Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Riaan

The formation of earth’s submarine canyons

17 posts in this topic

Dear all,

You may remember my Terra-Australis=Atlantis theory that I have previously posted on this forum. My argument is that the ocean floor around Australia and New Zealand must have been above sea level before the impact of a comet forced it 4000 m below sea level. As proof of this I argued that the Bounty Trough canyon could not have been formed by turbidity currents, but only by rushing water. This theory was shot down by a simple argument - were the submarine canyons all around the world then also above sea level at the time of the impact? Certainly not.

I very recently realized that the most logical explanation for the formation of the submarine canyons on the continental shelves is that they were formed when the earth was still too hot for the oceans to exist and a cycle of evaporation, condensation and precipitation formed the canyons as shown here.

What do you think of the idea? If you know any geologists familiar with theories on this topic, would you be as kind as to ask them about this?

Riaan

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Yes, but not how it was formed as far as I can recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Dear all,

You may remember my Terra-Australis=Atlantis theory that I have previously posted on this forum. My argument is that the ocean floor around Australia and New Zealand must have been above sea level before the impact of a comet forced it 4000 m below sea level. As proof of this I argued that the Bounty Trough canyon could not have been formed by turbidity currents, but only by rushing water. This theory was shot down by a simple argument - were the submarine canyons all around the world then also above sea level at the time of the impact? Certainly not.

I very recently realized that the most logical explanation for the formation of the submarine canyons on the continental shelves is that they were formed when the earth was still too hot for the oceans to exist and a cycle of evaporation, condensation and precipitation formed the canyons as shown here.

What do you think of the idea? If you know any geologists familiar with theories on this topic, would you be as kind as to ask them about this?

Riaan

This idea doesn't work well for two areas I can think of. One being the large underwater channel north/northeast of Maine which would have more to do with the large outflow of water and glacial ice at the end of the last glacial period. The other would be just inside the Straits of Gibraltar which would have been the result of the end of the Messinian Salinity Crisis some 5-6 million years ago. Neither of which has anything to do with the formation of the earth billions of years ago.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very recently realized that the most logical explanation for the formation of the submarine canyons on the continental shelves is that they were formed when the earth was still too hot for the oceans to exist and a cycle of evaporation, condensation and precipitation formed the canyons as shown here.

Are you aware that the formation of the oceans dates back to 4.4 billion years, that is little more than 100 million years after the formation of the Earth itself? and that that was before any continent existed? The first continents appeared in the early Archean, and most of these first continents have been destroyed repeatedly since then. What is left of these early continents forms the basis of the present cratons, that are situated well inside the continents, not on the margins. Most of the continental shelves and continental margins are fairly recent geologically speaking, and there is no way any of the canyons in the continental slopes could have been formed at the time of the formation of the oceans.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon this sideways question...what is the origin of the motion of tectonic plates? What imparted momentum to them in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon this sideways question...what is the origin of the motion of tectonic plates? What imparted momentum to them in the first place?

Mantle convection is still considered, as far as I know, the main driving force of this movement; but it's probably influenced also by other mechanisms such as gravity and tidal forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mantle convection is still considered, as far as I know, the main driving force of this movement; but it's probably influenced also by other mechanisms such as gravity and tidal forces.

Earth north pole becomes south pole,magnetism switch why? We know only tiny fraction of geological proces.

About plate tectonics on other hand we knows a lot.

It all started with Abramelin country man 16 century Dutch Flemish Abraham Ortilius who questioned how Africas west coats fits with South America.

(16 and 17 century is one of interesting periods in human history due Dutch republic)

After him Benjamin Franklin, Alfred Wegener, Admiral Hess, my countryman Andrija Mohorovčić, Motonori Matuyama gave stamp on theory we knows as plate tectonics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And in a sense plate tectonics theory is legacy, good sideeffect of WW2.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but not how it was formed as far as I can recall.

Yes, and in that thread you also asked a couple of times, lol. And I told you how these canyons were formed. Just click on the link, and read on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in a sense plate tectonics theory is legacy, good sideeffect of WW2.

[Hi The L!]

I don't follow you here. What?

Earth north pole becomes south pole,magnetism switch why? We know only tiny fraction of geological proces.

About plate tectonics on other hand we knows a lot.

It all started with Abramelin country man 16 century Dutch Flemish Abraham Ortilius who questioned how Africas west coats fits with South America.

(16 and 17 century is one of interesting periods in human history due Dutch republic)

After him Benjamin Franklin, Alfred Wegener, Admiral Hess, my countryman Andrija Mohorovčić, Motonori Matuyama gave stamp on theory we knows as plate tectonics.

Irna gave a precise explanation about tectonics.

As far as I recall, the the magnetic reversal is caused by a slighlty different speed rotation of the two iron cores inside Earth (the one of molten iron and the one of solid iron), but I could be completely wrong :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you aware that the formation of the oceans dates back to 4.4 billion years, that is little more than 100 million years after the formation of the Earth itself? and that that was before any continent existed? The first continents appeared in the early Archean, and most of these first continents have been destroyed repeatedly since then. What is left of these early continents forms the basis of the present cratons, that are situated well inside the continents, not on the margins. Most of the continental shelves and continental margins are fairly recent geologically speaking, and there is no way any of the canyons in the continental slopes could have been formed at the time of the formation of the oceans.

While you went back further with your example, I went with a more recent one. But what should have been obvious to Riann IMO is that before the breakup of Pangaea there were no continental shelves for most of the eastern Americas nor for the western part of Europe and Africa. This should have been his first clue that his idea was flawed.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and in that thread you also asked a couple of times, lol. And I told you how these canyons were formed. Just click on the link, and read on.

Yes, I did reply a bit too quickly - realized it the moment I sent my response! Nevertheless, I read through it again. It is the old theory that the Bounty Canyon was formed by sediment dispersal into the ocean. However, if you consider the slope of the canyon (<0.4°), it is inconceivable that fine sediment in the first instance could have travelled that far (900 km) and secondly that it could have eroded away such a deep canyon. This is even more true for the Agadir Canyon, where turbidity currents are supposed to have carried landslide debris over the ocean floor for 1800 km at an average slope of less than 0.2°! This is a totally ridiculous proposition.

I cannot judge the theories about the formation of the continents, but if accurate, scientists must come up with a better hypothesis for the formation of submarine canyons like to Bounty Trough. In my opinion, at least, hence my proposal. Thanks for the inputs so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Parsec!

Admiral Hess is best known for his theories on sea floor spreading. While he sail in pacific he have a lot time to think.

Also, during WW2 and after devices for searching submarines were invented

When you took magnetometer on ship and sail over mountain ranges you found extraordinairy big magnetic signals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I cannot judge the theories about the formation of the continents, but if accurate, scientists must come up with a better hypothesis for the formation of submarine canyons like to Bounty Trough.

As far as I know, the Bounty Trough is not considered a classic submarine canyon, but rather a failed rift.

This is a totally ridiculous proposition.

Surely, before you offer this opinion, you have studied the dynamics of turbidity currents and submarine debris flows?

PS Just have a look at what happened to the transatlantic cables after the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake, to have an idea of what "fine sediment" plus water is able to do.

Edited by Irna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the Bounty Trough is not considered a classic submarine canyon, but rather a failed rift.

Surely, before you offer this opinion, you have studied the dynamics of turbidity currents and submarine debris flows?

PS Just have a look at what happened to the transatlantic cables after the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake, to have an idea of what "fine sediment" plus water is able to do.

Do you honestly think that fine sediment, like sand, can be carried in one direction down a 0.2° slope, on the sea bed, over a distance of 1800 km?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly think that fine sediment, like sand, can be carried in one direction down a 0.2° slope, on the sea bed, over a distance of 1800 km?

Did you read one single study about the dynamics of turbidity currents? For your information, a turbidity current can even carry sediments upslope...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.