The age of Hawaii

Forums: Hawaii, Geology
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Let me start this document by a short resume of the geology of Hawaii. At the position of the Hawaii islands, there is a “hotspot” in the crust of the earth (basically a place where lava flows to the surface from deep in the earth through a “weak spot” in the upper crust). This hotspot exits upon a bulge in the sea floor. The bulge brings the sea floor nearer the surface, so the lava that flows out forms structures on the sea floor which sticks out above the water because it is so shallow. Hence the Hawaii islands.

These structures (islands) lie on top of the tectonic plate, and as the tectonic plate moves (a few centimetres per year) the structures above the hotspot move with them. As they slowly slide off the bulge in the sea floor, the islands disappear below the ocean as it enters deeper water. Behind them, new structures are formed when more lava flows through the hotspot to the surface.

When I see something like this, my first question is always “why?”. Why is there a hotspot and a bulge in the sea floor at this particular point. Somehow it seems the geologists have ignored the “why” question, possibly assuming that it is a waste of time to ponder this as it was probably some random event that just happened!

The question kept nagging me though, until one day I thought I had figured out an explanation. I was quite excited, and immediately checked some data, only to find out that geologists placed the age of the Hawaii islands at about 60 to 100 million years. For my theory to be valid, the unique geology of Hawaii had to be a LOT older, a LOT!

So naturally I assumed that my theory must therefore be wrong. Yet it would not leave me alone; the more I thought about it, the more convinced I became of the validity of my theory. So finally in exasperation I took a look at the “evidence” for the geologists’ conclusion. Having a look at Google Earth showing the Hawaii islands and the sea floor towards the Asian continent one can clearly see the line of islands stretching away below the surface of the ocean, all the way to the edge of the Asian continent. The total distance is about 6000km, so at an estimated speed of movement for the tectonic plate of 10cm per annum, this represents 60 million years, and at 6cm per annum, it represents 100 million years. So that supports the conclusion by the geologists. An age somewhere between 60 and 100 million years is supported by this line of islands.

The problem here, and it is a big problem, is that this assumes that the last structure in the line of islands, just about to disappear below the Asian continent, is also the very first structure that was ever formed by the Hawaii hotspot. There is NO support for such a fatuous conclusion. None whatsoever.

If the unique Hawaii geology were older than this, all the evidence for a greater age would long since have disappeared below the Asian continent. So personally, I no longer believe the age estimate of the geologists! Before I continue, a couple of observations that I made while studying the Google Earth image. One can clearly see that a bit more than halfway to the continent, the line of islands suddenly changes direction. I found this fascinating, but a bit more time on Google, confirmed “sudden” changes in the direction of movement of tectonic plates in various areas around the world.

The second observation is that at the point where the islands are about to disappear below the continent, the edge of the continent seems to have been squeezed into a distinct funnel shape! It made me wonder. In terms of my theory, the original outflow from the Hawaii hotspot would have been enormous, it would have created structures much larger than anything now visible in the line of islands. So; could it be, that the continent was squeezed into that funnel shape when that massive land mass was forced under the continent a long long time ago? Anyway this was all idle speculation, not of importance to the main theory.

So what is my main theory? It is quite simple actually. You see, I live in South Africa. South Africa is unique in that it is on the exact opposite side of the earth from Hawaii! South Africa is also the home to the Vredefort Dome, which is the largest verified meteorite impact site on earth. The meteorite which caused this impact, is estimated to have been between 10 and 15 km in diameter and it created a crater with a diameter of 300km. Furthermore it is judged to have hit the earth 2.023 billion years ago. This age estimate is based on fairly robust science and is expressed with a confidence level of 99.8%.

