The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?  (Read 33134 times)

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
(there are no mountain chains on the perimeters of the vast Atlantic Ocean's coasts)
I suppose you don't count the:
  • Appalachian Mountains
  • Brazilian East Coast Range
  • The Scandes
  • The Atlas Mountains
  • The Cameroon Line
  • Greenland Mountains
  • And all the Spanish Mountains
The Atlantic is different than the Pacific, but it is not devoid of mountains and mountain ranges.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
No Cliffordk I do not count them. The post was stating a comparison between the mountain perimeters of the Pacific ocean's coasts and the Atlantic ocean's coasts.  The mountains you mentioned are near, and/or adjacent to the Atlantic. They are not consistently positioned along the circumference of the Atlantic ocean, as the Pacific Coast Ranges:


Kenai Mountains, southern Alaska
Chugach Mountains, southern Alaska
Talkeetna Mountains, southern Alaska
Kenai Mountains
Yukon Ranges, Alaska, Yukon
Wrangell Mountains, southern Alaska
Saint Elias Mountains, southern Alaska, southwestern Yukon, far northwestern British Columbia
Alsek Ranges
Fairweather Range
Takshanuk Mountains
Insular Mountains, British Columbia
Vancouver Island Ranges, British Columbia
Queen Charlotte Mountains, British Columbia
Mt. Constance, Olympic Mountains
Olympic Mountains, Washington
Cascade Range, British Columbia (Fraser Canyon west bank), Washington, Oregon and California  (for you Cliffordk)
Oregon Coast Range, Oregon
Northern Oregon Coast Range
Central Oregon Coast Range
Southern Oregon Coast Range
Calapooya Mountains, Oregon
Klamath-Siskiyou, Oregon, Northern California
Klamath Mountains, Oregon, Northern California
Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon, Northern California
Trinity Alps and Salmon Mountains, Northern California
Yolla Bolly Mountains, Northern California
Northern Coast Ranges, Northern California
King Range, Northern California
Mendocino Range, Northern California
Klamath Mountains
Mayacamas Mountains, Northern California
Marin Hills, Northern California,
Central California Coast Ranges, Central California
Santa Cruz Mountains, Central California
Diablo Range, Central California
Gabilan Range, Central California
Santa Lucia Range, Central California
Temblor Range, Central California
Caliente Range, Central California
Transverse Ranges, Southern California
Sierra Madre Mountains, Southern California
Sierra Pelona Mountains, Southern California
San Rafael Mountains
San Emigdio Mountains, Southern California
San Rafael Mountains, Southern California
Santa Ynez Mountains, Southern California
Tehachapi Mountains, Southern California
Topatopa Mountains, Southern California
Santa Susana Mountains, Southern California
Simi Hills, Southern California
Santa Monica Mountains, Southern California
Chalk Hills, Southern California
San Gabriel Mountains, Southern California
Puente Hills
San Rafael Hills, Southern California
Puente Hills, Southern California
San Bernardino Mountains, Southern California
Little San Bernardino Mountains, Southern California
Peninsular Ranges, Southern California and Mexico
Santa Ana Mountains, Southern California
Chino Hills, Southern California
San Jacinto Mountains, Southern California
Palomar Mountain Range, Southern California
Laguna Mountains, Southern California
Sierra Juarez, Northern Baja California, Mexico
Sierra San Pedro Martir, Central Baja California, Mexico
Sierra de la Giganta, Southern Baja California, Mexico
Sierra de la Laguna, Southern Baja California, Mexico
Sierra Madre Occidental, Northwestern Mexico
The Andes Mountains


The Sikhote-Alin Mountain System of Far-East Russia

The mountain ranges and great mountain belts of the Pacific coasts were built with an enormous and direct surge of powerful energy. The mountains you mentioned near the Atlantic Ocean, were forged from the remaining vestiges of the same energy, and channeled by another. There is a difference in the order of formation of the Pacific coast mountains, as equated to Atlantic coastal mountains.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
So by your own admission there are large numbers of mountainous ranges positioned at various distances from the Pacific coast and being demonstrably of quite different ages. how does this support your contention?
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
No Ophiolite, by my own admission; I mentioned the Pacific ocean and the Atlantic ocean are about the same age (identical).

All the mountainous ranges positioned at various distances from the Pacific coasts are the same age. This is my contention. As an example; the Rocky Mountains of the United States spans an approximate distance of three kilometers from the coasts. Yet again, they emerged tumultuously at the same time.   

 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile

the Rocky Mountains of the United States spans an approximate distance of three kilometers from the coasts.
 

Help! I need to find a boat, quickly!
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Sorry...that was approximately three hundred miles inland.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
How then do you account for the clear cut wide range of ages determined for metamorphic and igneous activity within these mountain belts? Such age is determined absolutely by radiometric dating and relatively by application of simple geologocial fundamentals.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Are you refering to the clear cut wide range of ages determined for metamorphic and igneous activity of rocks within the mountain belts?

