the mantle.



 
I researched the mantle again, as to being a liquid. I think you are correct. Many studies, depending where you look... provide the mantle as 'mostly solid' with areas of magma.
An introductory knowledge of tectonics and geophysics would reveal that there is no doubt about this. It is what I have been saying since the outset. I am pleased to see you finally acknowledge this.

Do you find anything strange about the fact that you are proposing a radical new theory to account for mountain building without being aware of such a fundamental datum about Earth structure?

..and please, no need to insult...
I have not insulted you anywhere in my earlier posts. I am not insulting you in my questions above. I am enquiring as to whether it is appropriate to vigorously promote a hypothesis when you lack appropriate knowledge of basic facts.

The moment you use the term 'viscosity' you are referring to a liquid.
Or to something that over long time periods behaves like a liquid.

Therefore, by thermal convection process of diffusion creep poly-crystalline, materials can deform at slow strain rates with Newtonian viscosity?
That is the assertion made by the author of one of the papers I cited above. I suspected that there might be a Power Law relationship at work for the stress-strain relationship. Some brief literature research confirms this as a possibility. e.g.  Schubert, G. et al Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets Cambridge University Press 2004, p 213

 Although the fluid behavior of the mantle is well established, this does not require that the mantle behave as a Newtonian viscous fluid as defined above. In general, a fluid can have any functional relationship between strain rate and stress. In fact, most fluids are well approximated by a power-law relation

de/dt=Aτn

where A is a rheological constant. (e = strain, t=time, τ=stress) If n=1 the fluid is Newtonian viscous and the rate of strain is linearly related to the stress. Alternative mechanisms for the fluid behavior of crystalline solids give either linear or power-law behavior with n≈3.

Quote
Would the slow strain rate have enough force to slowly forge the orogeny of say... the Andes Mountains?
Yes. But the Andes were not build purely by slow movement. Rapid movement, along fault planes, also contributed to their emergence.

Quote
And if so, please tell me...why this particular part of the world?
Because this part of the world had the requisite conditions for the initiation of a long lasting subduction zone.

Quote
Does the diffusion deform the rock in a specific direction?
Which diffusion do you mean? The movement of the solid mantle will be in a direction that tends to lower the stresses. Other than that I'm not sure what you are asking.


I am asking; ...according to your knowledge of tectonics and geophysics, why is there a subduction zone near the Andes mountains? 

Yes, ..."the process of diffusion creep polycrystalline materials can deform at slow rates with Newtonian viscosity". Surely, the introductory and fundamental knowledge of tectonics and geophysics have made it so plain...even I can find a problem with the hypothesis. Again, we are talking mountains with muti-metric tons of weight. The physics of creep mechanisms simply does not suffice the movement, the magnitudes, and certainly not their structures, or the peculiar locations of which these great mountain chains have finally settled.

If sir, you should mention fault lines; I would need to ask their origins, and if... they in deed are the true contributory to the construction of Earth's mountain chains.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
That is the assertion made by the author of one of the papers I cited above. I suspected that there might be a Power Law relationship at work for the stress-strain relationship. Some brief literature research confirms this as a possibility. e.g.  Schubert, G. et al Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets Cambridge University Press 2004, p 213

 Although the fluid behavior of the mantle is well established, this does not require that the mantle behave as a Newtonian viscous fluid as defined above. In general, a fluid can have any functional relationship between strain rate and stress. In fact, most fluids are well approximated by a power-law relation

de/dt=Aτn

where A is a rheological constant. (e = strain, t=time, τ=stress) If n=1 the fluid is Newtonian viscous and the rate of strain is linearly related to the stress. Alternative mechanisms for the fluid behavior of crystalline solids give either linear or power-law behavior with n≈3.

Ophilite, I would like to learn more about the Power Law relationship at work for the stress-strain relationship.  Verily, the hypothesis is quite eccentric. I want to understand the e equaling the strain, and the T equating the stress. If what I know is true;

de/dt=Aτn

The formula is accurate for most fluids. Notwithstanding, the stress and strain of fluids in the mantle are not the supplemental energy of forces, which positioned Earth's greatest mountain belts.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Dareo, it would be helpful if you could sort out the quote functions in your posts. You have mixed up my words with your words throughout. This will make it very difficult for other members to figure out who has said what.

