Earths Expansion and Declining Seas
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
Would any of you four would like to explain how the 'mud ' on the crust gets subducted ? Nor have you mentioned how ole the crust is the is being sub-ducted under BC. Don't be scared lots of crow to go around..
So where is the mud from then you agree that it wouldn't be able to slide under 25 miles of granite? Something that thick and heavy would also scrape some rock off also along
One time again real slow, the wiser of the ones on this thread accept the the West Coast of Canada is a sub-duction zone. My question was, old crust would have collected a certain amount of material that would be considered to be mud, fish poo and such. At this moment how old is the part of the crust that will be totally subducted next, 100M, 200M, 300M? An answer something like that and then in part 2 of the answer where is all the stuff that could slide under the weight of 25 miles. None of the current models that these resident experts rely on cover that specific point..
North is the direction the spread in the Atlantic would push North America.
It varies a great deal, depending on the locations of the spreading ridges and the subduction zones. Either you know that, which means you're deliberately trying on one of the oldest cheap debating tricks in the world*, or you don't know that, which means you don't understand enough about the plate tectonics model to legitimately criticize it.
*demanding a single simple answer to a question that doesn't have one, then when people won't provide one, trying to pretend that means they must be wrong and you must be right
Millions? Noooo you are looking at 1.7 Billion years.
Mud and fish **** is far too thin of a layer to be subducted to depth and piles up in trenches or jets to surface as underwater mud volcanoes. The trench muds will compress someday to become shales.
Each plate has it's own direction of movement. Some plates converge some diverge As it happens the pacific plate converges and suducts the north Am plate.
If you want to know how continents form it goes through sevearl stages starting with magmatic differentiation to a pluton to a batholith to a craton to a continent.
In this case I have already specified it was the West Coast of Canada, how long has that rock been exposed to the elements?
So zero dept for mud after 1.7 billion years. Hate to do this but I'm going to need a link to confirm that.
Last edited:
No that's fine, can I bounce a few golf balls off it, at high-speed, I want to see if it rings like a Church-bell?
Have you ever taken a **** and wiped but found that wiping wasn't necessary? Why no mud on the mud flaps?
The continental rcok of north america is 1.7 billion years old but the subduction of the pacific plate was only in the past 70 million years. On the geological time scale the rocky mountains are quite new.
...the insignificant few meters of mud that cover that ocean crust is **** all in comparison to it's 6-11km of crust and the mud piles up in the subduction trench and will eventually turn to shale.
The continental rcok of north america is 1.7 billion years old but the subduction of the pacific plate was only in the past 70 million years. On the geological time scale the rocky mountains are quite new.
That has what to do with various bit of debris that would accumulate on the sea-floor. Obviously something ends up there as that is where limestone comes from.
Let's sat the Rockies are laying flat and then subduction occurs. The slow rate allows for some of the bending and such, in my little world going from about 1.7 billion till the Rockies formed about 200 million years ago would allow a considerable amount of 'mud' to collect, quite soft mud, Then an blob from near the core rises and is very hot compared to the surrounding area and the melts some of the crust, that weakens it an it uplifts in a cracking motion so it is so quick the mud more or less stays in it's layers. Over the mexy million yras that hot blob gradually cools as all that heat is radiated upwards making the soft clays into something akin to what you get when after a clay pot comes out of a kiln. Wait till it cools and you have rock without miles of pressure that then needs to be washed away (where is that material BTW) before we come to today's world.
"Limestone comes from shallow waters and is made of coral"
I thought it was sea-shells.
"Limestone comes from shallow waters and is made of coral"
I thought it was sea-shells.
Coral and shells of bivalves yes.
I think I understand where you are getting confused and it is between oceans, shallow seas and inland seas and deserts that covered the continent several times leaving shales, limestone, sandstone atop continental metamorphic and igneous basement rock.
On the coast of BC you'll find extrusive (magma above surface is lava) igneous rocks making up the Cascade range from subduction and volcanism but on the eastern side of the rockies you'll find the mountains are thrust up limestone and shale from the inland seas in the upper strata with metamorphics making up the lower strata of the mountains. During the thrusting and upheaval intrusive (magma that doesn't reach surface but cools in veins) igneous rock shot up from the mantle filling the large faults and cracks with mineral bearing quartz etc. This is how you find gold seams in otherwise sedimentary strata.
But not all sudbuctive zones will produce volcanism on the scale of the Cascades.
The Himalyas for instance had very little volcanism during developement but massive thrusting of the Tethys seaway and it's shallow sea fossil bearing limestones and shales to be the highest continental mountain range.
It's not plutons rising from the mantle into the crust that bakes the mud into shale it is from the seas drying out and reflooding time and time again leaving layer over layer over layer.
Boy, you really don't understand the geologic cycle at all. I was a student in the 1960s when the data that verified continental drift was starting to come in. I still have the textbooks from that era, and they barely mention it as one of several tentative hypotheses (I've just checked their indexes) to explain the distribution of plants, animals, their fossils, rock types, mountain ranges, volcanoes, etc. Undergraduate textbooks are always a little behind, but it was clear in the scientific journals of the time that what came to be called plate tectonics was most likely the correct explanation. Two generations of earth scientists, thousands of people who know far more about it than you do, have since confirmed it beyond any reasonable doubt. What possible basis is there for thinking that a few crackpots making YouTube videos, including an ignorant comic book artist who seems to be one of the leaders in this expanding earth business, are right and all those experts who've spent a lifetime studying it in great detail are wrong?
The good news is your paragraph is so long that will take all of Anna's attention-span so she won't be chirping up to lend you her support. Science sure likes to hedge all it's bets don't they. The words "most likely" are used quite often in that place of only 'hard facts'. Neal Adam's name has been used quite often in my replies to you yet you ct as if you never heard it before, just like you did when I first mentioned it. Another thing that is a fact is I also pointed out that he was the 'artist' who put the animations together. Go to their website if you want to know the real name behind the theory, something you would know as a fact if you had taken anytime at all to listen to him explain the science behind it.. So far I'm not impressed by that lack-luster approach of yours Dex.
For the 5,000 'experts' who believe in man-made climate warming they all had faulty data. My dear Watson, is it not true that the subduction theory was well established by the time the age of the ocean floors were scientifically proven to be all show signs of rifting?
The bad news is you didn't answer either question about what 25 miles of rock is capable of scrapping off or how old the crust is that is being subducted.
Last edited: