According to the UM, you can’t grow crystals from molten rock–only glass. But the UM also claims that frictional melting along earthquake faults generates the molten rock that comes out of volcanoes. I was reading one of the references in the UM (the Science magazine article about the 1994 Bolivian earthquake quoted several times on pp. 79-80), and found this explanation for why geologists don’t think frictional melting can possibly produce enough molten rock to supply volcanoes.
Sibson noted that production of pseudo-tachylyte (glassy material presumably formed by frictional melting) should take place during faulting, but very few faults contain pseudo-tachylyte.
Some faults have glassy material that would indicate frictional melting, but these are restricted to very thin layers. So why don’t we see much glassy material on faults? When we drill boreholes through faults that are deeper underground, why don’t we find a bunch of glass there? Seems like a problem for the UM.
Incidentally, that passage I quoted was literally the sentence after a passage quoted in the UM. I’m curious about the UMers other than Dean Sessions. How much time have you actually spent looking up any of his sources?
In subchapter 5.7, Glass is Not Quartz, we show images of what rocks look like when they are heated to their melting point. While geology professors might talk about melted rock, the UM demonstrates the process, shown in Fig 5.7.9 for example. These are perhaps the first man-made melted rock images in a geology textbook, at least the first we have found. Why is this is important? Because although geology departments talk about melted rock, we rarely find them actually melting rock or at least showing someone else doing it. Surprisingly, a Google search for “melted rock images” produces few, if any human-melted rock images (our own search produced only 1 and it wasn’t from a geology class). Most were images of lava flow. A Google search for related videos rendered a single video, “Melting the Surface of a Rock”, a video dedicated to melting a rock with a torch.
The point is, geology classes teach Bowen’s reaction series as a method of explaining how melted rock–magma–differentiates, or cools into different minerals. But Bowen’s experiments were based on observing the melt temperature, not on how mineralized crystallized because he never produced crystals from a melt (see p122 of UM). Anyone who examines the glass that’s formed when a rock is melted can tell it is very different from the crystalline nature of the original rock, yet geologists tell us almost all of the rocks we find in Nature came from a melt — from the magmaplanet Earth. In the Glass is Not Quartz subchapter, we quote researchers stating that, “Quartz cannot be grown from a melt…” (p105 of UM). Since the majority of the Earth’s known mineral assemblages are quartz or quartz-based, and NOT glass, why are we to assume that the Earth was once melted?
You bring up a good question, “So why don’t we see much glassy material on faults?” The answer is relatively simple to understand, and the answer applies to questions raised on your other posts. All active faults produce heat, but not all of them produce enough heat to melt the surrounding rock, although many do, which is not a new idea. Based on explanations in Subchapter 5.3, The Lava Friction-Model (p77), earthquakes, which are just rock sliding against rock along faults, accompany or precede volcanic activity, which often manifests as lava flowing along active fault lines. This is where we find molten rock or glass (including scoria or pumice, which are both glassy rocks, as you know) – on faultlines (see p77-80 in UM).
You can find other answers to your question on pages 79-81 under the sub subchapter How Much Does Science Know About Frictional Heat Generated by Faults? We asked the same questions you did concerning fault lines and the presence of glass, which led us to answers that you might have missed in the text, right after the Science Journal quote in the UM on page 80. We read the following:
“The problem of heat generation on fault surfaces has yet to be satisfactorily resolved… As numerical modeling techniques improve, and more heat flow data are collected from the vicinity of large faults, the question may be answered. However, for now there is no simple solution as to how much frictional heat is generated by faults.” Crustal Heat Flow: a guide to measurement and modeling, G.R.Beardsmore, J. P. Cull, Cambridge University press, 2001, p41
On the same page (p80) in the UM we note other scientists’ statements that, “If the thermal penetration depth, Delta d = 3.7mm, is used, the local temperature rise is of the order of 52,000 Celsius.”
We need to keep in mind that at the surface we only need 1,700 Celsius to melt most quartz-based rocks. The data on heat generation is rather new and the collection of it in and on fault lines has been minimal. Good observations and collection of the glass on fault lines seems to have had little attention because scientists are not looking for melt in fault lines. The journal of Science article states on the same page (80) of the UM:
“The presence of faults, however, accounts only for the ability of magma to reach the surface; it does not explain why the magma is produced in the first place.”
As we can see from this geologist’s statement, and from others in the UM, the correct earthquake-lava connection has not yet been made by modern scientists. Furthermore, we find no clear explanation in modern geology that accounts for why magma is produced or the origin of the heat needed to melt the magma. Since you have rejected the radioactive source of heat spoken of in many textbooks (see your May 6th Heat Flow post for your statement on this), the existence of magma becomes even more difficult to explain. In addition, because the researchers have not considered that there could be as much as 52,000 degrees stored in the faults, they may not be looking for glass or glassy material on faults.
We encourage further reading of the UM where you will find many examples of faults showing heat generation, such as the two faults below Hot Creek in California. Note what the researchers said on page 111 of the UM:
“The largest and hottest springs are located at the intersection of Hot Creek and two faults that are about 1 km apart.”
These researchers were trying to tap a “sleeping volcano” in Long Valley California, where geologists thought they would drill into a magma chamber to generate geothermal energy (p110 in UM). As noted, this was the best of 22 sites, selected by geologists after intensive study “because extensive geophysical evidence indicated the existence of a magma body.” However, as reported, when researchers drilled they encountered only 100 degrees C at 6,500 feet, apparently connected with the fault lines feeding Hot Creek springs. Below these faults for the next 3,300 feet, there was NO increase in temperature, even as they thought they were getting closer to the ‘magma chamber.’ This project cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and came up empty because it was built on the false idea that magma chambers exist instead of seeing the heat-generating fault lines as the source of heat warming the Hot Creek natural waters. This was a hard pill for the researchers to swallow as we read subchapter 5.11, the Drilling Evidence.
It seems as though you might have missed the list of 13 Denying the Earthquake Origin Evidences of lava on page 90. This summarizes the evidence of the earthquake-lava connection followed by the smoking gun (evidence # 14 shown below) This dramatic evidence provides one of the strongest clues for modern geologists to look outside the old magmaplanet paradigm, to examine the evidence of frictional melting on Earth because of seismic activity outlined on page 89 & 90 in the UM. In the Unequivocal Io Evidence section, astronomers acknowledge that the MOST active volcanic area in the Solar System is the Jovian satellite, Io, and they don’t think it is from magma – the evidence they see and the data they’ve collected points to frictional heating! The scientists all know that this small moon gets stretched by the incredible tidal forces of Jupiter and three other large moons, which “cause[s] heat to build up inside Io” and lava eruptions on its surface. The reference Note 5.3aj from NASA explains, “That’s what volcanoes are.” It seems the astronomers comprehend what the geologists cannot. Their observations allow them to understand that the most active volcanic region in the Solar System operates not by an imaginary magma chamber, but by a Gravitational-Friction Law, explained in the UM:
Frictional heating in the crust of celestial bodies is caused by the gravitational pull and release of the crust by other celestial bodies. (p86 UM)
The friction caused by the gravitational influence of celestial bodies produces heat, and sufficient accumulation of heat produces lava, as the Frictional-Heat Law explains:
Frictional heating produces lava from pressure and movement in fault planes. (p81 UM)
These simple explanations contrast complicated modern science theories beyond the reach of many people. While there is still much to learn about frictional heating and heat latency in faults, by looking in the right direction, away from the magmaplanet pseudotheory, we empower truthseekers to answer questions in new ways. All the hard questions about Nature are easy when we know the answer! Many times in the UM we cite the couplet, Nature is beautifully simple and simply beautiful. We hope you will continue your reading although it will challenge much of what you believe. No doubt, Millennial Science will change paradigms as people come to know the way things really are – as they come to know the truth.
The surface of Jupiter’s moon Io, displaying a volcanic eruption (left side of image) resulting from processes explained by two new natural laws in the UM – earthquake friction from the gravitational tidal forces exerted by the other moons and Jupiter. The surface of Io rises and falls over 100 meters a day.