[dareo (OP)]

Are you the representative for any these disciplines, or are you a guy who has too much time?

[Ophiolite]

Your advice to me is preposterous...

My advice to you is a reflection of my frustration at your ill conceived, unsubstantiated, evidentially falsified speculation and your ongoing refusal, or inability, to offer any justification for your proposals other than empty assertions.

Are you the representative for any these disciplines, or are you a guy who has too much time

Who I am is irrelevant. Who you are is irrelevant. This is not about you or me. This is about your speculations and the disciplines I have listed demonstrate that your speculations are false.

Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility that every conclusion science has made about mountain building is incorrect, but to accept that you have to offer argument and evidence, not - as I have said repeatedly - empty assertions. When will you begin to do so?

[dareo (OP)]

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

[imatfaal]

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

Dareo

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

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

regards

imatfaal - moderator

[Ophiolite]

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

You have also, so far, failed to explain why the ages of the mountain chains and remnant mountain chains around the world vary in age over billions of years. This is surely contrary to your claim, as I understand it, that they arose from a single event.

[dareo (OP)]

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

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

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

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

[dareo (OP)]

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

Now some empiric data:

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

[Ophiolite]

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

[dareo (OP)]

If my answer is not clear, I will try harder.

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

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

2. Earth's physical surface

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

If we consider;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dareo (OP)]

Another point about the subduction slabs, before explaining the Alps...

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

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

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

[CliffordK]

(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.

[dareo (OP)]

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.

[Ophiolite]

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?

[dareo (OP)]

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.   

[Geezer]

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!

[dareo (OP)]

Sorry...that was approximately three hundred miles inland.

[Ophiolite]

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.

[dareo (OP)]

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.

[dareo (OP)]

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...

[dareo (OP)]

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.