Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the closest thing to what your 'observing' would be some sort of crustal deformation from P, S, and surface waves that may create some sort of oscillating terrain on a small scale. If you're talking about a molten earth having waves that suddenly solidified, mountains would be primarily rhyolite as opposed to Granite, though you could argue the core of these waves had time to cool and organize their crystals whilst the rhyolite was weathered and eroded away. Aside from that, if you're assuming the starting point of a molten earth, there would be no shelfs increasing in elevation to create a 'jagged mountain looking wave' since there would be no upsloping surfaces that you see when waves approach beaches. You'll notice fisherman several miles out at sea rarely notice tsunamis, it is when the wave is forced upward by a solid surface that it gains a characteristic shape as opposed to just a dome of water.
I think you said something about a single high energy event, the moon was produced (i heard) from some a collision with some other protoplanet that smeared a whole lot of material off of the earth and into its orbit, your arguement would hold up best in terms of perhaps describing early mountains that there would be no evidence of today, but the planet was so hot then that its doubtful anything solid would have really accumulated into a mountain.
I suppose if you wanted to go further, you could argue that everything gives off waves of some sort and there must've been all sorts of earthquakes surrounding mountain building events. Two continental plates colliding would give rise to a mountain due to the effect of the waves to be confined into creating an upsurgence of material that is held up by its relative buoyancy.
And, as a side note, I'm thinking that during the harsh environment of early earth, the only thing that would have a melting point high enough to solidify wouldn't because of the low confining at the surface, maybe our earliest surface was some thin coating of what makes up our core today, with strong enough convection currents to support dense sheets of iron creating a veneer of a surface, eventually collapsing in on itself to create a planetary core. Under these circumstances there might be short lived mountains on a very quickly evolving earth surface.
I think the closest thing to what your 'observing' would be some sort of crustal deformation from P, S, and surface waves that may create some sort of oscillating terrain on a small scale. If you're talking about a molten earth having waves that suddenly solidified, mountains would be primarily rhyolite as opposed to Granite, though you could argue the core of these waves had time to cool and organize their crystals whilst the rhyolite was weathered and eroded away. Aside from that, if you're assuming the starting point of a molten earth, there would be no shelfs increasing in elevation to create a 'jagged mountain looking wave' since there would be no upsloping surfaces that you see when waves approach beaches. You'll notice fisherman several miles out at sea rarely notice tsunamis, it is when the wave is forced upward by a solid surface that it gains a characteristic shape as opposed to just a dome of water.
I think you said something about a single high energy event, the moon was produced (i heard) from some a collision with some other protoplanet that smeared a whole lot of material off of the earth and into its orbit, your arguement would hold up best in terms of perhaps describing early mountains that there would be no evidence of today, but the planet was so hot then that its doubtful anything solid would have really accumulated into a mountain.
I suppose if you wanted to go further, you could argue that everything gives off waves of some sort and there must've been all sorts of earthquakes surrounding mountain building events. Two continental plates colliding would give rise to a mountain due to the effect of the waves to be confined into creating an upsurgence of material that is held up by its relative buoyancy.
And, as a side note, I'm thinking that during the harsh environment of early earth, the only thing that would have a melting point high enough to solidify wouldn't because of the low confining at the surface, maybe our earliest surface was some thin coating of what makes up our core today, with strong enough convection currents to support dense sheets of iron creating a veneer of a surface, eventually collapsing in on itself to create a planetary core. Under these circumstances there might be short lived mountains on a very quickly evolving earth surface.
Just some ideas.
Thank you so much for considering my ideas...thank you for keeping it scientific...
One of the ideas I like most, which came from the suggestion of somone else...is the idea that induvisual mountains don't really rise...rather whole shelves do....
Or that the water simply receades...revealing mountains that were already there...
This can kind of be substantuated at the fact that some mountain ranges are simply the 'tip of the ice-burge' of huge underwater formations...
Here's an example...
Can you see my point here?
That peaks are simply apart of greater shelves? and When water recedes they're simply exposed...
So they didn't so much 'rise' as water simply receded around them?
And as far as waves go...if a whole planet was molten lava...there would always be waves....energy produces waves....because there's always energy...it's impossible for any surface to be 'flat'....
For this reason here...
This is why you will always have waves...
The above illustration of ball and strings, demonstrates how energy must transfer in all objects...and is why waves are produced...whether in molten or co2 or h2o
(Forgive me, I'm kinda in a rushed position right now...don't have time for details...but i'm sure you totally understand what I'm refering too)
Popular Mechanics?
