There's a fun article in Washington University (St. Louis) "Newsroom" about Madagascar tectonics: "What's up with Madagascar?" "...stretching and thinning the crust on the island’s west coast before it finally snapped off..." "snapped off" = transform faulting. "stretching" = transitional crust, and the locus for deep basins like the Gulf of Mexico Basin. Is the term "geosyncline" no longer used? Because of the obsolete theories associated with it?
Ok good you covered the rifting stages around Greenland due to the forcing of the Icelandic hot spot that said there is evidence that there is an older picture predating its passage through Greenland and Elsmere island specifically what is known as the High Arctic large Igneous Province that began to form around 130 Ma and seems to have driven/fueled the vigorous seafloor spreading responsible for making much of the Arctic "ocean" via the extinct Alpha ridge system (I'd argue it is more of a restricted interior seaway from the incomplete break up of Laurasia mind you than an "ocean" but I digress) The HALIP notably played a critical role in the formation of Svalbard yet another set of those weirdly stranded islands within the arctic circle. I should note that this is one of a number of hotspots which shows a slow but persistent nonzero independent drifting motion from the overlying lithosphere which seems to be related to deeper structures within Earth's deep interior, they aren't actually stationary just slow moving. I don't know nearly enough about Madagascar to comment on it.
Fascinating. Id love to hear your thoughts on the drivers of the breakup of Pangea. Subduction to the west seems to be west to east, so there wouldn't be any slab pull pulling N America westwards? Meanwhile at the far side of the Teyths, there is subduction there going west to east. So, is the formation of the North Atlantic due to a combination of (1) far field subduction at the north Tethys (2) hot spot plume push along with (3) some trench roll back of the west of N America and eventually (4) ridge push in the N Atlantic? Or is it something different? Id love to hear your thoughts!
I don’t know if you got my message on my channel what I said is that the lake I grew up next to was drained way down to kill off the carp I. It. People claim they found agates there and the whole lake is a gravel bottom.
The East Mariana Basin has been drilled and returns Cretaceous ages (around the time of the Cretaceous Normal Superchron 121-83Ma) when it is projected from magnetic lineaments to be ~180Ma. This topic is fully ignored in all global plate models while magnetic lineaments are fully relied on. With regularity, the age of the crust is taken for granted to be ~180Ma in spite of the fact that drill samples--the physical evidence from the region, where they even returned and tried to drill deeper but couldn't find anything Jurassic in age--are not returning remotely similar ages of the oceanic crust. The mere belief that the crust is older is sufficient for this topic to be just swept under the rug in spite of the incapacity to find actual evidence to support the conclusion. More, no one even mentions the drill samples when describing the oceanic crust of the western Pacific. It just is ~180Ma, according to these models like Muller et al. It is fully ignored and no one even acknowledges the fact of the matter that these drill samples demonstrate otherwise when expressing their global map oceanic lithosphere age maps which demonstrates they have not even considered the evidence in drawing their conclusions. These conclusions are referenced constantly such as in your video here, and regularly done so with no concerns that the map might have major flaws that are actually in the literature already demonstrable as needing accounted for. Without this data actually accounted for, the models of the Pacific are highly contentious because they are ignoring actual drill samples in favor of extrapolation. Which means we as a collective are ignoring actual drill samples in favor of extrapolation because it is embedded in these oceanic lithospheric models. But its not actually true--the drill samples demonstrate the western Pacific is more complex than these models recognize, where they effectively make it a single continuous plate and that's that. Another issue is the Pinon Formation of Ecuador which has been shown to originate with the Ontong Java Nui complex as part of it. This formation is demonstrated to have formed in place and not to have been transported thousands of miles to reach Ecuador and be deposited, in spite of the fact that models place Ontong Java thousands of miles away. These models do not account for the Pinon formation's in situ nature which demonstrate that the Ontong Java Nui complex was significantly closer to South America than is acknowledged in modern geology, in spite of the evidence that it is the case. The Pinon formation is one of the strongest PROOFS that the Earth expanded and does not function under plate tectonics. Another known issue recognized in Plate tectonics is the Alice Springs Orogeny. There is no consensus or accepted view on how this orogeny, exactly centered in the Australian plate and far from its margins, exists. It is largely incompatible with plate tectonics and has remained an enigma.
I think you are looking in the wrong spot for the rift between Madagascar and Africa. It is my understanding that it rifted apart from the NW, from Kenya and Somalia. That is what it shows in the Scotese Model you use. You can't "see" it on google because its covered in sediment. I two thought it came from Mozambique for the longest time.
Take the ocean age map and remove the colors starting at the youngest. All the continents pull together. Africa/Europe and North and South America are easy to see. Look around Australia and Antarctica, it's fairly easy to see there as well. The pacific is where things get harder to see on this flat map. Use a globe model and it's easier to see. What are you seeing? The earth expanded. There was never a Pangea.
The earth did not expand. The plates did not separate according to the patterns of an inflated ballon. Plus we have at least two earlier supercontinents. Rodinia and Nuna. We can model plate tectonics. We can reconstruct pre Pangea locations of continents. There is no mechanism that would cause the earth to inflate.
Gonna re-watch this in a bit with my Geology notebook to take notes! Always happy to see your educational videos like this!
😊👍
If we keep it up soon there won't be any ice at the pole either. I personally think a blue water event is imminent.
It's not "we" it's earth. It's nature. Sea level was higher than now in Roman warm period. Was definitely less sra ice.
