URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FUNDAY
  HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: LK4 Continental Drift & Orogeny
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 85--------------------------------------------------
       NCGT 2016 OROGENESIS + PLATES
       By: Admin Date: January 29, 2017, 8:37 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal, V. 4, No. 4, December
       2016. www.ncgt.org
       The Earth as I found it, Part 3, Charles Warren Hunt.....535
       Mobile plate tectonics: a confrontation, Peter M. James.....537
       Counterclockwise rotation of Australia revisited, Karsten M.
       Storetvedt.....540
       Articles
       Late Permian coal formation under Boreal conditions along the
       shores of the Mongol-Tranbaikalian seaway, Per Michaelsen...615
       A history of the Earth’s seawater: transgressions and
       regressions, Karsten M. Storetvedt.....664
       LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
       The Earth as I have found it, part 3
       y letter to the Editor, v. 4, n. 2, discussed 1000 feet of core
       that I recovered from a corehole drilled in the Palliser River
       Valley, south of Banff townsite in the Canadian Rocky Mountains.
       I closed stating that the core should be available for
       inspection at a BC government core storage facility.
       Subsequently, thinking I should give the reader a more specific
       direction, I tried to find the core by enquiry; but had no
       success at all. The core must therefore, be presumed lost. To
       make up for its lack I provide here a field reference where a
       large exposure of injectite rock can be studied.
       Injectite rock is exposed on the northern plunge of the Canadian
       Rocky Mountains between the Pine and Peace Rivers in British
       Columbia. The oil rights to the area had been acquired by the
       company of a prominent geologist and friend of mine, John Frey,
       and as there was no published information on the area in 1974
       when he acquired the rights, I was engaged to map the geology in
       the field, using pack horses for access. That was over 40 years
       ago.
       The topographic apex of the mountains is expressed in Paleozoic
       strata of Mississippian age, which plunge northward under
       younger strata. Between the Pine River and the Carbondale
       Rivers, (the latter a tributary of Peace River) bedded
       Mississippian strata arch over the plunging nose of the
       mountains. Beneath these bedded limestones the rock looks like
       massive carbonate in texture, but with only the vaguest of
       layering. Contact with Devonian strata is absent. This absence
       puzzled me at the time, as did the absence of clear bedding
       planes. However, with no possible alternative interpretation, I
       mapped the rock as massive Mississippian carbonates, vaguely
       bedded and without evidence of porosity.
       I recommend this area for study in substitution for my “lost”
       core. These exposures are undoubtedly injectite rock.
       Petrophysical study is in order and should yield insights into
       the nature of injectite petrology.
       The general case for mountain building by injections of metal
       hydrides from the mantle
       In a letter to the editor of the NCGT Journal v. 4, n 2, I made
       an initial point that metal hydrides, fluid hydrogen-impregnated
       metal acting as a gas escapes from the mantle through a crack in
       the crust followed by hydrogen degassing and instantaneous
       deposition of rock-forming minerals. I made the point that a new
       form of rock was thusly created, and I called it “injectite”
       rock, a new concept in the creation of rock.
       In a second letter to the editor of the NCGT Journal v. 4, n.3 I
       made a point to allay skepticism as to the possible existence of
       such a “crack in the crust.” Describing a well-known and much
       studied example comprising reefs of Devonian age in the nearby
       Alberta prairie. I made the point that such a crack and leakage
       of mantle material through it actually happened in Devonian
       time. The evidence is well preserved and much studied for its
       relevance to oil production. This event of “injectite” rock
       formation happening in Devonian time and involving only Devonian
       formations provides the reader as well as this writer a clear
       introduction to the injectite phenomenon.
       Although the Canadian Rockies have long been considered
       sedimentary in nature, their strata are dated from Cambrian to
       early Tertiary ages. Now injectites of two forms must be
       recognized as part of mountain and prairie makeup: 1. the
       dolostone as seen in my core, and 2. the pure magnesite with
       base metal oxide inclusions of the Mt. Brusellof mine (Described
       in NCGT Journals v. 4, n. 2 and v. 4, n. 3 as injectites); the
       dolostone of my corehole and the ores of the Mt. Brusellof
       magnesite mine both were raised in Tertiary times with elevation
       of the mountains, whereas the injectites under the Alberta
       prairie were not involved in mountain building. Thus, injectite
       rock may be installed without followup mountain building.
