Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49

Thread: Standing Stones Theory

  1. #16
    Senior Member lift the veil's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th May 2014
    Posts
    760
    Thanks
    2,438
    Thanked 3,394 Times in 625 Posts
    Oooooo, maybe the Tibetan Plateau is really a giant mushroom????




    Or, how about a giant pancake?????? I SURE hope they have some GIANT MAPLE TREES around cause it's gonna need a lot of syrup!




    Orrrrrr, maybe it is actually a giant cow patty????? There all Brown and Roundish. They all look sooooo similar to the Tibetan Plateau, there MUST be a connection. But which one is it?



    Ooooooo. I know what it is..... That cow did jump over the Moon. Maybe it took a giant dump on the Earth, just to spite it. That's it, it must be a giant cow
    patty!


    The Tibetean Plateau is really a giant cow patty. After all they do revere cows over there in India. THERE MUST BE A CONNECTION!!!

    Last edited by lift the veil, 16th August 2016 at 20:30.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to lift the veil For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th August 2016), Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (16th August 2016), Elen (16th August 2016)

  3. #17
    Senior Member Novusod's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    434
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 2,513 Times in 431 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lift the veil View Post
    So the Tibetan Plateau is a petrified tree stump? LOL. Okay.

    Dirt, soil is made up of clay minerals which are called hydrous alumino phylloslicates. They are basically decomposed continental crust/bedrock which is granite. The main constituents of granite are aluminum (Al) and silica (SiO2) along with cations such as Ca and Na, K, and lesser amounts of Mg, Fe and H20. As a result of their parentage, clay minerals are not that much different than their parent, except for a large addition of water, which is to be expected if you have decomposed granite interacting with groundwater.

    Examples of clay mineral chemical formulas:

    Kaolinte - Al2Si205(0H)4
    Illite - (K,H3O)(Al,Mg,Fe)2(Si,Al)4O10[(OH)2,(H2O)]
    Chlorite - (Fe, Mg, Al)6(Si, Al)4O10(OH)8
    Vermiculite-(Mg,Fe,Al)3(Al,Si)4O10(OH)2•4(H2O)
    Montmorillonite - (Na,Ca)0,3(Al,Mg)2Si4O10(OH)2•n(H2O)

    Now, conversely petrified wood consists of SiO2 (chalcedony - which is another form of quartz).

    So if the Tibetan Plateau is a petrified tree stump, then it must be a huge chunk of quartz? Is the plateau completely lacking of soil/dirt? No, it is continental crust (granite) covered by a layer of soil.

    That sciency thing allows us to observe and calculate pesky things like chemical formulas, which in geology trace daughter rock to parent rock. Sort of like DNA for rocks.

    The Tibetan Plateau formed via the collision of Indian into the Asian continent. It is not a friggen tree stump.
    Have you ever pulled out a tree stump? There is usually very poor soil under old trees because the tree sucked up all the nutrients and minerals. What you wrote only confirms my hypothesis more. The Tibetan Plateau is a lifeless desert with poor soil. Mainstream science states that before the plateau rose up the ground was originally flat and should have had abundant fertile soil and much "alluvial materials." If the Plateau was pushed up from plate tectonics alone then the remnants of the old Alluvial plain should logically still be there. Billions/Trillions of tons of alluvial soils just don't disappear during periods of upthrust. There is something else going on.

    Maybe the alluvial plain was buried under lava? Nope that doesn't explain it either because volcanic activity is quite rare in Tibet even tracing back millions of years. The subduction of the Indian subcontinent should have caused a large increase in volcanic activity that would continue even into modern times. Compared to the "ring of fire" in the Pacific Tibet is volcanically dead. So how did the Indian subcontinent push under the Eurasian continent without melting? Must be some type of mystery.

    Also the animation is total bunk. It shows mountains forming in a straight line. Why is the Tibetan Plateau round? Once again where are the expected volcanoes. The animation shows volcanoes but there aren't any active volcanoes in the Himalayas.

