Plate Tectonics

[juvenissun]

lolwut? He wasn't even rude!

I have my standard. I won't say that to you if you were him.

 

[fargonic]

Fine. Don't just criticize.

So far that is ALL you have done to me.

Ask a question. No question, no discussion.

I have asked you MANY times now, what specifically you question in Plate Tectonics.

Or, I guess you prefer to have a question to work with. Right? If so, that could be done too. Just let me know you need a question. What do you do? A well-site geologist? Or a geologist in a particular department of an oil company? You tell me what you do and I try to give you a tectonic question which is related closer to your concern.

I am not a geologist but so far I'm the only one here who has actually mentioned anything even remotely geological.

Your haughty attitude is growing annoying. Please stop insulting and simply answer the question originally asked in detail.

 

[fargonic]

Warning. If you continue to be sarcastic, then I will turn to be hostile to you. I don't know if you are a real Christian. A real one won't talk like what you did.

I am not being sarcastic. Since you have said nothing detailed about geology in this thread at all I simply assumed you had no more background than I do.

I doubt you could be more hostile to me, though. So far you've consistently insulted my knowledge and the treated me like a child. I dread to think what more hostility from you would look like.

 

[juvenissun]

I am not being sarcastic. Since you have said nothing detailed about geology in this thread at all I simply assumed you had no more background than I do.

I doubt you could be more hostile to me, though. So far you've consistently insulted my knowledge and the treated me like a child. I dread to think what more hostility from you would look like.

I did not insult you. I classify information you given according to the curriculum system normally taught in a geology department. The classification was correct.

 

[fargonic]

I did not insult you. I classify information you given according to the curriculum system normally taught in a geology department. The classification was correct.

You consistently tell me my statements are "100 level" geology versus your questions which are "600 level" geology yet nothing you say ever even sounds like geology short of the one viscosity number you quoted since you used the proper units.

I'm sorry, Juvenissun, all you do is sneer. You have yet to say anything geologically in this thread. Yet you tell everyone how far below you they are.

I'm the only person who has invoked seismic wave attenuation as a function of viscosity in this discussion which puts me well ahead of anything you've mentioned in terms of science.

And I'm not even a geologist!

 

[juvenissun]

So far that is ALL you have done to me.

I have asked you MANY times now, what specifically you question in Plate Tectonics.

I am not a geologist but so far I'm the only one here who has actually mentioned anything even remotely geological.

Your haughty attitude is growing annoying. Please stop insulting and simply answer the question originally asked in detail.

Humm.. you are not a geologist.

OK, do you like to hear a tectonic question of what level? Beginning (1xx-2xx), intermediate (3xx-4xx) or high (>5xx) ? Just a general index. I might not make the question fit exactly.

If I annoyed you, simply call stop. I will be more than happy to go away.

 

[juvenissun]

You consistently tell me my statements are "100 level" geology versus your questions which are "600 level" geology yet nothing you say ever even sounds like geology short of the one viscosity number you quoted since you used the proper units.

I'm sorry, Juvenissun, all you do is sneer. You have yet to say anything geologically in this thread. Yet you tell everyone how far below you they are.

I'm the only person who has invoked seismic wave attenuation as a function of viscosity in this discussion which puts me well ahead of anything you've mentioned in terms of science.

And I'm not even a geologist!

That is why I am still talking to you.

 

[selfinflikted]

Humm.. you are not a geologist.

Let's be fair - neither are you.

 

[bhsmte]

And, the pattern repeats itself.

 

[fargonic]

Humm.. you are not a geologist.

OK, do you like to hear a tectonic question of what level? Beginning (1xx-2xx), intermediate (3xx-4xx) or high (>5xx) ? Just a general index. I might not make the question fit exactly.

Why won't you answer the question that is currently on the table (specifically what is it YOU question about Plate Tectonics?)

Was that question too difficult? I don't care if it is >600 level or not. Just answer the question that has been out there now for so many pages.

Please try to do so without insulting anyone. Thank you.

 

[fargonic]

That is why I am still talking to you.

Why? Because I'm not a geologist?

 

[juvenissun]

Why? Because I'm not a geologist?

No. Because I thought you are one. And you are on the verge of learning something.

 

[juvenissun]

Why won't you answer the question that is currently on the table (specifically what is it YOU question about Plate Tectonics?)

Was that question too difficult? I don't care if it is >600 level or not. Just answer the question that has been out there now for so many pages.

Please try to do so without insulting anyone. Thank you.

What was the question?

 

[bhsmte]

Priceless stuff!!!

 

[fargonic]

What was the question?

Specifically what do you question about plate tectonics? If there are several items then you can select just one. But specifically and in detail, what is your biggest issue with plate tectonics that you question?

 

[juvenissun]

Specifically what do you question about plate tectonics? If there are several items then you can select just one. But specifically and in detail, what is your biggest issue with plate tectonics that you question?

My biggest issue is my prejudice. It may not be the biggest issue to others. However, there are bunch of issues.

