Crustal-scale boudinage and migmatization of gneiss duringtheir exhumation in the UHP Province of Western Norway
George
--George
A B S T R A C T
A field study in the coesite province, the deepest unit of the Norwegian
Caledonides, gives new constraints on the rheological behaviour of the
continental crust during exhumation. Lithological heterogeneities and
differential retrogression led to crustal-scale boudinage during the
late-orogenic intense E-W stretching event in the footwall of the
Nordfjord-Sogn Detachment. The main gneissic lithologies display a modest
but wide-spread syn-exhumation migmatization. Textural criteria allow
estimation of a 30% fusion rate. Partial melting mostly post-dates
eclogitization and is synchronous with ductile stretching and top-to-west
shearing. Presented observations suggest that the melt reactions and
migmatization resulted in a soft rheology. During subduction to ~ 100 km
depth and subsequent exhumation, crustal viscosity can be reduced by up to
four orders of magnitude. Models are discussed that consider a transition
from a small internal strain of the crust to viscous flow during exhumation.
don findlay
> I just thought some of you would find this article interesting.
>
> --George
>
> http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:SWRyM7fOdxwJ:www.fys.uio.no/pgp/Loicetal.pdf+boudinage&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
What are posting this for George? Why on Earth do you think all
these bozos would be interested in salamis? French ones at that. And
under the crust as well. What's got into you? What's this got to do
with anything? Have you got something up your sleeve? Or are you
just showing off and think folks ought to know?
Don't shout and wave it about. You'll embarass people.
df
Joe Rat
Later this summer I shall be in the area and make an excursion.
Regards
Joe Rat
supe...@libero.it
George <geo...@sourpudding.net> wrote in message
news:UQjSa.3791$g9....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
George
"don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:5f164087.03072...@posting.google.com...
I would have thought that my explanation before the link would have been
self-sufficient in explaining why I posted it ("I just thought some of you
would find this article interesting"). Evidently, you do not believe others
have an interest in boudinage (your self-proclaimed "pet" project), or you
wouldn't be calling everyone in this newsgroup "bozos". And it seems, at
least one individual (Joe Rat) IS interested. Let me give you some advice.
If you don't like the article, don't read it, or tell us why you don't like
it. If you have something academic to say about the article, then by all
means, tell us what you think. As for embarassing people, I think you are
the only one, so far, who has responded to this post who should be
embarassed by the way in which you responded. It was not only
unprofessional, it was immature. Grow up.
George
"Joe Rat" <supe...@libero.it> wrote in message
news:icsSa.189635$Ny5.5...@twister2.libero.it...
> Thank you for the reference.
> Later this summer I shall be in the area and make an excursion.
> Regards
>
> Joe Rat
> supe...@libero.it
No problem. Let me know how it goes. I'd be interested in hearing your
views on the geology of the area.
J. Taylor
wrote:
It seems, from Don's other post, in which he stated the number of
years it took for something so obvious, as boudinage, to be
recognized, his remarks, above, were intended as humor.
If not, I am sure there must be some reference in the scientific
literature to "don't shout and wave it about." Possibly in a medical
journal, under the heading of everything you wanted to know, but were
to scared to ask. :-)
JT
don findlay
> "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> news:5f164087.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > "George" <geo...@sourpudding.net> wrote in message
> news:<UQjSa.3791$g9....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> > > I just thought some of you would find this article interesting.
> > >
> > > --George
> > >
> > >
> http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:SWRyM7fOdxwJ:www.fys.uio.no/pgp/Loicetal.pdf+boudinage&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> >
> >
> > What are posting this for George? Why on Earth do you think all
> > these bozos would be interested in salamis? French ones at that. And
> > under the crust as well. What's got into you? What's this got to do
> > with anything? Have you got something up your sleeve? Or are you
> > just showing off and think folks ought to know?
> >
> > Don't shout and wave it about. You'll embarass people.
> >
> > df
>
> I would have thought that my explanation before the link would have been
> self-sufficient in explaining why I posted it ("I just thought some of you
> would find this article interesting").
Yes that was the question - why you got to thinking boudinage should
be of interest to people. I'm interested in the parallel experience.
Tell me.
> Evidently, you do not believe others
> have an interest in boudinage (your self-proclaimed "pet" project), or you
> wouldn't be calling everyone in this newsgroup "bozos".
Bozos? Awww, there, there.. OK, "Johnny-come-Latelies". There, feel
better?
> And it seems, at
> least one individual (Joe Rat) IS interested.
So, Hey, ....Joe, ..explain yourself. What's been happening in the
last thirty years to make boudinage (seem) 'interesting' ?
> Let me give you some advice.
Whoops! Right Dad, <sitting comfortably> ...What?
> If you don't like the article, don't read it, or tell us why you don't like
> it. If you have something academic to say about the article, then by all
> means, tell us what you think.
What? OK. Well, (if you're sitting comfortably too)...there was me
(I), then and still, reckoning it should be of interest to people
because of its economic implications and the window it provided to
understanding global deformation, ...and just getting met with the Big
Blank "Duh?" , and the Two-Finger Rubbery Lip from people generally,
and editorial boards in particular. Thirty years on, have you any
wonder why I call you all "Bozos"? You're in the Bear Pit Mate, with
the one-legged Butt Kicker trained in the high art (by default) by no
less an exponent than Mr Stuart Hot-Air Balloon Weinstein (who prides
himslef on having two). So wear it! It's not my game, but they tell
me it's the way it's played...
What you're witnessing here is the politics of consensus. Interesting
isn't it, the attitude people have to change.... Where does it come
from, how does it start, and how do you know it when you see it?
Evidently only when once everything's all happening behind you. Funny
how you never see it coming isn't it - the meme that starts on
everyone's lips... How does it happen? Do you think it comes in
the literature, WRIT LARGE IN PUBLICATION TITLES or something?
(George, standing on the corner, head- swivelling with the best of
them...)
It might be interesting for you to reflect that that's how it stays
too - as a meme. The fundamental beliefs are never writ large in
titles - only their derivative inventions. That's the name of the
consensus game.
Actually, I don't think he's telling me that much, that I don't
already know - nor you either for that matter, if you give yourself a
bit of latitude - either in that part of the world or anywhere else.
What's he saying after all?... That the crust is differentially
layered and it stretches and you get big boudinage and partial
melting? What **would** be interesting to know is why he feels it
important to make the point at this point in time, but I doubt if that
would be found in the paper. If he said where it came from and what
it was leading to (e.g. http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/bb.html>)
then he would be talking, but that's not the name of the game, is it?