So on the one side of the earth we have a massive meteorite impact site. From the size of the crater that was created, we know that this was a violent high velocity impact. The speed has been estimated to have been more than 70 000 km per hour. We would expect such an enormous, high velocity and violent impact, to set up massive shockwaves which would travel through the earth. We know that when those shockwaves hit the opposite side of the earth it is bound to cause a certain amount of damage to the earth’s crust. So can it possibly be a coincidence that the unique Hawaii geological structure, which lies directly opposite this impact site also EXACTLY resembles the kind of damage we would expect such a shockwave to create? I think not!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 3,932 • Replies: 72

@CAfrica141,

look up the wwork of J.Tuzo Wilson. He came up with a model for the formation of the Emperor/Hawaiian seamount. I recall (from the days when we hadda know stuff to pass). His estimate was about 81 my. I dont know whether anyones bettered that estimate and on what bases

I think that Wilson speculated on "Seismic Energy rings" as causes for several such fetures.
When Vreerfort began showing "plays" of resources, I believe that much of the scholarly inquiries just stopped

0 Replies

@CAfrica141,

why? Wilson was quite concerned about thinnings of ocean and continental crusts where magma can "leak upward". Remember, the tectonic plates are moving all over a big soft "beach ball' of the earth and this motion involves "glide planes" under which lie these large areas of "lava lamp" varying density fluids that are mostly immiscible.

We can measure the densities and shapes of the crust and upper mantle by seismic returns from earthquakes

0 Replies

@CAfrica141,

The age of the Hawaiian archipelago has been given as 65 my old while the Emperor seamount, added on goes back yet another 17 million years.
The Mendocino seamount and the Liliuokalani Ridge "break the line" of these two seamounts and the EMperor trends a mite
NNW. while the Hawaii seamount trend more WNW. Thats sorta why the "experts split em"

Get an atlas , like the Nat Geographic which has the undersea tectonic maps done really well.
In any case, the Vrederfoort is many more millions of years older so while Wilson was giving explanations for possible seismic energies sources he dint actually name any of the bigger craters

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Thanks Farmerman, but telling me what other people think the cause or the age of Hawaii is, does not add value to the discussion. The question is: Have they considered this (my theory) as a possibility, and if they have, why did they discard it as a possible solution?

I would very much like to hear from the leading geologists involved in the Hawaii geological research.

C

1 Reply

@CAfrica141,

While Wilson's theory is perhaps THE driving one in global tectonic, he too would probably remind you that continental masses did not sit in position of which youve derived your theory.

A good review of global tectonics by Rodgers and Santosh (2002) has documented from the field literature that the EMperor sea mount was located within a narrow basin and S Africa was clumped together with a mass of other landmasses until Pangea broke up. Back then, it appears that Siberia may have been "opposite" S Africa on the globe.

I think Vredefort is important enough as a resources trove to perhaps discount its role in causation of a feature that would occur about 1.7 Billion years later

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'll admit that I don't know much about the movement of the continents, but that said:
* The Hawaii hotspot is BELOW the tectonic plates and is probably in the same position relating to Africa as it has always been.
* I don't think the Asian continent was ever that far East of Africa
* The main movement as I understand it, has been the America's moving away from Africa/Europe, creating the Atlantic, and making the Pacific smaller.

C

1 Reply

@CAfrica141,

You should visit Santoh an Rodgers"Continents and Supercontinents" Its a good understanding of what we understand about plate Id especially visit their map of East and west Gondwana.

1 Reply

OK, it seems I picked the wrong forum for my little theory if I expected a discussion.

Let me reiterate.
The geological structure that creates the Hawaii mound is something that exists BELOW the tectonic plates, and therefore it is in the same position relative to Africa as it always was.
Before the continents drifted apart, one half of the earth was covered by a very large Pacific ocean, and Hawaii was right in the middle of that.
The nature of the Hawaii mound is such that it must have been caused by a significant event. I have suggested what that event might have been. to defeat my theory, someone has to pose a rational and logical alternative for the origin of that structure. So far I have seen none, so I stick with my theory.

C

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Nice try.

1 Reply

@roger,

Its a common occurence. People always have their "own theories" and ask others to validate them, not knowing that others are busy an need more than casual notes on a web page.

If hes a tudent, he should alrady be familiar with "science citation" and start there.

0 Replies

@CAfrica141,

CAfrica141 wrote:

OK, it seems I picked the wrong forum for my little theory if I expected a discussion.

Farmerman seems to harbor a wealth of academic information to apply to geological questions like the one(s) you're posing, but he tends to use his power to tell people to abandon their thoughts and study those of others instead.