Such age is determined by radiometric dating and 'relatively' applied by simple geologocial fundamentals. Notwithstanding, the mountains and more specifically; the great mountain chains along the perimeters of the vast Pacific Ocean are of various minerals. Radiometric dating is limited to certain minerals.

Therefore, the assembling of all the minerals within the enormous mountainous perimeter of Earth's largest ocean;and applying simple geological fundamentals using radiometric dating techniques to determine the age or ages of mountain chains, may be an absolute futile attempt.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Ophiolite, I think a closer answer would be found in the iridium layer of Earth. The time line found in the bedrock is more precise. It is unfortunate scientists spend many hours considering the Chixculub Crater on the Peninsula of Central America. Chixculub is the assumed crater, which killed Earth's dinosaur populations; as well as many other animals and plant life.

It is through this concentric layer we may find the time line. I think this is the period (the Cretaceous-Tertiary), where we find the age of Earth's great mountain chains. No other event in Earth history, was more extraordinary than the KT event. Nonetheless, the Chixulub crater impact was for certain; not the crater of impact, by which Earth's great mountain chains emerged...
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Now consider the time line, as chronicled in the Geological Time Division. Its presentation is based on radiometric dating and relative time scales of geologic strata. Though not perfect, it is close to precision.

Nevertheless, keenly focus on the KTB or the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary; sixty-five million years ago. This is the time of Earth's greatest event, resulting; the primal and turbulent emergence of Earth's greatest mountain chains and belts.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Ophiolite, I think a closer answer would be found in the iridium layer of Earth. The time line found in the bedrock is more precise. It is unfortunate scientists spend many hours considering the Chixculub Crater on the Peninsula of Central America. Chixculub is the assumed crater, which killed Earth's dinosaur populations; as well as many other animals and plant life.

It is through this concentric layer we may find the time line. I think this is the period (the Cretaceous-Tertiary), where we find the age of Earth's great mountain chains. No other event in Earth history, was more extraordinary than the KT event. Nonetheless, the Chixulub crater impact was for certain; not the crater of impact, by which Earth's great mountain chains emerged...
Forget the KT event. It is irrelevant. You are avoiding properly addressing the wealth of stratigraphic, palaeontological and radiomatric dating evidence that clearly defines the complex of events, spread over hunreds of millions of years, that are responsible for the mountains around the Pacific. Simply repeating your mantra without dealing with these very real issues does nothing to convince anybody of the authenticity of your speculation.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Remember the KT event. It would be absolutely idiotic for a scientist to forget the KT event! Study it, research it... it is extremely relevant to Earth history. The wealth of strati-graphic, paleontological, radiometric dating does not clearly define the 'complex' of events, which are responsible for the mountains around the Pacific. 

The mountains and the deep sea trenches on the perimeters of the Pacific Ocean, are the vestiges of an enormous impact. It is the largest crater on Earth.

Also, The KT event is seen in the strata, as the paleontologists, recognize the time through radiometric dating. It is through their work, an abundance of evidence beholds. Nonetheless, many of the clues makes no sense and are quite strange to paleontologists. What is understood, are the chain of events pertaining to climate change, the spread of sediment and volcanic activity, over millions of years. When I mentioned the iridium layer in the strata, I got no response on something so significant. You speak of events...spread over hundreds of millions of years responsible for the mountains around the Pacific. That is not science, that is uncertain speculation with too much or hardly any thought.

I am not presenting my theory...simply to 'repeat my mantra'. Tell me..what do you know about the concentric iridium layer?   
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Tell me..what do you know about the concentric iridium layer?   
I will have to guess what you mean by a concentric iridium layer. I presume you to mean the global iridium layer believed to be a consequence of the Chixculub impact.

I don't recall the details, but Alvarez junior - a geologist - was interested in the KT boundary and wanted to get a more detailed look at how things varied across it. In partnership with a couple of other geologists he looked at some section in, I think, Italy. They were surprised to find a massive concentration of iridium in a layer right at the boundary. Alavrez senior - a physicist - got involved at this point and they looked at the boundary in other parts of the world, finding a similar spike.

Iridium has a concentration many orders of magnitude higher in chondrites than in the crust, so this global distribution of a high value iridium layer suggested an impact by a chondritic asteroid. Some workers, I believe, still argue a role for the eruptions of the Deccan Traps in the KT extinctions, but this is a minority opinion.

The initial research was published here:
Alvarez, LW et al  "Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction". Science 208 1980 1095-1108

Quote
Remember the KT event. It would be absolutely idiotic for a scientist to forget the KT event! Study it, research it... it is extremely relevant to Earth history.
i have studied it. I am familiar with it. It is relevant to Earth history, but not to the formation of the Circum-Pacific mountain chains. If you believe it is relevant you have to demonstrate in what way. You consistently fail to do so. This is what I mean by you 'repeating your tired old mantra'.