(to say anything that means a lot). What's more, if he tried it on
thirty years ago, as he might well have done if he (or anyone) thought
it was an important point to make, his career would have been in
ruins. Quicksmart. Particularly if he tried to say something that was
*actually* important with it - like what it all had to do with
locating ore deposits <http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/brokenhill>,
or how it shot plate tectonics down in pieces. The 'milieu' would
not have been right. Large-scale boudinage "wouldn't have existed".
He would have to "prove it" first, and explain himself for stepping
outside the 'we are a community of scientists' consensus. And once
he'd done that (somehow) then we'd see if we'd take in to account what
he's actually saying about it. *That's* the importance of
'weaselling', getting past that front door, couching in doublespeak
what you actually have to say, then bigmouth it later as an "I told
you so". Like here. Pick up a trick George.. I tell you, It's
how it's done. Look around.
> As for embarassing people, I think you are
> the only one, so far, who has responded to this post who should be
> embarassed by the way in which you responded. It was not only
> unprofessional, it was immature. Grow up.
Ok Dad, ... Hey Dad, Zip up. ....She's already past. (the
beautiful brass petunia with the swivelling motion
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/p2-poles.jpg>. If you were
thinking about what about a big diapir getting in to *her* transform,
and working a bit of dilational cell-division
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/transforms.html>
then you're too late mate! (Thar be Utherzuppercrupper.)
Change. ..If you really want to track it, look to more PLATE TECTONIC
NONSENSE, and begin on the bottom line:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/bottomline.html>
It *does sometimes happen that something new *does come along. The
people who introduce it are just as dumb as the rest of you. Their
experience is just different, that's all. That's why it's such a
bloody pain to get met with all the 'what-have-you-published',
'notching-the-equaliser' crap, instead of a bit of help out of your
own experience. The point is new perspectives are not 'publication
material' As a rule publication material is rote. You learn the
formula and you obey the rules. But it doesn't work when there is
something new to say. There are no precendents, and by definition of
being new, nobody in a position to review it. It's risky, and there's
vilification, not prizes.
Look, ...You guys are getting the proxy de facto experience without
even having to risk *ONE IOTA* of your so-called 'professional'
status. Who knows, if you have anything between the ears at all you
might even be able to wangle a bit of piggiebacking in true plate
tectonic style. *And* you wouldn't be the first. Now you should
think about that, ..in the grand tapestry of consensus politics.
Bozos - nail your colours to the mast. (MooOoo, and Meh- ehh- eHHH..)
As Carey observed half a century ago, a consensus of sheep indeed.
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/carey.html>. Is there not one
institution in the whole world, will deviate from this party line, and
take on board the clear alternative to plate tectonics, namely Earth
expansion? Apparently not. Why do you think that is? And why is it
that in a worldful of scientific free- thinkers', 'real scientists',
and 'vigourous debate', that such a clear alternative has to be left
to fringe-artists?
OK George, you can come out now... Tell us why you think people
should find boudinage interesting. Especially crustal-scale ones.
Grab all your old textbooks, and see if you can recognise when it
began to feature as something important to pay attention to. And why.
df
(Still battling the small 'b' bozos. The big B ones will only find
salvation through the fiery gates, or if they've no pizazz at all, the
wheelie bin with no lid.)
George
First of all, you are not the only person on the planet who recognizes
boudinage, you're just the primary one who thinks it can only be related to
EE. Secondly, I found the article interesting and posted it as a service to
others who might also like to read it. If that upsets you, so be it. If
you have nothing else to say other that the rant you posted (in which you
made a point of saying that there was nothing in the article that you didn't
already know, but interestingly have never published what you do know so
that others may benefit from your "wisdom"), then I have to assume that you
plan to die with all that "knowledge" lodged in your brain pan. And to what
purpose would that serve but your own self-centered snubbing of society?
> > Evidently, you do not believe others
> > have an interest in boudinage (your self-proclaimed "pet" project), or
you
> > wouldn't be calling everyone in this newsgroup "bozos".
>
> Bozos? Awww, there, there.. OK, "Johnny-come-Latelies". There, feel
> better?
More immature name calling? I guess some people just never do grow up.
> > And it seems, at
> > least one individual (Joe Rat) IS interested.
>
> So, Hey, ....Joe, ..explain yourself. What's been happening in the
> last thirty years to make boudinage (seem) 'interesting' ?
I can answer that: Nothing. Boudinage has been taught for many years in
structural geology (if you had attended class that week, you would know
this). The difference, sir, is that most geologists don't subscribe to EE
the way you do. I should point out that the author made a point of stating
the following: "The NSDZ and the associated dextral megashear-band rework
previous structures into sheared mylonites. A 10 degree dipping detachment
would need 560 km of lateral motion to be responsible of 100 km of
exhumation." Did you read that carefully? If you did then you understand
(but will no doubt refuse to believe) that the boudinage he is refferring to
is not a result of EE but a result of lateral plate motion. You don't get
the shear stresses to produce such features as mylonites from EE. And I
have not seen one single shred of evidence of mylonites occurring along
oceanic ridges. Have you? If so, would you care to quote your sources?
<snipped the blithering rants, and self-supporting links to your dearly
beloved web site. Considering the arrogant hate-filled ranting nature of
your response, it is not a wonder few people pay attention to you>
Peter Halls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPPPPH H | Peter Halls - University of York Computing Service -
P P H | GIS Advisor
P P H | Email: P.H...@YORK.AC.UK
PPPPPJHHHHHH | Telephone: 01904 433806 FAX: 01904 433740
P J H | Smail: Computing Service,
P J H | University of York,
P J H | Heslington.
J | YORK YO10 5DD
J J | England.
JJJ This message has the status of a private & personal communication
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigdakine
>exhumation in the UHP Province of Wester
>From: Peter Halls pj...@york.ac.uk
>Date: 7/20/03 8:36 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <Pine.SGI.3.95L.103072...@peters.york.ac.uk>
>
>Thanks, George, for some real geology on this group ...
>
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, George wrote:
>
>> I just thought some of you would find this article interesting.
>>
>> --George
>>
>>
>http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:SWRyM7fOdxwJ:www.fys.uio.no/pgp/Loic
etal.pdf+boudinage&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
>>
>>
>>
>> A B S T R A C T
>>
>> A field study in the coesite province, the deepest unit of the Norwegian
>> Caledonides, gives new constraints on the rheological behaviour of the
>> continental crust during exhumation. Lithological heterogeneities and
>> differential retrogression led to crustal-scale boudinage during the
>> late-orogenic intense E-W stretching event in the footwall of the
>> Nordfjord-Sogn Detachment. The main gneissic lithologies display a modest
>> but wide-spread syn-exhumation migmatization. Textural criteria allow
>> estimation of a 30% fusion rate. Partial melting mostly post-dates
>> eclogitization and is synchronous with ductile stretching and top-to-west
>> shearing. Presented observations suggest that the melt reactions and
>> migmatization resulted in a soft rheology. During subduction to ~ 100 km
>> depth and subsequent exhumation, crustal viscosity can be reduced by up to
>> four orders of magnitude. Models are discussed that consider a transition
>> from a small internal strain of the crust to viscous flow during
>exhumation.
