|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4729 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
This is a very interesting thread. Pity the technical stuff is making my head hurt. ><
I'm just about to leave work, I'll write up a better response when I get home. IRH
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4729 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
*sighs*
Great, so we have to explain absolutely everything then.
quote: I actually thought the same thing as soon as Rox mentioned that the conglomerates were absent. Conglomerates tend to be formed in terrestrial environments like river beds because the action of the river creates the rounded pebbles. So you tend to see conglomerates in river basins but not marine basins. If we could see the original rock (i.e. unmetamorphosed) we'd know immediately if it was formed in a terrestrial environment or not, because terrestrial rock is red or orange, on account of the iron in the rock reacting with the air. Offhand I can't remember if you can still tell from the chemical composition of the metamorphosed rock (I haven't done metamorphism for years). As well as that, any cross-bedding or similar structures not destroyed by the metamorphism are also indicative of how the rock originally formed.
quote: Look, Rox didn't pull this out of her ass or something. (Believe it or not, part of Ireland formed the same way.) An accreted terrane is a term describing a geological section that was formed from slices of rock formations; so I guess what you see is individual slices or areas, all crushed together, consisting of rock formations similar to what we see in Japan and Indonesia. We assume that, as the formations are similar and there is evidence of uplift and other tectonic action that squashed them together, they may have formed like Japan and Indonesia. Hence "progressively younger accreted terranes - generally considered to be island arc terranes" - because the evidence in the rock indicates that this is the most likely explanation.
quote: The Vishnu Schist is pretty old, but still - we see marine sediments, deformed and uplifted, which were intruded by igneous rock later. That's more or less consistent with what we expect to see in an island arc terrane.
quote: The evidence suggests this is the most likely explanation. We verify or falsify it by examining the evidence - if we see what we expect to see if our explanation is correct, then the explanation is somewhat verified. If we see something unexpected, or something that is not possible for our explanation, it is falsified. Call it interpretation if you will, but that is what science is. Period. There isn't another 'interpretation' in this case because we don't have another that fits the evidence as well or better than our current one. This is not imagination, or speculation - it's called scientific investigation. Imagination and speculation are more the creationist's forte. "Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil." --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago "Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4729 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
quote: It's not imagination. Please stop using that term, because it is entirely the wrong descriptive term to use for a scientific explanation based on research and extensive field studies. Anyway - I'm wondering if we should start on a less complex formation. Otherwise it'll take a very long time to explain all the relevent reasoning and lines of evidence behind every conclusion. "Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil." --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago "Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4729 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
I'm taking this to a new topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4729 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Hey Jazz
Tough question there - why have only one kind of metamorphism? To be honest without examining the schist around the igneous intrusion we won't know how extensive the contact metamorphism is. Considering the size of the schist I would expect that most of it was formed by regular metamorphism. So let's see: 1. Some silicate rock somewhere gets eroded into sand.2. That sand is deposited which later becomes the Vishnu Sandstone. 3? 4? A magma body intrudes into the sandstone causing contact metamorphism. 3? 4? The formation is subjected to pressures and temperatures causing it to metamorphose further. 5. The magma never makes it to the surface and therefore cools as granite. The timing of 3, 4, and 5 depend on information we don't have at the moment. Any help Rox? IRH
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4729 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
*bows to Rox*
You explained it better than I did. ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4729 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Above the Dox formation is the Cardenas Basalts. Volcanic rock, i.e. lava flows. Much of what you get from google on it conisists of demented creationist honking about how the dating for this series is inaccurate or whatnot.
Here's a quick description I managed to dig up: "The Cardenas Lava is the name given to a series of basalt and basaltic andesite flows and sandstone interbeds that are above the Dox Formation, but below the Nankoweap Formation. The Cardenas Lava is only exposed in the eastern part of the canyon, where it ranges from 785 feet to 985 feet in thickness. The contact between the Cardenas Lava and the Nankoweap Formation is an unconformity. An unknown amount of the Cardenas Lava was removed before the deposition of the Nankoweap." Sandstone and basalt, hmmm. Periodic coastal volcanic eruptions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4729 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
That's about right, jar.
For reference, when we talk about a formation such as the Cardenas Basalt, we're not speaking of a single type of rock. We're actually talking of a whole series of layers of rock, representing a particular depositional environment, in this case sandstone being deposited in between volcanic eruptions. In general terms, formations are divided based on the change in depositional environment, and within the formation you will have several members or types of rock which define that environment. The Cardenas Basalt has several members such as a red sandstone layer and a basalt layer. Formations are the basic units, I guess, of how you look at the rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4729 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
quote: More or less, yes. I couldn't say 100% because I haven't actually examined the rock in detail.
quote: Wikipedia has a very concise description on shales and sandstones:
Shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock whose original constituents were clays or muds. It is characterized by thin laminae breaking with an irregular curving fracture, often splintery and usually parallel to the often-indistinguishable bedding plane. This property is called fissility. Non-fissile rocks of similar composition but made of particles smaller than 1/16 mm are described as mudstones. Rocks with similar particle sizes but with less clay and therefore grittier are siltstones. Just to explain: fissility is the way that shales break into thin sheets rather than into blocks like other rocks.
Sandstone is a sedimentary rock composed mainly of sand-size mineral or rock grains. Most sandstone is composed of quartz and/or feldspar because these are the most common minerals in the Earth's crust. Like sand, sandstone may be any color, but the most common colors are tan, brown, yellow, red, gray and white. So overall, the visual difference between sandstone, siltstone, and shale/mudstone is how 'gritty' or coarse they are. And mudstone and shale differ only in that shale is fissile and mudstone is not. Edited by IrishRockhound, : fixed quote box
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4729 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Once again, Wikipedia is our best friend.
quote: Sediment gets dumped in a spot. As more and more gets dumped there, whether by air, ice, wind or water, the stuff on the bottom gets compacted. All the air/water gets squeezed out, and eventually after it gets reeeeeeally well crushed, it solidifies into rock.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025