[dareo (OP)]

"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.

[Ophiolite]

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.

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.

[dareo (OP)]

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.

[Ophiolite]

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?

[dareo (OP)]

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.

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...

[Ophiolite]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[dareo (OP)]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[dareo (OP)]

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.

[Ophiolite]

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.

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.

. 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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[dareo (OP)]

Ophiolite, please forgive me for my quotation usage. I will get better with it.

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.

[dareo (OP)]

Ophiolite, please forgive me for my quotation usage. I will get better with it.

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.

[Ophiolite]

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?

[dareo (OP)]

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.

[Ophiolite]

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.

[dareo (OP)]

bald assertions?

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

[Ophiolite]

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.

[dareo (OP)]

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.

[dareo (OP)]

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.

[Ophiolite]

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.

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.

[dareo (OP)]

Your advice to me is preposterous...