       In prairie and mountain circumstances alike it appears logical
       to me that dynamic injection of fluid metal hydrides through a
       crack in the crust followed by pressure drop, degassing of
       hydrogen, and instant deposition of injectite rock fully explain
       such events. Instantaneously deposited rock would first take the
       form of a “keel” along the length of the mountain range. A keel
       would impede further upward injectite deposition. With progress
       blocked or choked off, new injectite gas would be forced either
       to flow laterally,
       sill-like, or open a new upward channel. The lateral option
       could spread the gaseous injectite as a thin layer,
       “underplating” the chamber of deposition, in the process.
       Repeated underplating could raise the terrain.
       From this insight, unlimited additions to the upper crust may be
       visualized. New fluid entering would most easily spread
       laterally in successive injections, each one blocking previous
       injections. Successive injective events would define a
       repetitious process of injectite emplacement and consequent
       mountain growth by “layered underplating.” This phenomenon may
       also explain high plateaus, the Tibetan and central Andean
       plateaus notably. The latter raised an entire arm of the ocean
       more than two miles above sea level, creating Lake Titicaca with
       its marine wildlife and vegetation. In these cases the
       injections must have been very fluid and spread sill-like before
       abruptly degassing and turning to solid rock, thus raising their
       host terrain and leaving it centrally depressed.
       Without understanding the origin and essential creation of
       injectite rock and the essential contribution it makes to all
       mountain and plateau building worldwide, analysis of orogenesis
       has been an exercise in futility. May these insights give
       welcome relief.
       Charles Warren Hunt
       archeanc@gmail.com
       10 October 2016
       Postscript: It never crossed my mind when I looked at a core of
       what became "injectite rock" and its association with a base
       metal mine, both of them out-of-place according to convention in
       our day could lead to new fundamental geological understanding.
       But so it does!
       -----
       New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal, V. 4, No. 4, December
       2016. www.ncgt.org
       Mobile plate tectonics: a confrontation
       Criticism of mobile plate tectonics over the past four or five
       decades has had little, if any, effect on the development of and
       the growing hegemony of the mobilist model. The reasons for this
       are no doubt related to the fact that the mechanisms involved
       are still of unknown magnitude and often acting at unknown
       depths. There is also the fact that mobilism admits that its
       fundamental hypotheses are often still in the process of
       transmutation. It is harder to hit a moving target, particularly
       when the long established observational processes of geology are
       excluded. Or, as the Tarlings in their book Continental Drift
       (Penguin) put it: "Future research will prove all of the mobile
       plate tectonic assumptions to be correct". A brave statement
       when the role of science does not to include the prediction of
       the favourable outcomes for future research; that belongs to
       faith.
       Despite the intrinsic unknowns in what is now referred to as a
       paradigm, it is still instructive to look critically at some of
       the mobilist mechanisms – those, anyway, that can be reasonably
       quantified - and it is also instructive to make some assessment
       of assumptions/mechanisms that cannot be quantified. Here goes:-
       Lithospheric Plates. These, the building blocks for the various
       roles of mobile plate tectonics, are defined as part of an upper
       rigid layer of the Earth, which has been broken into various
       units that move relative to each other. The depth of the plates
       is not yet clearly specified. More importantly, at the upper
       level the presence of the Moho is typically ignored - a
       surprising omission in an earth science discipline, since the
       Moho represents a discontinuity separating the brittle and
       heterogeneous Earth's crust from the underlying more plastic
       lithosphere/asthenosphere. Different reactions to stress will
       occur above and below the Moho but mobile plate tectonics avoids
       this by the questionable ad hoc assumption that a lithospheric
       plate has an indestructible similitude, from the Earth's surface
       down to the plate's uncertain depth.
       Regarding the horizontal permanency of a lithospheric plate,
       reference should be made to historical seismic studies by Nick
       Ambraseys, at Imperial College (1975). These revealed that, in
       Biblical times, the major earthquake alignment in the Middle
       East was not where it lies today. (The change in location cannot
       be explained by drift. In 2,000 years, drift might account for a
       shift of no more than 40 or 50 metres, obviously far too small
       to be registered by historical seismic studies.) Thus, if mobile
       plate tectonics had been available in Biblical times, we would
       no doubt have defined at least one (indestructible) plate as
       being broken in a different location from today's
       (indestructible) plate.