Quote:

Let me reiterate.
The geological structure that creates the Hawaii mound is something that exists BELOW the tectonic plates, and therefore it is in the same position relative to Africa as it always was.
Before the continents drifted apart, one half of the earth was covered by a very large Pacific ocean, and Hawaii was right in the middle of that.
The nature of the Hawaii mound is such that it must have been caused by a significant event. I have suggested what that event might have been. to defeat my theory, someone has to pose a rational and logical alternative for the origin of that structure. So far I have seen none, so I stick with my theory.

The most interesting aspect of the OP, imo, was the issue of what may have happened to earlier islands that may have been subducted under the Asian continent. Is it possible, for example, that there was a lot more magma outflow in the past that has all been subducted and thus contributed to the Asian continent being pushed to higher elevation than it would have without the subduction?

I have heard that mantle plumes often correspond with meteor impacts, and it's a satisfying idea if you look at the way a pebble splashing into a pond causes a depression in the water's surface, which then reverberates up and down, which is what causes ripples to move through the water away from the impact site.

If anything, I would think a large meteor impacted the site where Hawaiian islands form and caused a mantle plume to form, which is still trickling upward.

There is a Physicsgirl video about Hawaii posted on Youtube where various 'flood basalts' in Siberia and India are mentioned as sites where mantle plumes are causing land growth. Maybe if you analyze those, you will find some connection with your issue of what happened to earlier Hawaiian islands prior to where they disappear into the Asian continent.

And, who knows, maybe it will turn out that some of those sites correspond in age with the large meteor impact you mention in South Africa. It would certainly be interesting if there were such a massive meteor impact that it penetrated all the way through the mantle and caused a mantle plume on the other side of the planet.

If such a massive impact occurred, my question would be how would it not cause the planet to shatter, but then I don't have any real sense of how the Earth's interior could accommodate such a powerful meteor diving so far through it.

However your thoughts on this matter evolve, I hope you will continue posting them here as they are quite interesting to read and contemplate. It would also be good if people with geological expertise, like Farmerman, contribute to the collaborative critical thinking process that enables you to add more rigor to your theory-building process, instead of just discouraging you from thinking in favor of studying what others have published.

3 Replies

@livinglava,

youre the prfect correspondent. You can both exchange hypotheses and gradually search for evidence. All I could do is try to steer someone to the literature written by some of the most recognized scholars in that subjct. If he did NOT wih to examine that, his loss.
Anyway, I never entered the discussion as an expert on the Hawaiian hotspot, I could merely point out that the huuuge separations in time between a specific hotspot and a bolide hit would IMHO preclude the bolides involvement, and mention the literature written by some of the few experts.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

youre the prfect correspondent. You can both exchange hypotheses and gradually search for evidence. All I could do is try to steer someone to the literature written by some of the most recognized scholars in that subjct. If he did NOT wih to examine that, his loss.
Anyway, I never entered the discussion as an expert on the Hawaiian hotspot, I could merely point out that the huuuge separations in time between a specific hotspot and a bolide hit would IMHO preclude the bolides involvement, and mention the literature written by some of the few experts.

You seem to have expertise in geology and other areas, but you are like a baby or primadonna when it comes to just participating in a discussion instead of going on and on about which people are stupid and and smart you and your students are and how 'real scientists' do this but not that, etc. etc.

I read your point about the 'huuuge' separations in time, and I thought about that along with what he had said in the OP about the Hawaiian island trail disappearing under the Asian continent, and then I looked up the PhysicsGirl video about Hawaii to see where the big mantle plumes had manifested 'flood basalts,' which I put in quotation marks because I'm just using that term because I think I understood it from the video; but it certainly seems to be relevant to this issue insofar as meteor strikes correspond with mantle plumes and the person in the PhysicsGirl video was a student at Berkley, which means he has probably been reviewing geological discourse on the subject.

Why aren't you able to just discuss these kinds of things without picking fights? Are you just some kind of angry drunk professor who revels more in spouting hostile comments than engaging in collaborative discussion?

[/quote]

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

he tends to use his power to tell people to abandon their thoughts and study those of others instead.