Quote
I do see your point. 'Introductory' knowledge of tectonics; I am familiar...geophysics, I am not. Yet, I found the proposal of my radical theory on mountain building to be quite accurate.   
But you found it to be quite accurate without having a good understanding of tectonic processes. It is unreasonable to propose a new tectonic theory when you do not even know that the mantle is largely solid.

Quote
. And strange? ...to those, such as yourself; whom have studied well, the subjects of the geo-sciences...I knew before my presentation...it would be strange to some. 
I am not suggesting that your hypothesis is strange. I am stating that it illogical, strange and inappropriate for someone to propose such a hypothesis when they are ignorant of the basic related subject matter.

 
Quote
And are you telling me, you are intelligent about the datum of every fundamental characteristic of the structure of Earth?
Of course not. But I am not the one proposing a radical hypothesis based on ignorance.

 
Quote
I respect your erudition, yet I again; am contrary to your datum of fundamentals, concerning mountain building
And by being contrary you are ignoring mountains (literally) of evidence.

Quote
I am asking; ...according to your knowledge of tectonics and geophysics, why is there a subduction zone near the Andes mountains? 

There is not a subduction zone near the Andes. The Andes are near a subduction zone. Cause and effect. The subduction zone has created the Andes. Just as a subduction zone is creating the moutains of Japan and the island arcs of Indonesia.

Quote
The physics of creep mechanisms simply does not suffice the movement, the magnitudes, and certainly not their structures, or the peculiar locations of which these great mountain chains have finally settled.

You are the one making a radical claim. It is up to you to produce the maths that demonstrate this is not possible. Geophysicists are quite comfortable about the forces involved. If you wish to challenge them you need to offer more than statements of disbelief.

Quote
If sir, you should mention fault lines; I would need to ask their origins, and if... they in deed are the true contributory to the construction of Earth's mountain chains.
They are. This is fundametal. You need to spend a year or so studying some basic geology. If you will seriously do so I can offer some recommendations.

Quote
Ophilite, I would like to learn more about the Power Law relationship at work for the stress-strain relationship.  Verily, the hypothesis is quite eccentric.
This is not a hypothesis, but a well established part of hydraulic theory. See here.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Ophiolite, please forgive me for my quotation usage. I will get better with it.

Quote
I do see your point. 'Introductory' knowledge of tectonics; I am familiar...geophysics, I am not. Yet, I found the proposal of my radical theory on mountain building to be quite accurate.   
But you found it to be quite accurate without having a good understanding of tectonic processes. It is unreasonable to propose a new tectonic theory when you do not even know that the mantle is largely solid.



 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Ophiolite, please forgive me for my quotation usage. I will get better with it.

Quote
I do see your point. 'Introductory' knowledge of tectonics; I am familiar...geophysics, I am not. Yet, I found the proposal of my radical theory on mountain building to be quite accurate.   
But you found it to be quite accurate without having a good understanding of tectonic processes. It is unreasonable to propose a new tectonic theory when you do not even know that the mantle is largely solid.

According to my research, it was my conclusion. Until this forum, I seem to have found otherwise. Notwithstanding, I understand the tectonic 'processes' of Earth; much better than yourself.

I am not suggesting that your hypothesis is strange. I am stating that it illogical, strange and inappropriate for someone to propose such a hypothesis when they are ignorant of the basic related subject matter.


Ignorant, quite respectfully; I think you are lacking significant knowledge of Earth. At this point, I know you are unsure about the tectonic processes. You are unsure about subduction zones, as the cause and effect for mountain chains...which are false acclaims. It probably puzzles you, when I ask; why are subduction zones and mountain chains in specific positions throughout the world? You or your exposition of resources cannot accurately answer that. Why? because I know, you do not know. Yet I am ignorant to the basics of the geo-sciences. 