You say:
Quote
The wealth of strati-graphic, paleontological, radiometric dating does not clearly define the 'complex' of events, which are responsible for the mountains around the Pacific. You speak of events...spread over hundreds of millions of years responsible for the mountains around the Pacific. That is not science, that is uncertain speculation with too much or hardly any thought. 

Those statements Dareo are simply incorrect. (Actually, they are much worse than incorrect, but I wish to remain polite.)

Here is the abstract of a single paper on the Andean orogeny. There are hundreds, indeed thousands of research papers like this providing detailed examination of  one or more aspects of moutain building. Not speculation, but solid, peer reviewed research. Read this one paper and tell me which parts of it you consider to 'not be science'. Please be specific and justify your claim.

Haschke et al, "Repeated crustal thickening and recycling during the Andean orogeny in north Chile (21–26S)" JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107 2001

Abstract
Understanding Neogene arc crustal thickening in the central Andes requires(1)some estimate of initial pre-Neogene(priorto26Ma) crustal thicknesses and(2)mechanisms that account for the remaining deficit in crustal thickening(10–30%). Mid-Miocene horizontal crustal shortening can explain most but not all crustal thickening in the modern central Andean arc. Systematic changes in geochemical and Sr, Nd, and selected Pb isotopic data of Late Cretaceous–Eocene(78–37Ma) and older arc magmatic episodes from north Chile provide new constraints on both. First, Andean crust may have been significantly thickened by long-term underplating of mantle-derived basalt from Jurassic to present. Second, estimated initial(lateEocene)crustal thicknesses of45km are consistent with(1)amphibole-and garnet-bearing residual mineralogies for late Eocene syntectonic/posttectonic granitoids,(2) lower crustal P wave velocities of 7.3–7.7kms1 compatible with underplated mafic crust, and(3)results from recent experimental petrologic work showing garnet stability in mafic mineralogies12kbar (40km crustal thickness). Analogous to older Andean magmatic episodes in north Chile, newly underplated basaltic crust may account for the remaining deficit in Neogene crustal thickening. Similar evolutionary patterns in geochemistry and initial Sr and Nd isotopic characteristics of Andean(200Matopresent)magmatic rocks suggest that the Andean orogeny in this region evolved by a combination of processes of repeated arc migration, tectonic and magmatic crustal thickening, and igneous recycling which was controlled by periodically changing plate convergence rates and obliquity and corresponding changes in the rheologic behavior of the continental crust.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
So, you do agree; the KT event is relevant to Earth history. Very good Ophiolite! Do you know how relevant it is? It goes much further beyond the obscure speculations of the Chixculub impact. Not only is the 'global layer' of iridium found throughout the world, it is more established kilometers west of the Chixculub impact crater. It is more prevalent near and on the Pacific Ocean floor, and less at the studied site.

But there is more to the KT event. The event was much larger than the Chixculub impact. Do you recall an earlier post, understanding simple and complex craters? The KT event resulted with a complex crater, still visible on Earth after millions of years.
i have studied it. I am familiar with it. It is relevant to Earth history, but not to the formation of the Circum-Pacific mountain chains. If you believe it is relevant you have to demonstrate in what way. You consistently fail to do so.
I guess; a consistent and tiring explanation of an impact crater is failure in your world. Once you apprehend the magnitude of the actual KT impact, it will be much less troublesome to understand. You must capture the number and great size of objects in our cosmos and how vulnerable Earth truly is. Earth has experienced its exposure in an enormous manner, yet you fail to see it with yours eyes.

Yet, there is still more. Are you familiar with the mineral 'shocked quartz'? Again, another clue misunderstood in your world, as it is also prevelant and abundant on the Pacific Ocean floor. Can you tell me something about shocked quartz Ophilite?  Or has the detective scientist failed to observe a massive crater with puzzling evidence? Is it truly that difficult?

The Circum-Pacific mountain chains are the upheavals of an enormous astral collision. If this is 'repeating tired old mantra', you sir; are failing to simply comprehend indicative, significant, and powerful Earth history.

One more thing Ophilite...the abstract article from the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107 2001, is unfortunately; plagued with uncertainty, concerning the Andean orogeny of North Chile.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
dareo,
Here are three things that reveal you as an ill-informed crank.
1) Despite repeated requests to do so you have so far failed to demonstrate any of your claims. You simply keep repeating them. (Yes, it is a 'tired old mantra'.) It is not sufficient to state that the Pacific is an impact crater. You have to demonstrate that this is the case. You have to show that interpreting it as an impact crater not only matches physical, chemical, geological, geophysical and chronological criteria, but that it does so better than current explanations.  You have not even begun to attempt to do so.
2) Throughout your posts on this thread you continually hint at some great secret you possess. You do not make clear cut statements that lay out your hypothesis in an unequivocal manner. This is poor communication and abyssmal science.
3) Your rejection of the example paper is a clear cut case of you avoiding the issue. It is not sufficient to state that the paper is plagued with uncertainty. You have to demonstrate that this is the case and that such uncertainty is greater than the uncertainty surrounding your idel speculation.

