The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology
  4. How reliable are present rock features as a guide to past geology?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

How reliable are present rock features as a guide to past geology?

  • 4 Replies
  • 3084 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OokieWonderslug (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 113
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
How reliable are present rock features as a guide to past geology?
« on: 08/03/2014 05:13:46 »
I was told once (I think it was on this forum) that today's topology has nothing to do with past topology. I took that to mean that things do not erode and expose previous landforms as they were before they were covered.

I was also told that there is a missing 5 miles of sediment in the Carolina piedmont and coastal plain.

If that is so, then why does it seriously appear that the coastal plain and the border area with the piedmont is ocean bottom and a shore line? If you follow 250ft asl it looks like it was a beach. It looks just like either the ocean lost 250ft of water or the area was raised up that amount.

I mean, how is it possible that erosion would so perfectly erode away all of that dirt and rock and leave such a perfect representation of the previous ocean bottom? Could it be the ocean was higher recently (geologically speaking) and the created landform is yet to erode?
Or could the area be subject to some sort of tectonic uplift? I have read that there was a period some 5 million years ago when the Uwharries experienced uplift and another 25 million years ago for the Appalachians. Could whatever event that caused the uplift have caused the sea bed to raise 250ft?

Or is the whole "65 million year old sea bed eroded out of 5 miles of sediments" thing orthodoxy and set in stone so to speak?
« Last Edit: 08/03/2014 15:03:40 by chris »
Logged
 



Offline OokieWonderslug (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 113
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: How reliable are present rock features as a guide to past geology?
« Reply #1 on: 10/03/2014 16:42:11 »
Maybe all the ice melted everywhere just before the last ice age and sea level rose 250ft? Like it is melting now? I have read that if all the glaciers and ice caps melted it would raise sea levels 250 ft. Is that what happened?

We can't ignore this. It is too obvious to not see. Anyone with Google Earth can see it instantly. So what is the reason? Is it erosion of miles of sediments uncovering an old ocean bottom or the remains of the last time all the ice was gone?

Darn it, I am trying to make sense of this area and all I get are crickets when I ask a question. And this seemingly is the most active geology forum on the net. There is no where to discuss this stuff it seems.
Logged
 

Offline Bass

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1385
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: How reliable are present rock features as a guide to past geology?
« Reply #2 on: 10/03/2014 18:13:39 »
OW, the coastal plain-Piedmont contact was a shoreline at one time.  Which is why the "fall line" exists.  Don't have time to delve into the particulars right now, but will revisit this in more detail later if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
Logged
Old enough to have grandsons
Slow enough to study rocks
Thirsty enough to build a pub
 

Offline Bass

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1385
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: How reliable are present rock features as a guide to past geology?
« Reply #3 on: 10/03/2014 18:27:00 »
In the meantime, I suggest you check out the following website http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/vageol/vahist/16pghisH.html
This is a very readable website with information on the geologic evolution of Virginia (and surrounding areas) that should give you all sorts of information.  Put together by some folks at James Madison University.
Logged
Old enough to have grandsons
Slow enough to study rocks
Thirsty enough to build a pub
 

Offline Bill S

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3631
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 108 times
    • View Profile
Re: How reliable are present rock features as a guide to past geology?
« Reply #4 on: 23/03/2014 16:52:45 »
Andrew Alden might be able to help.

http://geology.about.com/
Logged
There never was nothing.
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

Rocks Rocks Rocks !!...But What is Rock ?

Started by neilepBoard Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology

Replies: 34
Views: 29940
Last post 20/12/2007 21:16:49
by Karen W.
What is the "rock cycle"?

Started by gurpalBoard Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology

Replies: 2
Views: 11463
Last post 30/08/2009 02:35:40
by JimBob
need help identifying this "rock"

Started by dragan986Board Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology

Replies: 3
Views: 6213
Last post 15/04/2015 16:24:51
by dragan986
Can someone help identify the orgin of this cross "+" in this strange rock?

Started by MgretchenBoard Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology

Replies: 10
Views: 11038
Last post 08/01/2011 11:25:32
by Foolosophy
Have I found gold? It's a black and white layered rock with gold chunky flakes

Started by eschindler7714@gmail.comBoard Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology

Replies: 2
Views: 3520
Last post 05/10/2018 19:52:27
by gwynhefar
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.103 seconds with 46 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.