You mentioned whole and heartily; subduction zones... by cause and effect, uplifted the Andes Mountains, the Mountains of Japan, and the Island arcs of Indonesia. You are completely incorrect. If you use the 'vicosity' or 'hydraulic' stress and strain of some liquid in the Earth...over Newtonian eras, everyone will see...who is truly ignorant. Yes, even you sir... are about to learn something new from me.

I want you to be very careful, when discussing subduction zones and tectonic processes. You do not understand their structured existences. Listen very attentively; there is not one subduction zone on planet Earth, which has the force of energy to raise mountain chains on continents. We can go further in time beyond the Newtonian era to earlier times of Earth's planetary conception.

I think then, you might get a better grasp of understanding subduction zones and why our planet has them. Hopefully, you will recognize the merit of my 'radical claim'.

One more thing; you mentioned ".... Geophysicists are quite comfortable about the forces involved.." This is one of your reliable sources isn't it?  I think the Geophysicists are busy working on many unanswered questions.  I think this will be very interesting for the Geophysicists.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Ignorant, quite respectfully; I think you are lacking significant knowledge of Earth. At this point, I know you are unsure about the tectonic processes. You are unsure about subduction zones, as the cause and effect for mountain chains...which are false acclaims. It probably puzzles you, when I ask; why are subduction zones and mountain chains in specific positions throughout the world? You or your exposition of resources cannot accurately answer that. Why? because I know, you do not know. Yet I am ignorant to the basics of the geo-sciences. 
I believe I agreed that there is much that I do not know about tectonics and related topics. I would further agree that scientists are still uncertain of many aspects of plate tectonics and mountain building. That is the nature of science: science isn't about what we know as much as it is about how we find out about what we don't know.

Now while I may be ignorant of many things, I am not building an alternative hypothesis for mountain formation on that ignorance. Indeed I know enough to know your hypothesis is seriously flawed.

Despite your remarks above I am very sure of the role that subduction plays in the formation of mountain chains. The African plate is subducting below the European plate: result - the Alps. One of the Pacific plates subducts below Asia: result - Japan and its volcanic mountains. And so on and on - many examples.

How do we know this? We can measure plate movement. We can identify the subduction zone from earthquake data. We can track the movement of magma from subducting plate to surface. We can map the gravity anomalies associated with the subduction zone. We can trace the history of the mountain building through stratigraphic and chronographic analysis. For you to counter these data you have to show how they are consistent with your hypothesis and further show that your hypothesis offers a superior explanation.

So what is your explanation for subduction zones? And what is your evidence to support that hypothesis?
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
I believe I agreed that there is much that I do not know about tectonics and related topics. I would further agree that scientists are still uncertain of many aspects of plate tectonics and mountain building.

My good man, for this reason; I became a member of this forum. I have researched for many years, subduction zones, plate tectonics, orogeny, volcanoes and earthquakes throughout this great planet of ours. My inquisition into these subjects turned futile. Much like the information from your own resources..."scientists are still uncertain of many aspects of plate tectonics and mountain building".


Now while I may be ignorant of many things, I am not building an alternative hypothesis for mountain formation on that ignorance. Indeed I know enough to know your hypothesis is seriously flawed.


Ophiolite, with all due respect sir; I would like for you to forever remember the statement in bold font. I am not sure... if you know my hypothesis. Notwithstanding, you concede the uncertainty of scientists on the many aspects of plate tectonics and mountain building.




Despite your remarks above I am very sure of the role that subduction plays in the formation of mountain chains. The African plate is subducting below the European plate: result - the Alps. One of the Pacific plates subducts below Asia: result - Japan and its volcanic mountains. And so on and on - many examples.
[/size]

Your defiance of my remarks lets me know... just how firmly settled and/or established you are on the subject matter. Nonetheless, the subduction of the surfaces beneath these great continents are not the cause for the uplift of their enormous mountains. The Pacific plate is great...but it is not the cause for the volcanic mountains of Japan...and so on and on....no sir; not the case. I know the plates are beneath these mountains, yet they did not cause the uplifts of Earth's greatest mountain chains.



