0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Surely, you are not saying, solid rock moves like liquid?
If the mantle is 'largely solid', tell me please...how solid continental plates move across a largely solid planet to form mountain belts?
The isotopic dating techniques are excellent indicators for the age of material, however; isotope dating does not say anything about the timely uplift of Earth's greatest mountain chains..such as the Himalayas, or the Andes.
I only just noticed this reply.Quote from: dareo on 25/12/2011 03:52:45 Ophiolite, we know the mantle is dense molten rock. No, we most certainly do not. There is zero doubt that the mantle is solid. This is why it can transmit P-waves. If it were molten P-waves would not be transmitted by it. On this point you are simply 100% incorrect. As I noted previously, there are some portions of the mantle where partial melting has occured. There are pockets of molten material, perhaps constituting as much as 15% of the bulk of the rock, but the rock - overall - remains solid. Since this is an elementary piece of knowledge about Earth structure I have to question your competence to have any meaningful thoughts about Earth history. Quote from: dareo on 25/12/2011 03:52:45There is plenty of evidence about the mantle. Yes there is and this evidence clearly indicates that the mantle is largely solid. If you wish to maintain otherwise it is your responsibility to provide that contrary evidence.My good man, lets understand seismic waves. There are two types of seismic waves:1. P-waves2. S-wavesP-waves can travel through solids and liquids.S-waves travel only through solids.From the measurements of both waves, we know Earth's interior is largely liquid.I am sorry, this is even more "elementary". Notwithstanding, it has nothing to do with the uplift of mountain chains, or the force or forces by which these great mountain formed.
Ophiolite, we know the mantle is dense molten rock.
There is plenty of evidence about the mantle.
Quote from: dareo on 12/02/2012 10:39:14Surely, 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.Quote from: dareo on 12/02/2012 10:39:14If 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 1965Abstract: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. QuoteThe isotopic dating techniques are excellent indicators for the age of material, however; isotope dating does not say anything about the timely uplift of Earth's greatest mountain chains..such as the Himalayas, or the Andes.I am perplexed as to why you would say this. Here is one example of of where dating of one phase of the Himalyan orogeny is achieved with such tenchiques. One could easily find a dozen, a score a hundred or more similar papers. How did you come by such a mistaken idea that this was not possible? de Sigoyer, J. , et al Dating the Indian continental subduction and collisional thickening in the northwest Himalaya: Multichronology of the Tso Morari eclogites Geology v. 28 no. 6 p. 487-490 2000Abstract:Multichronometric studies of the low-temperature eclogitic Tso Morari unit (Ladakh, India) place timing constraints on the early evolution of the northwest Himalayan belt. Several isotopic systems have been used to date the eclogitization and the exhumation of the Tso Morari unit: Lu-Hf, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and Ar-Ar. A ca. 55 Ma age for the eclogitization has been obtained by Lu-Hf on garnet, omphacite, and whole rock from mafic eclogite and by Sm-Nd on garnet, glaucophane, and whole rock from high-pressure metapelites. These results agree with a previously reported U-Pb age on allanite, and together these ages constrain the subduction of the Indian continental margin at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. During exhumation, the Tso Morari rocks underwent thermal relaxation at about 9 ± 3 kbar, characterized by partial recrystallization under amphibolite facies conditions ca. 47 Ma, as dated by Sm-Nd on garnet, calcic amphibole, and whole rock from metabasalt, Rb-Sr on phengite, apatite, and whole rock, and Ar-Ar on medium-Si phengite from metapelites. Ar-Ar analyses of biotite and low-Si muscovite from metapelites, which recrystallized at <5 kbar toward the end of the exhumation, show that the Tso Morari unit was at upper crustal levels ca. 30 Ma. These results indicate variable exhumation rates for the Tso Morari unit, beginning with rapid exhumation while the Indian margin subduction was still active, and later proceeding at a slower pace during the crustal thickening associated with the Himalayan collision.
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.
..and please, no need to insult...
The moment you use the term 'viscosity' you are referring to a liquid.
Therefore, by thermal convection process of diffusion creep poly-crystalline, materials can deform at slow strain rates with Newtonian viscosity?
Would the slow strain rate have enough force to slowly forge the orogeny of say... the Andes Mountains?
And if so, please tell me...why this particular part of the world?
Does the diffusion deform the rock in a specific direction?
Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56 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."Quote from: Ophiolite on 14/02/2012 15:40:33Quote from: dareo on 12/02/2012 10:39:14Surely, 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.Quote from: dareo on 12/02/2012 10:39:14If 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 1965Abstract: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. Quote from: Ophiolite on 08/03/2012 13:05:41Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56 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?Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56 ..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. Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56The moment you use the term 'viscosity' you are referring to a liquid. Or to something that over long time periods behaves like a liquid.Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56 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=Aτnwhere 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.QuoteWould 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.QuoteAnd 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.QuoteDoes 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.
Quote from: dareo on 12/02/2012 10:39:14Surely, 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.Quote from: dareo on 12/02/2012 10:39:14If 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 1965Abstract: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. Quote from: Ophiolite on 08/03/2012 13:05:41Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56 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?Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56 ..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. Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56The moment you use the term 'viscosity' you are referring to a liquid. Or to something that over long time periods behaves like a liquid.Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56 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=Aτnwhere 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.QuoteWould 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.QuoteAnd 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.QuoteDoes 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.
Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56 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?Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56 ..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. Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56The moment you use the term 'viscosity' you are referring to a liquid. Or to something that over long time periods behaves like a liquid.Quote from: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56 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=Aτnwhere 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.QuoteWould 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.QuoteAnd 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.QuoteDoes 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 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.
I am asking; ...according to your knowledge of tectonics and geophysics, why is there a subduction zone near the Andes mountains?
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.
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.
QuoteI 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.
Ophiolite, please forgive me for my quotation usage. I will get better with it. Quote from: Ophiolite on 12/03/2012 12:15:53QuoteI 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.Quote from: Ophiolite on 12/03/2012 12:15:53I 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.
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.
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.
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?
My good man Ophiolite, I think this is probably the best question you have asked me. I am delighted.
bald assertions?I have found more difficulty in your hostility, than the subject matter...
I am in preference to begin, by defining subduction.
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.