highest peaks on earth?

Magma is molten mantle. Lava is magma when it errupts onto the surface: only a difference in semantics.

Actually, it referred to as the Idaho-Montana Thrust Fault "System". Sorry for leaving out the word "system."

The smell of sulphur is indicative of molten minerals below. Magma comes in a variety of mineral compositions.

Since rhyolite in the Northwest SRP has been found to be younger than older rhyolite in the Northeast SRP, this is indicative of multiple magma chambers arising from the mantle plume. The central Craters of the Moon erupted a mere 2,000 years ago: now the hot spot is hundreds of miles to the Northwest under Yellowstone, yet the last volcanic erruption in Yellowstone was 600,000 years ago. What does this indicate to you? To me it seems that the plume protrudes in different areas in different geological periods: not just stays stationary as the plate moves over it.

As the article you cites states: "Juan de Fuca, Rivera, and Cocos Plates as small remnants" of the much larger Farallon oceanic plate. They are peices that were broken off. For the sake of brevity - as you can clearly see how long the post had already become - I decided not to include this. You are absolutely correct. If I posted any over a longer post, people would probably be inclined not to read it. I'm not out to write a dissertation. I'm relating my personal experiences of what I've seen and observed in these areas and backed them up with what I've read.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Magma is not molten mantle. Magma is molten or partially molten rock material- the source is not always the mantle. If magma were solely mantle derived all lava would be basalt and all intrusives would be gabbro.

The smell of sulphur is indicative of only one thing, the presence of sulphur. Many shales contain several % sulfide- passing hot water through such shales, regardless of the source of heat or water, will create the smell you refer to.

The Juan de Fuca, Cocos and Rivera plates are not pieces that broke off the Farallon plate, they are the remnants of the Farallon plate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If magma was strictly molten Earth's core, then it would consist almost entirely of iron and nickel.

When I pick up a slice of shale, I smell no sulphur - unless it is liquified (molten).

"Remnants" can mean remaining pieces of the whole. You're contradictory yourself. You cited a USGS article that also calls these pieces of the Farallon Plate: "small remnants."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At no point does doodah say anything about deriving magma from the core. He would not be so foolish.
Are you unaware that magmas can be generated through the melting of continental crustal rocks?

Your sensory limitations are interesting, but hardly relevant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Then Ophiolite posts that "he is not saying magma is derived directly from the core."

"NO," and I never suggested or said that it was either! So why then did he post this comment Ophiolite? I never said "magma were soley mantle derived," but he's implying that this is what I said or meant! Wake up Ophiolite. You're interrupting the rational, knowledgeable, logical progression of this forum.

What the hell is your problem: "YOUR sensory limitations are interesting, but hardly relevant." Likewise, your comments, AS USUAL, are dregrading, belittling, defaming, absoluting void of any content, and bring the entire integrity of all these forums down. If you have nothing intelligent to contribute: please do not post anything at all!

 

He's the one who likes
all our pretty songs and he
likes to sing along and he
likes to shoot his gun but he
knows not what it means,
knows not what it means when I say yeah..."

Wait for it....

 

No, this was not the article that "I" cited, it was the article that the reply poster cited. Check again.

I have no idea what your italicized poem means. Would you care to explain?

And then in ever so small hidden print "Wait for it...."

Is this a threat? I live day-by-day and have no time to wait for anything. What is it that you want me to "wait for"? Or are you too much of a coward to explain?

 

You're conceding on the 'earth's core' issue then?
As to the 'remnants' thing. The problem isn't the article, but rather your interpretation of remnants as pieces broken off. Rather, the whole plate broke up and only remnants remain.

My poem? Just a little song is all. In Bloom, by Nirvana. Do you sing along with the radio too, Valich?

As to 'wait for it...'. Well. You disappointed me. I was waiting for the 'you're stalking me! You have nothing positive to say. You only criticize and blah blah blah...'

Wait for it....

 

"Conceding?" Conceding what? Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

There is no issue here except the one that you want to create, just to be argumentative and cause trouble - as usual. Are you and Ophiolite teaming up? I mean have you teamed up on breaking up another forum and bringing it down. Because, here we go again: down, down, down.

The Earth's core is 80% iron with the resat made up mostly entirely of nickel. When you smell sulphur in a hot spring, that indicated liquified mineral (sulphur) below. It is indicative of a mantle magma. When a straight plume comes up from the Earth's outer core, it liquifies the surrounding mantle rocks and takes it up along with it as magma in the process. Magma is molten rock. This is why all magma has differing composition. Do you understand this? Quote anything that I said to the contrary.

Sciforums are for the Intelligent Community and there is no place for your little songs to be posted on this forum: that's whacko.

Again, kindly explain what you mean by "Wait for it..." as I find this to be both a confusing post or else some kind of a threat. Are you threatening me?

 

Valich- you really crack me up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You're pulling my chain, right?