I've become fairly interested in such terranes as of late. I find Ultra high
pressure complexes quite curious. The Dabie Shan province in China not only has
Coesite, but diamonds as well.
That requires depths of burial of around 130-160km or so; twice the the
thickness of the Himalayas.
My thinking is that requires unusual subduction. About 10 years ago, there was
a lot of interest in the possibility of phase change induced *mantle
avalanches* where subducted material would remain trapped in the transition
zone, until a sufficient quantity accumulated and overcame the blocking effects
of the 660km discontinutiy. When that occurred, subduction would switch to high
gear. The problem is, there was no geological evidence, or smoking gun for
such an event. However, I suspect, that these ultra high pressure terranes, may
indeed be just that. Remnants of thick crust produced by anomalously vigorous
subduction.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Joe Rat
don findlay <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:5f164087.03072...@posting.google.com...
> "George" <geo...@sourpudding.net> wrote in message
news:<nVxSa.5420$g9....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> > "don findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:5f164087.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > "George" <geo...@sourpudding.net> wrote in message
> > news:<UQjSa.3791$g9....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> > > > I just thought some of you would find this article interesting.
> > > >
> > > > --George
> > > >
> > > >
> >
http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:SWRyM7fOdxwJ:www.fys.uio.no/pgp/Loiceta
l.pdf+boudinage&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
> > >
> > >
> > > What are posting this for George? Why on Earth do you think all
> > > these bozos would be interested in salamis? French ones at that. And
> > > under the crust as well. What's got into you? What's this got to do
> > > with anything? Have you got something up your sleeve? Or are you
> > > just showing off and think folks ought to know?
> > >
>
> > And it seems, at
> > least one individual (Joe Rat) IS interested.
>
> So, Hey, ....Joe, ..explain yourself. What's been happening in the
> last thirty years to make boudinage (seem) 'interesting' ?
>
>
It happens that I am interested in the Rheological
Properties of rocks and deformation of rocks in order to
understand stress and strain in rocks.
Joe Rat
George
"Peter Halls" <pj...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SGI.3.95L.103072...@peters.york.ac.uk...
> Thanks, George, for some real geology on this group ...
You are welcome.
George
"Bigdakine" <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote in message
news:20030721041335...@mb-m05.aol.com...
I think it is a distinct possibility.
don findlay
> <snipped the blithering rants, and self-supporting links to your dearly
> beloved web site. Considering the arrogant hate-filled ranting nature of
> your response, it is not a wonder few people pay attention to you>
What's up George? (What happened to you down in Florida? )( Are the
horses really that tall/ high? Something to do with the subsidence
and the encroaching water, or what?) (Do all the people down there
walk taller too?)
So, hey, .. you don't you like me rubbishing your plate tectonics, eh?
<Ah me. Ah dear. What a laugh> Well, you'd better get used to it,
coz there's plenty in it that's rubbishable... (and how can that
possibly be?) Just look at it as a bit of friendly repartee in
relation to the flak dished out to Earth expansion (which you're quite
happy to partake in) . All good fun, all good fun. ....
What are you getting at me for anyway? I was giving you a hint.
Boudinage. Stick with it. You're on the right lines, and there's only
one place it can take you. <check the prediction>
<http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=g:thl2319292624d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=5f164087.0306291848.316ee85e%40posting.google.com>
You should be grateful for the lead, and the clue to the shortcut that
Earth expansion (and my "dearly beloved website") is offering you.
You have a hop-on opp. Jump. Let your creative insight show, instead
of hiding it under a bushel and merely finding things 'hmm -
interesting'. Stick it out. Risk the chop. No pain - no gain!
C'mon Baby, light your fire! Rootle around in your bag of tricks and
ask your*self* where have you seen all of this before? (Hint:- think
detachment of Africa from America - Appalachian location. Down to
Florida, the Gulf and the Caribbean. Put up a web-site. Tell all.
Think about it. There's nothing new in it. It's just a different way
of looking at things. All the facts are there... You just have to be
a bit more relaxed about how to piece them together. Not so
hidebound.
<Note to snippage:- This is *not* an arrogant, hate-filled ranting
dispatch> <neither was the other one> <ask George what he's on about>
<and what was it about Florida that upset him so>
Hey, by the way, when are you going to drop your alias? Or do you
think we're better off with the 'George' doppelganger? Tell you what,
if the other one is as fast on his feet as this one, I'm taking a
holiday. Talk about Slippery Elm!
Don
Telnet Pirate
/"\
|\./|
| |
| |
|>~<|
| |
/'\| |/'\..
/~\| | | | \
| =[@]= | | \
| | | | | \
| ~ ~ ~ ~ |` )
| /
\ /
\ /
\ _____ /
|--//''`\--|
| (( +==)) |
|--\_|_//--|
__o
_ \<_
(_)/(_)
George
news:<3zKSa.13348$ci.1...@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>...
>
>
> > <snipped the blithering rants, and self-supporting links to your dearly
> > beloved web site. Considering the arrogant hate-filled ranting nature
of
> > your response, it is not a wonder few people pay attention to you>
>
>
> What's up George? (What happened to you down in Florida? )( Are the
> horses really that tall/ high?
I don't know about the horses, but the women certainly are taller there!
WOW, what legs!
>Something to do with the subsidence
> and the encroaching water, or what?) (Do all the people down there
> walk taller too?)
No, they just don't have time to read the same rubbish from you over and
over again, and neither do I.
> So, hey, .. you don't you like me rubbishing your plate tectonics, eh?
"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting
different results - Albert Einstein
> <Ah me. Ah dear. What a laugh> Well, you'd better get used to it,
> coz there's plenty in it that's rubbishable... (and how can that
> possibly be?) Just look at it as a bit of friendly repartee in
> relation to the flak dished out to Earth expansion (which you're quite
> happy to partake in) .
How true!
All good fun, all good fun. ....
Maybe.
> What are you getting at me for anyway? I was giving you a hint.
> Boudinage. Stick with it. You're on the right lines, and there's only
> one place it can take you. <check the prediction>
>
<http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=g:thl2319292624d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&selm=5f164087.0306291848.316ee85e%40posting.google.com>
Not so. Only one place YOU can take it, what with those horse blinders on.