       Let us proceed to some of the functions of the lithospheric
       plates.
       Subduction. Subduction, an integral component of the mobile
       plate tectonics model, is said to be the result of the following
       forces:
       • Thermally elevated ridge push, at the mid-oceanic ridge end. A
       value of the order of 1 x 104 kPa has been proposed for ridge
       push. This is about an order of magnitude less than the
       frictional resistance to push that would be available at the
       Moho. So ridge push is not going to push the Earth's crust
       anywhere. As a near surface phenomenon, it is even less likely
       to push a thicker unit.
       • Trench pull is assumed at the forefront of the subduction
       zone. A similar value to ridge push has been proposed, but here
       trench pull runs into a different problem. The Earth's crust is
       not a thick steel slab nor even reinforced concrete, but is
       brittle and is transected by faults and major joints. Such
       discontinuities would be the first things to undergo failure if
       any significant suction or pull were to be applied to the
       frontal lobe. Which is tantamount to saying that the trench pull
       would lose its grip. There is more to it.
       • Firstly, subduction glosses over the effects of uplift that
       would necessarily develop when lighter crustal material becomes
       immersed in a more dense lithospheric or asthenospheric
       material. Simple calculation shows that it would not be long
       before the uplift factor would overcome the alleged trench pull
       – that is, if the crust remained intact.
       • What is left, then, is only the alleged downward convection
       force, although there is no solid evidence that such a
       phenomenon exists. Even supposing there is convection drag,
       there would most certainly be resistance to it at the location
       of subduction, resistance in the form of friction acting on
       upper face of the crust being subducted. After all, the super
       incumbent continental crust at a point of subduction cannot be
       expected to just open its mouth and swallow the approaching
       oceanic crust - along with any sea mounts, abyssal sediments, et
       al. This frictional resistance to subduction would have much the
       same value as any downward convection force acting as a
       frictional drag on the base of the crust.
       What is left is a hypothetical convection drag acting along the
       horizontal distance between the mid-oceanic ridge and the point
       of subduction. If this drag was of sufficient force to produce
       movement of the plate, it would be more likely to cause an
       overthrust at any surface obstruction, but there is no evidence
       of any such overthrusting.
       There is still more to come. In 1972, the Meyerhoffs listed a
       number of inconsistencies in the subduction model, one being
       that the Kermadec-Tonga Trench virtually bisects New Zealand,
       but the geosynclinal sedimentation is continuous right across
       this zone. The Meyerhoffs also pointed out that India was always
       part of Asia. The writer cannot comment on this but could
       mention that one of the original continental drifters, Prof.
       Warren Carey of Tasmania, once drew attention on the ABC to the
       fact that the large reptiles had always been able to walk
       (albeit intermittently) from India to Asia - an impossible task
       if several thousand kilometres of ocean separated the two
       continents. Kasfli (1992) refers to detailed mapping of the
       Zagros Crush Zone bordering Iran, concluding "there is nothing
       known from the geological record to suggest a former separation
       between Arabia and Africa to the south, and central Eurasia to
       the north". Finally, Lowman (1985) showed that – despite the
       evidence for sea floor spreading – hot spot trails in Africa
       indicate that the African continent has not moved with respect
       to the Mantle for possibly 300 million years.
       In the Molucca Sea, between Mindanao and north east Sulawesi,
       there is an interesting pattern: a north-south line of shallow
       earthquakes with, on each side of the line, a pattern of deeper
       events dipping in opposite directions. That is, on mobilist
       grounds, this would have to be seen as subduction in two
       directions, from a point source! Such a situation does not bear
       explanation, even from the most apologetic mobilist.
       So how did the idea of subduction come about in the first place?
       One of the original temptations that led to the concept came
       from the pattern of earthquakes as found mainly in the Pacific.
