Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-14-2018 12:12 PM
147 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,070 Year: 18,893/29,783 Month: 838/2,043 Week: 390/386 Day: 47/107 Hour: 3/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
19NextFF
Author Topic:   Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.
Ratel
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 282 (295646)
03-15-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
03-15-2006 5:07 PM


Re: Holding off on time for the moment
Okay, I retract the time question.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 5:07 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 5:47 PM Ratel has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 62 of 282 (295658)
03-15-2006 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Ratel
03-15-2006 5:13 PM


Re: Holding off on time for the moment
Thanks. I think if we work through this like those who first explored the geology that time will become a conclusion instead of an assumption.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Ratel, posted 03-15-2006 5:13 PM Ratel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by roxrkool, posted 03-15-2006 10:59 PM jar has responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 875 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 63 of 282 (295779)
03-15-2006 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
03-15-2006 5:47 PM


Re: Holding off on time for the moment
Are we done with the intrusions?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 5:47 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 11:01 PM roxrkool has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 64 of 282 (295780)
03-15-2006 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by roxrkool
03-15-2006 10:59 PM


Ratel still has a question
Ratel has a question in Message 59

This message has been edited by jar, 03-15-2006 10:06 PM


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by roxrkool, posted 03-15-2006 10:59 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by roxrkool, posted 03-15-2006 11:51 PM jar has responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 875 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 65 of 282 (295794)
03-15-2006 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
03-15-2006 11:01 PM


Re: Ratel still has a question
Okay. I wasn't sure if that was off-topic now.

I'm going to cheat a bit and post a link to a previous post I made that briefly touches on Ratel's question, which I thought was a very good question. If it's too brief, I can elaborate.

Post #8 of thread entitled 'Geologic Column.'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 11:01 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 03-16-2006 12:06 AM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 66 of 282 (295796)
03-16-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by roxrkool
03-15-2006 11:51 PM


Thanks. We'll hold here
and see if that answers Ratels, questions.

I'd rather get all the questions answered.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by roxrkool, posted 03-15-2006 11:51 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Ratel, posted 03-16-2006 12:23 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Ratel
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 282 (295797)
03-16-2006 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
03-16-2006 12:06 AM


Re: Thanks. We'll hold here
Thanks, Jar, I appreciate it. So we see Peperites that indicate an intrusion into the sediment, and the characteristics of the peperite tells us if the sediment was wet or dry at the time. And the hyaloclastites only form in wet sediments (or other wet material). I think I got that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 03-16-2006 12:06 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Ratel, posted 03-16-2006 12:26 AM Ratel has not yet responded

  
Ratel
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 282 (295798)
03-16-2006 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Ratel
03-16-2006 12:23 AM


Re: Thanks. We'll hold here
Oh, and of course, we can conclude from the above that the sediment being intruded into wasn't still wet?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Ratel, posted 03-16-2006 12:23 AM Ratel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 03-16-2006 1:02 AM Ratel has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 69 of 282 (295803)
03-16-2006 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Ratel
03-16-2006 12:26 AM


Re: Thanks. We'll hold here
From all I can gather it was still sandstone, not wet at all, but not yet transformed to schist.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Ratel, posted 03-16-2006 12:26 AM Ratel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Ratel, posted 03-16-2006 12:17 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3685
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 70 of 282 (295804)
03-16-2006 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Ratel
03-15-2006 4:58 PM


Unlithified sediment vs. sedimentary rock vs. metasediments
Per the diagram of message 8, the granite is shown to be intruding only the Visnu Shist (metasediment).

... is there any way that these intrusions could have happened while the strata was still uh, muddy?

I'm going to ask a (sort of) variation on that question. I am going to presume that the sediments were at least already lithified (not "muddy").

What was the order of the events?

1) Sediments were metamorphosed and then later intruded by the granite?

or

2) Sediments were intruded by the granite and then later metamorphosed?

or

3) Sediments were intruded by the granite and metamorphosed at the same time?

Now, at least superficially, the answer would seem to be #1, at least as opposed to possibility #2. If the metamorphic event were last, then the granites would have also been metamorphosed.

The kicker is (as I recall), because of their mineralogy, granitic rocks are highly resistant to metamorphic effects. Pressures and temperatures that would substantially change a mudstone or a basalt might not change a granite at all.

