Question:
What mountains were formed from the collision of the north american and pacific plates?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
What mountains were formed from the collision of the north american and pacific plates?
Four answers:
Christopher
2009-12-22 14:44:42 UTC
Rocky mountains
?
2016-04-18 20:50:55 UTC
If you are like most men and women, you have most almost certainly gotten into backyard landscaping due to the fact you felt the wish to change the seem and feel of your home. You desired to make it a great spot the place your loved ones could come to feel protected, comfortable and a location to have a wonderful time and this is why this manual https://tr.im/dOmKQ is for you.

Ideas 4 Landscaping is a complete multimedia resource that will give you all the ideas and programs that you could want to landscape your dream garden.

For any individual who has bought any gardening or landscaping magazines, you may possibly discover that really couple of magazines have the top quality of design and style and degree of detail that Ideas 4 Landscaping have, that make Ideas 4 Landscaping an invaluable resource in the style and preparing of your new landscape.
Steve
2009-12-25 21:03:05 UTC
It is generally accepted that mountains form as the result of collision of tectonic plates, as the wording of this question assumes. However, that view is not without well-regarded critics. Cliff Ollier and Colin Pain, in their book The Origin of Mountains (Routledge, 2000), point out that the term "orogeny," which originally meant mountain building, now refers to the folding of rocks. In the minds of many, including many geologists, however, the two concepts are somewhat conflated, as it is widely assumed that the two kinds of process go hand-in-hand. Not only plate tectonics, but also the dominant contraction theory which it replaced, have assumed that the process that causes mountain uplift must also be one that causes folding of rocks. However Ollier and Pain take a contrary view, with copious reference to field studies: "Since many mountains are not on folded rocks, and for those that are, there is no relationship between the timing of folding and the timing of uplift, it seems clear that the folding did not make the mountains" (Pain and Ollier, 2008). They distinguish four types of process:



"1. processes that cause folds and other structures;

2. processes that make planation surfaces

3. processes that cause uplift of a plain to form a plateau (gentle bends, monocline, fault block (horst), tilt block);

4. erosional processes that dissect a plateau into mountains (basically fluvial and glacial)." (Ollier and Pain, 2000, p. 4)



In fact, they argue, the last three types of process represent the sequence of events common to most mountains, whereas processes of type (1) are inessential. This sequence also provides a means to provide a lower bound to the ages of present mountains: They cannot be older than the formation of the planation surface, which can be dated stratigraphically.



The mountains of western North America are the subject of chapter 5. With regard to the timing of the sequence in the Rockies, they write:



"Most workers now believe that a single, widespread erosion surface exists in the Front Range, commonly named the Rocky Mountain, Sherwood, or Late-Eocene Surface.... In central Colorado it is demonstrably late-Eocene [circa 40 Ma], but in much of the Laramide and Medicine Bow mountains it is Miocene [5-24 Ma].... Sato and Denson (1967) noted an increase in grain size of sediment, and an increase in basement-derived heavy minerals in Late Neogene sediments as evidence of uplift and erosion of the northern and middle Rocky Mountains during Late Miocene and Pliocene [1.8-5 Ma] time. Eaton (1987) presented evidence for rapid epeirogenic [a term which denotes uplift of a broad aread] uplift of the southern Rocky Mountains starting between 4 and 7 Ma."



Nevertheless, regardless of such findings, the theory of plate tectonics continues to be the governing paradigm in literature on the Rocky Mountains. Ollier and Pain list some of the problems associated with such explanations:



"1. [The Rockies] are rather far inland to be explained by plate tectonic subduction, as are all the mountains of western North America except the Coast Ranges.

2. Plate tectonic explanations of the Rockies invoke subduction at the edges, but because of the symmetry around individual blocks, it is necessary to have subduction in opposite directions.

3. The Rockies are separated from the ocean and any ocean-continent subduction site by the extensional Basin and Range Province and the Coastal Ranges, which are also explained by some as due to subduction.