> You should be grateful for the lead,
Lead? You? Surely you jest. Do you really think that you are the first to
recognize boudinage!
>and the clue to the shortcut that
> Earth expansion (and my "dearly beloved website") is offering you.
I'd reather eat peanuts on the plane, thank you.
> You have a hop-on opp. Jump. Let your creative insight show, instead
> of hiding it under a bushel and merely finding things 'hmm -
> interesting'. Stick it out. Risk the chop. No pain - no gain!
> C'mon Baby, light your fire! Rootle around in your bag of tricks and
> ask your*self* where have you seen all of this before? (Hint:- think
> detachment of Africa from America - Appalachian location.
Its been done before. And it wasn't the first time either. But then, you
know this right? What you've missed were the mountain building events that
have nothing to do with your EE theory.
>Down to
> Florida, the Gulf and the Caribbean. Put up a web-site. Tell all.
I think I'll just wait til it goes to publication in a REAL science forum,
like Nature, or the Geophysical Review. I'll tell you what. You publish
your "findings" in Nature, and I'll publish a rebuttal. How's that sound?
What, too scary for you? Afraid of what your peers might say? Afraid that
you'll be accused of conducting "real" science?
> Think about it. There's nothing new in it. It's just a different way
> of looking at things. All the facts are there... You just have to be
> a bit more relaxed about how to piece them together. Not so
> hidebound.
>
> <Note to snippage:- This is *not* an arrogant, hate-filled ranting
> dispatch> <neither was the other one> <ask George what he's on about>
> <and what was it about Florida that upset him so>
Florida was great! Its your incessant, hate-filled, self-serving rants that
I'm on about. As for talking to me in the third person, are you making
notes to yourself, or do you really have a friend named Harvey? :-)
> Hey, by the way, when are you going to drop your alias? Or do you
> think we're better off with the 'George' doppelganger?
You know who I am. You've seen the link to my publication in the journal of
Paleontology, right? If I want someone to know who I am, I let them know.
No one else needs to know without my permission, do they? Why? Because
there are too many nut cases out there who like to take advantage of those
who are not very careful with their personal information on the web,
especially, it seems, in some newsgroups.
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/profile.html
See what I mean? Its great for you that you feel so isolated from the rest
of the world that you can publish information about your life in such
detail. Perhaps you are just naive. I don't know.
By the way, I do have respect for the work you've done in structural
geology. I simply think you carry the implications way too far without
enough of the usual documentation and reference to the work of others to
back up your hypotheses. In other words, you have done some good work, so
why spoil it by going to far out into left field and playing the loner?
Perhaps you have nothing left to lose?
>Tell you what,
> if the other one is as fast on his feet as this one, I'm taking a
> holiday.
I don't know if you deserve one, but you definitely need one.
>Talk about Slippery Elm!
>
> Don
Talking to Harvey again?
J. Taylor
If you are to post flamboyant material, using a pseudonym, claiming to
be a telnet pirate, none the less, you might want to consider posting
from a site which does not log your activities.
Here is my ascii art :-)
JT
don findlay
> > Hey, by the way, when are you going to drop your alias? Or do you
> > think we're better off with the 'George' doppelganger?
>
> You know who I am. You've seen the link to my publication in the journal of
> Paleontology, right? If I want someone to know who I am, I let them know.
> No one else needs to know without my permission, do they? Why? Because
> there are too many nut cases out there who like to take advantage of those
> who are not very careful with their personal information on the web,
> especially, it seems, in some newsgroups.
>
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/profile.html
>
> See what I mean? Its great for you that you feel so isolated from the rest
> of the world that you can publish information about your life in such
> detail. Perhaps you are just naive. I don't know.
"Too many nut cases"? George old fruit, you're a card! (!!) Why on
Earth would you like someone to know who you are anyway? ...??? Do
you reckon there're people in the world who could hold it against you?
All those long-legged women down in Florida maybe? *They* won't
stand for any alias you can be sure. They want the REAL THING.
Well, if you managed to pull it off, Half your Luck!
don
(Gee, I *certainly need a holiday after that!)(You're trying to kill
me, ...right? If sticking pins in his e-profile won't work, try Death
by Joke - Well, you nearly got me.)
don findlay
__________________________________
institutionalised
(((( __o
orgs !& _ \<_
(((((((((((( (_)/(_)
_____________________________________ You bet!
George
news:<OlTSa.8326$g9....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>...
>
> > > Hey, by the way, when are you going to drop your alias? Or do you
> > > think we're better off with the 'George' doppelganger?
> >
> > You know who I am. You've seen the link to my publication in the
journal of
> > Paleontology, right? If I want someone to know who I am, I let them
know.
> > No one else needs to know without my permission, do they? Why? Because
> > there are too many nut cases out there who like to take advantage of
those
> > who are not very careful with their personal information on the web,
> > especially, it seems, in some newsgroups.
> >
> > http://users.indigo.net.au/don/profile.html
> >
> > See what I mean? Its great for you that you feel so isolated from the
rest
> > of the world that you can publish information about your life in such
> > detail. Perhaps you are just naive. I don't know.
>
>
> "Too many nut cases"? George old fruit, you're a card! (!!) Why on
> Earth would you like someone to know who you are anyway? ...??? Do
> you reckon there're people in the world who could hold it against you?
> All those long-legged women down in Florida maybe? *They* won't
> stand for any alias you can be sure. They want the REAL THING.
I've had the real thing for twenty years, thank you very much. Still, its
nice to look, even if I can't touch!
> Well, if you managed to pull it off, Half your Luck!
>
> don
> (Gee, I *certainly need a holiday after that!)(You're trying to kill
> me, ...right? If sticking pins in his e-profile won't work, try Death
> by Joke - Well, you nearly got me.)
ROTFL
David Ford
Bigdakine wrote:
David Ford: Well that's nice, but how did it get to the surface ... ?
don findlay
Shortcut for you Stu:-
1. Exhumation of mantle by diapir rise.
2. Diapirs intruded in dilational foci
3. (?Mantle avalanche?) Gravitational collapse off mantle uplifts
4. Context = megaboudinage, crustal scale.
5. Leg-in to Globally Integrated Picture at:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html>
Unusual subduction? You mean to go with the
'look-Ma-no-conveyor-belt' unusual convection ? What about the
unusual ridges (duelling propagators)? Are we about to witness
another TECTONIC SHIFT in goalposts ("unusual subduction"). How many
fudge-factors has this plate tectonics got up its sleeves? (certainly
nothing unsual about it, I s'pose)
Convection and subduction, unusual or not, forget it. You're barking
up the wrong tree dude.. But there you go, George thinks it's a
distinct possibility. So what can I say? (Read a book or two maybe -
on boudinage)
.......
