Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russet who wrote (6211)	9/4/2000 1:54:11 AM
From: VAUGHN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Hello Russett I would like to spend my time doing research especially if it also addressed your arguments, but I do have other things to do. I have provided sufficient substantiation to address most of your arguments, and there are still a few more to post. However, under the concept of equity, perhaps you might consider doing some research yourself and perhaps finding a few papers/abstracts which support your theories? Again, I don't claim to be an expert and can only suggest reasons why things might be the way they are based on what ever reading I have done. With regard to your suggestion that "if cratons had been eroded as deeply as my posted papers suggested, they would be under water now", I can only suggest that they were much closer to sea level in recent memory, and in fact the Slave Craton was under water as one of my posted papers indicated. However, they have significantly uplifted as the NWT's numerous arctic beach platforms will attest. In the case of the Slave Craton, possibly due to isostatic rebound resulting from some combination of the lost mass of eroded sediments and glacial ice. In the case of the two cratons in the RSA, uplifting may have been due to subduction of the adjacent oceanic plate and continental collision. There is ample evidence of severe erosion/weathering over the past 1.5by. In both cases, as the depth of the crust thinned (was eroded), and in the case of the Slave Craton, no longer subjected the weight of an inland sea, the crust would become more buoyant on the 6,300 km deep molten mantle & core and may have risen higher above sea level. When you think of the crust in those terms, moving up or down even 1 km could easily occur with a geologic hiccup. Just putting water in your child’s toy in the bathtub easily demonstrates the effect of the weight of water. You should also consider that sea level has not remained constant over time, which is why for example in the last ice age there was a land bridge between Asia and North America. In relative terms, for that reason alone, the Slave Craton was much higher above sea level than it is now. There have been at least 10 such ice ages over the past 1.2my, each one tending to wipe out the evidence of the one that preceded it. Only the most resistant rocks up here register the passage of the last three. You might find the following three sites interesting in this regard, especially the Lithoprobe slide show. sts.gsc.nrcan.gc.ca sts.gsc.nrcan.gc.ca science.ubc.ca Regards