Quote
Yet, there is still more. Are you familiar with the mineral 'shocked quartz'? Again, another clue misunderstood in your world, as it is also prevelant and abundant on the Pacific Ocean floor. Can you tell me something about shocked quartz Ophilite?  Or has the detective scientist failed to observe a massive crater with puzzling evidence? Is it truly that difficult?
It is not my job to go about trying to twist observations into conformity with a hypothesis for which I see no meaningful evidence. It si your job to provide the logical arguments and the evidence to persuade myself an others that your idea may have merit. This, as noted, you have totally failed to do because you have not attempted to do it.

As to shocked quartz, yes I am familiar with it: fracturing on the (0001) and {1011} planes, generation of Brazil twins parallel to the basal plane, various planar deformation features, conversion to shistovite or coesite, production of diaplectic glass, etc. Not to mention effects  such as the generation of maskelynite, or reduction of refractive index and birefringence in feldspars, or creation of kink bands in micas, or even olivines. Now tell me, specifically, with peer reviewed citations to justify your statements, in what way features such as this support your hypothesis.

For my part, I would expect a global distribution of shocked quartz grains to be found globally following an event as large as the KT boundary impact. Not surprisingly this includes the Pacific floor. How do you account for the presence of shocked quartz in clays from the KT boundary that lie conformably on older sediments?


dareo, you have been afforded a wonderful platform on which to lay out then seek to justify your hypothesis. You have failed completely to do so, depsite multiple opportunities afforded by my questions. Unless you choose to take this issue seriously and start providing detailed responses, not emotionally charged, baseless assertions, then I  see no point in continuing. The choice is yours.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Ophiolite, what is so wondrous about a platform; that I should provide such a circumstantial 'dissertation' about my theory?
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
If it is not your wish to explain and perhaps convince others of your hypothesis then why are you here? This forum provides you an opportunity available in only a few places on or off the internet to lay out your ideas and have them discussed freely. You don't appear to want to take advantage of that opportunity. Unless you choose to begin presenting detailed facts and relate these convincingly to your hypothesis, then I am done with you. Your choice.

 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
When thinking about mountains, or volcanoes, you might consider Yellowstone and Hawaii.

A theory must be able to account for the apparent slow movement of the location of the volcano over time, with old mountains or calderas being replaced by new ones as the "hot spot" moves.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
dareo,
Here are three things that reveal you as an ill-informed crank.

Ophiolite, as I have said before; ...please, no need to insult. That is a personal attack. This is your mannerism of etiquette in an open forum, panting, offending, and pushing for detailed facts. I have no interest in laying out my ideas, with those of rampant civility. Why so much effort in a hostile place?

This debate will continue; preferably a location with some degree of decorum, where ideas may be freely discussed.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
I politely and consitently asked you to 'freely discuss' your ideas. Without the presentation of detailed facts no meaningful discussion can take place. Clearly you are afraid to do so, or incapable of doing so.

Further, I am not insulting you. It is your actions that identify you as an ill-informed crank. The idea does not stem from me, but is evident from your posting style and content. (The only evidence of any kind you have actually delivered.)

So, you've made your choice. In summary, your idea has no meaningful evidence to support it. End of story. Goodbye.
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Ophiolite reminds me of my fourth grade teacher...when I mentioned to her, "...the sun is a star" she replied, "...no, the sun is not a star". To my fourth grade teacher, I was probably an ill-informed crank.

Remember this Ophiolite: “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”

Yes, it is the quote from Albert Einstein. If you can only hear the laughter. Take care, Ophiolite.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
All personal attacks or even mere characterisations should now cease.  I will lock the thread without hesitation at the next post by anyone that deals with anything apart from the argument

MOD
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
To reiterate; the subduction of Earth's tectonic plates are not the cause for the uplifting our planet's greatest mountain chains...
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
To reiterate; continually restating a controversial point without offereing any substantive evidence in support of that point is not what science is about.

You have offered no meaningful evidence to support your position.
You have offered no research from other workers that supports your position.
You have failed to answer directly questions directed to you.
You have failed to address issues raised.
You have deliberately avoided some of both questions and issues.

How do you intend to conduct a dialogue about your speculation if you choose to adopt such an approach?
 

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
I thought you said... end of story, and good bye?

If you think, I have failed, failed, failed...why are you still posting?  Good bye Ophiolite
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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