Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: dareo on 11/12/2011 16:49:52

Title: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 11/12/2011 16:49:52
First, I am glade to expound in this forum...

You should know the answer to my question is absolutely not. Let me start, by saying...subduction of the Earth's tectonic plates do not forge the uplift of mountain chains over a course of millions years.

1. a simple or logical explanation for subduction's imprecision is the placements, or locations of Earth's mountain chains.

2. Earth's surface is a thin cooled solid, while Earth's voluminous mantle is liquid molten magma...in constant motion, as the earth rotates. 

3. We will have to ponder on the forces, which will push massive continental slabs, considering the plates only options.


Ok...lets take the opposite end of the colliding plate. If we observe the forces, which supposedly pushes the plates, or exudes the plates from inner Earth in a perfect divide (over millions of years) is this enough force to uplift a mountain chain?

But you might say...the ocean's great ridges are know illusion. And that is correct, yet...continental slabs are again, not pushed from the ocean's ridges. New surface exudes from the ridges, notwithstanding...they do not push continental plates, and certainly not, do they forge the uplift of great mountain chains, as say...Afghanistan. I read about orogeny and i cringe every-time i see it. Subducting slabs of lighter density, slowly diving into the more denser abyss of the mantle...and the result is great mountains chains throughout the Earth.

Prepare for the scrutiny "subduction" so desperately needs and deserves.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: CliffordK on 11/12/2011 18:39:10
Certainly when you look at the mountain chains, you will see a few different types of rock and soil.

The Cascade mountains, for example, have many volcanic mountains.

Further inland, the Rocky mountains consist of a lot of granite, which presumably was formed far below the surface, and somehow delivered up into the mountains where we see it today. 

In some places, one can find clear evidence of sedimentary rock that has apparently been raised in elevation from where it was originally deposited, or apparently flat sediment deposition is now found at an angle.

Your theory will have to explain these features.

One possible explanation is that one gets far more uplifting when continents collide.  For example, the mountains in Tibet may be due to the collision of continents.

Keep in mind that a small change on an annual basis becomes a big change when considered over thousands, or millions of years.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 12/12/2011 22:41:46
Cliffordk, I can't wait to explain to you the uplift of the Tibetan Plateau...it was not uplifted as so many believe. The continent of India ramming into the Asia continent uplifting the Himalayan Mountains...is another good speculation which makes me cringe. The current theories has to change.

Now, the vast Cascade mountains with all the volcanoes and volcanic activity, consisting of uplifted forms of sedimentary rock, granite and igneous solids, yes much of it was uplifted from deep beneath the surface, yet again...the uplift of this great mountain chain was not due to continental collisions over millions of years. Nor are the volcanoes and their histories of activity the results of continental collisions.

Throughout this vast world of ours, the largest mountain chains, regions and belts were not forged into existence from continents colliding. To collide, you would need a force of impact. To say, 'over millions of years' suggests a slow push of force. A liquid mantle may be contrary to such force...even over millions of years.

To everyone reading this article, drifting continental plates has never created mountain chains on planet Earth.

Cliffordk, to start...the Cascade Mountains were created from a cosmic impact. The Cascade Mountains are a very small segment of the greater impact. The Cascade Mountains is what I call... ancient crater upheaval. Yes, crater upheaval.
Ok, the big picture...the Rockies. The Rocky Mountains is apart of the actual crater. Yes, we are talking enormous.

From this impact, sediment from below the surface could be anywhere; including in the mountains.

Lets discuss even further Cliffordk.

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: CliffordK on 12/12/2011 23:08:58
Certainly there is more to it that just density.

While the core of the earth is likely more dense than the crust....

Rocks are generally denser than water, so one would expect a uniform crust of rock covered with a mile or so deep ocean water, around the entire world.  Clearly this isn't the case with the continents. 

I have seen it pointed out that a mile or two of the outer layers of Earth's crust is pretty insignificant when considering the 7926 mile diameter Earth.

Anyway, I eagerly await your alternative explanation of why we find granite and metamorphic rock high up in some mountains.
Title: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: rosy on 13/12/2011 00:24:27
I've deleted this post and the reply to it, since they related to forum housekeeping and not relevant to the subject under discussion in the thread.
Title: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: CliffordK on 13/12/2011 08:16:17
Ok, I think we got off a bit on the wrong foot here.  Let's try to get back onto the topic.

I suppose the idea of continental plates that are difficult or impossible to observe is quite a bit to consider. 

However, it is an elegant solution that explains things like the Pacific Ring of Fire, Mid-Atlantic Ridge, various mountain chains often along the coastlines, continental drift, preponderance of earthquakes and faultlines in certain locations, and etc.  I assume with modern satellite imagery, we can actually monitor the movement of various continents with actual distances that they move on a daily or annual basis.

If the Pacific Ocean is getting smaller, then that mass has to go somewhere... 

Perhaps rather than "plates", the surface just buckles and tears at various fault lines with continental drift.  But, in a sense, that is what the plate theory is saying.