    Some honest geologists have dared to challenge the prevailing theory because they know it is complete bullcrap. The formation of the Tibetan plateau don't fit the models of subduction and they all know it. Where are the volcanoes and what happened to remnants of the old alluvial plain.

    You assume I am not scientifically educated but that is false. I learned chemistry, geology, geography, physics among other topics in college. I read Francis Bacon's New Atlantis and decided it was contrived nonsense based off the methodology of the witch trials. I purposely turned away from science because it is not logical.
    Last edited by Novusod, 16th August 2016 at 21:44.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Novusod For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th August 2016), Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (16th August 2016), modwiz (16th August 2016)

  5. #18
    Member on Sabbatical Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Outside of Addlepatia
    Posts
    5,781
    Thanks
    34,849
    Thanked 37,385 Times in 5,752 Posts
    It is funny how this theory, and it is a theory only, has seemed to create division form some quarters. I refuse to participate in it. There is nothing to defend when playing with an idea that one is not insisting on its credulity. The flat Earthers have proved to be a rather shrill group that calls non-believes shills. Now we have science poking fun at people entertaining a possible other explanation for some things. Basically, insisting they are right, as if they are nor relying on others for their information. The religion of science has many adherents. Much like Zawi Hawass dismissing any suggestions that classical Egyptology may have some things incorrect.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th August 2016), Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (16th August 2016), Elen (17th August 2016), Novusod (16th August 2016)

  7. #19
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    6,292
    Thanks
    29,544
    Thanked 26,035 Times in 5,967 Posts
    Totally Modwiz, I grab the logical and intuitional answers and theory and await the universes next guidance.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (16th August 2016), modwiz (16th August 2016), Novusod (16th August 2016)

  9. #20
    Senior Member lift the veil's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th May 2014
    Posts
    760
    Thanks
    2,438
    Thanked 3,394 Times in 625 Posts
    The subduction of the Indian subcontinent should have caused a large increase in volcanic activity that would continue even into modern times. Compared to the "ring of fire" in the Pacific Tibet is volcanically dead. So how did the Indian subcontinent push under the Eurasian continent without melting? Must be some type of mystery.
    No, it is not some type of mystery.

    When subduction was occurring that consisted of oceanic crust being subducted underneath continental crust. That is when you had the early period of vulcanism. After all of the leading edge of the oceanic crust had been subducted, vulcanism ceased at (0:06), and then you had the Indian continent slamming into Asian continent. Continents are less dense than the mantle and will not subduct into it like oceanic crust does, thus they pile on top of each other, which is how you have the tallest (thickest) mountain chain forming on the Earth and the elevation the Tibetean Plateau at the same time. You do not have melting or vulcanism when you have continent/continent collision.

    Last edited by lift the veil, 16th August 2016 at 22:30.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to lift the veil For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th August 2016), Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (16th August 2016), Novusod (16th August 2016)

  11. #21
    Member on Sabbatical Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Outside of Addlepatia
    Posts
    5,781
    Thanks
    34,849
    Thanked 37,385 Times in 5,752 Posts
    Posted below is something from Clif High from Half Past Human. It opened a new consideration for me and a consideration I am more at peace and resonance with than the classical model being insisted on by another poster in this thread. Give it a read and try it on for size.

    Expando Planet Model


    The Expando Planet model is a sub set of the Expando Universe model of reality to which we will return in a bit. We start with Einstein and the much discussed, debated, and hated, E=MC2 equation.

    In Einstein, and Newtonian understanding of physics, energy transforms into matter and vice versa, so if you twist on uranium in just the right way with energy, it will transform a bunch of its own matter into energy very rapidly and thus we have nuclear plants and bombs based on this principle of 'exciting' the matter of uranium (and other radioactive elements) to convert to energy. Well...in this universe, equations work both ways, so theoretically we could take a bunch of energy and 'condense' it into matter (assuming we knew how). This matter could be as dense as version as we desired given that we are condensing it out of energy. So we would initially get simple molecules such as hydrogen and helium, but if we persisted, we could continue to coagulate the energy into denser molecules like oil, or iron, or gold. And thus is explained how the whole alchemy transmutation thing works. By condensation.

