The Case of the Missing Delta

Hundreds of TPODs have been published since the summer of 2004. In particular, we invite discussion of present and recent TPODs, perhaps with additional links to earlier TPOD pages. Suggestions for future pages will be welcome. Effective TPOD drafts will be MORE than welcome and could be your opportunity to become a more active part of the Thunderbolts team.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by seasmith » Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:54 pm

The Case of the Missing Delta

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02 ... ing-delta/

Caution: this is a no go zone.

Stephen,

I know you are tenured, and i am but a plebe, but we can talk because we are Smiths, and have no fear.

This also means that it could be far younger than its estimated millions of years, since radiometric dating systems would have been completely randomized by the electromagnetic effects of interplanetary lightning bolts. Therefore, fossils and stratigraphic placement need to be seen from a catastrophic viewpoint and may be useless when it comes to measuring their absolute age.
Could be, or could be not.

And can we all PLEASE just drop that "uniformitarianism" term, as a redder herring than 'reconnection' ?
Approximately five million of years ago the East Pacific Rise, finally, split the Baja
Peninsula from the mainland of Mexico. The waters of the Pacific then poured into the rift
valley creating the Gulf of California. Since then, like a giant door swinging open, plate
tectonic activity along the East Pacific Rise has moved the Baja Peninsula 162 miles (260
km) westward from the mainland at the southern end of the gulf. The northern “hinge” point
of this tectonic system is in the Salton Trough.

May i suggest the possibility that it is not a lack of change at issue, but rather an abundance of time.

We can not reduce Earth's geologic timescale to our Lilliputian hominid frame of existence !

Currently, the loss of sediments in the Colorado River delta due to tidal currents and
wave action is much greater than the accretion of sediments by river transport. The net
effect is that the delta has entered a destructive phase. In the short term, however, there have
been no catastrophic effects from the loss of river input on the oceanography of the northern
gulf. Nutrient concentrations and productivity are high. The problems related to depletion of
fish stocks and endangered species (such as the totoaba and the vaquita) in this area are the
result of inadequate fisheries management, not the lack of freshwater or nutrient input.
However, because nutrients captured in sediments may be contributing to the northern gulf’s
high productivity, and there is a net loss of sediments, the long term future of the upper gulf
is uncertain.
The Gulf of California, itself, is an oblique rift system with short spreading segments
connected by long transform faults. Rifting in the gulf began ~12–15 million years ago
when subduction ended west of the Baja California peninsula. As the East Pacific Rise
approached the palaeo-trench, the subducting Farallon plate broke into a number of
microplates; as subduction stalled, those microplates and the Baja California peninsula
coupled to the Pacific plate, resulting in the onset of rifting. The peninsula now moves
nearly completely with the Pacific plate, with ~ 48 mm/yr of spreading across the Gulf of
California representing ~ 92% of Pacific–North America relative motion. (Lizarralde, et al.,
2007)
(This aint just 'establishment' crap. It's measured every year by satellite)

http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Ge ... Trough.pdf

One cannot preclude the genesis of Grand Canyon topography predicated on an initial EDM event, but land mass has clearly risen, fallen, stretched and compressed since then.
Just go and look :shock:


http://watermarked.cutcaster.com/cutcas ... z-Baja.jpg

[not EDM topography]

Image
In Pliocene time, about seven million years ago, a zone of separation developed on the East Pacific Rise. The future Baja California peninsula and a piece of future California were sheared from mainland Mexico along a lateral fault, possibly the ancestral San Andreas fault which was then, as now, oriented northwest-southeast. During this early period of development, movement was right lateral, with the sheared-off slab moving northwest, but always in close contact with the mainland.[1]
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/The%20Gu ... ornia.html


The Salton Trough, shown in this MODIS image acquired February 9, 2002, is the
northern landward extension of the Gulf of California and is still undergoing active
deformation and subsidence.
The Salton Trough is an example of what geologists call a graben (pictured above)
which is German for "grave". A graben is a strip of land bounded on opposite sides by
roughly parallel faults. Through movement of the faults, the strip of land sinks in a process
called subsidence. In the case of the Salton Trough, the graben has been filled with
sediments as it subsided. Although not restricted to them, grabens are characteristic of rift
valleys. The Salton Trough is the northern end of a much larger rift valley formed by
spreading and subsidence that runs the length of the Gulf of California.