Anyway, you need to come up with a good alternative theory to explain continental movement, where the lost mass goes, uplifting, and etc before just saying the current theories are incorrect.
Title: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Geezer on 13/12/2011 08:42:23
Isn't it all about convection?
Title: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 13/12/2011 11:52:20

Alright Cliffordk, we will talk about, as you put it "the lost mass". I will discuss the fault lines, the tearing of the surface and even why modern satellite imagery cannot tell why or how the mountain chains formed. I have to go now, I will get back this forum. I want to explain the problems with the convection theory and go into a detailed examination about the Ring of Fire. But lets be clear about Earth's mountain belts and chains.   
Title: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 13/12/2011 21:59:33
No Geezer, it is not all about convection. In fact, the convected energy from the mantle had absolutely nothing to do with the movements of the continents. Earth's exterior is a massive shell of fractured rock. At the fissures, we can see the contours of the continents; outlining in a puzzle like fashion, how the continents fit together and were once one.

Earth before these enormous cracks, was a smaller planet. Earth rather suddenly expanded in magnitude. But the expanse did not occur, due to its current  mantle, slowly exuding and dividing the surface..."convecting" slabs beneath slabs. Again, Earth's surface is a much lighter density than the mantle. Energy from the mantle exhuming throughout the surface is not likely to push a continent in a certain direction, especially if the mantle is liquid in form. This is certainly not enough force to collide continents and create mountains such as the Himalayas or the Andes; or any great mountain belt or chain. 
Title: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 13/12/2011 22:43:23
Cliffordk, you made very important point about the 'loss of mass'. Quite frankly Cliffordk, there was no loss of mass, if you are referring to the slabs, which are pushed downward beneath another continent and theoretically uplifts the mountains over a course of millions of years. That mass is not loss, and nor is it slowly moving under another continent. These are great masses of surface instantly forced into position, which have remained for millions of years. There is movement because the whole surface was fractured, and the Earth rotates.

We must be careful, because again, the locations of these surface beneath surfaces may seem as a loss of surface mass into the Earth; when most of the  theoretical surface sliding beneath another surface, occurs in the ring of fire...around the Pacific realm. The great Atlantic Ocean's floor is not plagued to the shores of Europe, Africa and the Americas with great mass losses. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge according to current theories has created, and actively creating new ocean flooring.

So that takes us back to the Pacific's ring of fire. West of North and South America where we find massive mountain chains.
Title: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 14/12/2011 23:44:46
The 'Ring of Fire' is extremely significant when understanding the origins of Earth's greatest mountain chains. Along the ring of fire, consisting of the Pacific realm, the near masses above sea level are mountainous. These are some of the world's greatest mountain chains.

But lets review the mountains of the far-east, such as the Khingan, or the Kunlun Mountains of China. These enormous mountains are inland, and much further from the ring of fire. Yet, the ring of fire conveys the most substantial clue to their very vast existences. So I question, was it convection of the mantle moving surface plates to form these expansive mountains so profoundly inland? And, did this type of gradual force actually occur over the millions of years? 

Through the millions of years, these mountains have slowly leveled out, due to weathering and acclimatization. We can strongly assume that all of the mountains of China were much higher and more defined. But I say again, the enormity and spaciousness of these mountains were created in less than a day.
Title: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: CliffordK on 15/12/2011 02:09:45
But I say again, the enormity and spaciousness of these mountains were created in less than a day.

Are you saying that these mountains came into existence in a single day, or a few days?  Are you talking about some extraordinary earthquake, say a 15 on the Richter scale?

Still the mass to push up a mountain range has to come from somewhere.
Narrowing of the ocean basins,
Subsiding of nearby land.
I suppose you could have some sort of a bubble of molten earth down below, but still the mass is coming from somewhere...  subsiding.

You would need some mechanism for localized pressure buildup, and pressure relief.  Also a mechanism to store and release energy as continents gradually move closer to each other.
Title: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 15/12/2011 03:45:43
I am saying the great mountains of inland China came into existence in less than a day. The settlement of the enclave may have taken months or years. Cliffordk, I am talking extraordinary, more extraordinary than you can imagine. If we could measure the magnitude of force, which raised the mountains of China on a Richter scale, it would probably be one trillion. That sir, is not exactly an earthquake; we might want to call it an earth-shock.

Much of the mountains mass is adjacent and profound earth surface. Chinese Archaeologists have discovered fossils of living organisms in the mountains. (plants, insects, even small marine vertebra)

The mass of exceptional energy to raise mountain chains did not initiate from the mantle, or from any ocean basin; but from the cosmos. Before this stupendous mass of energy, Earth did not have the mountains of China, or the Cascades, or the Rockies, or any of its major mountain belts and chains.

Again, this was not an effort of colliding or subducting continents.
Title: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 16/12/2011 01:52:08
I would like to clarify the movements of continents.

Earth expanded in magnitude suddenly and very swiftly. Earth increased in volume approximately 1˝ times its primal size. The swell of Earth's additional content, fractured the hardened shell surface to massive plates drifting to their own acquiescence; atop of a heavily disturbed mantle.

