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.
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.
> 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.
> 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"). 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.
> > 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.
>> 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"). 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.
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. :-)
> > 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".
> 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.)
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.)
> > > 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.
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".
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>
> 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- PPPPPH H | Peter Halls - University of York Computing Service - P P H | GIS Advisor P P H | Email: P.Ha...@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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subject: Re: Crustal-scale boudinage and migmatization of gneiss duringtheir >exhumation in the UHP Province of Wester >From: Peter Halls p...@york.ac.uk >Date: 7/20/03 8:36 PM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <Pine.SGI.3.95L.1030721073552.31205I-100...@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.
>> 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"
Discussion subject changed to "Crustal-scale boudinage and migmatization of gneiss duringtheir exhumation in the UHP Province of Western Norway" by Joe Rat
> > > 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?
<SNIP>
> > 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' ?
<SNIP> 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.
> >Subject: Re: Crustal-scale boudinage and migmatization of gneiss duringtheir > >exhumation in the UHP Province of Wester > >From: Peter Halls p...@york.ac.uk > >Date: 7/20/03 8:36 PM Hawaiian Standard Time > >Message-id:
> >> 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"
Discussion subject changed to "Crustal-scale boudinage and migmatization of gneiss duringtheir exhumation in the UHP Province of Western Norway" by don findlay
"George" <geo...@sourpudding.net> wrote in message <news:3zKSa.13348$ci.12354@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? 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. ....
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!
> > <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>
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.
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.
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.
"George" <geo...@sourpudding.net> wrote in message <news:OlTSa.8326$g9.5522@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.
> 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.)
> > > 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.
> > 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.)
Bigdakine wrote: >>Subject: Re: Crustal-scale boudinage and migmatization of gneiss duringtheir >>exhumation in the UHP Province of Wester >>From: Peter Halls p...@york.ac.uk >>Date: 7/20/03 8:36 PM Hawaiian Standard Time >>Message-id: <Pine.SGI.3.95L.1030721073552.31205I-100...@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.
>>>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.
David Ford: Well that's nice, but how did it get to the surface ... ?
bigdak...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) wrote in message <news:20030721041335.10408.00000449@mb-m05.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: Crustal-scale boudinage and migmatization of gneiss duringtheir > >exhumation in the UHP Province of Wester > >From: Peter Halls p...@york.ac.uk > >Date: 7/20/03 8:36 PM Hawaiian Standard Time > >Message-id: <Pine.SGI.3.95L.1030721073552.31205I-100...@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.
> >> 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.
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)
"George" <geo...@sourpudding.net> wrote in message <news:IoNSa.4524$09.1553@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>... > > 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.
"Bigdakine" <bigdak...@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.
>Subject: Re: Crustal-scale boudinage and migmatization of gneiss duringtheir >From: David Ford david.fo...@bigpond.com >Date: 7/21/03 8:21 PM Hawaiian Standard Time >Message-id: <BJ4Ta.7951$OM3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>Bigdakine wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Crustal-scale boudinage and migmatization of gneiss >duringtheir >>>exhumation in the UHP Province of Wester >>>From: Peter Halls p...@york.ac.uk >>>Date: 7/20/03 8:36 PM Hawaiian Standard Time >>>Message-id: <Pine.SGI.3.95L.1030721073552.31205I-100...@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.
>>>>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.
>David Ford: Well that's nice, but how did it get to the surface ... ?
Erosion. Faulting.
Stuart Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics "To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
|