This geology of the San Andreas fault is based on the U.S. Geological Survey,
Professional Paper 1515 titled The San Andreas Fault System, California edited by Dr.
Robert E. Wallace and published by United States Government Printing Office, Washington
in 1990 and 1991.
Web References
http://www.johnmartin.com/earthquakes/e ... fs_361.htm
http://www.data.scec.org/
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceres/calweb/coastal/mountains.html


http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Ge ... Trough.pdf

Sorry the great graphicis arew too large to post under forum constraints. Just go to URL to look.

s

mague
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by mague » Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:19 am

I am not sure about Grand Canyon. There are some maps on the net about gravitational abnormalities. The Canyon flollows those quite a bit. And the native myths are irritating. Maybe there are or have been cavities.

But on Mars it looks like a scar. Really looks like the work of a rookie welder..
http://www.motorschrauber.com/wp-conten ... tenaht.jpg

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by seasmith » Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:07 am

There is little doubt in my mind that both Moon and Earth have been zapped in the past.

And to reiterate:
One cannot preclude the genesis of Grand Canyon topography predicated on an initial EDM event ...
meaning yes, it may have happened there in the past.

This post is to address the question of "The Case of the Missing Delta", and to try and move beyond the regressive 19th century debate over 'uniformitarianism'.
Like with most complex matters, it is Not either-or .

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by nick c » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:18 am

hi seasmith,
And can we all PLEASE just drop that "uniformitarianism" term, as a redder herring than 'reconnection' ?
This seems to be a pet peeve of yours. I don't think that you should attempt to change the terminology, since the word is in the dictionary and has specific meaning in science, especially in the discipline of geology.
It is fine for you to use synonyms such as gradualism, uniformity, etc., if you prefer, but your request for others here to refrain from using the word "uniformitarianism" is simply unrealistic as well as unwarranted.
The bottom line:
Uniformitarianism, gradualism, the principle of uniformity, or whatever name you want to call it, is the colored lens through which modern science views world.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - Shakespeare

caplanmh
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:17 am

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by caplanmh » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:16 am

seasmith can propose any hypotheses he favours but has done nothing to offer explanations for vertical sides that here and there look as if they were cut by a giant guillotine, for the similarity of erosion from top to bottom even though the top is claimed to be millions of years older than the middle or bottom, the quite minimal erosion comparable with that of ancient monuments, how a central column could be eroded without being undermined anywhere. One can always hypothesise all kinds of possibilities retrospectively. but how well does the observation fit the theory? I get the impression that seasmith believes the old adage bulls..t baffles brains.

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by seasmith » Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:54 pm

For the third time:
And to reiterate:

One cannot preclude the genesis of Grand Canyon topography predicated on an initial EDM event ...


meaning yes, it (EDM) may have happened there in the past.

This post is to address the question of "The Case of the Missing Delta", and to try and move beyond the regressive 19th century debate over 'uniformitarianism'.
Like with most complex matters, it is Not either-or
.
Nick,
The terminology is fine. It is the overly-simplistic argument that it has to be black or white, chaos or continuity, EU or nothing. It is rarely that simple, and as you know, i have repeatedly offered a scenario of long term geological processes interspersed with (cyclic?) periods of chaos and cataclysm.

caplanmh,
As to your hypothesis, please take the time to look at the links provided, that is why they are provided.
The Delta is Missing because the crustal faults are spreading,
as measured and recorded year after year after year after year ....
Not a hypothesis ;)
meaning yes, it (EDM) may have happened there in the past.

caplanmh
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:17 am

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by caplanmh » Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:38 am

caplanmh wrote:seasmith can propose any hypotheses he favours but has done nothing to offer explanations for ......
For the second time instead of addressing the disparities- for example the lack of erosion that one should expect after supposedly millions of years, you offer - whether you prefer it to be called a hypothesis or not - another hypothesis. I am looking for an explanation for what can be observed. I am not offering a hypothesis for what can be seen to be. Your "theory" is not matched by the observation.