How do we know this? We can measure plate movement. We can identify the subduction zone from earthquake data. We can track the movement of magma from subducting plate to surface. We can map the gravity anomalies associated with the subduction zone. We can trace the history of the mountain building through stratigraphic and chronographic analysis. For you to counter these data you have to show how they are consistent with your hypothesis and further show that your hypothesis offers a superior explanation.


Yes, we can measure plate movement... yes, we can identify the subduction zones from earthquake data...yes, we can track the movement of magma from subducting plate to surface...gravitational anolmalies associated with the subduction zone, I don't know. Tracing the history of mountain building through stratigraphic and chronographic analysis...no. Its a good way to start, however; stratigraphic and chronographic analysis will not provide the source of enormous energy to compile billions of tons of Earth's solid surface.

Before we explore my hypothesis, let's keep in mind the peculiar locations of the subduction zones and mountain chains. There are logical reasons why they exist in their locales, and not in some other surface areas of the world. And so on, for the mountains. You have the Himalayas north of the continent of India, but not in Africa. We have the Andes mountains positioned only on the western coasts of South America...but not on the west coasts. Why are there subduction zones and mountains west and not east?



So what is your explanation for subduction zones? And what is your evidence to support that hypothesis?


My good man Ophiolite, I think this is probably the best question you have asked me. I am delighted.

 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Quote
My good man Ophiolite, I think this is probably the best question you have asked me. I am delighted.
So answer it. All we have had from you so far are bald assertions. We have examined one of those assertions in detail and found you were entirely wrong. Drop the assertions: state your thesis and offer your evidence.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
bald assertions?

I have found more difficulty in your hostility, than the subject matter...
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Dareo, I am not being hostile. I am being properly sceptical of your claims.

In science you are required to provide evidence for your hypotheses. Science demands this. I do not demand it, science does.

You have made various assertions. The only  one we have examined in detail has been shown to be false. I am asking you to provide evidence to support your assertions. In the absence of that evidence they are unsubstantiated; they are not validated; they are - in simple words - bald assertions.

So I ask you again - state your thesis and provide evidence in support of it. If you cannot do so then you are not practicing science, you are practicing wooly speculation. You have a first rate opportunity here to publicise your ideas and to convince people that they are valid. But to do so you need to state them clearly and offer the evidential support. Please focus on that and not what you perceive to be hostility on my part. It isn't hostility.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Alright then, Ophiolite.

I am in preference to begin, by defining subduction.

According to Wikipedia;  subduction is defined… In geology, subduction is the process that takes place at convergent boundaries by which one tectonic plate moves under another tectonic plate, sinking into the Earth's mantle, as the plates converge.  A subduction zone is an area on Earth where two tectonic plates move towards one another and one slides under the other.

Are we sure, that subduction is the process that takes place at convergent boundaries by which one tectonic plate moves under another tectonic plate, sinking into the Earth's mantle, as the plates converge? Is it true, that tectonic plates actually move beneath other tectonic plates? And, does the lighter tectonic plate really sink into the denser mantle of the abyss?

Can a geophysicist or any scientist accurately explain those strange forces of inner Earth, conveyed in terms of convection; by which the heat of the mantle moves billions of tons of continental slabs in many wayward directions, with enough potential of energy to raise mountain chains from an inner sphere? I think, if a scientist could do that, we would not have the problem of uncertainty in the many aspects of plate tectonics and mountain building.

I strongly disagree with Wikipedia’s definition of subduction; and all others:

•   It is not a process…it is not ongoing
•   Subduction does not take place at convergent boundaries
•   tectonic plates do not move beneath other tectonic plates
•   tectonic plates do not sink into mantle


With this difference and the scientific uncertainty in the many aspects of plate tectonics and mountain building, I say; the proposition we understand as subduction, researched, texted and illustrated; unfortunately is a misrepresentation of the germane. It’s interesting… do you remember, when the Earth was believed to have been flat?