    So, in the Expando Planet model, the continuous stream of energy from the Sun goes not only to the surface of the planets, but also to the center of the planets, where, given the correct conditions, and the existence of an active plasma core (Mars, as an aside, has none, and is therefore, a 'dead' planet), this energy is transmuted into matter. Note also that plasma is a great form of an 'energetic antenna' and actually (in laboratories) seems to draw energy to it via sympathetic resonance.

    So some of the energies of the Sun hit the surface of the earth, but energy at levels we cannot detect without really really working at it, go to the center of the planet where they are condensed by that plasma environment into matter.

    By the way, the plasma model would allow for a faster spinning core, AND a reducing magnetic field as the field strength is not dependent on size nor spin rate. And further the plasma core idea does fit with observable fluctuations in magnetic field strength over these nearly 12, 000 year cycles. And again, plasma core idea works with heat levels internal to the earth (lower you go, hotter it gets), as well as abiotic oil, and the creation of minerals as well as their location of deposits.

    So, since magic likely is not how the core of the earth generates the magnetic field that we observe, it would seem more likely that the explanation is that the core of the earth is plasma. Plasma is highly excited energy, and does develop prodigious magnetic fields all out of proportion to its size. All of the observable magnetic effects on earth can be explained with the plasma core idea. Also, human experience with plasma fields and forms in laboratories provides observable evidence of the electro magnetic effects every bit as variant as seen on earth.

    So, in the Expando Planet model of thinking about Earth, the plasma core gets energy steadily from the Sun and as a necessity, must convert this steady stream of energy into matter. Thus if the Expando Planet model is correct, one of the predictable effects would be that the planet would pretty much continuously grow. And that is also what observable, manifesting reality demonstrates. The Earth is slowly growing. Even mainstream science and mainstream media acknowledge this, though they never say why it should grow continuously if the core of the earth was actually iron. Oh well.... anyway, the plasma receives energy from the Sun at the core of the Earth, converts it to matter (e=mc2) and so then two logical questions then arise.....if energy is being transformed into matter in the middle of the earth, then where does it go? And....what happens to this whole matter creation mechanism if there is a sudden burst of energy from the Sun?

    Mainstream science has always maintained that the planet grows slowly over time even without addressing why this should be the case. Further the whole point of the plate tectonic theory is 'propelled' by this idea of slow movement of the plates creeping about on liquid magma. Though against the idea of entropy, the cooling of the planet over time, and the rotation of the supposed iron core, the whole of the plate tectonic theory fails to hold up. Further, the presence of vast, previously unknown levels, of active volcanoes all across the planet does not support plate tectonics. Indeed, volcanoes are found even in places that the plate tectonic theory say should be subduction zones. So, to address the question of where does the continuously created matter go, we need only look around us. The matter quite actually 'bubbles' up out of, or as, the earth. And further, since it is created in the middle of an enclosed sphere (more or less, the earth is actually an oblate spheroid), the effects of matter created in the middle of a closed planet are naturally predictable. Imagine pumping water into an orange with a syringe.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th August 2016), Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (17th August 2016), Novusod (16th August 2016)

  13. #22
    Senior Member Novusod's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    434
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 2,513 Times in 431 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lift the veil View Post
    No, it is not some type of mystery.

    When subduction was occurring that consisted of oceanic crust being subducted underneath continental crust. That is when you had the early period of vulcanism. After all of the leading edge of the oceanic crust had been subducted, vulcanism ceased, and then you had the Indian continent slamming into Asian continent. Continents are less dense than the mantle and will not subduct into it like oceanic crust does, thus they pile on top of each other, which is how you have the tallest (thickest) mountain chain forming on the Earth. You do not have melting or vulcanism when you have continent/continet collision.
    Since when does subduction not cause vulcanism? Sounds like scientific back peddling to explain the mystery of the Himalayas. Why doesn't this occur anywhere else on Earth? You showed me a video that was completely false. Science always seems to be spinning new nonsense to cover up old lies. Mountains don't pile up without subsidence. Come on Geologist you know better than that. You are deliberately ignoring the basic principles of buoyancy. Upthrust must be equal to down thrust otherwise the plateau will subside into the mantel regardless of density.