??
don findlay
> > My thinking is that requires unusual subduction. About 10 years ago, there
> was
> > a lot of interest in the possibility of phase change induced *mantle
> > avalanches* where subducted material would remain trapped in the
> transition
> > zone, until a sufficient quantity accumulated and overcame the blocking
> effects
> > of the 660km discontinutiy. When that occurred, subduction would switch to
> high
> > gear. The problem is, there was no geological evidence, or smoking gun
> for
> > such an event. However, I suspect, that these ultra high pressure
> terranes, may
> > indeed be just that. Remnants of thick crust produced by anomalously
> vigorous
> > subduction.
> >
> > Stuart
> > Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
> > Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
> > "To err is human, but to really foul things up
> > requires a creationist"
>
> I think it is a distinct possibility.
Hey, George, what are you doing, ...abandoning the Big Boudinage so
soon? You had promise for a moment there. Don't you know who you're
talking to? Auld Soup, Convector Nick Himsel', dusted off and
resurrected from the nether regions. Here, ..if he steps out of line,
poke this apagos at him, ...three Hail Mary's and you'll be right:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/diamonds.html>
But shout "boudinage" as you do it, ok? Don['t forget. It's very
important. Really put the wind up him. Frighten him, and he might not
come back.
Use this as a template for the global picture:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/overview.html
get a few maps and see how Australia used to tie in to India/
Indonesia, and all that far-field, extrusion-tectonised, Himalayan
stuff.
And then this one as a guide for the recent megaboudinage of the
Himalayas:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/alaska.html> (includes back-arc
basins)
Good Luck.
(little b's have bigger b's, with bigger b's upon them,
and somethingorother somethingorother, and so ad infinitum)
John Hernlund
"Bigdakine" <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote:
> I've become fairly interested in such terranes as of late. I find Ultra high
> pressure complexes quite curious. The Dabie Shan province in China not only
> has
> Coesite, but diamonds as well.
>
> That requires depths of burial of around 130-160km or so; twice the the
> thickness of the Himalayas.
>
> My thinking is that requires unusual subduction. About 10 years ago, there was
> a lot of interest in the possibility of phase change induced *mantle
> avalanches* where subducted material would remain trapped in the transition
> zone, until a sufficient quantity accumulated and overcame the blocking
> effects
> of the 660km discontinutiy. When that occurred, subduction would switch to
> high
> gear. The problem is, there was no geological evidence, or smoking gun for
> such an event. However, I suspect, that these ultra high pressure terranes,
> may
> indeed be just that. Remnants of thick crust produced by anomalously vigorous
> subduction.
>
> Stuart
Hey Stuart...an interesting idea. Many of these pieces are thought to have
been the felsic up-dip extension of an otherwise oceanic-like subducting
slab. If you get a flush, then it might help get this stuff down there. The
Pamirs are another interesting area for this, except in this case you may be
subducting some sort of ocean-like basin, perhaps something that looked an
awful lot like Tarim before it got mowed down. Peter Molnar told me this
idea a while ago, and the term "trap-door tectonics" came up. Catchy name.
Anyways, a Tethys flush is definitely not out of line...everything we see
there could be quite consistent with that story. It also fits the modeling
story, where a bunch of slabs coalesce and combine their influence to punch
through.
Cheers!
John
Bigdakine
>Date: 7/21/03 8:21 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <BJ4Ta.7951$OM3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Erosion. Faulting.
Bigdakine
>Date: 7/22/03 10:24 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <BB42EB89.2A71%no....@no.spam.com>
It also explains the rapidity of the exhumation which surprises some people.
The Avalanche will cause anomalous crustal thickening is a short period of
time. In addition, a portion of the topography will be negated by the negative
dynamic topography. THe avalanche only lasts 5 to 10 million years. When that
stops, the crust pops up relativle suddenly, and you get increased rates of
erosion.
The
>Pamirs are another interesting area for this, except in this case you may be
>subducting some sort of ocean-like basin, perhaps something that looked an
>awful lot like Tarim before it got mowed down. Peter Molnar told me this
>idea a while ago, and the term "trap-door tectonics" came up. Catchy name.
>Anyways, a Tethys flush is definitely not out of line...everything we see
>there could be quite consistent with that story. It also fits the modeling
>story, where a bunch of slabs coalesce and combine their influence to punch
>through.
I used the term "trap door" to descibe the 670km in a paper I wrote along time
ago.
Trap door mantle convection leads to trap door tectonics?
George
Careful Don. You too might become a member of the usenet moron club, and
have your name added to the list alongside Mr. Jean-Paul. You wouldn't want
that now would you?
don findlay
Wot? What's this? Negating the negative dynamic topography? Wow!
"Tethys flush"? "trap door tectonics". Surely you joke.
Stuart, it's for the gurgler, and with language like that, you're
telling us so. Look, here, a clue for you, a bit of a short cut:-
1. Exhumation of mantle by diapir rise.
2. Diapirs intruded in dilational foci
3. (?Mantle avalanche?) Gravitational collapse off mantle uplifts
4. Context = megaboudinage, crustal scale.
5. Leg-in to Globally Integrated Picture at:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/nonsense.html>
Unusual subduction? (your previous post) You mean to go with the
'look-Ma-no-conveyor-belt' unusual convection ? What about the
unusual ridges (duelling propagators)? Are we about to witness
another TECTONIC SHIFT in goalposts ("unusual subduction"). How many
fudge-factors has this plate tectonics got up its sleeves? (certainly
nothing unsual about it)
Convection and subduction, unusual or not, forget it. You're barking
up the wrong tree dude.. But there you go, George thinks it's a
distinct possibility. So what can I say? (Read a book or two maybe -
on boudinage)??
.......
df.
don findlay
_____________________________________________________________________________
REPLY TO THE INSTITUTIONALISED ORG FROM MARYLAND UNI, BALTIMORE -
PIRATING ON
THE HIGH NET
_____________________________________________________________________________
**JUNK SCIENCE**
A name given by the public-relations industry to describe research
that is designed to promote a predetermined belief or agenda (usually
commercially oriented).
So, which of plate tectonics or Earth expansion falls in that
category?