4. The most general problem is that although the plates have allegedly been colliding for over 100 million years the uplift is confined to the last few million years.

5. With subduction of the Pacific Plate, one might expect tectonic features to be arranged north-south. This is fine for the Front Range and a few others, but the thrusts (or gravity slides) occur in all directions, and the problem is especially acute where the ranges run east-west, as the Uinta mountains....

In summary, the main problem with plate tectonics in North America is that so many variations on the theme have been used, including subduction, accretion of plates, strike-slip faulting along north-south lines associated with east-west compression, and various aspects of magmatism." (p.111)
♦♦♦ Liebestod ♦♦♦
2009-12-22 14:59:27 UTC
Several mountain ranges were formed:



As the Pacific Plate moved north, the crust over which it moved was forced down by the North American Plate, back towards the Earth's core. However, as the plate closed in on the 1st Terrane, this land mass was too buoyant to be forced downward and so it was added onto the edge of the continent. This is where much of British Columbia joined North America. Along with this collision came intense forces compressing the already existing land mass. This brought on the first orogeny, known as the COLUMBIA MOUNTAIN RANGES(it formed the Columbia Mountains made up of the Caribous, Selkirks, Purcells and the Monashees).



The collision causing the Columbia Orogeny occurred about 175 million years ago, and as the shock wave moved eastward, it forced huge masses of rock to crack and slide up over its neighbours. This is known as thrust faulting and was instrumental in the formation of the ROCKY MOUNTAIN RANGES. The shock wave began piling up the western ranges, and then the main ranges, around 120 million years ago.



Therefore two mountain ranges were formed by the collision of the N. American and Pacific tectonic plates.



Now if i may digress...and it may be of interest.



EDITING.



In 1915, a German Meteorologist named Alfred Wegener published a book entitled The Origins of Continents and Oceans. He took the puzzle theory one step further. In theory, if two points were at one time joined, they should have a similar rock structure and fossil record. Wegener showed that fossils found in Brazil were identical to those found in adjacent area’s of Africa. The main problem with theories like Wegener’s came from the fact that no mechanism for the movement could be discovered. How could continents move?



The breakthrough came in the 1950’s when scientists began to carefully study the ocean floor. As they used sophisticated echo-sounding equipment to map the ocean floor, they discovered an immense ridge that completely dissected the ocean. It was approximately 65,000 km. in length. It also appeared that there was a valley at the top of this ridge that showed signs of splitting apart, as if the ocean floor was spreading at this seam. It was Geologist H.H. Hess, who in 1960 suggested that indeed the ocean floor must be spreading due to convection currents within the Earth’s molten mantle. The continents would merely be riding the wave of these convection currents as the seafloor spread.



The ocean soon came under the scrutiny of specialists specializing in paleomagnetism. It seems that the magnetic polarity of the Earth has not always been as it is today. The magnetic pole has not only moved, but at times the Earth’s magnetic polarity has completely reversed. The present situation of a magnetic north pole has only existed for approximately 700,000 years. Scientists now know that the poles tend to remain relatively stable for up to 3 million years, and then reverse. Over the past 4.5 million years there have been approximately nine reversals.



Basalt is one of the planets most common igneous (formerly molten) rocks. It retains a slight magnetic charge when it hardens, and thus also records the magnetic polarity at the time of its formation. As new sea floor is formed at the mid-oceanic ridge, basalt evenly spreads out in both directions from the centre. By studying the rocks, we can see parallel deposits of rock spreading from the ridge. By moving outward, we can determine the age of the rocks, and also study their magnetic polarity. This gives us a very clear idea of the timelines of the polarity reversals. Since the pattern on one side of the trench is mirrored on the opposite, this is further proof that the ocean floor is spreading and that the continents are moving.



Plate tectonics has now been recognized by most scientists, and has revolutionized the study of mountain landscapes.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...