    Your science is wrong but just won't admit it.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Novusod For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th August 2016), Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (17th August 2016), modwiz (16th August 2016)

  15. #23
    Senior Member lift the veil's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th May 2014
    Posts
    760
    Thanks
    2,438
    Thanked 3,394 Times in 625 Posts
    Maybe you should actually pay attention to the video. Subduction ceases at :06 when all of the preceding oceanic crust is consumed. After that it is strictly continent/continent collision. No subduction of continental crust occurs. No more vulcanism. The continent is not consumed down into the mantle. Both continents float on top of the denser mantle. Yes, they pile up on top of each other and thicken but do not get consumed down into the mantle. Geology 101. Density 101. They float on top of the mantle. The science is not wrong. Your understanding of it is wrong.
    Last edited by lift the veil, 16th August 2016 at 23:17.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to lift the veil For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th August 2016), Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (17th August 2016), Novusod (16th August 2016)

  17. #24
    Senior Member Novusod's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    434
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 2,513 Times in 431 Posts
    How the great tree may have supported its own weight: The Clark Orbit. Where centrifugal force cancels out the pull of gravity.

    Notice where Arthor C Ckarke received his vision and the terminology "Jack and the bean stalk." The great tree would have functioned as a living space elevator.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Novusod For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th August 2016), Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (17th August 2016)

  19. #25
    Senior Member lift the veil's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th May 2014
    Posts
    760
    Thanks
    2,438
    Thanked 3,394 Times in 625 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Novusod View Post
    Why doesn't this occur anywhere else on Earth? .
    The vast majority of non-volcanic mountain ranges on the Earth are formed by continent/continent collision. The Appalachians are an example, there is currently no subduction off of the east coast, because after Africa slammed into the leading east edge of then North America, it left a piece of itself attached to it when it pulled away, creating a new East coast. The Appalachians are the suture between the two pieces of crust. After Africa pulled away, it created what is called a passive margin (no subduction) and grew into the Atlantic Ocean This is called continental accretion and is the process by how continents grow in size over time. Geology 101.

    Here is a schematic. You see that once Africa hits the proto-east coast Figure E., subduction ceases along with the vulcanism and you have the accretion of new crust onto the leading edge of the old east coast. Growth of the continent.

    Last edited by lift the veil, 23rd August 2016 at 23:21.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lift the veil For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (16th August 2016), Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (17th August 2016)

  21. #26
    Senior Member Novusod's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    434
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 2,513 Times in 431 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lift the veil View Post
    Maybe you should actually pay attention to the video. Subduction ceases at :06 when all of the preceding oceanic crust is consumed. After that it is strictly continent/continent collision. No subduction of continental crust occurs. No more vulcanism. The continent is not consumed down into the mantle. Both continents float on top of the denser mantle. Yes, they pile up on top of each other and thicken but do not get consumed down into the mantle. Geology 101. Density 101. They float on top of the mantle. The science is not wrong. Your understanding of it is wrong.
    That is exactly where you are wrong. If subduction stops then the mountains would stop growing. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. For every billion tons of rock that is thrust up an equal and opposite mass of rock must be thrust down. If subduction stops then where is the equal and opposite force thrusting down coming from? The buoyancy equation has to balance. You have mountains thrusting up but nothing is nothing is thrusting down. Even counting horizontal trusting there would still have to be an equal and opposite down trust. The model you are presenting is completely false. Guess you didn't take physics 101 or slept through that class.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Novusod For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th April 2017), Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (17th August 2016)

  23. #27
    Senior Member lift the veil's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th May 2014
    Posts
    760
    Thanks
    2,438
    Thanked 3,394 Times in 625 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Novusod View Post
    Mainstream science states that before the plateau rose up the ground was originally flat and should have had abundant fertile soil and much "alluvial materials." If the Plateau was pushed up from plate tectonics alone then the remnants of the old Alluvial plain should logically still be there. Billions/Trillions of tons of alluvial soils just don't disappear during periods of upthrust. There is something else going on.
    The old alluvial plain was pushed up and it then became highlands, a plateau. The plateau then becomes the target of erosion, winds and weathering which transports sediment away. However not all of the soil is removed. Again it is still soil, and it is still there. The soil was originally sourced from the parent underlying granite crust. Not from a tree stump.