Its has been millions of years, since the expeditious occurrence. Earth has long since reached its peak of enlargement, thus the cracked surface throughout Earth reflects tectonic plates or drifting continents. But there is still movement of the continents, due to the dense liquefaction of the mantle, the fissures of the divided surface, and the rotation of Earth.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 19/12/2011 11:21:13
I focus on two problems with your speculation:

First an error of fact:
Quote from: dareo
Earth's surface is a thin cooled solid, while Earth's voluminous mantle is liquid molten magma
The Earth's mantle is not molten. Small percentages (+/-15%) of very small portions of it display partial melting, but the mantle as a whole is solid. If you have contrary evidence to this then please provide it.


Then a conflict with evidence:
The mass of exceptional energy to raise mountain chains did not initiate from the mantle, or from any ocean basin; but from the cosmos. Before this stupendous mass of energy, Earth did not have the mountains of China, or the Cascades, or the Rockies, or any of its major mountain belts and chains.
Dating of current and ancient mountain belts demonstrates that their ages range from current to billions of years old. You assert that a single event, of limited duration generated these mountains. The evidence clearly contradicts this and thus invalidates your speculation.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: CliffordK on 20/12/2011 05:05:34
If we could measure the magnitude of force, which raised the mountains of China on a Richter scale, it would probably be one trillion. That sir, is not exactly an earthquake; we might want to call it an earth-shock.

Earth?
What Earth?
Where?

Keep in mind that the Richter Scale is a logarithmic scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale#Examples

According to Wikipedia, a 12.55 Richter scale quake would be created by the Asteroid Impact creating the Chicxulub crater, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater) and wiping out the Dinosaurs 65 Million Years ago.  A Starquake on a neutron star might be in the 30's.

In the Trillions?  Perhaps a stellar collision between two large stars with Earth caught in the middle, or perhaps a large star being ripped apart by a Black Hole.

Earth expanded in magnitude suddenly and very swiftly. Earth increased in volume approximately 1˝ times its primal size. The swell of Earth's additional content, fractured the hardened shell surface to massive plates drifting to their own acquiescence; atop of a heavily disturbed mantle.

You need to expound more on the forces that created an initial compact Earth, and later expansion.

Thermal Expansion?  Why?  Why not cooling?
Acretion of meteorite material?  The Late Heavy Bombardment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment) has left some remaining craters on the moon, but it was about 4 billion years ago, and little evidence of it remains on the surface of the planet.

I agree that the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains, both on the North American Continent appear to have very different ages.  There are many theories that the Appalachian mountains have gone through several phases of uplifting and erosion.  Although, it is odd that it doesn't seem to be a continuous process.

Most of the impact craters have a circular profile.  Many mountain chains are much more linear.  That would seem to indicate some kind of a sliding force, and a crustal shift, rather than being caused by, say waves from the impact.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: JimBob on 23/12/2011 02:26:52
All I have seen so far to Dario's post are speculative assertion without any facts - such as the behavior of P,S and Raleigh waves -confirm or do not confirm his assertions. This is more akin to reading "Alice In Wonderland" than science in this way. Ther is no science contained in "Alice in Wonderland"

Dareo, if so much energy was put into the earth to do all you say it did, the earth would have been melted and nothing but a glass aphere would remain. Do the thermodynamics of the problem - it is obvious.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 25/12/2011 03:52:45
Gentlemen, you have proposed many questions. Most are good, but i will not comment on some responses. Ophiolite, we know the mantle is dense molten rock. There is plenty of evidence about the mantle. Yet, there is no evidence anywhere, which can prove...Earth's mountain chains are billions of years old. For even if, they were 'billions' of years old; the theory of subduction beneath the continents uplifting the mountain chains, has suddenly become more speculative. 
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 25/12/2011 17:40:37
Cliffordk, i can't debate the accuracy of the amount of energy by the Woodson-Anderson seismograph, however the force was about 9 times larger than the energy impacting Earth, resulting in the Chixculub Crater. And yes, many mountain chains are linear, yet i am referring to an impact probably 90 times greater than the Chixculub Crater.

A crater of such magnitude and its effects would seem linear, depending on the perspective. From my vista, the major mountain chains of Earth are massive mounds of surface upheaval; forged into Earth from the powerful shock. There are some factors, which are keys that explain linear mountains  ie., size of object, shape, sphere of Earth, its angle, and very importantly Earth's rotation. We need to converse on the differences of the mountain chains, as to which and why some are more linear; and why they reside in a particular locale.

Again, I think we will find; subduction of the continents were not the cause for the creation of mountain chains.

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 02/02/2012 12:37:25
I only just noticed this reply.
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.

There 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.

Yet, there is no evidence anywhere, which can prove...Earth's mountain chains are billions of years old.
Don't twist my words please. I stated that Earth's mountain chains were up to billions of years old. If you are challenging this observation then I presume you are denying the validity of isotope dating techniques. Is this the case?