       Earthquake events were shallowest near to an oceanic trench and
       then descended to the steepening Watadi-Benioff Zones, ending up
       with a vertical orientation in the Upper Mantle, 500 – 700 km
       depth. A pattern of downward progression certainly looks
       convincing at first sight. But there was a fly in the ointment.
       In the early 1960s Claude Blot, a French Geophysicist in the
       South West Pacific, discovered that the migration of seismic
       energy in the above pattern was not one of downwards progression
       - as would be the case with subduction - but was an upward
       progression from the Mantle to the crust. He was able to compute
       consistent rates of upward seismic-energy progression, allowing
       him to make some remarkable predictions for both shallow
       earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The problem posed by Blot's
       work, to the newly-fledged mobilism, was therefore quite
       serious. However, this was soon overcome. Blot was transferred
       by the French Government to an aseismic region in West Africa
       and it took more than three decades before his work surfaced
       again, in the publication of a large book by a small Queensland
       Press, Grover (1998). Blot's initial forecasting has
       subsequently been taken up and repeatedly confirmed by, among
       others, the Editor of this Journal.
       Seafloor Spreading. The patterns on the ocean floors have been
       interpreted in an initially convincing manner as sea floor
       spreading in an Earth subject to magnetic reversals. This view
       overlooks a number of discordant and/or irreconcilable
       phenomena.
       • Evidence provided by the Deep Sea Drilling Programme reveals
       that the abyssal sediment fans in the deep oceans are formed,
       not by turbidity currents, but in the same manner as in fluvial
       deposits on land or in shallow water: horizontal bedding and
       undisturbed. Analysis indicates that, if the oceanic basement
       was moving – or has moved - it would be unable to slide beneath
       the abyssal fans but would produce continuous crumpling, folding
       and thrust faulting of the sediments. There is none.
       • In the north east Pacific, off California, there are a number
       of 3,000 km long, east-west, fracture zones: the Mendocino, the
       Murray and the Molokai. These fracture zones with dated magnetic
       anomalies provide what has been taken to show movement of the
       sea floor (the Juan de Fuca Plate) towards an alleged subduction
       zone under North America, which alleged subduction zone is not
       really supported by seismic activity, see Smoot et al (2001).
       Intra-plate movement – not part of the mobilist cabal - is
       indicated from the magnetic anomaly strips. The elongate zone
       between the Murray and Molokai Fracture Zones indicate a 2 cm
       per year faster rate than the rates on either side of each of
       these two fracture zones. This differential is about the same
       rate as measured in parts of the San Andreas Fault, yet the
       Murray and Molokai Fracture Zones are aseismic over their
       length. A similar situation is to be found in the Southern
       Ocean, below Australia, where variable rates of spreading can be
       inferred in adjacent units separated by long fracture zones.
       But, again, there is no corresponding seismic activity. This has
       the effect of bringing doubt into the interpretation of other
       dated anomaly patterns.
       Incidentally, in a recent publication James (2016), a
       hypothetical but plausible proposal is given to explain the
       present-day sea floor patterns in the Atlantic Ocean, based on
       an ocean of the present size and on the effect of magnetic
       reversals, assuming the Earth to behave as a dipole.
       The Myth of Incipient Oceans. Associated with the above cameo on
       sea floor spreading is the myth of this role in the formation of
       incipient oceans. Some examples will illustrate this.
       • Both the Sea of Japan and the Labrador Sea have been cited as
       typical incipient oceans in mobilist literature. Both are deep
       oceans, generally assumed to be underlain by oceanic crust
       exhibiting what has been interpreted as datable magnetic
       striping. Choi (1984) has identified that the alleged magnetic
       anomaly patterns in the Sea of Japan are actually features
       coinciding with major fault zones, traceable out from the
       peripheral continents. The base, according to seismic
       interpretation, contains continental crust with Palaeozoic
       marine sediments.
       • In the case of the Labrador Sea, the parallelism between the
       Canadian and Greenland coastlines has been remarked on by
       mobilists ever since Wegener. A strike-slip drift between the
       two land masses of up to 400 km has been proposed. Again,
       datable magnetic striping on the sea floor has been accepted.
       Recent field studies in the Nares Strait region, cited by Lowman
       (1985) and Grant (1980) reveal pre-Cambrian and Silurian marker
       beds traceable across the Strait.