If you red carefully you dont find anything of the sort in my above posts. I stated that I wasnt a ranking expert on the Hawaiian hotspot and although many geologists have tried to associate meteor strikes with tectonic activity across the planet, there are always some countering information that refutes many of them. Seeing an occurence between one or two bolide striks and some tectonic activity does NOT create a LAW , in fact there may be no connection at all. It often takes science many yars to follow through to a conclusion.Thinking someone can "Solve" a ntural occurences reasons in a hated internet gab fest doesnt rand up there too high .
I always suggest (and its a standard approach) is to first plow through and inspct the available literature to see whatother workers have found and what evidence they may have. SCIENCE CITATION is an important tool. There is even a subscription service in which a computerized inter relationship search among reports on a specific subject would bgin any reasonable grant application. In order to ask for money to do som research on a project, one does not reach into the ether to "guess" whats known about that subject. One looks to see whats there and then with that in hand,one can intelligently ask for the grant by letting the grnt review committees know that you know what youre talking about. This is the way most research is conducted. If you dont know whats going on, your questions are pretty much irrational. Thats why I gt frustrate with your approach, you sm to think verything coms from within you. As we should always understand ,"we only see farther because we are standing on the shoulders of giants "

SCIENCE CITATION INDEX is one of the best resourcs of this ilk. It dosnt man that you arent good enough, it mwans , on the contrary, that you arent wasting tim on stuff that may hav been done well and compltely years and yars ago. Posting schmecky queries on a web site chat room is a lotta baloney. I know the founder of this site says "Talk with xperts" , I kinda smile at that ad. Noone, not even Newton was right about verything, and noone is an expert at a bank of things.
I always use SCI in my work, as well as ASTM standards of approach.

You wont find much published research on YOUTUBE . The chasm between someone whose making exciting entertainment videos and surviving peer review about it is a mile and a half wide. You really have to now, look into the juried literature because the jury will ask the really embarrassing questions and the readers will punctiliously examine the writer thesis.
I dont even use Wikipedia as a source .USGS, SCI, ASTM, theyre the gold standard. USGS does have a web site but its .gov not .com(Doesnt mean it wont later be found wrong but for today, if its undergone and passe scrutiny, its good stuff)

Think what you wish, It matters very little what you think about me, Im happy and content in my work because every projct is a new st of problems to SOLVE .I get paid for results, not website participation. BUT I never said nor implid that I was an xpert in verything. Im a foot wide and a mile deep. Im a larner in so many subjcts and occupations. When I ask questions , I dont go for rude snipes Im usually courteous. Id suggest you try that also, Youll gt a lot farther. I recall when you first asked a question and I joined in an suggsted a reading source that might have what y
oure looking for. You almost immediately started whining about how I was a horrid person who didnt know a thing about teaching.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
he tends to use his power to tell people to abandon their thoughts and study those of others instead.
If you red carefully you dont find anything of the sort in my above posts. I stated that I want a ranking expert on the Hawaiian hotspot and although many geologists have tried to associate meteor strikes with tectonic activity across the planet, there are always some countering information that refutes many of them.

Maybe it doesn't occur to you that when someone refutes something, that can also be refuted. You seem to assume that if someone sticks their neck out with a proposal, and that gets refuted, it is final; when the reality is that everyone refuting anything is also doing so from a position that is refutable.

Quote:

Seeing an occurence between one or two bolide striks and some tectonic activity does NOT create a LAW

He never said he was establishing a law. He just said it was a thought he had and he wants to explore it further, see if there are any other research examples that considered it or similar occurrences that could give him further food for thought in exploring his idea.

You expect people to just abandon their thoughts and read what others published. You don't recognize that when someone sees a potential connection between something like a meteor strike and a mantle plume, they want to explore it further and gather more evidence for or against their specific hypothesis.

Quote:

in fact there may be no connection at all. It often takes science many yars to follow through to a conclusion.Thinking someone can "Solve" a ntural occurences reasons in a hated internet gab fest doesnt rand up there too high .

Of course there may be no connection at all. That is always a possibility.

You just want to hammer people down and put down the internet and then praise up 'science,' because you want to promote academic enrollment, I suspect because you make your money working for academia in some way.

Quote:

I always suggest (and its a standard approach) is to first plow through and inspct the available literature to see whatother workers have found and what evidence they may have. SCIENCE CITATION is an important tool. There is even a subscription service in which a computerized inter relationship search among reports on a specific subject would bgin any reasonable grant application. In order to ask for money to do som research on a project, one does not reach into the ether to "guess" whats known about that subject. One looks to see whats there and then with that in hand,one can intelligently ask for the grant by letting the grnt review committees know that you know what youre talking about. This is the way most research is conducted. If you dont know whats going on, your questions are pretty much irrational. Thats why I gt frustrate with your approach, you sm to think verything coms from within you. As we should always understand ,"we only see farther because we are standing on the shoulders of giants "

Why do you assume he's looking for grant funding? You seem to think everything is about money and professional research institutions. Some people just like keeping their minds active by studying what's available to them and discussing it with others.