For even if, they were 'billions' of years old; the theory of subduction beneath the continents uplifting the mountain chains, has suddenly become more speculative. 
Why would this make subduction more speculative? There is no apparent logic in your statement.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 12/02/2012 10:39:14
"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."

If the mantle is 'largely solid', tell me please...how solid continental plates move across a largely solid planet to form mountain belts? Surely, you are not saying, solid rock moves like liquid? And do we agree, that continents move? ...(diverting, subducting, uplifting) mostly solid rock?

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.

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 14/02/2012 15:40:33
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.

Quote
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 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 2000


Abstract:
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.

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 25/02/2012 20:11:11
I only just noticed this reply.
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.

There 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-waves
2. S-waves

P-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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 27/02/2012 11:18:41
Dareo, you are absolutely correct that I completely reversed my intended statement on P and S waves. P waves do indeed travel comfortably through mantle and core, through liquid and solid (and gases for that matter). It is S-waves that will not travel through fluids. Please excuse the confusion I may have caused.

That said, it is because of these properties that we know absolutely that the mantle, which constitutes the bulk of the Earth in volumetric terms, is predominantly solid. I have no idea how you have come up with the wholly incorrect notion that: "From the measurements of both waves, we know Earth's interior is largely liquid." That is simply wrong.


Consult any elementary textbook of geophysics, or structural geology and you will see that the mantle is basically solid. Over long time intervals it flows. I've already given you a reference to this and you have responded, not with contrary evidence, but with bombast. Please provide even a single citation in support of your erroneous contention. In particular please explain why the mantle readily transmits S-waves if it is, as you appear to claim, largely liquid.

Once you have dealt with that, do you have any intention of responding to my other points that seemingly undermine your hypothesis? In particular on what basis do you dispute the clear evidence for the varied ages of Earth's mountain chains?



Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 02/03/2012 06:12:56
Well, you make so many interesting points, I must deal with them one at a time. Confusion, as you put it; seems... your way of conversing.

 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.

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.

Quote
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 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 2000


Abstract:
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.



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? That Ophiolite is again interesting. Slow strain rates with Newtonian viscosity? Newtonian... what are we talking millions of years at a slow rate. 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?  ..and please, no need to insult...
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 08/03/2012 13:05:41
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 11/03/2012 12:30:51
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 11/03/2012 12:59:49
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 12/03/2012 12:15:53
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-law_fluid).
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 13/03/2012 03:39:42
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.



Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 13/03/2012 06:01:56
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 14/03/2012 17:33:27
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?
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 14/03/2012 23:18:48
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.

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 15/03/2012 10:04:33
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 15/03/2012 21:05:49
bald assertions?

I have found more difficulty in your hostility, than the subject matter...
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 16/03/2012 14:11:42
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 18/03/2012 21:06:18
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 20/03/2012 01:45:02
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 20/03/2012 09:37:03
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 20/03/2012 20:45:32
Your advice to me is preposterous...

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 20/03/2012 21:11:13
Are you the representative for any these disciplines, or are you a guy who has too much time?
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 21/03/2012 01:36:40
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?
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 21/03/2012 06:14:13
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.

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: imatfaal on 21/03/2012 10:24:57
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
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 21/03/2012 12:41:56
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 03/04/2012 07:40:53
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.



Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 03/04/2012 22:02:10
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 04/04/2012 11:04:16
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?
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 05/04/2012 00:58:15
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 05/04/2012 04:24:08
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: CliffordK on 06/04/2012 07:22:57
(there are no mountain chains on the perimeters of the vast Atlantic Ocean's coasts)
I suppose you don't count the:The Atlantic is different than the Pacific, but it is not devoid of mountains and mountain ranges.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 06/04/2012 10:56:59
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 09/04/2012 16:42:22
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?
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 09/04/2012 21:50:46
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.   

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Geezer on 10/04/2012 02:28:09

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!
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 10/04/2012 03:03:42
Sorry...that was approximately three hundred miles inland.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 10/04/2012 15:37:01
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 10/04/2012 22:14:28
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 14/04/2012 21:58:58
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...
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 15/04/2012 09:30:19
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 19/04/2012 16:41:00
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 19/04/2012 23:09:44
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?   
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 23/04/2012 11:35:05
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 24/04/2012 00:34:32
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 24/04/2012 15:50:41
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 25/04/2012 21:36:26
Ophiolite, what is so wondrous about a platform; that I should provide such a circumstantial 'dissertation' about my theory?
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 26/04/2012 08:07:00
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.

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: CliffordK on 26/04/2012 09:12:52
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 26/04/2012 11:14:29
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 26/04/2012 11:58:17
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 29/04/2012 02:56:14
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.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: imatfaal on 30/04/2012 10:02:44
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
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 02/05/2012 21:46:49
To reiterate; the subduction of Earth's tectonic plates are not the cause for the uplifting our planet's greatest mountain chains...
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 04/05/2012 16:30:16
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?
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 05/05/2012 11:48:51
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
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 05/05/2012 11:55:29
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Albert Einstein
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo on 05/05/2012 23:07:12
To re-reiterate; the subduction of Earth's tectonic plates are not the cause for the uplifting our planet's greatest mountain chains...
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 09/05/2012 11:29:01
If you think, I have failed, failed, failed...why are you still posting?  Good bye Ophiolite
I am pointing out to you what you can do to succeed.
 