There's a fun article in Washington University (St. Louis) "Newsroom" about Madagascar tectonics: "What's up with Madagascar?" "...stretching and thinning the crust on the island’s west coast before it finally snapped off..." "snapped off" = transform faulting. "stretching" = transitional crust, and the locus for deep basins like the Gulf of Mexico Basin.
Is the term "geosyncline" no longer used? Because of the obsolete theories associated with it?
Geosyncline does still appear from time to time. It is fading
Ok good you covered the rifting stages around Greenland due to the forcing of the Icelandic hot spot that said there is evidence that there is an older picture predating its passage through Greenland and Elsmere island specifically what is known as the High Arctic large Igneous Province that began to form around 130 Ma and seems to have driven/fueled the vigorous seafloor spreading responsible for making much of the Arctic "ocean" via the extinct Alpha ridge system (I'd argue it is more of a restricted interior seaway from the incomplete break up of Laurasia mind you than an "ocean" but I digress) The HALIP notably played a critical role in the formation of Svalbard yet another set of those weirdly stranded islands within the arctic circle. I should note that this is one of a number of hotspots which shows a slow but persistent nonzero independent drifting motion from the overlying lithosphere which seems to be related to deeper structures within Earth's deep interior, they aren't actually stationary just slow moving.
I don't know nearly enough about Madagascar to comment on it.
Thanks for commenting! Well done!
Fascinating. Id love to hear your thoughts on the drivers of the breakup of Pangea.
Subduction to the west seems to be west to east, so there wouldn't be any slab pull pulling N America westwards?
Meanwhile at the far side of the Teyths, there is subduction there going west to east.
So, is the formation of the North Atlantic due to a combination of (1) far field subduction at the north Tethys (2) hot spot plume push along with (3) some trench roll back of the west of N America and eventually (4) ridge push in the N Atlantic?
Or is it something different? Id love to hear your thoughts!
I should
I don’t know if you got my message on my channel what I said is that the lake I grew up next to was drained way down to kill off the carp I. It. People claim they found agates there and the whole lake is a gravel bottom.
No I missed that!
I'd like to see a discussion of India. ISTR it was moving about 20 cm/yr on it's way to Asia. That's really fast. How/why so fast?
The East Mariana Basin has been drilled and returns Cretaceous ages (around the time of the Cretaceous Normal Superchron 121-83Ma) when it is projected from magnetic lineaments to be ~180Ma. This topic is fully ignored in all global plate models while magnetic lineaments are fully relied on. With regularity, the age of the crust is taken for granted to be ~180Ma in spite of the fact that drill samples--the physical evidence from the region, where they even returned and tried to drill deeper but couldn't find anything Jurassic in age--are not returning remotely similar ages of the oceanic crust.
The mere belief that the crust is older is sufficient for this topic to be just swept under the rug in spite of the incapacity to find actual evidence to support the conclusion. More, no one even mentions the drill samples when describing the oceanic crust of the western Pacific. It just is ~180Ma, according to these models like Muller et al. It is fully ignored and no one even acknowledges the fact of the matter that these drill samples demonstrate otherwise when expressing their global map oceanic lithosphere age maps which demonstrates they have not even considered the evidence in drawing their conclusions. These conclusions are referenced constantly such as in your video here, and regularly done so with no concerns that the map might have major flaws that are actually in the literature already demonstrable as needing accounted for.
Without this data actually accounted for, the models of the Pacific are highly contentious because they are ignoring actual drill samples in favor of extrapolation. Which means we as a collective are ignoring actual drill samples in favor of extrapolation because it is embedded in these oceanic lithospheric models. But its not actually true--the drill samples demonstrate the western Pacific is more complex than these models recognize, where they effectively make it a single continuous plate and that's that.
Another issue is the Pinon Formation of Ecuador which has been shown to originate with the Ontong Java Nui complex as part of it. This formation is demonstrated to have formed in place and not to have been transported thousands of miles to reach Ecuador and be deposited, in spite of the fact that models place Ontong Java thousands of miles away. These models do not account for the Pinon formation's in situ nature which demonstrate that the Ontong Java Nui complex was significantly closer to South America than is acknowledged in modern geology, in spite of the evidence that it is the case. The Pinon formation is one of the strongest PROOFS that the Earth expanded and does not function under plate tectonics.
Another known issue recognized in Plate tectonics is the Alice Springs Orogeny. There is no consensus or accepted view on how this orogeny, exactly centered in the Australian plate and far from its margins, exists. It is largely incompatible with plate tectonics and has remained an enigma.
Thank you! We need to fit all the pieces together. I was not aware of this. I thank you!
I think you are looking in the wrong spot for the rift between Madagascar and Africa. It is my understanding that it rifted apart from the NW, from Kenya and Somalia. That is what it shows in the Scotese Model you use. You can't "see" it on google because its covered in sediment.
I two thought it came from Mozambique for the longest time.
Take the ocean age map and remove the colors starting at the youngest. All the continents pull together. Africa/Europe and North and South America are easy to see. Look around Australia and Antarctica, it's fairly easy to see there as well. The pacific is where things get harder to see on this flat map. Use a globe model and it's easier to see. What are you seeing? The earth expanded. There was never a Pangea.
The earth did not expand. The plates did not separate according to the patterns of an inflated ballon. Plus we have at least two earlier supercontinents. Rodinia and Nuna.
We can model plate tectonics. We can reconstruct pre Pangea locations of continents. There is no mechanism that would cause the earth to inflate.