Perhaps the detailed study of the schist/granite contact would shed light on this question. Offhand, my guess is that #3 is the case. Actually, #3 may be a variation of #1, in that the granitic intrusion may be a later phase of the same event that caused the metamorphism.

Comments?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Ratel, posted 03-15-2006 4:58 PM Ratel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by roxrkool, posted 03-16-2006 2:12 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 875 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 71 of 282 (295808)
03-16-2006 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Minnemooseus
03-16-2006 1:09 AM


Re: Unlithified sediment vs. sedimentary rock vs. metasediments
As far as the Vishnu Schist goes, the granite was formed at about the same time as the schist was forming. In other words, they were forming contemporaneously - at least at deeper levels in the crust.

The granite may represent either a completely separate igneous body, or it is a partial melt of the Vishnu Schist itself. When rocks are subjected to high temperatures and pressures, as the Vishnu was, they can partially melt to form a magma (aka partial melt). It is called a partial melt because only a portion of the minerals present in the parent rock, in this case the Vishnu Schist, will melt. This is because temperatures during a metamorphic event generally do not get as hot as temperatures lower in the crust where ALL the minerals melt.

Ferromagnesian minerals, such as pyroxene and olivine, have higher melting temperatures, and it takes very high temperatures to get those to melt. So in a [shallow?] metamorphic setting, only the lower temperature felsic minerals will melt, forming a felsic magma - granite.

This granitic magma, because it was more buoyant than the surrounding rock, worked its way up into the schist, specifically exploiting and traveling up areas of weakness, such as along faults, joints, and fold axes. This suggests the schist was already somewhat brittle, though not completely cooled, when the granite intruded some distal portions of the schist.

Sorry, I don't think I'm doing a very good job at describing the temporal relationship between the schist and granite.

I haven't read all the pertinent data, so I don't know whether any sediments exist below the Supergroup that may have been intruded by the granite. That is certainly possible. But what we do know is that the granite intruded the Vishnu long before the Supergroup was deposited atop it. The granite did NOT intrude any of the Supergroup rocks - as far as I know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-16-2006 1:09 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14562
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 72 of 282 (295813)
03-16-2006 2:23 AM


Erosion ?
Going back to the diagram in Message 8 it looks to me as if the intrusive dykes shown have been cut off at the top of the picture by erosion. That is, the schist and the intrusive dykes were "levelled off" before the deposition of the Bass limestone. Can the geologists among us confirm that this reading is correct ?m
Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by roxrkool, posted 03-16-2006 8:58 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 75 by jar, posted 03-16-2006 12:30 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 875 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 73 of 282 (295876)
03-16-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
03-16-2006 2:23 AM


Re: Erosion ?
correct
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2006 2:23 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Ratel
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 282 (295948)
03-16-2006 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jar
03-16-2006 1:02 AM


Re: Thanks. We'll hold here
great, got it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 03-16-2006 1:02 AM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 75 of 282 (295950)
03-16-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
03-16-2006 2:23 AM


A few more questions before moving on to the Bass Limestone.
This relates to event timing.

Please correct this if there is a mistake, but I'm trying to outline this part for us laymen. If I can describe it in a way I can understand, then maybe other non-geologists like me will understand as well.

The Vishnu Schist consists of transformed sandstone.

To get sandstone you first need an earlier source of rock that was eroded down into small particles of sand.

So we have three events so far, creating some kind of mountain or large rock source, long weathering and erosion to make sand, then the sand is transported to some basin where it is compacted into sandstone.

Now Question 1.

Does the accumulated sand need to be under pressure of an overlying layer to change from sand to sandstone, or is it simply that the lowest layers of sand are compressed by the weight of overlying sand?

Would it simply be a layer that is sand at the top gradually turning to sandstone as the weight and pressure increase with depth.

Question 2.

Is it likely that the magma intrusion extended through the layer of sand--->sandstone and that what happened is the the softer protosandstone layers that also contained magma were what was eroded away before the Bass Limestone and other layers were laid down?

Question 3.

When did the sandstone become schist and the magma become granite? Wouldn't both have to be buried under lots of material to create the temperatures and pressures need for sandstone ---> schist and magma ---> granite?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2006 2:23 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Jazzns, posted 03-16-2006 12:47 PM jar has responded
 Message 78 by roxrkool, posted 03-16-2006 10:22 PM jar has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
19NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018