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

  • 101 Replies
  • 33465 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2011 23:59:13 by dharp »

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
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.

« Last Edit: 13/12/2011 00:01:07 by dharp »

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: 13/12/2011 10:53:51 by rosy »

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Isn't it all about convection?
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile

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.   

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
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. 

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
I would like to clarify the movements of continents.

Earth expanded in magnitude suddenly and very swiftly. Earth increased in volume approximately 1½ 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.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
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.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
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, 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 1½ 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 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.

*

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 6564
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
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.
The mind is like a parachute. It works best when open.  -- A. Einstein

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
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. 

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
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.


*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
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.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
"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.


*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
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.

Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
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?



Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
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...

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
I researched the mantle again, as to being a liquid. I think you are correct. Many studies, depending where you look... provide the mantle as 'mostly solid' with areas of magma.
An introductory knowledge of tectonics and geophysics would reveal that there is no doubt about this. It is what I have been saying since the outset. I am pleased to see you finally acknowledge this.

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

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

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

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

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

de/dt=Aτn

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

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

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

Quote
Does the diffusion deform the rock in a specific direction?
Which diffusion do you mean? The movement of the solid mantle will be in a direction that tends to lower the stresses. Other than that I'm not sure what you are asking.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

de/dt=Aτn

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

*

Offline dareo

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

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

de/dt=Aτn

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

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

de/dt=Aτn

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Dareo, it would be helpful if you could sort out the quote functions in your posts. You have mixed up my words with your words throughout. This will make it very difficult for other members to figure out who has said what.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Ophilite, I would like to learn more about the Power Law relationship at work for the stress-strain relationship.  Verily, the hypothesis is quite eccentric.
This is not a hypothesis, but a well established part of hydraulic theory. See here.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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

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




*

Offline dareo

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Ignorant, quite respectfully; I think you are lacking significant knowledge of Earth. At this point, I know you are unsure about the tectonic processes. You are unsure about subduction zones, as the cause and effect for mountain chains...which are false acclaims. It probably puzzles you, when I ask; why are subduction zones and mountain chains in specific positions throughout the world? You or your exposition of resources cannot accurately answer that. Why? because I know, you do not know. Yet I am ignorant to the basics of the geo-sciences. 
I believe I agreed that there is much that I do not know about tectonics and related topics. I would further agree that scientists are still uncertain of many aspects of plate tectonics and mountain building. That is the nature of science: science isn't about what we know as much as it is about how we find out about what we don't know.

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

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

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

So what is your explanation for subduction zones? And what is your evidence to support that hypothesis?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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

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


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


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




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

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



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


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

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



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


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


*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Quote
My good man Ophiolite, I think this is probably the best question you have asked me. I am delighted.
So answer it. All we have had from you so far are bald assertions. We have examined one of those assertions in detail and found you were entirely wrong. Drop the assertions: state your thesis and offer your evidence.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Dareo, I am not being hostile. I am being properly sceptical of your claims.

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

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

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

*

Offline dareo

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

I am in preference to begin, by defining subduction.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

*

Offline dareo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
I am in preference to begin, by defining subduction.
You have not defined subduction. Your post was a lengthy statement that subduction was wrong. You did not say what you think subduction is. In stating it was wrong you offered absolutley no evidence to support your claim. That is not science. That is just an expression of an opinion. You are entitled to have an opinion, just stop trying to pretend that opinion is equivalent to science.

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

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

My advice to you is to give up while you are still behind.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2012 17:53:26 by Ophiolite »
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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


*

Offline dareo

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Your advice to me is preposterous...
My advice to you is a reflection of my frustration at your ill conceived, unsubstantiated, evidentially falsified speculation and your ongoing refusal, or inability, to offer any justification for your proposals other than empty assertions.

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

Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility that every conclusion science has made about mountain building is incorrect, but to accept that you have to offer argument and evidence, not - as I have said repeatedly - empty assertions. When will you begin to do so?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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


*

Offline imatfaal

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

Dareo

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

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

regards

imatfaal - moderator
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Dareo, you have mentioned that you have done a lot of research on tectonics, subduction and mountatin building. Have you run across the concept of isostasy? This is the underlying mechanism responsible for the elevation differences we call mountains and trenches, plateaus and abyssal plains. This quite adequately explains why the Himalayas, for example, are where they are and why they are so high. So far you have failed to demonstrate that isostasy cannot produce mountains.

You have also, so far, failed to explain why the ages of the mountain chains and remnant mountain chains around the world vary in age over billions of years. This is surely contrary to your claim, as I understand it, that they arose from a single event.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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

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

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

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




*

Offline dareo

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

Now some empiric data:

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
1. Since you are challenging the broadly accepted ability of isostasty to account for the elevation of mountains you must provided the argument and evidence to demonstrate that it is insufficient to produce these elevation. The principles are established and well laid out in textbooks and research papers. Since this is non-controversial within geology it is your responsibility to identify what is faulty in the standard explanations.
2. I am very familiar with crater formation and the character of complex craters. I repeat my previous question. How do you explain the complexity of circum-Pacific mountains, which show events occuring over many millions of years in direct contradiction of your single event theory. Also, how do you explain the Alps?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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

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

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

2. Earth's physical surface

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

If we consider;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline dareo

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

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

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

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