highest peaks on earth?

Interesting - I took a look at the excerpt location of the first link and the same paragraph mentions that Macdonnell was only as high as the Rockies. Perhaps it is just exaggeration then.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me follow through on this. What excerpt source are you looking at? This is very interesting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your first link, down the left column where you grabbed the first excerpt in your 3rd to last post.

I heard about the MacDonnell claim from a tv program about Australia sometime ago, but I definitely heard the narrator's voice say "these mountains once stood higher than Mt. Everest," which is a pretty bold claim, but also possibly in reference to some credible geological studies that I am not aware of.

Detailed info on the Macdonnell range is pretty scarce on the Internet. I tried finding out about this because yeah, it interested me a lot too but I just couldn't find anything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh yes! I'm not denying this. Only asking where you also heard this from. As stated:

"The Macdonnell Ranges were formed 300 million years ago when a large basin covered with sediment 10km [32,808 feet] deep underwent a violent upheaval," http://travel.independent.co.uk/aus...rticle28705.ece

The thing is that we know very little about the mountain ranges in Pangaea, Gondwana and Laurasia, and then before these there were the continents of Pannotis (600 mya) and then before this Rodinia (1,100 mya). As far as I know, we have absolutely no information about mountain ranges in these ciontinents at all! That's why I was so surprised to hear you mention the supposed original height of the MacDonnel Range and asked you for your source. The fact that it was higher than Everest may or not be true. Even though a basin 32,808 feet pushed up the upheavel of the MacDonnel Range, this does not necessarily mean that the resulting range was that high. The upheavel basin most likely sank somewhat downward under the opposing pressure. Therefore it is questionable. But I would think that in the past there were mountains higher than Everest.

 

Valich, you've posted this twice now, but that doesn't make it twice as relevant.

It says in your quote that the basalt and granite are related to rifting, not continental collision. Somehow, you are interpreting this to mean that:

Could you explain your reasoning?

 

Facial, estimates of heights of mountain ranges when they were at their peak (pun intended) could be made in a variety of ways.
1) Estimate the amount of sediment that has been eroded from the mountains, based upon studies of the younger sedimentary material exposed on the flanks of the mountains.
2) Where regional metamorphism has occured a temperature may be inferred from specific minerals. Match that against probable temperature gradients and the amount of material above that point may be deduced.
3) Use seismic data to determine the size of the mountain range root. From this, taking into account isostatic responses, a probable height could, again, be deduced.

All of these methods are subject to significant error and several assumptions. I have never seen a convincing case made for a specific height. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough. I have found nothing on the McDonnel range in particular. It sounds like local pride and tourist marketing hype to me.

 

The Main Front thrust (MFT), or "Himalaya Sole thrust," refers to the basal downward angle thrusting of the India Plate located at the base of the Himalayas. It produces a shear thrust and is part of what is called the India/Asia Decollement: the boundary between the basement basalt and crystalline rocks from the overlying sedimentary rock. It is part of the entire India/Asia fold-thrust-rifting belt system.

"The Himalayas were principally formed as a result of the collision between the Indian and the Asian plates. After splitting from Gondwanaland, India drifted northwards to collide with the Asian landmass about 40 million years ago. The intervening tethys ocean was closed by northwards subduction beneath southern Tibet, and the collision created the Himalayan orogenic belt. Continuing northward movement of India at a rate of about 5 cm per year over the last 40 million years has caused it to indent Asia, and the resultant massive shortening is expressed by thrusting of the northern margin of India, by faulting and earthquakes in the Himalayas and China, by rifting and faulting in Tibet, and by the uplift of the Himalayas which is still continuing at rates of upto several millimetres per year."
http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/H_0125.htm

Both basalts and granites have been found included into the overlying sedimentary rock, and, as stated, this is thought to be due to earlier volcanic "events, probably marking the separation of the Indian plate from Gondwana and the beginning of its northward drift toward Eurasia."

When two plates "collide," they either slide laterally (slip-slide) or converge (subduct or compress). In the case of the India/Asia thrust belt system there is evidence of both compression (dip-slip reverse thrust faults), folding, rifting, and subduction.

The high angle of collision front of the Himalayas created numerous faults, high heat flow, and volcanic activity. "Alpine-Himalayan belt and Antilles display the best examples of compressional tectonics. Some local compressionalenvironments were also produced along the transpressive strike-slip belts, back-arc regionsand fold-and-thrust belts. Thrusts and reverse faults are generally seen as zones of multiple faults and folds."

Source: "Dynamics of the Earth, Faults and Earthquakes" by Okan Tüysüz, ITU Eurasia Institute of Science, 2001.
http://www.eies.itu.edu.tr/Deprem/dynamics_earth.pdf.

"Frontal thrust occurs far outboard of the steep topography....The southern zone has the higher relief, rising abruptly from the Main Frontal thrust...The active 2500-km-long Himalayan arc is the type example of a continent-continent collision zone....evidence favors an episodic system operating similarly but independently within along-strike segments in which timing differences in a varying balance between uplift and erosion produce spatial differences of topographic and geologic features....

There is general continuity of tectonostratigraphic relationships along the Himalaya, consisting of five fault-bounded units:

1) Foreland basin, Indian basement, and Paleozoic platform sediments overlain by Tertiary to Holocene synorogenic sediments.

2) Sub-Himalaya, Miocene to Pleistocene synorogenic molasse overthrusting the foreland basin on the imbricated Main Frontal thrust.

3) Lesser Himalayan Sequence, mainly Paleozoic metasedimentary rocks thrust over the Sub-Himalaya on the imbricated Main Boundary thrust.

4) Greater Himalayan Sequence, high-grade metamorphic rocks and granites thrust over the Lesser Himalayan Sequence on the Main Central thrust.

5) Tibetan Sequence of Paleozoic metasedimentary rocks, distal correlatives of the Lesser Himalayan Sequence and platform sedimentary rocks, with down-to-the-north motion on the South Tibetan detachment.

Source: "How steep are the Himalaya? Characteristics and implications of along-strike topographic variations," by Chris Duncan et al., Geology: Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 75–78. http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonlin....1130/0091-7613(2003)031<0075:HSATHC>2.0.CO;2

"The tectonically significant Quaternary thrust faults at the topographic front of the Higher Himalaya...is thought to mark the transition from a region of rapid uplift in the Higher Himalayan ranges to a region of slower uplift to the south. Uplift of the Higher Himalaya during the Quaternary is not entirely due to passive uplift over a deeply buried ramp in the Himalayan sole thrust, as is commonly believed, but partially reflects active thrusting at the topographic front."

Source: "Quaternary deformation, river steepening, and heavyprecipitation at the front of the Higher Himalayan ranges," by Kip V. Hodges et al., Earth and Planetary Science Letters 220, 2004.
http://projects.crustal.ucsb.edu/nepal/publications/Hodges_etal2004.pdf

"Both the Scandinavian Caledonides and the Himalayas are results of continental collisions. Due to the different ages of these orogens and the accumulated time spans of weathering, different crustal depths are exposed in these mountain belts."

Source: "A Comparison of Geological Features from Two Zones of Continental Collision by Means of Remote Sensing and GIS Evaluation of Field Data: Examples from the Tornetrask and Mt. Everest Sections," by Gerhard Bax.
http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/geowww/hmrsc/pdf/hmrsc4/Bax_hm4.PDF

 

Lots of lovely detail, but none of it demonstrating that Mt Everest was volcanic in origin as you stated.

You are adopting the same strategy you do every time an error is pointed out. You refuse to admit the error and attempt to obfuscate the discussion by posting a mass of detail - all of it sound - bearing no relationship to the point you have been called on.
You are an intellectual cheat and liar. This thread is a perfect example of it.
It is time you cut the crap vallich. You made a mistake. Now act like a man and admit it, rather than behave like a spoilt little child. You are becoming increasingly tiresome and an embarassment to this forum.
You have no credibility with any one here who has any experience or knowledge. Why not cut your losses while you are behind, rather than totally buried?
Ethically you are the most corrupt individual posting here, for I think you are smart enough to know just how devious and dishonest you are being.
Once again I find your behaviour physically sickening. Stop it. Desist.

 

Again:

"The Himalayan range was formed when the Indian plate and Eurasian plate collided and there are remnants of volcanic activity and volcano mountains all across the Himilayas; however, the peaks of Mount Everest were probably formed by glacier activities. The mountain is still surrounded by glaciers today.

The finding of ocean-life fossils on top of Mount Everest indicate that it was not directly formed by a volcano, but rest assured that the underlying "main central thrust system" surrounding the Himalaya Mountain range was caused by an uplifting of magma. The surrounding peaks contain many rocks of volcanic origin, especially in the Tibetian region."

My above post confirms the reason why there are basalt and crystal deposits amongst the upper sedimentary rock of Everest: they are remnants of previous volcanic activity.

 

Ophiolite: Psychologically I have a very earnest, sincere and compassionate desire to try and figure out where you're coming from in order to respond respectfully and sympathetically: but I am at a loss. You seem to view people like you view rocks? Static, unchanging, inorganic pieces of material objects.

I believe in lifelong learning. As I learn, my knowledge base changes accordingly, and with that change comes an increase in understanding of the world around me, and a newer and hopefully better way of communicating that understanding to others. Am I not doing that on this forum?

Words can kill. Are you a murderer? Belittling and constanly criticizing a person is immoral, evil, and wrong. Yet you persist on doing so. And in your condescending replies - always void of useful progressive or productive content - you are taking up valuable space on these forum threads that others, who have a sincere desire to learn, must wade through to get to the facts and achieve a greater understanding.

Why do you continue to behave this way?

 

Wrong.

Correct.

The crustal rocks are less dense than the deeper rocks (That is why they are "floating" on top of the deeper rocks.) As the Indian plated "dives" below the Eurasian plate, it is like adding ice to the bottom of a floating ice cube. That is part of the ice cube will rise higher in the sea as lighter material is placed below it. That is why icebergs stick up above the sea level and why the Himalayan Mountains stick up above the average surface of the Earth - They have a lot of old, less-dense, Indian plate below them, just as an iceberg has a lot of lighter material below it.

As for the magma / volcanic activity, yes it is real, but due to the fact that old Indian plate material is being melted as it goes deeper and this "liquid" is under tremendous pressure and the "cap" holding it down is not without flaws, cracks etc. so some comes up to the surface again.

 

Valich, please help me out.

I asked you to elaborate, but you just reposted the same stuff, plus a lot more extraneous information.

Igneous and sedimentary lithologies were both involved in the orogenesis. The igneous rocks were formed prior to the collision, during rifting. Sediments were laid down in the closing Tethys basin. Neither process was directly responsible for the mountain building.

Granites formed by partial melting during the collision. These were a product of the orogenesis. It is not accurate to say:

Remember, as a general rule of thumb in our universe, Cause precedes effect.

 

I'm confused that you continue to claim this, despite at least one of your posts actually containing the sentence:

 

Wholly incorrect. I view you in that way because you have given me no reason to view you otherwise.

No. You have persistently refused to acknowledge when you have made a mistake. In this thread I, BillyT and Laika (much more diplomatically) have all pointed out your error, but you go blithely on ignoring this, posting irrelevant data to obfuscate your error. You have been doing this in every post in which we have crossed swords. I have seen you doing it in other posts in which I have chosen not to become involved in. You show no indication of ever changing. Prove me wrong. Change.

Persistently ignoring one's own errors; consistently adopting a dishonest way of handling criticism; balndly pretending the fault lies with others; these are not evil. They are stupid, ignorant, unethical and rude. Yet this is exactly what you have been persistently guilty of.
I make no apology whatsoever for the attacks I have made on your unacceptable attitude and behaviour on this forum. I have told you repeatedly that I will stop the criticism when you stop the flagrant intellectual dishonesty.

Once again. Valich you post things that are in gross error. This does not help others to improve their understanding. You then refuse to acknowledge your error. You are corrupting the scientific approach, you are distorting facts, you are misinterpreting scientific results.
You really are a presumptuous specimen to accuse me of wasting space when all that is required is for you to admit when you have made a mistake.

Here is a repeat from another post. Why do you keep asking me the question and ignoring my answer. What don't you understand. What is your mental problem. Tell me you have a recognised mental illness and I'll back off. In the meantime:

I have told you ad nauseam exactly what my problem with you is. Here is a further brief summary. Read it this time and understand it you moron.
1. You repeatedly post erroneous information.
2. You give it a veneer of authenticity by using relevant terminology and quoting or citing research that is in the same field as the matter under discussion.
3. When corrected you do not accept your error, but try to wriggle out in an unseemly fashion by posting unrelated detail and denying your original claim.
4. In short, you misinterpret, misunderstand and misrepresent basic scientific facts, then deny it
5. Such intellectual dishonesty is not only harming yourself, but more importantly could mislead other into scientific misunderstandings based upon you nonsensical claims.
6. Consequently I shall continue to correct as many of your errors as I run across, when I run across them. My repeated requests to the moderators that you be banned have fallen on deaf ears, so I shall police your lies until either you cease them, you get banned or I get banned.
Is that clear enough for you yet.

 

Just another point on this.

Words cannot kill, except in phrases such as "Front rank, fire."
You are belittling yourself by your own behaviour.
The words of someone whose opinion you have zero regard for can hardly cause you any harm, so why do you find my words so upsetting? Might it be because you know I am right?

 

Formation of the Himalyas and Rifting:

The formation of the Himalayas is a highly complex. The original formation of the High Himalayas occurred as a result of plate compression and deformation of the Indian plates with the Eurasian Plate (Indo-Asia collision), and then subduction of the Indian plate (indirectly caused from thermal relaxation) during many geological periods. The tops of the peaks themselves were formed by glaciation and the ceaseless denudation (weathering and erosion) that continues today. Mt. Everest and the surrounding mountain peaks are the source of some of the largest and longest rivers on Earth and have the highest concentration of glaciers anywhere except for the polar regions. Rifting is due to both plate separation, continental rifts, and anticlinal folding (folds sloping downward in the opposite direction), among other orogeny processes.

There is rifting in the Northwest Himalayas in Pakistan and Tibet due to the interactions of three geological areas: the Indian plate in the south, the Kohistan- Ladakh magmatic arc in the middle, and the Karakoram plate in the north. This produces rifting, collision, deformation and metamorphism within the mountain belts in the northwest area.

There is rifting in the Eastern Himalayas in India due to continental rifts: elongated depressions between geologic faults called grabens. “In India, the Kutch graben trends eastward from the coast [forming] the Reelfoot rift, initially formed during the Cambrian (about 600 million years ago), but numerous small bodies of alkalic igneous rocks indicate renewed extension during the Early Permian (about 290 million years ago) and Late Cretaceous (80-100 million years ago, at the end of the Mesozoic).” This is the same type of rifting that causes the earthquakes in the New Madrid Regions west of the Appalachians. (http://clifty.com/hazard/archives/1010206-152122.html)

In fact, there is rifting all along the Himalayas because it forms an arc (back-arc rifts). The arc causes parallel rifting as it spreads. The reason that the Himalayas are formed in arc is because the northern edge of the Indian plate, originally formed from the separation of Gondwana, is shaped like an arc. In fact there is even remnant rifting attributed to the original East-West separation of Gondwana 210 mya.

North of the High Himalayas, there is rifting in the Tibetan plateau due to strike-slip faults and the consequental North-South rift valleys in the the Indus Suture Zone, ISZ (or Indus-Yarlung-Tsangpo Suture Zone). This area “defines the zone of collision between the Indian Plate and the Ladakh Batholith (also Transhimalaya or Karakoram-Lhasa Block)….The Indus Suture Zone represents the northern limit of the Himalaya. Further to the North is the so-called Transhimalaya, or more locally Ladakh Batholith, which corresponds essentially to an active margin of Andean type. Widespread volcanism in this volcanic arc was caused by the melting of the mantle at the base of the Tibetan bloc, triggered by the dehydration of the subducting Indian oceanic crust.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Himalaya)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Active rifting and volcanic activity takes place in China in the North China Plane rift system that occurred after the Indo-Asia collision. Studies have linked this rifting and volcanism in eastern China to the subducting Pacific plate away from the Eurasian continent. The stress transmission and basal decollement from this rift system generates earthquakes in East China and Taiwan. “Taiwan is a moderately dipping (20° to 30°) thrust fault away from the deformation front.” (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/5475/2346)

Other rifts are attributed to the south-directed Main Central Thrust: the Peshawar and Jalalabad Basins. The Kashmir Basins of Pakistan and northwestern India near Kathmandu contain over a kilometer of sediment and formed as a result of the Main Boundary Thrust.

Subduction of India under the Eurasian Plate began 60-70 mya. The Main Central Thrust (MCT) formed 40 mya. The Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) - the second thrust - formed about 20 mya.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Geological map of the Himalayas showing fault-bound tectonic zones: HHSZ - High Himalaya Sedimentary Zone, HHCZ - High Himalaya Crystalline Zone, LHZ - Lesser Himalaya Zone, SHZ - Sub-Himalaya Zone. Main Frontal Thrust (MFT), Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) and Main Central Thrust (MCT) are crustal-scale thrusts. South Tibet Detachment System (STDS) is a low-angle normal fault. Indus-Tsangpo Suture Zone (ITSZ) marks the site of the continent-continent collision zone. Note that the small leucogranite plutons occur in two linear belts close to the contact between HHCZ and HHSZ and within HHSZ. (http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2003/11/05/)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) and the Main Central Thrust (MCT) are reverse faults, the Southern Tibet Detachment (STD) is a normal thrust. In between MCT and STD, a wedge of material is thought to be extruded. (b) Enlargement of the left part of (a): reverse view, (c) - (e) The geometry of the wedge as well as the topography of the Moho (lower boundary of the mafic lower crust).(http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2002/7/wosnitza/paper7.html)

Further References:

Three distinct geological tectonic domains and plates in Pakistan, see:
http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/2003/11/02/

Neo-tectonics of the Northwest Himalayas, see: http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/tectonics/nanga_parbat/parbatepsl.pdf

Rifting in the Tibetan Plateau, see: http://tectonics.geo.ku.edu/dewane3.html

The “thermal uplift of the Neo-tethyan break away phase of rifting, which precedes the volcanism of the Panjal traps in Himalayas (300-270 Ma),” see: http://www-sst.unil.ch/research/plate_tecto/subsidence_main.htm

The Himalyas as a series of mountain chains, see: http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/H_0125.htm

 

And this latest post of yours (so jam-packed full of freshly googled information, precious and holy TRUTH!!) answers the questions that have been asked of you about your claim that " the underlying "main central thrust system" surrounding the Himalaya Mountain range was caused by an uplifting of magma" how?

The question is a simple one, Valich.
How do you explain your claim of 'uplifting of magma' being behind the formation of the Himalayas?
Or do you retract your statment?

Answer the question.

 

The Himalayas were formed from the limestone thrust sheets, right?

I don't think magma played any role in their formation except for isostatic uplift from the Ganges & tributaries.

 

Sorry about the huge .jpg image file. I had no idea that it would take up so much space.

No. They are not all formed by "limestone thrust sheets." It's a very complex process (see everything I posted above). You're referring to the yellow band of limestone that mountaineers encounter on the way up as they climb Mt. Everest. Yes, this was a marine layer of limestone from the ancient Tethys Ocean that was forced upward from the Indo-Asia plate collision, but underlying this layer are metamorphosized, black gneiss, folded and layered rock: a clear indication of magma activity.

Again, anytime two plates meet, whether it be convergence, divergence, or transform slip-side, there's going to be extensive heat built up causing magma formations, either through compression, upheavels, intrusions, friction shear forces, folding, uplifting mantle magma uprising, etc.

 

The upper portions of the Himalaya Mountains consist of sedimentary rock but they contain pockets of basalts and granite. Basalts can only be formed from volcanic activity. Granite is also an igneous rock and has to be formed from magma.