Walt Brown's super-tectonics

Whatever, the granites that are part of the stratigraphy of Mt. Everest are sills. They have intruded along the contact (a natural weakness) between the overlying marine sediments and underlying metamorphics.I have not seen any mention of basalts, but it's possible they are the protoliths to the metamorphics.As for volcanic material launched into the air, I would think there is a world of difference between rocks and ash. Rocks would not stay suspended by wind currents or the atmosphere, but the finest grained ash particles certainly would.

Check out the USGS site for Understanding Plate Motions and scroll down to Convergent Boundaries, Continental-Continental Convergence. It will explain in rather simple terms how the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau were formed.

Another informative post, Mr. Birkeland!Here are two pieces of literature that mention either Brachiopoda or Mollusca:Mentions Brachiopoda: Jin Yu-gan (1979) Animal fossils from the Jilong Formation (Permian) at the northern slope of Mount Everest , A report of the scientific expedition in the Mount Everest region, 1975, Geology, Monograph. Sci. Press, Beijing, China, p. 93-112.Mentions Mollusca: Ku sheng wu, Ed. (1975) A report of scientific investigation in the Qomolangma Feng region (paleontology, volume 1) 1966-1968, Monograph, Sci. Press, Peking, China, 423 pp. (Note: Qomolangma Feng region appears to be the Tibetan side of Mt. Everest)However, without actually reading the papers, it's impossible to tell exactly where the fossils were found.

quote:

---

4. I work in a large building that is covered in limestone, Niagara Limestone probably quarried from Lannon Wisconsin, and I have seen a number of fossils such as clams, sea bottom plants and many of the slabs have sea bottom surfaces. looking at these limestone slabs, you can make out an ancient sea floor. On some of them you can see the bottom surface with a long weed that fell over and is laying flat with maybe a clam. Such surfaces would take time to form, and there are many of them in the quarry deposits, they are used as natural planes to split the stones to make slabs. A trail I like to walk on goes by the edge of one of the quarries in Lannon and the limestone goes down for over 200 feet, the big trucks look like toys at the bottom and the limestone goes down deeper yet and all the way down through the whole deposit are found these fossil claims, plants and surface traces. To me these indicate that the limestone was deposited in tranquil waters over a very long period of time. Rapid formation of this deposit could have only occurred miraculously, no natural means described in the book or that I can think of, could have created this deposit in a short time period. How could these trace fossils of sea floors with plants and clams be formed rapidly? Wisconsin is a long way from the sea, so were did the sea plants and clams come from?

---

Powerful things, rocks.

Ohhhhh, so that explains the presence of the Western Interior Seaway... I'll have to mention that at my next meeting.Come on Whatever, have you not learned a thing here? Don't you have any questions? About plate tectonics? Have you even read the posts that people have spent time putting together?

Have you read any of the replies, Whatever? All of your statements have been covered a few times in THIS thread.As for your magnet analogy, it falls apart because what is aligned are tiny minerals IN the rock (such as magnetite) and their magnetic field/charge is so weak that even a fraction of a millimeter's distance between them is enough to keep them from affecting each other. However, if their magnetic properties WERE strong enough, all the darn magnetites would orient themselves in all the possible directions and there would be NO alignment observed at all.Additionally, magnetic studies are not confined to volcanic rocks in the ocean. The sediments themselves, carried along as the plates move, also contain minute magnetic particles that align themselves with the changing magnetic field. So dating sediments and correlating this data to magnetic reversals is just as accurate and significant as dating oceanic basalt.AGAIN, for dating and other studies on the ocean floor, all you need to do is go to the Ocean Drilling Program search engine and type, dating or dating basalt or dating sediments. You will be inundated with data.Yes, the magnetic field of the earth has indeed reversed polarity, and even most creationist organizations today no longer deny that fact.----------------------------------------------------------------------Here are just a few of the reports I found online at the ODP site mentioned above: 15. GEOCHRONOLOGY AND PETROLOGY OF THE IGNEOUS BASEMENT AT THE
LOWER NICARAGUAN RISE, SITE 10011

quote:

---

Abstract:

​

40Ar-39Ar incremental heating experiments and electron microprobe analyses were performed on basaltic rocks recovered from Site 1001 during Ocean Drilling Program Leg 165. The lower Nicaraguan Rise, on which Site 1001 lies, appears to be part of a larger Caribbean oceanic plateau that makes up the core of the Caribbean plate. Our results indicate an eruption age of 81 1 Ma. A single flow-rim glass is tholeiitic and almost identical to the shipboard X-ray fluorescence analyses of the whole rock.