OK, I give you a 400 level one: What made the Rocky Mt. so broad and scattered when compared with other mountains caused by subduction? A 200 level answer is: the low subduction angle. Fine. But how does a low angle subduction cause this feature?

Again, if you can appreciate this question, I don't really want an answer from you. There is no "one answer" to this question. I just want you know this is a problem not fully answered.

Questions such as this one are many. So you know how solid is the theory of plate tectonics.

 

[fargonic]

My biggest issue is my prejudice. It may not be the biggest issue to others. However, there are bunch of issues.

OK, I give you a 400 level one

I am eternally fascinated by this "level" obsession.

: What made the Rocky Mt. so broad and scattered when compared with other mountains caused by subduction? A 200 level answer is: the low subduction angle. Fine. But how does a low angle subduction cause this feature?

Here is an article which discusses some of the current hypotheses on this topic: http://www.trincoll.edu/~cgeiss/tr/tr2/tr_2_p3.pdf

The Rocky Mountains are significantly in from the subduction zone which is one significant difference. Shallow subduction is only one part of the overall hypothesis, the other parts including mantle plumes and hotspots.

From the article:

They conclude that the Rocky Mountains were formed when an oceanic plate was subducted underneath a wide mantle plume and hot spot. This created the wide and distinct location of the formation. Due to the hot spot underneath the continental plate, there was a warming and melting of continental crust, which caused the density of the plate to decrease. This allowed it to travel a greater distance creating a wider mountain range. These conclusions have been verified by the use of fault-propagation fold models, basement geology, and trishear modeling.

The evidence for the hotspot is the Yellowstone hotspot as well as seismic wave attenuation under Yellowstone indicating a large pool of magma.

The lack of volcanoes in the central western US formed during the Laramide Orogeny speaks to a shallow angle of subduction because the zone of melted rock is too widely spread out.

The hotspot initially under the continental crust would have partially melted the continental lithosphere, decreasing density and allowing for a wider formation.

The alteration in density of the continental lithosphere due to the presence of the hotspot appears to have aided in the formation of the shallow subduction angle

Again, if you can appreciate this question

Again with the subtle insults. Please do try to treat others with something approaching respect if possible.

, I don't really want an answer from you. There is no "one answer" to this question. I just want you know this is a problem not fully answered.

I am not going to assume that this is THE answer but it certainly seems to fit a reasonable model. What, specifically, about the explanation that Conner and Harrison provide do you find troubling?

 

[juvenissun]

I am eternally fascinated by this "level" obsession.



Here is an article which discusses some of the current hypotheses on this topic: http://www.trincoll.edu/~cgeiss/tr/tr2/tr_2_p3.pdf

The Rocky Mountains are significantly in from the subduction zone which is one significant difference. Shallow subduction is only one part of the overall hypothesis, the other parts including mantle plumes and hotspots.

From the article:


The evidence for the hotspot is the Yellowstone hotspot as well as seismic wave attenuation under Yellowstone indicating a large pool of magma.

The lack of volcanoes in the central western US formed during the Laramide Orogeny speaks to a shallow angle of subduction because the zone of melted rock is too widely spread out.

The hotspot initially under the continental crust would have partially melted the continental lithosphere, decreasing density and allowing for a wider formation.

The alteration in density of the continental lithosphere due to the presence of the hotspot appears to have aided in the formation of the shallow subduction angle



Again with the subtle insults. Please do try to treat others with something approaching respect if possible.



I am not going to assume that this is THE answer but it certainly seems to fit a reasonable model. What, specifically, about the explanation that Conner and Harrison provide do you find troubling?

You earned the respect by giving good argument. I do not assume that before I see something.

So, it suggested a BIG hot spot (from Dakota to Arizona)? Does that sound like a BIG problem to you? It does to me. I don't like that hypothesis.

If such a BIG hot spot existed, then where is its track? Too big to have a spotty track? I don't like that either. What is the largest size of hot spot we ever know? What is the largest possible hot spot?

Yes, hypotheses. Plate tectonics has many many more hypotheses than any other geological issue.

 

[fargonic]

You earned the respect by giving good argument. I do not assume that before I see something.

It is wise to always be skeptical. It is Christian to treat people with respect even before they "earn" it from you.

So, it suggested a BIG hot spot (from Dakota to Arizona)? Does that sound like a BIG problem to you? It does to me. I don't like that hypothesis.

This is a good point and would be worth discussing. Not entirely certain that the hotspot has to be that large. The Rockies are not the same width from north to south. Perhaps more than one hot spot or more than one mantle plume in this case. But also note in Figure 2 in Conner and Harrison that the mantle plume can result in a swelling or outward expansion of the hot rock so it isn't necessarily just a point source.

Yes, hypotheses. Plate tectonics has many many more hypotheses than any other geological issue.

It is fully agreed that science is always, at best, a "best evidence" proposition. Perfect truth is never known.

 

[juvenissun]

It is wise to always be skeptical. It is Christian to treat people with respect even before they "earn" it from you.

Not in this forum. To many people who post here, I know I want to insult them right after their first post. When you see devil, there is no room for respect.