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 : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hank2010 who wrote (32265)	2/8/2007 12:50:44 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 78421

I know of two geos who think that the sedimentary theory is tenable. Hutchinson, and Jackson. They are both PhD geos. I queried Hutchinson and whereas in 1975 he was leaning towards sedimentary theories wholeheartedly he has backed off on Sudbury partially because as Naldrett opined, it has impact structures and the geochemistry favours Naldretts thesis. In 1964 a PhD student made a thesis that the Sudbury area was sedimentary but he was not supported. However in 1948 the prevailing theory was hydrothermal. What was said then by the foremost authority was that if the Sudbury basin was magmatic, it would have to be overturned. Now this was dealt with even back then. Magmatism would be looking at the bottom of the ore, not at the top, because it was thought that fractionation would have to occur and settling. They did not believe the melt could push the magma in selectively. This problem has not been satisifactorily explained by today's magma theorists. I don't believe the pilers on in the geosci business in Sudbury because they are often being very selective. few if any have theory of the whole system and how it was emplaced and over how long. Nobody has dealt with the interior Cu-Zn ore. No one has dealt with the long term sedimentary history and who there is unique magmatism along that entire contact, and no other magmatic pulses. The entire sediment system fits neatly into a phase of flows, so why is this ignored and the magma theory embraced so mightily when Occams' razor shaves it off with scorn? It is simply not necessary to believe the magmatists. They are reaching for Martian devices when simple processes they can see in their backyard stare them in the face.. why the impact theory and the magma veining? Because its flashy and different. You have to stretch science to new religious heights to get it to fit. Throw out the simple and the obvious, and embrace the exciting and difficult.. everybody comes to the meetings when an asteroid collides.. every one stays away when its just another boring flow and a hot spring system besides the old volcano.. you say there are hotsprings only ten miles away.. volcanoes even closer? all the right rocks, the succession of layers, the contact conformable stratabound relationships? ignore it.. it did not come from Mars.. Can all those geoscientists be wrong? Where they wrong about the flat earth? heavier things falling faster? the sun revolving around the earth? Where they wrong about replacement orebodies? Of course.. ever wonder why nobody talks about who invented the idea of black smokers and sea floor bed orebodies when somebody had to.. because a group of guys in a company did it.. Texas Gulf Sulfur.. it was not the academics.. although some of the guys who used the sea bed rhyolite system of association to first explore and find ore will tell you, they are still alive some.. it was all replacement then. They could not see the tight conctacts and the ore in between them in anyother way... but somebody asked the question. where did the lavas come from and where were they? And why is the ore in between the lavas and the tuffs? So why did the ore have to come in after all this stuff got folded upright? Why not before the second sed layer? After all its is fiting right between them and it does not look like it pushed anything apart with any force.. They just haven't asked the question yet about Sudbury.. they will.. so far a few have.. but they were shouted down.. by all the experts.. science and logic is wrong until it is right, only if it is right.. when it is right all along and everybody agrees, it is usually wrong.. Having said that the magma boys all drill the embayments at the rim anyway. But they have ignored the tuff inside. It should have targets if I am right.