    http://rukor.org/tibetan-earth-tibetan-soils/

    TIBETAN EARTH, TIBETAN SOILS
    Posted on January 31, 2015 by rukor-admin
    from a small book of essays, poetry and art on the Soil and the Earth, edited by Vandana Shiva, celebrating the International Year of Soils, 2015

    **********************

    That the soils of the Tibetan Plateau exist at all is remarkable. This vast island in the sky is, in planetary history, so new, so high and still rising skyward, so unconsolidated and prone to quake, so raked by gales and blizzards, it is a miracle that soil exists.

    Yet the soils of the Tibetan Plateau sustain huge herds of migrating gazelles and antelopes, millions of yaks, sheep and goats cared for by nomadic pastoralists, and an entire Tibetan civilisation. Not only does a rich soil sustain life, the hardy grasses and sedges of the vast plateau pasture lands in turn protect the soils from the powerfully erosive forces of wind, snowstorms and intense cold. Neither permafrost below nor the sudden hailstorms from above disturb those soils, aerated by burrowing mammals, held together by the biomass of living plants, most of which is underground.

    Tibetans have long known and respected the earth, and its innumerable local gods and spirits, which can cause earthquakes, landslides and floods if not treated with respect. Offerings are made daily to these local protectors, starting with a sprig of juniper put onto the morning fire to produce fragrant smoke.

    The entire plateau is at an average altitude of 5000 metres in upper Tibet, in the arid west, and 4000 metres in the forested and wetter east; with the mountain ranges that enclose the plateau soaring far above. It is only on the mountain slopes that there is little or no soil, above the snowline. In Tibet the snowline is at 5000 metres, sometimes as much as 6000 metres, much higher than elsewhere, because Lhasa is no further from the equator than Shanghai, Mecca, Johannesburg, Tehran or Houston. Intense sun, intense inner continental winds, intense summer heating and winter cooling make for intensive erosion, so great that the entire yellow earths and Yellow River of northern China are the result of a Tibetan Plateau that erodes as fast as it uplifts. Yet despite these elemental forces, the soils sustain verdant alpine meadows for wild and domestic herds alike, and the millions of nomadic pastoralists who annually gather what nature provides.

    Those soils regulate the flow of the great rivers of Asia, from Pakistan’s Indus, through Southeast Asia’s Mekong, to the Yangtze and Yellow of China. They absorb the summer monsoons and the icemelt from the glaciers in the snowmountain peaks, acting as a sponge that both soaks up and releases water through the year.

    Across northernTibet there are no big rivers. This is a land of lakes, abodes of goddesses, slowly shrinking over recent millennia as the entire plateau becomes drier, only to start rising again very recently, due to climate change accelerating the melting of the glaciers.

    Wetland soils are common, great peaty marshlands where migratory birds nest and feed, reeds grow thickly and yaks tread delicately tussock to tussock, fattening on the rich herbage. Hard ungulate hoofs seldom compact these springy soils, because the nomadic pastoralists know well that grazing must be done with a light touch, always moving the herd on well before the grass is exhausted. A mobile civilisation was guarantor of healthy soil and the protective plant cover.
    Quote Originally posted by Novusod View Post
    That is exactly where you are wrong. If subduction stops then the mountains would stop growing. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. For every billion tons of rock that is thrust up an equal and opposite mass of rock must be thrust down. If subduction stops then where is the equal and opposite force thrusting down coming from? The buoyancy equation has to balance. You have mountains thrusting up but nothing is nothing is thrusting down. Even counting horizontal trusting there would still have to be an equal and opposite down trust. The model you are presenting is completely false. Guess you didn't take physics 101 or slept through that class.
    You are completely clueless. The CONTINENTS ARE STILL COLLIDING after subduction ceseases. Subuction = consumption of oceanic crust. No more oceanic crust= cessation of subduction. The continents however are still being pushed against each other, hence COLLISION = MOUNTAIN BUILDING!!! The INDIAN CONTINENT IS STILL COLLIDING INTO ASIA , WHICH IS WHY THE HIMALAYAN MOUNTAINS ARE STILL GROWING TODAY!!!!!!