​

The slightly porphyritic basalts have at least two populations of plagioclase, groundmass, and glomerocrystic plagioclase laths that appear to be in equilibrium with the surrounding melt and corroded tabular phenocrysts that have a higher An content (An84—86).

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LEG 192 SUMMARY

quote:

---

a portion of the Abstract:

​

With a surface area of 1.6 106 km2 and a crustal volume of 4—5 10^7 km3, the Ontong Java Plateau is the world’s largest volcanic oceanic plateau and may represent the largest magmatic event on Earth in the last 200 m.y. During Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 192 we recovered igneous rock and sediment cores in five widely separated sites in previously unsampled areas across the plateau. Primary objectives of the leg were to determine (1) the age and duration of emplacement of the plateau, (2) the compositional range of magmas, and (3) the environment and style of eruption.

---

Below is a figure depicting stratigraphic sections and age dates for drill cores taken from the Ontong Java Plateau drilling project described above.

quote:

---

Figure F36. Stratigraphic sections drilled during Leg 192 and at the three previous DSDP and ODP Ontong Java Plateau basement sites. Seven sites are arranged on a transect from the crest of the main plateau (Site 1183) eastward to the plateau rim (Site 1185) and then north and northwestward to Site 807 on the northern flank. Site 1184 lies off the transect, 586 km to the southeast of Site 1185. Basement ages for the previously drilled sites are from 40Ar-39Ar dating of basalt (Mahoney et al., 1993). For the Leg 192 sites, basement ages are estimated from biostratigraphic evidence.

---

A plume origin for the Ontong Java Plateau? (has a location map for the above link as well as more information about the site and study)---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. 40Ar—39Ar chronology for the volcanic history of the Southeast Greenland rifted margin

quote:

---

Abstract:

​

Results of 40Ar-39Ar Ar dating constrain the age of the submerged volcanic succession, part of the seaward-dipping reflector sequence of the Southeast Greenland volcanic rifted margin, recovered during Leg 163. At the 63N drilling transect, the fully normally magnetized volcanic units at Holes 989B (Unit 1) and 990A (Units 1 and 2) are dated at 57.1 1.3 Ma and 55.6 0.6 Ma, respectively. This correlates with a common magnetochron, C25n. The underlying, reversely magnetized lavas at Hole 990A (Units 3-13) yield an average age of 55.8 0.7 Ma and may correlate with C25r. The argon data, however, are also consistent with eruption of the lavas at Site 990 during the very earliest portion of C24. If so, the normally polarized units have to be correlated to a cryptochron (e.g., C24r-11 at ~55.57 Ma). The lavas at Holes 989B and 990A have typical oceanic compositions, implying that final plate separation between Greenland and northwest Europe took place at ~56 Ma. The age for Hole 989B lava is younger than expected from the seismic interpretations, posing questions about the structural evolution of the margin. An age of 49.6 0.2 Ma for the basaltic lava at Site 988 (~66N) points to the importance of postbreakup tholeiitic magmatism at the rifted margin.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kerguelen Plateau-Broken Ridge: A Large Igneous Province

quote:

---

from the 4th paragraph of the Abstract:

​

A unique aspect of this LIP is its clear association with a long linear volcanic ridge, i.e., the Ninetyeast Ridge. Dating of basement basalt from the seven Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) and ODP drill holes that penetrated the igneous basement of the Ninetyeast Ridge established a systematic south to north progression of ages from 38 to ~82 Ma along this hot spot track. In addition, the Kerguelen Archipelago and Heard Island, constructed on the Northern and Central Kerguelen Plateau, respectively, have a volcanic record from ~38 Ma to the present. Studies of subaerial lavas from these islands and submarine lavas recovered by drilling provide a 115 m.y. record of volcanism that can be used to evaluate the hypothesis that the Kerguelen Plateau/Broken Ridge system is related to decompression melting of a plume head and that the subsequent Ninetyeast Ridge and oceanic island volcanism are related to partial melting of the following plume tail. The Kerguelen plume is particularly important because it is a source of an "enriched isotopic component" that forms an end-member in the isotopic arrays defined by ocean island basalts, and it may have been important in creating the distinctive isotopic characteristics of Indian Ocean ridge basalts. Determination of spatial and temporal variations in geochemical characteristics of the basalts forming the Kerguelen Plateau and Broken Ridge are essential for understanding the early history of the Kerguelen plume.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------- TIMING, NATURE, AND SOURCE AREAS OF CARIBBEAN VOLCANISM

quote:

