Examining the "physics" in geophysics (mountain building)

[gentleman-farmer]

Conventional thought as expressed by the USGS follows the line that mountains (like the Rocky Mountain range - see illustration) are formed by a process initiated by colliding slabs of lithospheric plates. That the process is invalid is demonstrated by the use of two dimensional drawings where slabs and processes appear to be functional and based on scientific discovery.

 

In reality earth surfaces are spherical and they cannot interface (nor function) as illustrated. This lesson is learned early in the educational process when school children make top hats of construction paper. The construction requires that folding edges be cut to remove interfering material. We're all familiar with this process - /\/\/\/\/\/\

 

One might be wise and ask - "Why did the USGS use a two dimensional drawing (with great lateral depth) that carries with it an implied science that doesn't exist?"

 

Next we'll look at the Boussinesq equation and its representative graph that demonstrates (for foundations, and by extension, colliding tectonic plates) that within less than six times the width of the engaging surfaces, the compression forces at depth are reduced to complete insignificance

 

For those unfamiliar with the science - the dissipation of compression forces is achieved through friction and shear. This relates to the common means of describing the concept using the illustration of a compression cone

/

/

 

CAPTION:

This sketch shows the plate tectonic setting during the growth of the Rocky Mountains (Laramide orogeny). The angle of the subducting plate is significantly flatter, moving the focus of melting and mountain building much farther inland than is normally expected

 

gf

/

[DJBruce]

Wasn't there already a thread on this?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If you disagree with my question to see if this is the same pseudoscience you posted previously then answer it and back up your assertions in the public forum. Attacking people through PM's will not convince anyone that your idea is right, or win you any friends.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If there is any question of abuse of the PM system, please report the private messages so we can investigate.

[Bignose]

One might be wise and ask - "Why did the USGS use a two dimensional drawing (with great lateral depth) that carries with it an implied science that doesn't exist?"

 

The use of simplified models to demonstrate a point and a process and then building up to more complex phenomena is a tried and true method. When you 1st took physics, did you jump right into ballistics involving rotation and air resistance and non-spherical shapes, solving the full set of 3-D vector equations? No, you started off with a simple 1-d problem of a falling object neglecting air resistance. Then built up to 2-D problems, then adding simplified drag, etc.

 

The source is not meant to be a rigorous perfect scientific paper. It is meant to demonstrate the idea in a way that most people can understand. If someone want to pursue more deeply, that is beyond the scope of that graphic. (BTW, what is the source on that graphic? -- it is good practice to at least link back to where you took that graphic from).