Ok...why not...this is break through knowledge here...and all throughout history, whenever someone challenges the scientific status quo...they are intially recieved with skeptisiscm....
I've already mailed this thread to Penn State...i just hope it gets to the proper department...
Again, what do these waves in the ocean resemble to you?
How about mountain ranges....do they not resemble mountain ranges?
Do you see how physics works the same weather we're talking rocks or water.?
And so my liquified or puttified rock theory is dead on thus far...
The mountains were in a semi liquid state when formed...and in order to be in that state had to be super heated and only a sudden violent event or events could generate the kind of friction needed to generate that kinda heat...
The event subsided, and the rocks hardened or froze...that's why mountain ranges resemble waves...cause they basically were....
This million billion year rock formation stuff is unscientific..
Rocks shifting at inches per year or decade, could never generate the kind of force to form mountain ranges....
In nature, land altering events happen suddenly and violently...that's how enough force and pressure and heat is created to change things...
Just please thing about what I'm say...please...it makes so much sense...
I attended THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY; they have the number one rated College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. As well as being number one in the nation in Geographical Sciences. By the way, my DOUBLE major was Geography and Earth Science. My advice to you is this: SAVE YOUR STAMP! SERIOUS ONLY!!!!! Give me a break!!!!! TIME and SPACED...... This thread is, IMHO... RIDICULOUS!!!!! How about posting in my favorite Spacedship thread; I've posted in your thread. ;-)
Last edited by PITTSTON2SARASOTA; 03-24-2010 at 01:39 AM..
I attended THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY; they have the number one rated College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. As well as being number one in the nation in Geographical Sciences. By the way, my DOUBLE major was Geography and Earth Science. My advice to you is this: SAVE YOUR STAMP! SERIOUS ONLY!!!!! Give me a break!!!!! TIME and SPACED...... This thread is, IMHO... RIDICULOUS!!!!! How about posting in my favorite Spacedship thread; I've posted in your thread. ;-)
All I ask is if you use my ideas and theories from what you have learned here on this thread..
that you will mention me, when you give your speech at Penn State....
That's all I ask....
Well a few other people contributed to the thread also...mention them too.
And beware of Granite, did you know granite gives off radiation?
radon gas?
Do not drink water that has rolled off of large granite mountains...ok...
Anyways...all my information is here for you to read, and to take back to Penn state with you....
Let me know the outcome...right now I've got some running around to do..
And thanks again for mentioning me at Penn State...
Last edited by Time and Space; 03-24-2010 at 11:42 AM..
What do you see there? Waves right? Ripples....and where do you normally see ripples or waves?
answer: In the ocean or at a lake. You observe ripples or waves in things that are fluid...
(Observe how the ripples in the water resemble mountain ranges?
In order for mountain ranges to form, they too would of had to be in a liquified state)
Now pay attention cause what I'm about to say next will blow your mind...but also what i'm about to say is very obvious, always has been, but do to a conditioned way to look at science theory laid before you by others...your own logic has been supressed...until now...
1.The idea that it takes millions of years for mountains to form is erronious...
a. What does your own observations tell you in nature? In order for ripples to occur, the mass or matter has to be in a liquid or semi-liquid or mushy state...physics is physics is physics...and the same physics that applies to jello, also applies to rocks and mountains...
2. More than likely these great mountain ranges were formed in a matter of days, weeks or months...
a. While Pangea (the super continant) was splitting apart, seperating and drifting...so much heat was generated by the friction that the rocks basically became 'liquified' or 'puddyfied'...as such, when shelves collided...while in this puddyfied soft state due to tremendious heat and friction...great mountain ranges or rifts were created...
And as the violent activity subsided...the rocks cooled and hardened where they were....
Kinda like if you suddenlty froze an wave on the beach coming out you. You froze the wave, or water, while in liquid form...thus you have a mountain ridge or maintain ranges...they formed while in a semi liquid state....and hardend when the sudden and violent shifting ended....
Why am I right?
1. Cause if you tried to shift rocks that are as hard as they are in their current state, they would simply 'shatter' 'crumble'...to brittle. like when they blast rocks for construction highways...it shatters while in a frozen state.
Basic physics should tell you that...
The rocks or mantle would of had to be in a semi-liquid state to merge like that without simple crumbling...and the force that created or merged them would have had to be sudden and violent in order to generate enough friction to soften the rocks...
The friction required to build up that type of heat is not built up over millions of years while continital shelves merge a few inches a decade....throw that theory right out the window...it's hogwash...