---

from Biochronology and Tephra Ages

​

With the discovery of numerous datable tephra layers in the sections cored at ODP Sites 998-1001, it was hoped that these Caribbean strata would provide a rare opportunity to test and refine the Cenozoic time scale. A revised Cenozoic geochronology and chronostratigraphy was recently published by Berggren et al. (1995a, 1995b). This time scale is based on a modified version of Cande and Kent's (1992, 1995) magnetochronology, which itself is based primarily on South Atlantic seafloor magnetic anomalies. Nine age calibration points, anchored by Chron C34n(y) at 83.0 Ma plus the zero-age ridge axis, and interpolated by a cubic spline function provide the numerical basis for the global polarity time scale. All calibration points are constrained directly by calcareous microfossil datums for purposes of correlation (Berggren et al., 1995b). The application of Milankovitch climate cyclicity to geochronology, corroborated by high precision 40Ar/39Ar dating, has provided a powerful tool in the effort to calibrate polarity boundaries and biostratigraphic datums in the younger part of the record (e.g., Shackleton et al., 1995a, 1995b). In their revised time scale, Berggren et al. (1995a, 1995b) accepted the astronomical time scale values of polarity events from the present to 5.23 Ma (Shackleton et al., 1990; Hilgen, 1991; Langereis et al., 1994). The magnetic polarity time scale used for ODP Leg 165 adopted the astronomically tuned time scale of Shackleton et al. (1995b) and Shackleton and Crowhurst (1997) for the interval from 5 to 14 Ma (Sigurdsson, Leckie, Acton, et al., 1997).

---

Please note and pay particular attention to the following figure:

quote:

---

Figure 4. Comparison of radiometric dates of Caribbean tephra layers and the Neogene biostratigraphic ages correlated to the Berggren et al. (1995a) time scale. The black circles show calibration ages used in the Berggren et al. (1995b) age model. The 40Ar/39Ar ages are shown with 2- error bars. Data are presented in Table 2. Ma* = ages of magnetic reversals for Subchron C3n.4n(o) and younger have been calibrated to the astronomical time scale of Shackleton et al. (1990), Hilgen (1991), Langereis et al. (1994), and Berggren et al. (1995a).

---

The fossils in Figure 4 do not match up perfectly, but they fall VERY close to the 1:1 line. Incongruity is attributed to diagenesis and/or sedimentary reworking. This is just ONE of thousands of datasets/analyses that show how well all the various dating methods correlate. Each dating method calibrates, and most importantly, corroborates the others.Now, seeing as the reports are rather technical, please feel free to ask any questions you might have. There are plenty of people here that can help.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-31-2003]

The problem with dating the basalt is that a lot of times the basalt is too altered to even give it a try. Remember, you are intruding magma (hot molten rock) underneath the ocean, where there is a LOT of circulating water. Water and high temperatures cause hydrothermal alteration. In order to get an accurate age date you need relatively fresh minerals. It's not always possible to get an age date where ever you want!And whatever, I showed you several places where they WERE able to get good age dates, so it is extremely short-sighted of you to say,"seems they confirming my suspicions, that they are having problems coring to the basement basalt." Water depth inhibits drilling depths because the drilling vessels can only carry so much pipe. However, I've already given you a link to a hole over 4,000 meters deep. Coring to the basalt is NOT a problem, coring THROUGH the basalt is another story, however.

quote:

---

P.S. If they are having a hardtime coring to the basalt, then they really don't know if a granite layer doesn't exists beneath the basalt, etc...