Offer meaningful evidence to support your position.
Produce research from other workers that supports your position.
Directly answer questions that were directed to you.
Address the issues that were raised.
Stop avoiding some questions and some issues.

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: colorshapetexture on 04/03/2013 16:37:05
OK.. I stand to say. Subduction is BS!

How the mountains formed?

Expansion explains it quite sensably and without soft land masses having to push up mountains either on the coast or interior regions of continents.

Quite simply they were formed by the reshaping of the expanding earth.

The whole earth was a solid mass with a shallow sea covering it. Almost totaly as there are a few places on earth there is no fossil record. These fossil beds were pushed up and folded during the earths reshaping to a larger radius during expansion.

If you have a 12" globe and expand it to 20" the radius reshape of the surface forces would cause uplift and folding. Either deep in a continent or at its coast. And the oceans. The pressures cause the folding seen in the field. Also causing down force like seen in death valley.

Look at the ridges in the ocean. Subduction has many adhock explanations that do not make sense. But study them with subduction as a bases for the motion and it is obvious the ocean floor also reshapes just as the continents do.

There is no subduction !

A simple look..Explanation.

Place your fingertips of both hands together. This makes a 6" to 8" sphere/radius.
Now expand the radius out to approx. double (as expansion theory suggests)  letting your thumbs seperate to create the larger radius. Some fingers go/create into peaks. Joints of fingers create valleys.

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Pincho on 04/03/2013 17:14:46
If you look  in a box of Rice Crispies, all of the small bits go to the bottom, and all of the big bits go to the top. It's the small bits that have the most freedom to go wherever they want. The big bits are like two fat people trying to go through the same door at the same time.

I'm not sure if that is applicable to your mountains. Is a sediment pushing them up?

Anyway, that's just something to think about.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 08/03/2013 13:04:35
OK.. I stand to say. Subduction is BS!
Then how do you account for the evidence, from earthquakes, of subducting slabs?

Quote
These fossil beds were pushed up and folded during the earths reshaping to a larger radius during expansion.
Folding requires compression. Expansion generates tension. Where is the compressive force coming from to induce folding?
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: colorshapetexture on 25/03/2013 05:51:46
If you reshape the surface of a small round to double its radius that's what you would have. Tremendous folding, with extreme pressures causing upward and downward forcing of the surface. What isn't pushed up or down is folded and miss formed and pushed to the weird angles we see the once horizontal layers pushed into.
 O and there are no sub ducting plates.

Study this map a few minutes while thinking about this:
 http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ocean_age/data/2008/ngdc-generated_images/whole_world/2008_age_of_oceans_noplates.jpg

 Our planet is scarred. There are stretchmarks from head to toe beginning at the North pole. They go down through the Atlantic and around Africa, continue from the Indian ocean down under Australia and all the way around Antarctica. Now these stretchmarks are undeniably the result of continents moving away from each other. Agreed? The Atlantic is expanding?.. So we have the same patterns and stretch marks on the floor of the Pacific that are exactly the same as the marks on the Atlantic ocean floor.  It is all formed the same on the whole planet. The same stretch marks are in the Pacific. It is so obvious. How can you be fooled?
 And the age pattern of the map. Its so obvious. I really do-not understand how anyone with a small amount of common sense can swallow plate subduction. It does not make good sense.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 26/03/2013 10:50:46
Then how do you account for the evidence, from earthquakes and from seismic tomography, of subducting slabs? Please answer the quesiton this time. Repating an error does not make it true.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: colorshapetexture on 26/03/2013 19:05:14
Then how do you account for the evidence, from earthquakes, of subducting slabs?

  You say/believe/look at the evidence with a one track mind. That's the main reason I am in this conversation. Just the chance you don't have earths geology figured out perfectly and the gathering of the information understood perfectly correct. The result would be we will have lost and continue to loose all the data being gathered.
 You know Giordano Bruno dared to say that the sun was a star and that the universe contained an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings? He was burned at the stake by the scientist/society of the day for having such thoughts. Seems most in here like to set fires without a thought.
 The earth is a pressure vessel gassing off and heating and churning. It rises and falls as the GPS proves.
 And I would like to ask you the same question?
 Where is the evidence of/from earthquakes, of sub ducting slabs?

Folding requires compression. Expansion generates tension. Where is the compressive force coming from to induce folding?

 Your right!
  But your definition of expansion makes me think of a supple surface elastic balloon. The earth has a cooled hard rock crust. Put a solid crust on your balloon/pressure vessel. Now inflate it to a larger radius. The outer shell will not only crack and shift as the subsurface expands but in the reshaping of the crust to a larger radius the solid sections of earth create great pressures pushing  up/down/lateral. Thus explaining mountain building, the rise of the great plateaus that are pushed up(that were covered by the sea and now show the fossil record), and also the great depressions and cracks like the central US/Mississippi.

Now don't that make a hell of a lot more sense than the whole frickin ocean is sub ducting. And being pushed under a frickin continent?

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Pincho on 26/03/2013 19:28:54
Did you read about the melt layer which is thought to aid subduction?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/mar/20/deep-sea-imaging-reveals-how-tectonic-plates-slide (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/mar/20/deep-sea-imaging-reveals-how-tectonic-plates-slide)

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: colorshapetexture on 26/03/2013 19:40:13
Yes I did...

 Here is part of the first sentence... that a lot of people overlook when reading.


 Earth's surface may be lubricated by a layer of partial melting, according to researchers

Problem is the may be

!

 Hell it may be lubricated with KY jelly. Thats about the only way your gonna get the ocean floor/rocks/silt/sand to slip under a continent without a trace.

And the below from the researchers. This seems to be the norm.
 The team goes out expecting to find one thing. Then find something totaly different or not to the norm and the whosale add-hock begins. Its no wonder we are looking for other avenues.
 
"We went out looking to get an idea of how fluids are interacting with plate subduction [and] we discovered a melt layer we weren't expecting to find at all – it was pretty surprising," says another team member, Kerry Key, also from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.


Here is another study close to the same.
Published online20 March 2013

(Quote)studies identify a prominent velocity discontinuity at depths thought to coincide with the LAB but disagree on its cause?
we interpret the conductor to be a partially molten layer capped by an impermeable frozen lid that is the base of the lithosphere
Because this boundary layer has the potential to behave as a lubricant to plate motion, its proximity to the trench may have implications for subduction dynamics.(end quote)

This is the latest factual information?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/full/nature11939.html



Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 28/03/2013 13:09:49
You are talking about details of mechanism. I am asking you to account for the clear evidence, in the form of earhquakes, of plate movement along slab that penetrate the mantle. You have totally ignored that evidence. That is what I am asking you, for the fourth time, to address. (You do realise that avoiding a question as often as that implies one of two things, neither of which is flattering.)
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: colorshapetexture on 28/03/2013 16:03:03
Beloussov (1980, 1990) held that plate tectonics was a premature generalization of still very inadequate data on the structure of the ocean floor, and had proven to be far removed from geological reality. He wrote:


It is ... quite understandable that attempts to employ this conception to explain concrete structural situations in a local rather than a global scale lead to increasingly complicated schemes in which it is suggested that local axes of spreading develop here and there, that they shift their position, die out, and reappear, that the rate of spreading alters repeatedly and often ceases altogether, and that lithospheric plates are broken up into an even greater number of secondary and tertiary plates. All these schemes are characterised by a complete absence of logic, and of patterns of any kind. The impression is given that certain rules of the game have been invented, and that the aim is to fit reality into these rules somehow or other. (1980, p. 303)
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 01/04/2013 12:07:17
And still you refuse to account for the clear evidence, in the form of earhquakes, of plate movement along slab that penetrate the mantle. If you fail to respond to that request  on this occassion I shall take it as a tacit admission that your argument is wrong.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: colorshapetexture on 01/04/2013 16:57:26
This broken pot is about as simple a picture as I can make you.
 Hell its surface even resembles the earths.
 Pieces go up and pieces go down. Pieces spread in plates forming voids. Gee looks like an ocean forming?

 Mechanical forces of the expansion of a sphere with a solid earthlike surface.... Simple.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi750.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx142%2FEDMFIX%2Fcrackedpot_zps14b99a0c.jpg&hash=577b21d95fe9a2c64f13a207d4caf353)
 Love the rusty wire for gravity...lol

Like Neal says....

Notice there is no subduction. Only the natural forces cracking and moving the plates to different position on the larger sphere and creating large ocean like spaces. But if you relax the pressure the pieces will fall back into place. Nothing subduction or no great mystery. The pieces fit.
 Now to try to explain the mountain building...
The sphere is like a natural geode. The forces holding it together pushing in from all directions to the center. This force would make its piece pie shape from the center out to the crust. This crust is/was a lets say 6" radius. If this radius of the crust was changed/grew to a 12" radius, that outer solid crust would have to break into many pieces or blocks to reshape into the new Pie. lol Much like figuring Pie.
 The force is that with all high pressure. It is going to give at its weakest point. And the crust will crack the pie separate the pieces laying new ocean floor between the pieces to reform the larger radius. The continents which are the original pieces had to reshape also. Where the inter continent plate like sections rose creating the giant plateaus and plains also pushing up smaller sections of crust that were more solid. Squirting the mountains up in the amazing short times that studies propose.

 The simple examples....
 Tiddly Winks! Ever played it? Put pressure on the tiddly and the wink shoots out.
 Have you ever squeezed a watermelon seed between your finger and thumb? They shoot out pretty well.
The same senerio pushed up the mountain ranges when the crust cracked in reshaping. And with the internal pressure and the pressures created in the re-radiusing.
 Just like a pimple.