And use this new truth here, as a basis for your nobel prize...I know I won't be given credit for any of it...so if your in college or something and want to change the scientific world...go ahead and build upon my idea, which is rooted in common since and physics.
(or if any Dean at a college has a full science scholarship, I'd gladly accept) I mean how many more ideas could I be on the verge of...?)
As a geologist I must tell you that NO ONE in the geology community will find this theory of yours credible. AT ALL. There is simply no structural, seismic, or petrological evidence to support it. Sorry. Your "theory" is total nonsense.
First of all, many mountain ranges are older than Pangea. Much older. Secondly, only a select few are specifically associated with the rifting of Pangea. Third, there is no evidence of any mountain range on the planet being completely 'liquified' or 'puddyfied', certainly not 'overnight. If that were the case, these mountains would ALL consist exclusively of volcanic rock. Any quick review of any mountain range on the planet will show that this is not the case (certain volcanic plateaus not withstanding). And finally, I can only assume that your theory must have originated out of a desire to get geology to conform with young Earth creationism. And I think that's just sad.
1) Many rocks found in mountain ranges are, in fact, "shattered" due to faulting. This occurs when strain in the rocks overcome its inherent strength (see Mohrs circle of strain). Many more appear to have warped, bent, or otherwise deformed. These rocks have undergone intense strain and heating, which over time causes the rock to flow like molasses but over long periods of time. Finally, many mountain ranges are simply uplifted sedimentary rocks with granite cores (granite is not a magmatic melt) due to tectonic processes. All of this has been widely confirmed in the field and the laboratory. There is no mystery here. Mountains are not ripples like the waves you see occurring in water. We understand that phenomenon rather well, and mountains simply do not exhibit wave physics.
Finally, people who have no obvious formal training in geology, and certainly no field experience, and then try to promote such gibberish should either take some classes or really stick to what they know. Whatever that may be, geology isn't one of them.
As a geologist I must tell you that NO ONE in the geology community will find this theory of yours credible. AT ALL. There is simply no structural, seismic, or petrological evidence to support it. Sorry. Your "theory" is total nonsense.
Are you comparing me to Dr Rick Marshall in 'Land of the Lost'....and his 'Tackion Amplifyer' theory or device?
People doubted him too, but in the end...he was prooven correct...
I notice people in the scientific community have a hard time pondering anything not taught to them in a text book....
Quote:
First of all, many mountain ranges are older than Pangea. Much older. Secondly, only a select few are specifically associated with the rifting of Pangea. Third, there is no evidence of any mountain range on the planet being completely 'liquified' or 'puddyfied', certainly not 'overnight. If that were the case, these mountains would ALL consist exclusively of volcanic rock. Any quick review of any mountain range on the planet will show that this is not the case (certain volcanic plateaus not withstanding). And finally, I can only assume that your theory must have originated out of a desire to get geology to conform with young Earth creationism. And I think that's just sad.
My theory originated out of 'Observed science'....something one can't deny....
Believe it or not, many in the scientific community are just as 'ideologue' driven, as they claim those in the 'religious' community are...and as such many better explained theories are kept from emerging...Observed science has nothing to do with 'ideology'...it has to do with observation...and applying common sense...and not allowing that common sense to be over ran by either religous or evolution politics...
Quote:
Mountains are not ripples like the waves you see occurring in water. We understand that phenomenon rather well, and mountains simply do not exhibit wave physics.
This is where your wrong...and if you'd consider what I'm saying...you could astound your geographical peers...
This one question, and the answer too...may open your eyes a little...
What would happen if the sun suddenly cooled down (Yes I know about size, gravity, pressure and heat)...
But I'm just saying...all that aside...is the suns surface 'flat' right now?...yes...no? (observed science)
Or is it filled with large waves or plazma gas?
And if the sun could be cooled, say over the period of 1 year, how would it's surface look?
And yes I know about how different cooling rate of atoms form different types of elements...but that's irrelavent, and or could explain in some cases why there's different minerals on earth, cause of varying cooling rates...
Quote:
Finally, people who have no obvious formal training in geology, and certainly no field experience, and then try to promote such gibberish should either take some classes or really stick to what they know. Whatever that may be, geology isn't one of them.
Sorry you feel that way...
But is the one reason why I'm inspired by Scientists like Dr Rick Marshall, cause he's always willing to think outside the box...he too was laughed down by his peers, but in the end prooved correct with his break through theories, which prooved to be true...
Oh gee, it's been a while since I've come across someone this cracked up. Land of the lost? That's his evidence? Well, as entertaining as this is, if he is an accident at birth and not a self-made man, he certainly has my sympathy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