PLATE TECTONICS is based on the OBSERVATION that material is being
added at the ocean ridges, coupled with the BELIEF that the Earth
cannot be getting bigger, the further BELIEF that ocean floor must
therefore be destroyed at so-called 'subduction zones' commensuate
with its creation at oceanic ridges, and in turn the still further
BELIEF that the mantle must therefore be convecting. This triple-stack
of beliefs (based on the single observation of mantle addition at
ridges) is shuffled in various legerdemains, but all of them meet with
severe problems and modification when matched with the bulk of the
data. For example:-
1. The replacement of Potassium with Uranium and Thorium as a heat
source for driving convection (problems with half lives of these
elements)
2. The abandonment of 'conveyor belts' as a driving mechanism for the
process (following seismic tomography)
3. Helical spiral symmetry of transforms symmetrical with the Earth's
rotation (which imply the importance of rotation in the Earth's
deformation) ( Simply ignored in plate tectonics)
4. Offsets in the terminations of transforms (implies growth of
transforms by 'cell division' = implies growth along ridges as
well as across them = implies expansion) (simply ignored/
unrecognised in plate tectonics)
These discrepancies (among many others) confirm plate tectonics as an
A PRIORI BELIEF formed basically on a single observation to do with
ridges - prior to examination of most of the data. This belief is
then promoted to a hypothesis, by which to test the data , where it
fails at just about every turn, needing ad hoc adjustment.
By contrast, EARTH EXPANSION is a **CONCLUSION BASED ON** as much
empirical global data as possible. Based on consideration of the
data, it excises the three beliefs mentioned above as unwarranted, and
adds the importance of the Earth's rotation based on points 3 and 4
above.
In summary, the respective positions of the antagonists relative to
the bulk of the data are:-
Conceptual foundation > data > hypothesis > debate (etc)
| |
plate tectonics Earth Expansion
This is the bottom line
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/bottomline.html> :-
Basically, plate tectonics is not based on the data, where Earth
Expansion is. Since most Platies are blind even to the structure of
their argument, it's little wonder they have trouble keeping it
together.
Plate tectonics is an exercise in BELIEF, supplemented by CREATIONISM.
It is JUNK of the HIGHEST ORDER.
See?
df.
<Please note this is an angry, arrogant, hate-filled, ranting
dispatch, designed ESPECIALLY for your collection> <Hey, Org,.. your
bandana's slipping. You could do to use that information you posted
on a sytem rebore, before you try boarding any more boats in these
waters....>
don findlay
> Careful Don. You too might become a member of the usenet moron club, and
> have your name added to the list alongside Mr. Jean-Paul. You wouldn't want
> that now would you?
Truly? ....Would that I could be so well known!!
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/profile.html
df
Eat your bleeding alias out, George!
John Hernlund
5f164087.03072...@posting.google.com, "don findlay"
<d...@tower.net.au> wrote:
Don, whether you like it or not, the real workings of nature are quite
complicated. Is it PT that has "tricks up its sleeves" or just nature
itself? I think its the latter. The avalanche idea has been around for some
time. And it is not a great departure from the usual run of business except
for upper and lower mantle regions very near the place where it occurs. Some
people take it too far, however, like suggesting this as a mechanism for
Noah's flood.
What Stuart put out there is an idea. It's a testable one too. And if it
doesn't turn out to work very well, then he'll shrug his shoulders and move
on.
This is the direct opposite of the Don Findlay approach, where in the face
of all possible obstacles, one bashes their head against a rock.
Cheers!
John
George
Imagine that! Someone who actually wishes to emulate JP. That's a little
sick, don't you think? So you wish to belong to the usenet moron club, do
you?
George
"John Hernlund" <no....@no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:BB4372ED.2AC1%no....@no.spam.com...
That does seem to explain his erratic behavior. Or perhaps his expanding
head is caused by the torsional rotation of the earth, in which case, you'd
see a brain pan diapir rise which leads to a distinct balding pattern of his
head as the diapir pushes aside the surface hair. Please note that before
this diapir rise occurred, his ears were located on his arse so that he had
to drop his pants to hear what anyone was saying. It must surely have been
embarrassing when he went partying in those local Scottish pubs in the
1970s.
David Ford
John Hernlund wrote:
David Ford: Sort of like a magician illusion artist might use ... now
you see it ... now you don't ... sure ... whatever grabs your fancy.
>Catchy name.
>Anyways, a Tethys flush is definitely not out of line...everything we see
>there could be quite consistent with that story. It also fits the modeling
>story, where a bunch of slabs coalesce and combine their influence to punch
>through.
>
>Cheers!
>John
>
>
David Ford: Oh, "the slab" has returned? Didn't we just clear that
up? Didn't we all agree it is not geotectonically valid to think in
terms of "slabs" ... old conditioned memes die hard I suppose.
David Ford
Bigdakine wrote:
David Ford: So 160 kms of uplift and erosion you propose ... due to what?
David Ford
George wrote:
David Ford: George, get your hand off it mate.
don findlay
> Don, whether you like it or not, the real workings of nature are quite
> complicated. Is it PT that has "tricks up its sleeves" or just nature
> itself? I think its the latter.
I think I rather disagree with that. It's really very simple once you
understand what's going on. It's only complicated if you don't
> The avalanche idea has been around for some
> time. And it is not a great departure from the usual run of business except
> for upper and lower mantle regions very near the place where it occurs. Some
> people take it too far, however, like suggesting this as a mechanism for
> Noah's flood.
>
> What Stuart put out there is an idea. It's a testable one too. And if it
> doesn't turn out to work very well, then he'll shrug his shoulders and move
> on.
Yes, I know. A lot of money's tied up in those "shoulder-shrugs and
moving on". I'm giving you a clue. A pretty heavy one at that, and
costs you nothing either. (How much does registration cost these days
to pricey journals?? - Even supposing they were to have any ideas of
how to tie it all together.)
> This is the direct opposite of the Don Findlay approach, where in the face
> of all possible obstacles, one bashes their head against a rock.
Hey, John, ...What do you reckon of the Grace images? (Thanks due to
George and Rick here for bringing to attention) Rotation, you know...
Important in the Earth's deformation.. Ignored in plate tectonics,
you know... When are you going to give this plate tectonics the Big
Shouldershrug and walk away from it? When you see a peer-reviewed
Journal with the right headlines or what? Only problem is who will
risk it.... High-stepping George is your best bet I think.
Certainly not the Bigyin, with his "Tethys Flush" and "unusual
trapdoor tectonics". He's taking that one with him - if he hasn't
already succumbed after George shoved the big sausage at him!
Obstacles? What? Don't you *see yet how it's all falling into
place? ...There's a lot of filling out to be done, sure but I'm
mapping out for you the point of arrival. For free. And what's
more, helping to sound the meme so that it's on everyone's lips, and
whoever it is writes the "Landmark Breakthroughs" that are acceptable
to the consensus mafia won't even need to prove ("prove it!") a thing.
It will be common knowledge already. They'll be begging for papers
to be written on it, before the schoolkids start lecturing their
teachers. The only "avalanche tectonics" will be the paperwork as
everyone jumps on, with their own peculiar, obscure, covert, coded
jargon, to try to persuade folks that there's actually something they
thought of first, and that they're not totally sawdust and sludge
between the ears.