If we could look at and study, trying understand the forces at work on the planet with an open mind instead of being chained to geology's bible and not even being allowed to think even more could be understood.

As..
 How did all the fossil record end up above sea level?
 The earth was mostly covered by shallow seas. The evidence is everywhere.
 The growing earth broke up and pushed them up in big plateau sections.
 Folding and tilting all evidence.

 How did fossil record end up at the top of all the mountain ranges in the world?
 Think watermelon seeds and pimples...lol

I can go on. But this was to try to explain mountain building.


 
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 03/04/2013 11:21:51
There are only two explanations for your refusal to answer the question I have asked repeatedly. The first explanation is that you are deceitful, the second touches on your intellectual capacity. Will you please answer the question: how do you account for the clear evidence, in the form of earhquakes, of plate movement along slabs that penetrate the mantle?
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: colorshapetexture on 04/04/2013 12:50:08
Hi Ophiolite.

I didn't know your questions were directed to me as I got into this conversation late.

Wow love your red letters. Real high class there.

First I did not refuse to answer your question I simply did not and could not have thought it was for me as I do not see any clear evidence of anything that is proported by subduction. I believe subduction is a theory that will be proved wrong. Earthquakes indicate nothing to prove subduction. And your plate movement along slabs? WTF is that?

I am saying to you Ophio.

Show me the clear evidence.

I dont have to account for your silly unsubstantiated claims. Ocean crust that is 5 miles thick. Does not and can not force or subduct under a 35 mile thick continent. Can't happen!

Penetrate the mantle? I thought it was hot and viscous and under great pressure down there? Thats like trying to shove a wet noodle up a bulls ass. It ain't gonna happen.

You call these sapposed subducting things plates like they are something ridgid that can be forced in some giant sheet. This is fractured rock, there is nothing ridgid about it. But then according to your story it bends to drive/force under the continent? And its sinking, being sucked and is forced under 35 miles of continent. In a big plate? Show me!
  O and it deforms this continent and pushes up mountains while its melting and folding. And the real piece. Its a boiling cycle that drives the whole thing?

All I have ever seen to prove your idea are cartoons.

I showed you a picture of a basic sphere with a solid crust that expanded. The result looks very much like the surface of the earth if it were growing/expanding. Its real!

And as far as intellectual capacity? You sir are the one that is trying to sell me a stupid cartoon as proof of your fantastic hypothesis that has had so many add ons in the last 40 years it sounds like a Jules Verne fantasy.

Show me the subduction, or plate movement along slabs that penetrate the mantle.

 

Your intellect is obvious.

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Pincho on 04/04/2013 13:44:34
I have solved Subduction now. So that I do not send your thread off topic I will post a link. Read the next 3 posts. It leads to subduction from the AMS data...

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47070.msg408327#msg408327 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47070.msg408327#msg408327)
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 07/04/2013 08:48:50
Hi Ophiolite.
I didn't know your questions were directed to me as I got into this conversation late.
How strange. When I first asked the question you repeated it in the following post, then proceeded to avoid answering it.

Wow love your red letters. Real high class there.
Since you refused to answer question(s) repeatedly it was necessary to use something dramatic to get your attention. Your refusal to answer reveals how much class is associated with yourself.

First I did not refuse to answer your question I simply did not and could not have thought it was for me as I do not see any clear evidence of anything that is proported by subduction.
Bollocks. As noted above you even repeated my question in one of your posts.

.... I do not see any clear evidence of anything that is proported by subduction. I believe subduction is a theory that will be proved wrong. Earthquakes indicate nothing to prove subduction. And your plate movement along slabs? WTF is that?
Proported is not a word I am familiar with, so the first clause has no meaning.

Your beliefs are not what is under discussion.

How do you account for the presence of earthquakes whose locations and sense of movement clearly pick out zones that are descending into the mantle from the surface? The evidence is there. The accepted explanation is subduction. You need to address that evidence and offer  a superior explanation. You have not done so. you appear to refuse to do so. This is not surprsing since you do not have an alternative explanation for the evidence.

Here is a helpful note: arm waving and expressing your own incredulity do not constitute counter evidence. Now please cut the crap and address the point properly.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: colorshapetexture on 07/04/2013 17:48:05
LOL Ophiolite.

Lets just agree to disagree.

Besides if we both agree on everything then one of us would not be nesseary.

Sorry I messed up the subject on you topic. Back to that subject.
(If you are truly interested in science I invite you to look into this.
 It will help explain my view.)

NO!

Subduction did not uplift any mountains.

There is no subduction.


http://www.ncgt.org/nws/4d73ae23d2d7c906fbd5351b05260c33.pdf
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 08/04/2013 09:30:36
LOL Ophiolite.

Lets just agree to disagree.
So you admit that you are unable to refute the evidence for subduction despite being given repeated opportunities to do so.

And no, I shall not agree to disagree. You are posting on a science forum and asserting a belief that constitutes no more than an ill informed opinion, then asking that it be accorded the same weight and respect as a very well validated concept. Put simply you are wrong and you have offered nothing, other than your own incredulity, to support your wrongness.
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: colorshapetexture on 08/04/2013 16:33:16
 You preach geology as if it is a religion.


 Blind to the real world of science and new discovery.

Ophiolite..
 One more time... I say to you... There is NO subduction.
 Your argument is fantasy and there is no proof of subduction anywhere on earth.
 Why do you think that I will try to validate your fantasy for you?

“When studying the history of the creation and formulation of plate tectonics one can come to the conclusion that it is, and was at best only a hypothesis. A hypothesis, which uses an assumption at its basis. This is the assumption that the Earth has retained a constant size during its geological evolution. This assumption however is not supported by facts.” — Stefan Cwojdzinski, geologist, 2005

“All marine fossils from 200 million years ago or earlier are found exclusively on continental locations — just as expanding Earth theory predicts. That’s because all large marine environments pre-Jurassic were epicontinental seas — not oceans. Incredibly, if we deny expanding Earth theory, all the pre-Jurassic oceanic marine fossils must have vanished, along with all pre-Jurassic oceanic crust, as well as all of the fossils of all the trans-Pacific taxa that simply “walked” from one location to the other. Hmmm. Even your mainstream fixist geologist counterparts of the first half of the twentieth century didn’t have to accept that many miracles.” — Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003

Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics.” — Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 1999

Ophio- is Greek for "snake"

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 09/04/2013 12:17:31
So you admit that you are unable to refute the evidence for subduction despite being given repeated opportunities to do so.

Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: colorshapetexture on 09/04/2013 12:42:23
There is no subduction!



Talking to you about this makes about as much sense as talking about Zombies.


Show me your evidence.

 You asked me how do you account for the clear evidence, in the form of earhquakes, of plate movement along slabs that penetrate the mantle?

 I am gonna tell you one more time!
 I do not believe in subduction. There are NO slabs penetrating the mantle.
 I can not and I do not have to account for your lack of evidence.

Show me a "plate" being subducted!

Show me evidence of where a plate has ever subducted!

The origina subject is simple.

You think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains? 


No!
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: Ophiolite on 16/04/2013 21:30:30
There is no subduction!



Talking to you about this makes about as much sense as talking about Zombies.


Show me your evidence.
You implicitly claim to have some knowledge of Earth science. If that is true then you would be aware of the clear evidence of subducting slabs that is provided by earthquake data descending from oceanic trenches along consisten planes into the mantle. I should not need you direct you to this evidence. Now you are free to challenge the interpretation of that evidence, but to do so you must provide an alternative explanation for it. This, despite endless requests from me that you do so, you have failed to do.

The other possibility is that you are unaware of this evidence. In which case you are not entitled to pontificate upon subduction. So, either address the issue of the earthquake evidence, or admit your deep ignorance.

Thank you.

If you are un
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo_1 on 31/05/2013 23:54:46
colorshapetexter...

you made a very interesting example, with the flower pot. The pot fragments representing Earth's tectonic plates. This is exactly the case of earth's broken surface.

Another point, which was of great interest and debate; was the mention of a molten layer, by which the plates move. Many understand, that beneath Earth's hardened surface is dense molten magma. The "KY Jelly" or substance, which allows for plate movement is the magma.

Yet, what must be understood is how the plates actually became 'puzzle' like segments. An enormous force of pressure had to sever the earth's crust to massive tectonic plates. If you will, think of how the Earth may have looked, before continental drift or tectonic plates...This now, takes to the theoretical 'Pangaea'.

Allow me to say, Pangaea is not quite correct; according to my research. Yes, the plates move. However, there was not a continuous movement throughout the millions of years. The surface was once one. There was a time when Earth's surface was mostly solid all about the planet. There were no plates. The surface was rock. There were hardly any surface fissures, this was millions of years of Earth's evolution.

Pangaea is understood by researching the tectonic plates of earthly fractures on the surface. The theory of Pangaea weakens on the explanation of plate movement and plate severance. Much like the broken pot, some form of energy fragmented the pot. As is with Earth, some form of energy fragmented its great surface.

 
Title: Re: you think, Subduction of tectonic plates uplifted Earth's mountain chains?
Post by: dareo_1 on 01/06/2013 12:42:20
colorshapetexter

An interesting statement reads:

To: Editor, NCGT Journal

Sir,
It is high time that special efforts are made to bring our young geoscientists away from the intoxicating
and glamorous but misleading theories on plate motion, magnetic polarity, climate ,etc., so that they
stay on the right track.


A powerful expression, as I have pondered before boundaries of nay sayers; represented as scientists. They are vanguards positioned to reinforce weak, antiquated and false theories for personal benefit. It won't be long before people like you and I set the scientific record straight on tectonic plate motion, magnetic polarity, mountain building, volcanoes, earthquakes, ocean ridges and trenches...etc.