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

  • 101 Replies
  • 33478 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline CliffordK

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

*

Offline dareo

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


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


The Sikhote-Alin Mountain System of Far-East Russia

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
So by your own admission there are large numbers of mountainous ranges positioned at various distances from the Pacific coast and being demonstrably of quite different ages. how does this support your contention?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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

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


*

Offline Geezer

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

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

Help! I need to find a boat, quickly!
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

*

Offline dareo

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
How then do you account for the clear cut wide range of ages determined for metamorphic and igneous activity within these mountain belts? Such age is determined absolutely by radiometric dating and relatively by application of simple geologocial fundamentals.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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

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

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

*

Offline dareo

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

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

*

Offline dareo

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

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Ophiolite, I think a closer answer would be found in the iridium layer of Earth. The time line found in the bedrock is more precise. It is unfortunate scientists spend many hours considering the Chixculub Crater on the Peninsula of Central America. Chixculub is the assumed crater, which killed Earth's dinosaur populations; as well as many other animals and plant life.

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

*

Offline dareo

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Tell me..what do you know about the concentric iridium layer?   
I will have to guess what you mean by a concentric iridium layer. I presume you to mean the global iridium layer believed to be a consequence of the Chixculub impact.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline dareo

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
dareo,
Here are three things that reveal you as an ill-informed crank.
1) Despite repeated requests to do so you have so far failed to demonstrate any of your claims. You simply keep repeating them. (Yes, it is a 'tired old mantra'.) It is not sufficient to state that the Pacific is an impact crater. You have to demonstrate that this is the case. You have to show that interpreting it as an impact crater not only matches physical, chemical, geological, geophysical and chronological criteria, but that it does so better than current explanations.  You have not even begun to attempt to do so.
2) Throughout your posts on this thread you continually hint at some great secret you possess. You do not make clear cut statements that lay out your hypothesis in an unequivocal manner. This is poor communication and abyssmal science.
3) Your rejection of the example paper is a clear cut case of you avoiding the issue. It is not sufficient to state that the paper is plagued with uncertainty. You have to demonstrate that this is the case and that such uncertainty is greater than the uncertainty surrounding your idel speculation.

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

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

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


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

*

Offline dareo

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
If it is not your wish to explain and perhaps convince others of your hypothesis then why are you here? This forum provides you an opportunity available in only a few places on or off the internet to lay out your ideas and have them discussed freely. You don't appear to want to take advantage of that opportunity. Unless you choose to begin presenting detailed facts and relate these convincingly to your hypothesis, then I am done with you. Your choice.

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

*

Offline CliffordK

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

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

*

Offline dareo

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

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

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
I politely and consitently asked you to 'freely discuss' your ideas. Without the presentation of detailed facts no meaningful discussion can take place. Clearly you are afraid to do so, or incapable of doing so.

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

So, you've made your choice. In summary, your idea has no meaningful evidence to support it. End of story. Goodbye.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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

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

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

*

Offline imatfaal

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

MOD
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 dareo

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
To reiterate; continually restating a controversial point without offereing any substantive evidence in support of that point is not what science is about.

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

How do you intend to conduct a dialogue about your speculation if you choose to adopt such an approach?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline dareo

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

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

*

Offline dareo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 49
    • View Profile
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. Albert Einstein

*

Offline dareo

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

*

Offline Ophiolite

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

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

*

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
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.


*

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
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.
It's your fault if you don't understand me.

*

Offline Ophiolite

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

*

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2013 16:48:36 by colorshapetexture »

*

Offline Ophiolite

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

*

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
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?

« Last Edit: 27/03/2013 00:29:37 by colorshapetexture »

*

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
It's your fault if you don't understand me.

*

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
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



« Last Edit: 26/03/2013 20:16:17 by colorshapetexture »

*

Offline Ophiolite

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

*

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
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)

*

Offline Ophiolite

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

*

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
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.

 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.


 
« Last Edit: 01/04/2013 19:18:41 by colorshapetexture »

*

Offline Ophiolite

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

*

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
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.


*

Offline Pincho

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 268
  • Genius is an insult to my intelligence.
    • View Profile
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
It's your fault if you don't understand me.

*

Offline Ophiolite

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

*

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
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

*

Offline Ophiolite

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

*

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
 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"

« Last Edit: 08/04/2013 16:37:55 by colorshapetexture »

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
So you admit that you are unable to refute the evidence for subduction despite being given repeated opportunities to do so.

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

*

Offline colorshapetexture

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 35
    • View Profile
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!
« Last Edit: 09/04/2013 19:22:34 by colorshapetexture »

*

Offline Ophiolite

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