You fellows ought to get busy looking for some "unusual physics",
rather than keep wetting your legs on plate tectonics, unusual or
otherwise. It's dead, mate. People will be looking for serious
answers, and won't be fobbed off, not even by "unusual trapdoors" or
"negating the negative dynamic topography".
> Cheers!
> John
Yup, Cheers to you too.. (Gallant of you though to step in for the
two-legged butt kicker. I guess he's reeling after the introduction
to megaboudinage from George, that made him reflect on his 'interest'
in all of this.)
What obstacle is it, that you think I face anyhow?
George
Its no surprise to me that you've misinterpreted the grace images, Don.
Bigdakine
>From: David Ford david...@bigpond.com
>Message-id: <g8sTa.9571$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
No. We agreed that you're at war with reality.
By the way, Dawkins accepts subdcution.
Bigdakine
>From: David Ford david...@bigpond.com
>Message-id: <LasTa.9577$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
You don't know what causes erosion?
don findlay
> Its no surprise to me that you've misinterpreted the grace images, Don.
>
> http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/solid_earth.html
You'll get nowhere with this Grace dolly till you treat her right.
She's shining like diamonds and you've got her trussed up in the
sackcloth and ashes of subduction. Overriding George, a bit of
over-riding is what will make her sparkle.
Look, it's a fifty-fifty thing - subduction or over-riding. Always
was:-
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/torsion2.html
You blokes have confused the issue because you don't want to, or
can't, disentangle the politics of consensus from the consensus
itself, because of global self-interest. Because it's become that the
politics are more important than the science. And before you start
jumping on the 'conspiracy' tack, understand what 'conspricacy' is.
Like the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter, it's a
question of point of view. When everyone's self- interest is locked
in to everyone else's, and a whole lot of money gets spent on it...,
well, like crossing over the sharp blade of a knife, it changes from
'everything being hunky dory' to 'conspiracy' whenever a flaw appears
that makes things not quite right. "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"
Sure. But if it is, then you do. But in a cozy 'conspiracy', who's
going to point the finger and be the whistleblower? There's Stuart
tickling his toes in the water of change, reminiscing on an idea he
had years ago about flushing unusual negative topography down
trapdoors, since you prodded him with boudinage, wondering, like
others, how he can adapt what's happening to mesh with his own
position, and no doubt a few others like him... And John there
propping him up, dropping a consensus heavy name to lend support to
the cause, ... <big laugh. What are you trying to do John? They'll
thank you for leaving them out of it, I bet>
Empirically there is absolutely no interfacial difference between
subduction and over-riding, and yet there is not one voice for the
alternative (overriding). That in itself speaks volumes for cozy
consensus. Whoever heard of such a thing in science as a global cozy
consensus? It's crazy, but true. All of plate tectonics is
predicated on the bottom line:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/bottomline.html>,
which is the meme of belief in subduction. It's fantastic from the
career scientist's viewpoint, if everyone's belief is fundamentally
the same. There's no trouble writing papers, nor getting them
accepted. It even lets you appropriate the lexicon.
That's absolutely all plate tectonics is based on - BELIEF IN
SUBDUCTION. It's Junk science of the HIGHEST ORDER).
<http://groups.google.com.au/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=5f164087.0307221832.399efeb6%40posting.google.com>
Those Grace images are the emprical key to torsion (and expansion)from
within the consensus itself, as the expression of global deformation
and the relative westerly advance of the southern hemipsphere. Look
at it. WRIT LARGE. And yet try to get a paper past the police on that
obvious point (torsion), based on that image and you'll meet with the
likes of John Hernlund's view
<http://groups.google.com.au/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3E1CCE93.7000309%40ess.ucla.edu&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dhernlund%2Bfindlay%2Bzeros%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D3E1CCE93.7000309%2540ess.ucla.edu%26rnum%3D1>
There are a number of pages I would have liked to put up first, to
give them a bit of predictive oomph, but, ..So long as you fellows are
in subduction mode, there's no hurry. Absolutely none. Your trouble
is, you're hard-wired. Comatose. You can't change, even if you
wanted to. Dream on.
don.
J. Taylor
wrote:
Misinterpreted, hmm....
Without reading anything into it, would not you say the colors for the
ridges and the subduction zones are the SAME?
However, if they had been different colors this would have been hailed
as support as well.
JT
George
news:<CBATa.8766$3I1....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>...
>
>
> > Its no surprise to me that you've misinterpreted the grace images, Don.
> >
> > http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/solid_earth.html
>
>
> You'll get nowhere with this Grace dolly till you treat her right.
> She's shining like diamonds and you've got her trussed up in the
> sackcloth and ashes of subduction. Overriding George, a bit of
> over-riding is what will make her sparkle.
>
> Look, it's a fifty-fifty thing - subduction or over-riding. Always
> was:-
> http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/torsion2.html
>
> You blokes have confused the issue because you don't want to, or
> can't, disentangle the politics of consensus from the consensus
> itself, because of global self-interest. Because it's become that the
> politics are more important than the science. And before you start
> jumping on the 'conspiracy' tack, understand what 'conspricacy' is.
> Like the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter, it's a
> question of point of view. When everyone's self- interest is locked
> in to everyone else's, and a whole lot of money gets spent on it...,
> well, like crossing over the sharp blade of a knife, it changes from
> 'everything being hunky dory' to 'conspiracy' whenever a flaw appears
> that makes things not quite right.
So what. A lot of money is spent on pizza every year. I guess Pizz Hut and
Papa Johns has a conspiracy to bankrupt the world with pizza sales, right
Don?
<snipped the typical DF response to everything NOT supportive of EE> You
really should take a vacation, Don. Try Bali. I hear the bars are rockin'
this time of year.
David Ford
Bigdakine wrote:
David Ford: Facinating snippet of trivia Stu, but so what?
David Ford
Bigdakine wrote:
David Ford: No need to obfuscate, I'm simply asking the logical
question (I'm not trying to be combative). You say it is buried to ~160
km depth (via subduction). All I'm simply asking is how it then became
an erosion surface, i.e., what geotectonic mechanism caused it to rise
160km? Don't dodge it, answer it; if you can't, that's ok too, you can
just say "I don't know", and perhaps someone else can then suggest a
viable geotectonic solution.
Bigdakine
>From: David Ford david...@bigpond.com
>Message-id: <PPLTa.11702$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Isostacy, David. Isostacy.
It rises as it erodes. A bigger problem would be trying to find evidence for
the existence of vast volumes sediment resulting form the erosion.