Quote:

SCIENCE CITATION INDEX is one of the best resourcs of this ilk. It dosnt man that you arent good enough, it mwans , on the contrary, that you arent wasting tim on stuff that may hav been done well and compltely years and yars ago. Posting schmecky queries on a web site chat room is a lotta baloney. I know the founder of this site says "Talk with xperts" , I kinda smile at that ad. Noone, not even Newton was right about verything, and noone is an expert at a bank of things.
I always use SCI in my work, as well as ASTM standards of approach.

Is this Science Citation Index you mention available online for free?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

when the reality is that everyone refuting anything is also doing so from a position that is refutable.

yeh but you dont refute well at all , insttad you like to whine about anyone who disagrees with you (always with their own vidence I see )and thn you engage in ad hominems.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
when the reality is that everyone refuting anything is also doing so from a position that is refutable.
yeh but you dont refute well at all , insttad you like to whine about anyone who disagrees with you (always with their own vidence I see )and thn you engage in ad hominems.

Maybe, but the point is that we should all just stick to discussing our thoughts on the topic instead of ridiculing each other.

If you disagree with (refute) someone else's point, you just explain your reasoning for the reader. You don't need to insult them or tell them they need to go back to school, etc.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Is this Science Citation Index you mention available online for free

Its a subscription service so NO. Do you have just a general interest or are you considering scholarly work? (I dont g.a.s. about whether theres a grant involved, that was whats called AN EXAMPLE of its use in SCIENCE. Its also a needed source in a TED TALK). Often times a university library or reserach center has an open contract for so many citation requests a year (or month).
I subscribe by the citation, its the most expensive but its a necessary EXPENSED ITEM.
I dont know what your circumstances are, but Id suggest that, if you want to have them spare a search request (theyre usually 2 to 500$ a search) try to be as complte and CONCISE AND PECISE as you can (you have a habit of twisting things in an out and often disagreeing with yourself in the body of your posts so be as "plain English" as you can.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Is this Science Citation Index you mention available online for free
Its a subscription service so NO. Do you have just a general interest or are you considering scholarly work?

Investment is always a gamble. So the best thing to do is use free resources that are available. Nothing wagered, nothing lost.

Quote:

(I dont g.a.s. about whether theres a grant involved, that was whats called AN EXAMPLE of its use in SCIENCE. Its also a needed source in a TED TALK). Often times a university library or reserach center has an open contract for so many citation requests a year (or month).
I subscribe by the citation, its the most expensive but its a necessary EXPENSED ITEM.
I dont know what your circumstances are, but Id suggest that, if you want to have them spare a search request (theyre usually 2 to 500$ a search) try to be as complte and CONCISE AND PECISE as you can (you have a habit of twisting things in an out and often disagreeing with yourself in the body of your posts so be as "plain English" as you can.

I wouldn't do that for the same reason I wouldn't pay for a patent search. It's just gambling.

When I was young, there was a lot of talk about how science should be divorced from economic interests. Those were the days when state funding was supposed to be enough to pay everyone's salary; i.e. before academia turned into a union crusade for higher budgets, pay, etc.

When you're a student, it's great. You can use all the libraries and search engines, labs, etc. as part of your general fees, which used to be included in whatever package you qualified for.

Public resources in general are great. Parks, libraries, etc. that are open to the public to freely explore their interests are very liberating. Too many people want to turn everything into a commodity, which just stimulates people to avoid risking their money on things that aren't going to pay any dividend (at least not for those on the bottom of the pyramid scheme).

And then there are all those who want to turn public resources into a turbocharger for government spending and growth stimulus. There is no longer a conservative culture of public resources maintained at minimal cost to provide maximum public benefit without charging fees. Libraries and public parks still work like that in some places, but universities, even public ones, have become more like corporations than the public infrastructure they used to be.

0 Replies

The age of Hawaii

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know