I am aware, that Earth's surface does move, and the plates move indifferently to adjacent plates. Nonetheless, the plates do not move beneath one another. Defined; the lower plate sinks into the mantle, while the upper plate is forged upward. This is a hypothetical process, which progresses more profoundly; when over millions of years, or eras is appended to the hypothesis.  Resulting once again, with a second of uncertainty.

The surface only appears sliding beneath another surface slab. I know, you are probably thinking; what about the measurements? ...yes, I believe it is one centimeter per year. One centimeter per year... a fifthteen second earthquake should be more interesting to scientists. But again, this is distinctly insufficient to the uplift of Earth's greatest mountain chains.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2012 04:23:24 by dareo »
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
I like science and I like scientists. Many have achieved outstanding milestones in their great accomplishments. I have learned so much from the Earth scientists. Their studies are held in high regard on my behalf. But what have they missed about Earth that I could make or add a new theory too?

While most scientists studied Earth’s surface very closely, I saw it from a different perspective. I saw the Earth from a faraway distance. I saw what each person did not take into account. I saw that planet Earth was hit by an enormous cosmic object.

Like the accretion of its earliest conception in space, coalescing from millions of impacts of cosmic matter; this impact was great. But according to my evidence, this was not a very early impact…meaning billions of years ago. This was an impact less than one hundred million years ago. Earth had accrued to planetary size for billions of years. Yet, our developing solar system was conforming to order by the sun’s powering gravity.

In the development, and over billions of years planets amassed and settled. We still witness the last vestiges of this occurrence on almost any given night in the form of ‘shooting stars’ or meteors. We are reminded of the possibility of an approaching asteroid and/or comet. These incidences were more frequent in Earth’s primary years.

What was missed? It was Earth’s greatest impact. You might think Earth’s largest impact crater, lies in South Africa with a diameter of one hundred eighty-six mile/three hundred kilometer depression with upheaval. Or the Sudbury crater in Ontario, Canada; or the Chicxulub crater in the peninsula of Central America. This impact is Earth’s greatest and largest crater.

Now, why am I referring to Earth’s greatest impact? Because, from this very impact; we have our greatest mountain chains. There is not a force of energy from inner Earth with the potential of positioning mountain chains in an orderly or linear fashion. The force of energy, which raised mountain chains on Earth, arrived from the cosmos.

We are talking about a massive crater on planet Earth. Verily, it is undocumented. I have done extensive research for years. It is the largest crater on planet Earth. It is so vast and prime, yet very existent; that it goes unrecognized accompanying an abundance of clues and evidence for the very scientific ‘uncertainty’ of mountain building. So I am quite compelled to convey my theory on mountain building and resolve any claims of subduction as the determining factor for mountain building.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
I am in preference to begin, by defining subduction.
You have not defined subduction. Your post was a lengthy statement that subduction was wrong. You did not say what you think subduction is. In stating it was wrong you offered absolutley no evidence to support your claim. That is not science. That is just an expression of an opinion. You are entitled to have an opinion, just stop trying to pretend that opinion is equivalent to science.

There is abundant evidence from seismic studies that tectonic plates are subducted at convergent margins. If you dispute this you have to provide an argument, backed up by evidence, to explain why they appear to being subducted. Arm waving and word salad do not equal an argument backed up by evidence. I am waiting.

Quote
We are talking about a massive crater on planet Earth. Verily, it is undocumented. I have done extensive research for years. It is the largest crater on planet Earth.
The Pacific Ocean? The only problem with your speculation is the evidence from geology, palaeontology, geophysics, geochronology, field mapping, geodesics, geochemistry, tectonophysics, stratigraphy, physics and other disciplines which is against your speculation.

My advice to you is to give up while you are still behind.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2012 17:53:26 by Ophiolite »
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Your advice to me is preposterous...

 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Are you the representative for any these disciplines, or are you a guy who has too much time?
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Your advice to me is preposterous...
My advice to you is a reflection of my frustration at your ill conceived, unsubstantiated, evidentially falsified speculation and your ongoing refusal, or inability, to offer any justification for your proposals other than empty assertions.

Quote
Are you the representative for any these disciplines, or are you a guy who has too much time
Who I am is irrelevant. Who you are is irrelevant. This is not about you or me. This is about your speculations and the disciplines I have listed demonstrate that your speculations are false.

Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility that every conclusion science has made about mountain building is incorrect, but to accept that you have to offer argument and evidence, not - as I have said repeatedly - empty assertions. When will you begin to do so?
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
That will be enough of your hostility and bitterness. I think you might want to consider retiring Ophiolite. I am not impressed. Viewers of this forum, there is more I would like to add. If only I could block this guy.

 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
That will be enough of your hostility and bitterness. I think you might want to consider retiring Ophiolite. I am not impressed. Viewers of this forum, there is more I would like to add. If only I could block this guy.

Dareo

If anyone is likely to incur sanction from the moderators it is you.  Even on New Theories you need to back up your contentions - and you have failed to do this.   The questioning and fault-finding that you see as hostility is very much part and parcel of the scientific method - every new theory is scrutinised and pulled apart.  Definitions, axioms, methodology, and logic is all disputed and dismissed - the burden of proof is 100pct on whoever has postulated the theory.  In this case that is you - and you have reacted to a well-mannered and gentle debate with anger and personal slights.  Firstly, this form of reaction must stop - you can criticise your interrogators logic, the facts they claim support their dismissal of your claim, their interpretations of agreed data etc  - but you must not engage in any form of personal attack!  Secondly, a theory is only worthwhile if it can withstand questioning and uses empirical data or logic to refute arguments against it - assertions of truth or affirmations of validity are no use whatsoever.

If you wish to respond to me about this message do so on the private message system - any response on the forum boards will be deleted. 

regards

imatfaal - moderator
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Dareo, you have mentioned that you have done a lot of research on tectonics, subduction and mountatin building. Have you run across the concept of isostasy? This is the underlying mechanism responsible for the elevation differences we call mountains and trenches, plateaus and abyssal plains. This quite adequately explains why the Himalayas, for example, are where they are and why they are so high. So far you have failed to demonstrate that isostasy cannot produce mountains.

You have also, so far, failed to explain why the ages of the mountain chains and remnant mountain chains around the world vary in age over billions of years. This is surely contrary to your claim, as I understand it, that they arose from a single event.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
I have run across the concept of isostasy. The theoretical concept responsible for the Earth surface differences we call mountains, trenches, plateaus and abyssal plains. Isostasy does not adequately explain why the Himalayas are so vast and high.

The concept of isostasy is good. Isostasy as a mountain creator, or anything of a sizable extent is incorrect.

Isostasy is really occurring right now. Meaning... weathering or acclimatization and the major consistency of gravity, is what truly causes the forces of equilibrium around the planet. The same equilibrium of balance is not the powering force, which raised the Himalayas or the Tibetan Plateau. I think isostasy (in a more appropriated concept) is currently in effect balancing the height of.. say, the Himalayas to a more leveled surface. There was a time when the Himalayas were much higher than we know them today. Isostasy is the equalization. It is not the provider.

Age of the mountains chains...the greatest mountain chains on Earth are not over a billion years old. Again, my theory states; Earth's mountain chains rose from a single event. In sort of a instantaneous chain reaction throughout our spherical planet. Our mountain chains are less than one billion years old, nevertheless; they are all identical in age.



 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Its interesting when you asked, "...the Pacific Ocean"? My answer is yes, the Pacific Ocean. It is quite unfortunate for the disciplines of geology, palaeontology, geophysics, geochronology, field mapping, geodesics, geochemistry, tectonophysics, stratigraphy, physics, astrophysics and other fields of study, that an occurrence of this magnitude took place.

Now some empiric data:

Are you familiar with the aspects of a complex crater? Complex craters exhibit somewhat unintuitive structures such as central peaks, or an inner "peaked" ring, terraced rim walls and outer concentric faulted zones. With a general examination of the Pacific rim, we have all the characteristics of an enormous complex crater.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
1. Since you are challenging the broadly accepted ability of isostasty to account for the elevation of mountains you must provided the argument and evidence to demonstrate that it is insufficient to produce these elevation. The principles are established and well laid out in textbooks and research papers. Since this is non-controversial within geology it is your responsibility to identify what is faulty in the standard explanations.
2. I am very familiar with crater formation and the character of complex craters. I repeat my previous question. How do you explain the complexity of circum-Pacific mountains, which show events occuring over many millions of years in direct contradiction of your single event theory. Also, how do you explain the Alps?
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
If my answer is not clear, I will try harder.