Stuart
don findlay
'Sright. But like I said, it depends which side of the counter
you're on. I think you might just find the Health Funds with their
funny ideas about INSURANCE have got some 'conspiracy' up their sleeve
to do with that pizza you mention.
> <snipped the typical DF response to everything NOT supportive of EE> You
> really should take a vacation, Don. Try Bali. I hear the bars are rockin'
> this time of year.
Don't worry, dummy, we'll deal with Bali later. When you've answered
John's question you can field this one - what happened to the South
Atlantic in that Grace figure you posted?
<http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/solid_earth.html>
Why do you reckon it has a different signature from the North
Atlantic? Haw, haw, ...don't tell me, I know - "More research is
needed"!! Yew Bewd, George.
(SmartArse)
George
Better a smart arse than a dumb arse, eh?
I reckon the signature is different because the South Atlantic is older, and
colder, less active than the North Atlantic. What say you?
David Ford
Bigdakine wrote:
David Ford: Which was my next logical question. Where did you put the
sediment pile? (or is that what logically must bury rocks to 160km
depth? ... no, I'm not serious ...) An why isostacy ajustment within
just one location, and not in the surrounding region (where the
deposition must naturally occur). You still need an actual geotectonic
mechanism driving the local anisotropic isostacy--right?
Bigdakine
>From: David Ford david...@bigpond.com
>Message-id: <Bf2Ua.13611$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
David Ford
Bigdakine wrote:
>>>>>>>><Snip>
David Ford: I know it's regional; which means you propose a whole
region was uplifted by at least 160 km; if that view is to be considered
valid. Where is the equivalent volume of sediment associated with this
proposed isostatic uplift? Are you sure you really want to go with
isostasy? Why would regional isostasy be so far from approximate
equilibrium for so long?
Bigdakine
>From: David Ford david...@bigpond.com
>Message-id: <BsaUa.14292$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
?
As the orogen erodes, the relief is buffered by the actions of isostacy. I
really don't understand what your problem is. This intro-geophysics stuff.
As to where the sediments went, the Dabie Shan is bordered by large blocks of
meta-sediments. Does those blocks add up? No and I wouldn't expect them too.
THis region is well over a billion years old.
David Ford
Bigdakine wrote:
David Ford: I of course understand isostacy mechanisms Stu.
>As to where the sediments went, the Dabie Shan is bordered by large blocks of
>meta-sediments. Does those blocks add up? No and I wouldn't expect them too.
>THis region is well over a billion years old.
>
David Ford: So there is no actual realistic direct evidence to support
the radical theoretical proposal being put?
Bigdakine
>From: David Ford david...@bigpond.com
>Message-id: <WXjUa.14643$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Well... bully for you! :-)
>
>>As to where the sediments went, the Dabie Shan is bordered by large blocks
>of
>>meta-sediments. Does those blocks add up? No and I wouldn't expect them too.
>>THis region is well over a billion years old.
>>
>
>David Ford: So there is no actual realistic direct evidence to support
>the radical theoretical proposal being put?
>
>
Funny, normally you guys accuse me of being a *dogmatist*, the guardian of the
paradigm and other interesting things.
So much for that.
The evidence that a large crustal block the size of the Dabie Shan visited
pressures consistent with depth between 120km-160km is the presence of diamonds
and coesite, which are high pressure phases. That is the evidence which needs
to be explained.
Among the possibilities are these two:
!. The lower crust delaminates and gets entrained into the subduction zone.
After the mantle avalanche completes, the viscous entrainment ceases, and the
block buoyantly rises. In this case you do not need a huge pile up of crust.
Good points: You don't need to worry about massive amounts of sediments.
Bad points: Dabie Shan is an awful big block to get sucked down in that
fashion.
2. You get the mother of all crustal piles, mountains with an elevation of
50-55,000 feet.
Good Points: No problem achieving the required pressures
Bad Points: You produce lots of sediment which even if they existed aren't
likely to hang around for a billion+ years.
How to choose? We'll need theoretical modeling. These different situations will
have different P-T paths, potentially testable by examing the mineral
assemblages. Also the different tectonics involved, may leave different
structural signatures within the continental block. But I haven't thought that
through yet.
Of course diamond and coesite bearing meta-granites, over one billion years old
doesn't make much sense in EE.
David Ford
Bigdakine wrote:
David Ford: No, your certainly none of those things Stu; you're far too
open minded for that.
>The evidence that a large crustal block the size of the Dabie Shan visited
>pressures consistent with depth between 120km-160km is the presence of diamonds
>and coesite, which are high pressure phases. That is the evidence which needs
>to be explained.
>
>Among the possibilities are these two:
>
>!. The lower crust delaminates and gets entrained into the subduction zone.
>After the mantle avalanche completes, the viscous entrainment ceases, and the
>block buoyantly rises. In this case you do not need a huge pile up of crust.
>
>Good points: You don't need to worry about massive amounts of sediments.
>
>Bad points: Dabie Shan is an awful big block to get sucked down in that
>fashion.
>
>2. You get the mother of all crustal piles, mountains with an elevation of
>50-55,000 feet.
>
>Good Points: No problem achieving the required pressures
>
>Bad Points: You produce lots of sediment which even if they existed aren't
>likely to hang around for a billion+ years.
>
>
>How to choose? We'll need theoretical modeling. These different situations will
>have different P-T paths, potentially testable by examing the mineral
>assemblages. Also the different tectonics involved, may leave different
>structural signatures within the continental block. But I haven't thought that
>through yet.
>
David Ford: Yes, that's pretty much what I thought you would come out
with. Please, don't feel too offended if I say it's not very
compelling. Perhaps someone else out there would like to have another
go at it? Paint a different, or amended picture.
>
>Of course diamond and coesite bearing meta-granites, over one billion years old
>doesn't make much sense in EE.
>
>
David Ford: Not with the memes you utilise, no.
don findlay
> Its no surprise to me that you've misinterpreted the grace images, Don.
> http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/solid_earth.html
You reckon eh? My interpretation pre-dates the grace images
considerably. I think you'll find the global torsional helical spiral
"Necklace of latitudinal transforms" is on everyone's lips before
long, thanks to the meme machine - ("Torsion in the crust and crustal
margins", "expansion in the mantle".)
Babe B. 'Bustin'-out-all-over' Grace, threatens Plate 'Grandad'
Tectonics Dude with her compelling logic:-
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/grace.html>
df.
"Come a little bit closer, you're my kind of man, so big and so
strong,
"Come a little bit closer, the night is so dark, and my nightie's too
long!
George
If that is supposed to be your evidence, I think you ought to ask your drug
dealer for your money back.
"Put your sweat lips a little closer to the bone", but leave the nightie on,
please! UGH!