If not, you've truly made an art form out of adding a few select facts to a load of erroneous assumptions and coming up with some outrageous conclusions.

As Ophiolite pointed out, I don't recall ever suggesting the core as a source of magma? If I did, please point it out so I can apologize for making such an error.

Amazing! Did you acquire your acute olfactory sense through practice, or were you born that way? Actually, it's really not that amazing, since 100% of the human population wouldn't be able to smell the sulfur in the piece of shale either. But that doesn't mean that there isn't sulfur in the shale. I have a challenge for you- pick up a piece of pyrite (iron sulfide) and take a big whiff- did you smell any sulfur? I didn't think so.
You don't have to "liquify (melt)" sulfur to release that telltale rotten egg smell (I wonder how the chickens liquify sulfur?). All you have to do is take it into solution, add a bit of oxygen, and release it into the atmosphere. Hot water does a great job of taking sulfur into solution and transporting it to the surface- regardless of the source of the water, the heat or the sulfur. And then there's the whole biological sulfur cycle in hot springs...

Maybe I'm a little slow, but I don't quite understand your statement. Are you saying magma has "differeing composition" because it starts as a "straight plume" from the core? Or because it "liquifies" the mantle on the way up? Or some other mechanism?
What do you mean by "liquify"? turn into a liquid by melting? If so, are you saying that the plume- starting at the core, turns the whole column of mantle above it into a liquid?

 

As you have no doubt discerned by now doodah, vallich means that he does not know what he is talking about. Elsewhere he claims to have five degrees, though he has not chosen to share with us what subjects these academic jewels were awarded in. From his writing style, his inability to admit to error without persistent work on the part of others, his incipient paranoia, and a variety of smaller clues, I suspect he is a nineteen year old student with a high IQ, few social skills and frustration at the lack of challenge in his first year courses. The sooner he gets laid the better it will be for all of us.

 

Again, another stalking post, totally void of any content, consisting of degrading and belittleting remarks, that tend to bring down the integrity of all the forums on SciForum: the Intelligent Community.

 

I think somebody broke your chain and you have nothing else to pull.

Yes, of course, magma has different compositions. Hot spots in magma chambers in the lithosphere (upper layer of the mantle) melt surrounding rock with all sorts of mineral composition. Why would you think otherwise? Do you have a straight singular chemical composition of what "magma" is that you'd like to share with us? Please do. Thanks.

 

If I get one more report from anyone, Im just going to start closing threads... Period.

 

Tristan, can you offer any suggestions as to how we can conduct a meaningful discussion on this, or any other thread, when one party pursues a consistent practice of posting factual errors, then refuses to acknowledge them.
Yes, I could be more polite and eliminate the more personal jibes, but in the absence of any visible effort on the part of a certain other to change his unacceptable habits it is difficult to restrain the frustration.

 

A review of this and many other threads will reveal a remarkable phenomena - almost all the posters are out of step with V.

Do you not have some other alternatives to closing threads?

 

You finally admit that magma does not have to be mantle derived- which has been my whole point. Please realize that most volcanic/magmatic systems do not require hot spots, especially ones originating at the core-mantle boundary.

Your statement is pretty unequivocal. Magma that is derived solely from the mantle will end up as either basalt (extrusive) or gabbro (intrusive)- which is the reason that you don't find rhyolite or granite at the mid-oceanic ridges.

 

You're confusing the posts. I never said that magma "does not have to be mantle derived." The fact is that most plate tectonics occur because of mantle convection currents that circulate within the mantle, but there are also straight magma plumes that come straight up out of the outer core through the lithosphere that produce hot spots. The term "hot spot" is quite ambiguous in geology, but nevertheless, a hot spot can be formed from a straight plume from the outer core or from curculating convection currents in the mantle or through any number of means of plate tectonic actions that generate pressure and heat.

Where are you getting these misunderstandings from? Ask a question and you'll get a straight answer. But you're rewording or putting words in my mouth that I never said. I think you have a short-term memory problem.

Is there something about geology that you'd like to ask me that I can help you with? I'd be more than happy too if I can?

 

MUhahahahahahahaaahahahahaa!!
Fucking troll.
Your arrogance grows every day, does it not?

"Is there something that you, the geologist, would like to ask me, the internet troll and professional ignoramus, about geology? Next I'm going to teach my grandmother to suck eggs...."

Valich.
You are too fucking much.

By the way.
You're becoming way too obvious in your trolling techniques.
Even down to the ignoring a thread where you've been shown up for several days before responding as if you were somehow in charge rather than being shown as the tool.
Tool.

(And. Yes. My post has no value except to criticise you, the troll. Muahaa! You should be banned.)

So. You maintain your ignorant assumption that magma is molten mantle? That no magma comes from any source but the mantle? Yes or no.

 

In your own words, then, Valich, is all magma derived from the mantle (i.e. "Magma is molten mantle")?

A simple question.