As I have stated in my earlier post...isostasy is only the gravitational equilibrium of our planet. The problem I have with the concept of isostasy is that it supposedly controls the regional elevations of continents and ocean floors in accordance with the densities of their underlying rocks. I cannot see how isostasy controls regional elevations of continents and ocean floors. 

1. we have isostasy, Earth's surface force of gravitational equilibrium.

2. Earth's physical surface

Earth's gravitational equilibrium pulls with equal strength in all directions our planet to the physical structure of a massive sphere. If the lighter densities of sediment are elevated, that would be a problem of explaining some of the densities in mountains throughout the world. Many of which are igneous.

If we consider;

Continental Plate Convergence to the support the theory of isostasy, as to mountain building; therein the problem lies. I agree with continental plate convergence, however; I strongly disagree with continental plate convergence for mountain building. I say again, Earth's surface is not a cycle of surface crust slowly delving into mantle in multifarious directions. The Earth's surface is round. The Earth's ocean's ridges (which are the broadly accepted power sources of dominant power for theoretical mountain building)  are regrettably, not the great energy for moving surface slabs in multitudinous directions, beneath great continents; forging enormous mountains chains...even after millions or even billions of years. 

Unfortunately Ophiolite, I for many years; have disagreed with the text books...and the research papers.

If I may, I would like to refer to the surface slabs beneath continental plates:

Ophilite, what appears theoretically as; surface sliding under another is misinterpreted. The two surfaces are in an almost permanent position. There is some movement of adjustment, however; one surface is not sinking, diving, delving or moving into the abyss of the denser mantle in voluminous and undeviating directions throughout the world. This is fractured surface. Earth's surface was breached in an enormous style. It was a cosmic object, which crashed into Earth and created the massive fissures we recognize as tectonic plates. The lower surface slabs, which appear sliding under continents are apart of the origin surface. These lower surfaces were slammed beneath their adjacent surfaces. The lower surfaces have been the lower surfaces for millions of years.

How do I explain the complexity of circum-Pacific mountains, you ask? Again, every great mountain chain on the perimeters of the Pacific are upheavals of a massive simple or complex crater. The 'events' you mentioned, occurring over many millions of years; I know nothing about.

The Alps are interesting, as are the Himalayas, the Atlas mountains of Morocco or any great mountain belt furthest from the 'circum-Pacific'. 

Please, I am out of time. I will get back soon.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Another point about the subduction slabs, before explaining the Alps...

Almost every subducted surface on Earth exists on the Pacific ocean floor. Now, let's compare the subducted surfaces of the vast Pacific to the ocean floor of the Atlantic. The Atlantic ocean hosts an enormous ridge on its ocean floor (the Mid-Atlantic Ridge). If the theory of isostasy stands firm, as the massive mid-Atlantic Ridge exudes immense energy; all of western Europe, western Africa, all of eastern North America and eastern South America should have great mountain chains on their Atlantic coasts...but it is not the case. Notwithstanding, the text books and research papers explain and illustrate, how convection in the mantle moves the surface beneath a continental surface and the result (over millions of years) mountains.

The Atlantic ocean is probably about the identical age of the Pacific, nonetheless the Pacific perimeters the "ring of fire", with volcanoes, surface faults, rift zones, and yes... great mountain chains. The existence of the mountain chains are not present due to isostasy or subduction of surface slabs sliding beneath continents in populous directions. Nor has isostasy or subduction forged mountains from the continental splitting power of the Mid-Alantic Ridge. (there are no mountain chains on the perimeters of the vast Atlantic Ocean's coasts)   

Once again, subduction and/or isostasy are only theoretical and obscure from the process of unaffected mountain building.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length