---

Like I said in the other thread, a few scientists think it's possible there is granite under the basalt, but that is highly debated. However, I suspect they aren't theorizing that granite underlies the entire ocean floor - just portions near continents.Just off the top of my head, the mantle-derived basalt would have to pierce the granite in order to get to get to the surface. It's not like there is a magical tube that keeps the basalt and granite from touching each other as the basalt travels to the surface. So if there was a granite layer, the granite would contaminate the basalt and geochemical studies of the basalt would show this. You'd also expect to see granitic xenoliths in the oceanic crust, especially in ophiolites, but I have not heard of such a thing.The MORBs (Mid-Ocean Ridge Basalts) have been the subject of extensive geochemical studies, so have granites, in fact. They are completely different rocks. If there was a granite layer underlying the entire ocean, we'd know it. MORB chemistry would tell us.

quote:

---

It seems that the magnetic reversals are more about basalt forming in cracks and filling the void, like in Iceland, like what about where they are finding these magnetic reversals going perpendicular to north and south, forming these magnetic reversals, like howcome the mid-ocean ridges themselves, show opposite magnetic on the east and west side, do you really believe the mid-ocean ridges formed the east side of the ridges at a different time than it formed the west side of the ridges, etc...the magnetic reversals is a normal thing not related to long periods of time, its not related to the earth changing its magnetic polarity, etc...

---

You are somewhat correct about basalt filling cracks and it can be represented by the perpendicular striping you mentioned. The ocean floor is full of TRANSFORM FAULTS and the basalt can occasionally intrude along these zones of weakness.Magnetic striping is NOT perfectly symmetrical across the spreading center (like is often shown in textbooks and in the link I just provided). The spreading center does not operate like a waterfall pouring out a constant flood of magma from every point along the ridge. Basalt production is spotty along the ridge. (Oops, I see JonF used the same pic! )
This site also has a good example of what real magnetic striping looks like. As you can see from the links, magnetic striping is most definitely symmetrical.Even paleomagnetic studies of continental volcanic formation, etc. correlate with oceanic striping.We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that reversals in polarity are real and they are represnted in oceanic and continental volcanics and sediments.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-31-2003]

Whatever, one more time, you magnet analogy does not work. What's magnetized are the MINUTE minerals within the rocks. That means that each mineral has it's own poles.A better experiment is to take all your little magnets, jumble them up so that they are facing different directions, then take a larger magnet and slowly move it closer to your smaller magnets. No matter what direction the small magnets are pointing, they will turn so that the right end is pointing toward the large magnet.Heck, take your big magnet, go out in the yard, and run it through some loose dirt. I think you'll find all those little magnetite grains aligning themselves just fine, irregardless of the neighboring grains. The big magnet is much more powerful.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-31-2003]

Well that experiment sounds a lot more fun than mine!Longing for your days as a jello wrestler, C? lol

I had not heard of the rhyolites in Iceland. I wonder how their chemistry compares to continental rhyolites. I also wonder if the rhyolites are not a fractionated end-member of the basaltic melt.

That's interesting. I never knew that basalt could fractionate enough to actually produce a rhyolite. I knew they went so far as diorite. Or at least it never sank in.But I'm happy to hear about the chemistry. That was a help... though I don't think it will make the same impact on Whatever.Is there another term for these types of rhyolites, I wonder?I did some of my own googling and it does appear that Iceland has some intermediate volcanics erupting from Hekla (scroll down a bit). and also Is it relative to the topic? Probably not, but I found it interesting and I learned something new today.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-01-2004]

The theory of plate tectonics does not predict subducting rocks will not fracture. For you to suggest such a thing illustrates your total ignorance on the subject.The hydroplate theory does not have any evidence whatsoever that trenches formed suddenly (perhaps you could present the evidence?), that there is a granite underlying the entire ocean floor, that plates are floating on water and fractured rock.Hydrothermal venting supports the hydroplate theory? Funny, it also supports plate tectonics. The Hydroplate theory needs some better evidence, I would think. Of course there is water coming out of oceanic hydrothermal vents - it's UNDER WATER! Seawater is circulating through the fractures and pores for miles below the sea floor. That coupled with the heat and water from the earth's interior creates the vents. Again, everyone already knows that water in various phases exists in deep-seated regions of the Earth's interior. No big surprise there. See this paper on Seismic Evidence for Water Deep in Earth’s Upper Mantle. Obviously this does not destroy the theory of plate tectonics.And water may help rock move over rock (it appears to help in thrusts), no one disputes that either. You are making no sense because if the mantle is fluid-like (no it's not a pure liquid - imagine the temp require for that!!) with water, which we already know about, why exactly is there a problem? The answer... there is no problem. You just don't know enough about plate tectonics to realize that. If the plates are still moving, and basalt is still being produced at the ridges, I suppose you're going to show us the evidence that the earth is expanding as well. Let's see it. The evidence to plate spreading is indeed supported by trench data. Have you not looked at a map of earthquake occurrences and magnitudes before?Here is a world seismic monitor for the past 5 years. Notice where the earthquakes are happening primarily - plate boundaries. Now take a look at where the largest magnitude earthquakes are happening and compare their locations to this next map by scrolling down to the second image entitled "Evidence for subduction: Trenches, Volcanism, Earthquakes" showing locations of trenches.Many of this planet's largest earthquakes occur at subduction zones. Earthquakes result from adjustments of rock, crustal movements, etc. Are you sure you want to sit there and tell us rocks are no longer subducting?Also, the image Joe Meert posted to you shows evidence of a subducting slab. This site shows a cross-section of Japanese earthquake depths - kinda looks like a subducting slab to me. I don't know, call me crazy. What are you trying to say here? That plates are moving everywhere including in the trenches but they aren't subducting? So where are they going?All in all, the way you contradict yourself with each and every post tells us you don't understand the hydroplate theory nor anything at all about geology. Which is of course what Walt prefers. Otherwise you'd see what a complete quack he is.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-04-2004]