    GEOLOGY101
    Last edited by lift the veil, 17th August 2016 at 00:39.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lift the veil For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th April 2017), Cearna (17th August 2016), Dreamtimer (17th August 2016)

  25. #28
    Senior Member lift the veil's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th May 2014
    Posts
    760
    Thanks
    2,438
    Thanked 3,394 Times in 625 Posts
    Here you go skippy, it is not me just making crap up.

    http://www.livescience.com/43220-sub...efinition.html

    If the same kind of crust collides, such as continent-continent, the plates may crash together without subducting and crumple together like crashing cars. The massive Himalaya mountain chain was created this way, when India slammed into Asia.
    Oh and by the way smarty pants I did take calculus based physics I and II.
    Last edited by lift the veil, 17th August 2016 at 00:34.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lift the veil For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th April 2017), Dreamtimer (17th August 2016)

  27. #29
    Senior Member Novusod's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st March 2015
    Posts
    434
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 2,513 Times in 431 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lift the veil View Post
    The vast majority of non-volcanic mountain ranges on the Earth are formed by continent/continent collision. The Appalachians are an example, there is currently no subduction off of the east coast, because after Africa slammed into the leading east edge of then North America, it left a piece of itself attached to it, creating a new East coast. The Appalachians are the suture between the two pieces of crust. After Africa pulled away, it created what is called a passive margin (no subduction) and grew into the Atlantic Ocean This is called continental accretion and is the process by how continents grow in size over time. Geology 101.

    Here is a schematic. You see that once Africa hits the proto-east coast Figure E., subduction ceases along with the vulcanism and you have the accretion of new crust onto the leading edge of the old east coast. Growth of the continent.
    The Appalachian mountains used to be connected to the Atlas mountains in Africa but they were on divergent plates. There was no subduction because the continents were pulling away from each other. Yes this can form mountains but the issue with this is the Himalayas were not caused by divergent plates. The formation of the Appalachians is the complete opposite of that is happening with the Indian subcontinent. The Appalachians have more in common with the mid Atlantic ridge then they do the Himalayas.

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Novusod For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th April 2017), Dreamtimer (17th August 2016), modwiz (17th August 2016)

  29. #30
    Senior Member lift the veil's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th May 2014
    Posts
    760
    Thanks
    2,438
    Thanked 3,394 Times in 625 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Novusod View Post
    The Appalachian mountains used to be connected to the Atlas mountains in Africa but they were on divergent plates. There was no subduction because the continents were pulling away from each other. Yes this can form mountains but the issue with this is the Himalayas were not caused by divergent plates. The formation of the Appalachians is the complete opposite of that is happening with the Indian subcontinent. The Appalachians have more in common with the mid Atlantic ridge then they do the Himalayas.
    Did you even bother to look at the schematic of a geology explanation of the Appalachian mountains? I am not making this up. Subduction occurs from Figure A to D. You can see Africa in figure D approaching/converging upon the then East coast.

    Between D and E, Africa has collided into America, and later it then pulls away/diverges and leaves a new East Coast, hence the rusults in figure E.

    From A-D convergence/subduction.
    E - Subuction ceased, continent/continent collision caused the accretion of new land on East coast, Africa has pulled away/diverges and creates the Atlantic Ocean.

    The creation of the Appalachian mountains formed in the same way as the Himilayian mountains, convergent continent/continent collision. The only difference is that Africa is still not pushing into American, it later pulled away. India on the other hand is still pushing into Asia, which is why the Himalayan mountains are still growing.






  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lift the veil For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (24th April 2017), Dreamtimer (17th August 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •