(Slightly modified version).
In the first post we observe that we usually see the upper surface of a mountain because of small movements on high-angle faults. These high-angle faults occur in two sets almost perpendicular to each other. Fig 5 of the page 297 depicts the way the domes formed. The mountains themselves are tectonic domes.
The erosion of the domes will result in bringing older rocks to higher elevations than the younger ones. In the Alps several nappes were "discovered" because the high-angle faults were not taken into account. The same thing occurs in sea mounts, that is dome-like structures occurring under the sea. My conclusion comes from the observation of the sea from boats and the physiographic diagram ofNorth Atlantic Ocean by Heezen & Tharp (1968). On the ocean floor, Vine & Mathews, (1960) and others, described ”zones of expansion” and paid attention to the magnetic polarity of the volcanic stripes which occur along the mid-Oceanic Atlantic ridge and the mid-Pacific oceanic rise. The suggested boundaries of figure 1 are
arbitrary because the whole of the Earth
is fragmended by two sets of of
high-angle of small dip-slip displacement.
The formation of domes primarily does not exhibit expansion, once only parallel transformation of the blocks takes place. Later on when the rocks uplift they become unconfined and they relax and slip down, but this is a superficial expansion nothing to do with internal structure of the Earth.
The erosion of the domes will result in bringing older rocks to higher elevations than the younger ones. In the Alps several nappes were "discovered" because the high-angle faults were not taken into account. The same thing occurs in sea mounts, that is dome-like structures occurring under the sea. My conclusion comes from the observation of the sea from boats and the physiographic diagram of
The formation of domes primarily does not exhibit expansion, once only parallel transformation of the blocks takes place. Later on when the rocks uplift they become unconfined and they relax and slip down, but this is a superficial expansion nothing to do with internal structure of the Earth.
Once there is no expansion there is no necessity to invoke plate-consuming areas, that is subduction. Anyway the subduction as it is suggested is not “consistent with the laws of physics and common sense”, (I am quoting the words of Lawrence S. Myers). How can a light material intrude to a heavier one? On the other hand the driving force suggested “ the convection currents” are not consistent with the solid state of the mantle and crust.
A strong argument in favour of plate tectonics, are the direct geodetic techniques measurements (GPS,SLR and VLBI,). The very long baseline interferometry(VLBI) showed that from Australia , Yaragadee to Arequipa , Peru Himalayas is primarily the result of successive faulting, and not the result of collision .
Conclusion
If one does not consider the movements on numerous high-angle faults of small dip-slip displacement in two sets then the field geologist has to invoke nappe structures and major unconformities. Which, in turn, invoke expansion of the earth surface and subduction and plate tectonics.
REFERENCES
1) Avdis, (1986). « Contribution to the geology of Mykonos ». Geological and geophysical research (special issue)
2) Heezen & Tharp (1968). “Phyiagrsiographic diagram of North Atlantic Ocean .
3) Lawrence
4) Vine & Mathews, (1960) “ Magnetic anomalies over Oceanic ridges”
Nature v.199 p947-949
