Some Scientific discoveries.

The Mountains:

A book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world. One of its two authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press. He was the Science Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots. These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg.

Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the ground. So the most suitable word to describe mountains on the basis of this information is the word ‘peg,’ since most of a properly set peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth. They hinder the shaking of the earth.

Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth. This knowledge about the role of mountains as stabilizers for the earth has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s.

(quoted from a book)

"Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs?" (Quran, 78:6-7)

"And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you..."
(Quran, 16:15)

Mountians do not hold the earth still actually mountians are some of the best places to find the earth shaking....

most major fault lines run along mountian ranges... thats how mountians are formed you know... by two tectonic plates butting up against one another...

and volcanos, have earthquakes all the time, its one of the best indicators of the relitive activity of the mountian prior to an eruption...

to check out recent earthquake/volcanic activity go to the USGS site here:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/PlateTectonics/Maps/map_quakes_volcanoes_plates.html

you will notice that most of the quakes and volcanos happin in the mountianous regions of the world...

to check out the tectonic plates go to:
http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eastern/plates.html

anyway hope this helps

wa:-do

someone,

You wrote "Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth. They hinder the shaking of the earth.
Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth."

When continental plates collide, mountains are formed because of he instable processes in the contact zone. This instability remains, and I find that, contrary to your quote, the worst eartquake zones are along mountain ranges.

My view of mountains is that they are more like pancakes than pegs, considering their almost negligible heights compared to their horizontal extension and the earth radius. The whole crust of the earth floats on the earth mantle, so "stability" is a very relative word.

I think I've taken these information from geology books(Earth, Press and Siever)(Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens)(The Geological Concept of Mountains in the Quran, El-Naggar). And I've heared it also from one of the Top World geologist seminar. And it is not my thinking.


Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)


Schematic section. The mountains, like pegs, have deep roots embedded in the ground. (Anatomy of the Earth, Cailleux, p. 220.)


Another illustration shows how the mountains are peg-like in shape, due to their deep roots. (Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 158.)

The concept of the Earth's crust in gravitational balance or equilibrium is called isostasy.

read about isostasy in:
http://earth.unh.edu/esci658/docs/lecture_28.html

http://www.as.wvu.edu/biology/bio463/Comp and morph of crust.pdf

Go and search in Google or else where about isostasy if you wish.

What do you think?

A nice counter-example is the Himalayas. A sectional view looks more like ///, but not peg-like; rather more like overlapping pancakes. And do they have earthquakes! It is an old trick to use different scales in one diagram. Your pictures cover some 4000 km horizontally. With the same scale for both axes, nothing like pegs would be visible.

Dear anders,

1) Earth shaking in the above article doesn't mean Earth quake, although earthquake is one form of earth shaking, but without mountains, earth will shake in a way that makes life imposible on earth.

2) Again I repeat, I'm taking the information and the picture from Geological books, and they say that 2/3rd of the mountain is underground. And they have evidences to proof that. And the idea is not the shape but the main concept, when 2/3rd is underground and 1/3rd is above, this will make it look like peg.

read in http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~chuck/Mtn_and_Plates/mtn_roots.html
go down to the Appendix and read " ii) Evidence for mountain roots "

3) Did you read about isostrasy concept in geology? it is talking about Earth's crust gravitational balance or equilibrium. Do you know what makes that? (read please and search in edu sites)

4) I'm looking for the truth, if I'm wrong then please help me to know that. I will be happy to know and follow the truth where ever it is.

Wihout the processes that create mountain ranges, there would be no earthquakes. I have read you links, and I think that they support my view that mountain, plains and valleys are just ripples on the tectonic plates: have another look at Figure 4 in the appendix you mentioned - and it still has not the same scales for the axes. There is nothing on the surface, mountains or anything else, that can ever stabilize the movements of the tectonic plates, which cause the earthquakes.

Living in Scandinavia, the isostatic concept is very well known to me. It is interesting to speculate on what it means for the future fate of the Himalayas, California, Japan and Sakhalin, the east coast of South America etc. if plates move faster than what isostacy can compensate for. The mountain ranges will not help; they are rather a symptom of the processes than a hindrance to them.

anders said:

Wihout the processes that create mountain ranges, there would be no earthquakes.

Click to expand...

And I'm not talking about earthquakes.

anders said:

I have read you links, and I think that they support my view that mountain, plains and valleys are just ripples on the tectonic plates:

Click to expand...