       • The East African Rift system has also been cited as an ocean
       in embryo. However, the base of the rift is continental crust,
       not upwelling oceanic crust; and the rift system is aligned
       along a pre-Cambrian fault system that has probably not widened
       significantly in maybe a billion years.
       • The Red Sea is dated as having commenced spreading in
       Cretaceous times, at a rate well below that postulated in the
       Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The problem here is that, within
       the Red Sea there are pre-Cambrian islands, The Brothers. How
       this can be justified in a spreading situation has never been
       explained. The same applies to the equatorial regions in the
       Atlantic where the age of the St Peter and Paul Rocks is some
       hundreds of million years older than their age should be, based
       on their distance from the mid-Atlantic Ridge
       • A final example is presented by Iceland, where the
       mid-Atlantic ridge emerges on land. According to Sigurdson
       (1968), lava extrusions on Iceland – supposedly welling up from
       the Mantle – contain fragments of sandstone and dolomite.
       SUMMARY
       Geology has ever been an observational discipline and this view
       has been enshrined by the debate between Charles Darwin and Lord
       Kelvin over the age of the Earth. Darwin, an observer without
       equal, based his estimate on the sequences of sediments covering
       the earth's surface, together with the likely rate of evolution.
       He came to an answer quite close to today's value. Lord Kelvin
       based his calculations on reputable thermodynamics principles
       but also on the then hypothesis that the Earth had cooled from a
       molten state. Thus, his Lordship came a poor second in the
       debate.
       Unfortunately, the observation preference has lost ground in the
       last half century. Field evidence, when in conflict with the
       tenets of mobile plate tectonics, is now typically dismissed so
       that we find the sometimes questionable conclusions made from
       statistically derived palaeomagnetic data taken in preference to
       unequivocal palaeoclimatic indicators. We are at the mercy of
       poorly known, even completely unknown, mechanisms that cannot be
       studied from an observational point. It is becoming increasingly
       clear that the facile ad hoc explanation for the mobilist model
       has, in reality, put the earth sciences back something like a
       hundred years.
       Interestingly, it was one of the initial aims of the NCGT
       publication to rely on observational data and the Journal is to
       be congratulated for preserving this line. So why do we still
       put up with rebuffs for not toeing the mobilist line and
       accepting the myths of drifting continents?
       REFERENCES
       Ambraseys, N.N., 1975. Studies in historical seismicity and
       tectonics. Geodynamics, Roy. Soc. (Lond.), p. 7-18
       Choi, D.R., 1984. The Japan basin – a tectonic trough. Jnl Pet.
       Geol., v. 7, no. 4, p. 437-450.
       Choi, D.R., 2006. Where is the subduction under the Indonesian
       arc? NCGT Newsletter, no. 39, p. 2-11
       Grant, A.C., 1980. Problems with plate tectonics: the Labrador
       Sea. Bull. Can. Pet. Geol.. v. 28, p. 252-278.
       Grover, J.C., 1998. Volcanic Eruptions and Great Earthquakes.
       Copyright Publ., Bris.
       James, P.M., 2016. Deformation of the Earth's Crust – Cause &
       Effects. Copyright Publ., Bris.
       Kasfli, M., 1972. Zagros Crush Zone. New Concepts in Global
       Tectonics. Texas Univ. Press
       Lowman, P.D.Jr., 1985. Plate tectonics with fixed continents: a
       testable hypothesis. Jnl Pet. Geol., v. 8, no. 4, p. 373-388 &
       v. 9, no. 1, p.71-88.
       Meyerhoff, H.W. Meyerhoff, A.A., 1973.
       Major inconsistencies in global tectonics. Bull. Amer. Soc. Pet.
       Geol., v. 56, no. 2, p. 296-336.
       Sigurdson, H (1968). Petrology and acid xenoliths from Surtsey.
       Geol. Mag., v. 105, p. 440-453.
       Smoot, N.C., Choi, D.R. and Bhat, M.I., 2001. Active Margin
       Geomorphology. Xlibris Corp. USA.
       Tarling, D.H. and Tarling, M.P., 1977. Continental Drift.
       Penguin.
       Peter M. James
       petermjames35@gmail.com
       *****************************************************