Oh so now plates do subduct. Oh, lord! Make up your mind please.Are they or are they not CURRENTLY subducting?There is nothing odd about finding crushed or altered rock at a subduction zone. Please tell me why you and Walt think this isn't expected in plate tectonics theory.

Ah, I see. You are under the impression that subduction cannot occur at all. That when plates collide, they must buckle and crush up against each other until only rubble is left rather than one going underneath the other.That does happen of course, but only to a point. Initially, the plates will buckle and rise up at the point of collision, but they can't keep going straight up, now can they. The Himalayas are an example of collision, buckling, and then one plate overriding another. LOTS of fracturing also.Oceanic-continental collisions are similar, only the difference in their respective densities means that oceanic crust will more often subduct. It's similar to placing your hands on a table, put more downward pressure on one hand, and bring them together. The one with the downward pressure will always go under the one without. However, because oceanic floor is found obducted on continents as ophiolite complexes, we know conditions can be changed. Those ophiolite complexes are severely fractured, squeezed, altered, etc.When plates subduct, a lot of the overlying sediments are scraped off and this forms what is called an accretionary wedge, also known as an accretionary prism - which is what your link on the decollement and fracturing of rocks within the Nankai Accretionary Prism is about. See The Structure of an Accretionary Wedge for an explanation of how an accretionary wedge/prism forms and what it and a decollement (another term for detachment fault) actually are. Pay particular attention to the section entitled The Critical Wedge Theory. It speaks about collisional dynamics and illustrates why rocks do not fracture to bits during collisions.I guess this means we are not in agreement, then. First of all, whatever, we have shown you that the plates ARE moving and subducting, if you don't agree with this interpretation, perhaps you had better explain why. You are very good at ignoring everyone's posts when they contain evidence that contradicts or completely refutes the hydroplate theory. I suggest you start addressing our posts point by point, rather than dismissing everything, before we all start ignoring you. It takes time to type up these posts and you are beginning to look like a waste of time.Secondly, no offense, whatever, but the fact that you accept Walt's ridiculous ignorance-based ramblings doesn't surprise me seeing as you don't know a thing about plate tectonics. Walt Brown's theory is simplistic at best and completely unfounded at it's worst... and perfect for the layperson. Plate tectonics takes a little more time to research, perhaps that's the drawback.Everyone here has provided many links, giving you the opportunity to learn, but it really doesn't appear you are taking advantage of it. Here's one more just for you: This Dynamic Earth: The Story of Plate Tectonics.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 01-04-2004]

Whatever, again, your magnet analogy is moot. You know metal shavings align themselves with a more powerful magnet. What you don't know is that when minerals are heated beyond the Curie point (~550 degrees C), the magnetic minerals basically loose their magnetism. As the magma begins to cool, magnetic minerals re-acquire their magnetic property and will align themselves to the prevailing pole - which is termed remnant magnetism (THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH A COMPASS!). The magma eventually solidifies, freezing (or locking in) that alignment in place.Measuring the direction that the grains point can be performed by a magnetometer. I suggest you Google 'Curie Point,' 'magnetometer,' 'remnant magnetism,' etc.