And I'm not againest that. But, it is prooving that mountainse have deep roots, isn't it?

anders said:

have another look at Figure 4 in the appendix you mentioned - and it still has not the same scales for the axes. There is nothing on the surface, mountains or anything else, that can ever stabilize the movements of the tectonic plates, which cause the earthquakes.

Click to expand...

Does the scales has to be the same, I don't understand this point, and I can see the most part of the mountain is underground. And I can read there:
"Note that the region designated "Tibetan crust" is the buoyant "root" that underlies the plateau, which is shown as the blue shaded area above 0 km depth. Thus, a deep root lies beneath the plateau and this root has a density lower than that of the mantle beneath it and to its sides."

which mentions "deep root".

anders said:

Living in Scandinavia, the isostatic concept is very well known to me. It is interesting to speculate on what it means for the future fate of the Himalayas, California, Japan and Sakhalin, the east coast of South America etc.

Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm...

anders said:

if plates move faster than what isostacy can compensate for. The mountain ranges will not help; they are rather a symptom of the processes than a hindrance to them.

Click to expand...

well, plates is not moving faster, so, the mountains will help. And, as http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo101/mountain.htm "The concept of the Earth's crust in gravitational balance or equilibrium is called isostasy." Which done by the deep roots for the mountains. Which help in gravitational balance, which means, preventing shaking of the earth in a way that makes life imposible(not earthquake).

"the region designated 'Tibetan crust' is the buoyant 'root'" ...
That flat plate is a "root" also to the plains and valleys. As is especially clear from Himalayan sections, the lower parts of the mountains are distorted and drawn out because of the plate movements. They are not able to influence the plates in any way, but change according to the greater forces.

anders said:

"the region designated 'Tibetan crust' is the buoyant 'root'" ...
That flat plate is a "root" also to the plains and valleys.

Click to expand...

but you don't have the whole picture. The picture is showing the mountain area only. (I think)

anders said:

As is especially clear from Himalayan sections, the lower parts of the mountains are distorted and drawn out because of the plate movements. They are not able to influence the plates in any way, but change according to the greater forces.

Click to expand...

but I think it is not the root of the mountain which drawn out, it is the layer under that. The red one (Indian mantle).

And, is this the only point that you will contradict the geologists in the wold? Are you really looking for the truth, or just arguing for the sake of arguing..

When seeing the "whole picture" in the same scale for the axes, it is even more clear that the tiny mountains have no chance to act on the movements of the large entities. And yes, I love arguing, especially when I think that I have understood the facts available to me and they coincide with what I find reasonable and what I have learned in science and engineering.

in all this talk about roots of mountians, you seem to forget the opposite effect... the intrusion of lower layers into the mantle... ie, the magma pockets that form volcanos.... this is important because it is one of the causees of the 'roots' of mountians and in effect is also thier opposite...

see: http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/Vigil.html


the other cause is the movement of the tectonic plates... as one plate moves under the other it causes the other to bunch up... in both directions up and down.. thus the other cause for the roots of wich you speak...

see: http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/understanding.html


as for isostasy and the roots of mountians it is more a way to explain why mountians dont fall over than why the ground doesn't shake... isostasy can be altered in areas especally in areas that once held the large glacial ice sheets... England(and infact all the earth that had the large glaciers) is curently undergoing an Isostasic re-balanceing act.. the weight of the glaciers pushed part of the england downward and thus raised the portion containing london upward in elevation... when the glaciers retreated it removed that wieght and now the area of England near London is sinking again to compensate that ballance... its a slow but inevetable process wich England is of cource concerned about...

see: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/docs/gump/zulanger/bayarea/box22.html
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/isostasy1/
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/isost.html

wa:-do

PW,

Especially in the north of Sweden, the raising has noticeable effects over relatively short periods. That is why I have been interested in these phenomena. I can accept "roots" as a metaphore, as long as it is understood that they do not hinder the movements of the lower layers in any way but are caused by these movements, directly or indirectly.

anders,

exactly my point. The earth is far more complex and fluid than most people realize. As hard as rock is it is still, given adiquate heat, pressure and time, flexible enough to bend, just look at lava or glass or copper wires.
the reason plants roots work to hold them still is that they have something fairly solid to hold on to, the 'roots' of mountians do not.

wa:do