On reflection, what can be seen on "Io" is a claimed geyser that is travelling across "Io" spewing material into space. The velocity needed to reach escape velocity from a geyser must be phenomenal (if it is just a geyser). I also note that lots of the material falls back on "Io" down stream miles away. Is this the explanation which explains why there are mountains near Grand Canyon that are composed of loose rubble that looks surprisingly like they came from the Canyon?
I dare to make a prediction, when a satellite one day reaches "Io" that can overfly this so called geyser it will be found to have carved out a Grand Canyon. Dare seasmith make a contrary prediction?

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by seasmith » Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:38 pm

...lack of erosion that one should expect after supposedly millions of years,...
caplanmh,

You are looking for an argument in the wrong thread my friend. There are plenty threads on the forum discussing the creation of the Grand Canyon.
For the fourth time (check the thread title) this thread is about a missing delta at the head of the Sea of Cortez.
An 'alluvial fan', if you are not sure what a delta is. The mechanics are simple: crust spreads along fault lines (proven), and material sinks and is washed away by fluctuating sea levels.
For a basic primer, one might read about the Mississippi River delta and the Gulf of Mexico (a transverse fault in that case).
cheers

User avatar
starbiter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA
Contact:

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by starbiter » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:53 pm

Just about every valley in the western USA has enough sediment to explain the Grand Canyon. The Coachella Valley has 18,000 feet of the stuff.

http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/4077/
[...]



Seismic refraction profiles were established at Thousand Palms, Truckhaven, Frink, and Westmorland. These give depths to basement of 4350, 5540, 7340, and 18,300 ft respectively. The Westmorland profile establishes the depth to basement near the center of the trough.

http://g.co/maps/nnn28

Me again. The valley around Las Vegas is similar.

http://www.bssaonline.org/content/98/4/2047.abstract
[...]

A temporary broadband seismic array was deployed in the Las Vegas basin (LVB), home to one of the fastest growing communities in the United States, to investigate structure in this deep (∼5 km) sedimentary basin.


me again,
5 km = over 16,000 feet.

http://g.co/maps/y6w5a


These valleys are long and wide. The sediment is much greater than the mountains in terms of mass. Many valleys in the western USA are full of sediment. The question is not a lack of sediment.Many eroded Grand Canyons are required to account for all the sediment. Maybe there was an external source of sediment, as described in Worlds in Collision.

In my twisted mind the Grand Canyon was never full of rock. When the area was submerged during the time of cessation of earths rotation the canyon might have filled in with fresh soft sediment. As the water level subsided the sediment would have been easily flushed downstream, filling in the valleys with thousands of feet of sediment. The water will always return to the low point, the Colorado River.

The material that surrounds the the Grand Canyon is a combination of dunes and slurry runoff, IMHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8

http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/ge ... _layer.htm


michael steinbacher
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com

User avatar
starbiter
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA
Contact:

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by starbiter » Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:23 pm

I failed to mention the requirement for something to convert the fresh soft slurry runoff, and dunes into rock. That would be the river of fire, aka plasma. The area just West of Four Corners was the center of a large electric event.

http://g.co/maps/r5xnk

The effects of this were felt well past the Grand Canyon, IMO. This event may be responsible for the melting and squeezing of the rocks. The more narrow the canyon, the greater the current seems to have been. The bottom of the Canyon is Vishnu Schist. It's heavy like lead. Very metamorphic. It went deep according to the metamorphic model. Or the current was greatest at the narrow part of the canyon. Above the Schist is Granite. Then different types of sediment. But even the Schist is sediment.

http://www.utahgeology.com/fm_vishnu.php
[...]

The Vishnu Schist in the upper part of the gorge contains many pink pegmatite dikes. Many units within the schist are well foliated and may appear similar to a gneiss. Locally, relict bedding can be seen indicating a sedimentary origin. Foliation is nearly vertical. The gray-green walls of the Vishnu Schist are crisscrossed by dikes of granite. The ragged, ledgy, V-shaped character of the inner gorge is evidenced downstream.

Me again,
Just because the process wasn't an explosive thunderbolt carving the canyon doesn't mean it wasn't electric. Just more complicated, IMO.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com

caplanmh
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:17 am

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by caplanmh » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:59 am

caplanmh wrote .......lack of erosion that one should expect after supposedly millions of years,...
seasmith wrote ........... this thread is about a missing delta at the head of the Sea of Cortez. ......... crust spreads along fault lines (proven),
What seasmith refuses to address is that the lack of erosion, rather than being immaterial to his hypothesis, is fundamental. As crusts spreading is postulated over millions of years the lack of erosion demolishes seasmith's theory without further ado.

seasmith, your theory is not even mainstream, here are some quotes from promo put out by The Grand Canyon National Park.

" About 70 million years ago the Rocky Mountains began to form, pushed up as the Northern American Plate overrode the Pacific plate .................. The stage was set for the carving of Grand Canyon.

..........By five or six million years ago the Colorado River flowed across the Colorado Plateau on its way from the Rocky mountains to the Gulf of California. Each rain washed sparsely vegetated desert soils into the river. A steep gradient and heavy sediment loads created a a powerful tool for erosion. ........."

Hence the discussion is about what has happened to 1000 cubic miles of material, enough to cover the entire USA under 6 feet of rock and soil.

So sorry seasmith, no mention of the much vaunted rifting, not much support for your hypothesis from the mainstream or otherwise.

NB I have not offered any theory, just a question. what is the explanation for the lack of erosion.

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by seasmith » Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:43 pm

caplanmh,
Not sure what you are on about there, but if you are coming with some creationist visions of biblical proportion dancing in your head, then most definitely the wrong thread.
Maybe try the NAMI section at the bottom of the page
;)



? How about one million years

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by nick c » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:15 pm

Seasmith wrote:Not sure what you are on about there, but if you are coming with some creationist visions of biblical proportion dancing in your head, then most definitely the wrong thread.
We should not speculate on a "hidden agenda." We can only respond to what has been posted, caplanmh has not advocated any particular position in his/her posts. The posts have been more of a questioning nature, as such it is unfair to label him/her a "creationist" (whether or not this is actually the case), as it is a convenient way of simply dismissing him/her without having to address the issues raised. It is obvious that caplanmh is not advocating a particular theory but rather, is questioning (rightly or wrongly) the support for the consensus geological explanation.
caplanmh wrote:NB I have not offered any theory, just a question. what is the explanation for the lack of erosion.

[Keep in mind that the Electric Universe uses some of the same supporting arguments as "creationists" (example: radiometric dating of strata) without advocating a young Earth. That is because the Electric Universe position is that the Earth has undergone recent radical changes to its' surface without making any assertions as to the age of the planet. In effect, the Earth is of unspecified age with a relatively young surface.]

caplanmh
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:17 am

Re: The Case of the Missing Delta

Unread post by caplanmh » Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:14 am

Thank you nick c.
Could not have said it better myself. I can confirm I am not a creationist.

On reflection you make an interesting point. An old earth with a new surface! Given that scenario that can kind of make everybody right. Main Stream for the old earth, the EU for the new, creationism for how it got there. Hmmm.
An interesting avenue for a new thread!

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests