Thank you for covering this. I've always wondered about the bend, but I also still assert that if you trace movement back far enough, the current Hawaiian hot spot is the same one responsible for the Siberian Traps and the Permian-Triassic mass extinction.
I've looked into this: There is absolutely no consensus about this. I would like to point out however: All those ridges turn the same direction at the same time, instantly dismantling hotspot movement as a potential cause.
@@Flyingdutchy33 I've read that one author's papers as well and the idea of the mantle plume plasticity never really set right with me. You're absolutely right. The multiple island chains all turning at once blows all of his theories out of the water.
@@Flyingdutchy33 why? I mean…I have no basis for arguing against your point…but it seems at least *possible* that some macro scale event in the mantle caused a group of hotspots to all exhibit some kind of common behavior.
Any theory of hotspot migration would have to explain the thermodynamics of how it would even be possible. As such, until a thermodynamical and physical model of such movement is proposed, its is pure speculation and should treated with skepticism out of hand. I admit I'm not super up to date on the bleeding edge of geophysics research, but as far as I'm aware, no such theory has even been put forward yet. My gut says hotspot migration is probably possible, given the mantle's close interaction with the dynamo effect inside Earth's core, but my knowledge is far too limited to say any more.
I did my Bachelor's in Physics and was trying to switch over to Geophysics for grad school specifically to study this one phenomenon. I've been obsessed with it for decades. I still may go back for it eventually.
is it possible that the earth's access changed?? (the controversial hypothesis) 3 to 5 mile thick ice wouldn't melt in the northern regions in a few thousand years, just do the math! a 1" cube of ice takes almost an hour to completely melt at room temperature....... (science isn't as smart as science thinks it is)
and is there any model who retrace all impact on earth , biggest eruption, planet movement for millions and millions years? and we knew few about mantle, can you retrace mantle movement composition temperature and pressure for millions of years? i dont think so, whereas math and physic are quite universal, specifically in geology each country go with their own strate name, geologic map are hard to mix together and each one is made with different purpose. and millions years are quite something to handle, if we come back 50millions years ago, continent werent the same, crust cna derive on mantle too. and how can we understand erosion completly?, few thousand years are enough for wipeout mountain range island and about glacier too.. everybody speak about pangee this supercontinent pangée only 250m yo, but who can explain why it form at least and what happened before because you know than the moon is a result of a collision 4b yo ago, so can you model what happen deep in the earth 4b 3b 2b 1b y ago? lot of approximation.
i mean, do you see how fluid is lava? deepest forage find only caramel consistance, the earth is a hot rock fluid ball where float a tiny crust. and from the scare of it you try to understand the whole history of mantle for millions years? its like trying to read marine stream history with just looking at sea surface and coast, isnt it a bit presomptuous dont you think?
@@eriklerougeuh5772 What are you trying to allude to? Why not just come out and say it? Are you a religious believer? PS I am guessing you are French based on your style of English, is that correct?
There's a lot yet to be learned about hot spots, their nature, origin and structure. Recent work shows that there has been some movement of hot spots relative to each other. Much of what's going on in the mantle is still mysterious, only very generally understood or hypothesized. There's a lot of detail yet to be learned about plate movements, too. Exciting times!
Yeah the discoveries of seismic tomography have shown that the mantle is surprisingly heterogenous one of the most interesting of which is that the boundaries between at least some spreading ridges appear to not be limited to Earth's crust but rather extend down deep into the mantle at least to the Mantle Transition Zone between the upper and lower mantle. Some hotspots such as Yellowstone or Iceland actually appear to lie directly along these discontinuities which in the absence of an overlying continent the same rigid plate like configurations as mid ocean ridges. Its a fascinating subject will be interesting to see what discoveries are made in the future
I wondered this too. The Juan De Fuca plate and the San Andreas motion agree in the concept that the Pacific plate is trying to rotate now. There appears to be a slight twist in the Hawaian hotspot today. [The current sea mount is off line from the rest]. But that's an idea I've had for some time that the pacific plate rotated in the past. As far as I know, the hotspot is static. The plate shifts over it.
Additionally, I imagine the underlying topography of a rotating plate can cause flux in the mantle plumes which can have an effect on hotspot movement or existence.
@@jul1440 Are you suggesting a river of sorts, of magma under the plate? And possibly, the magma gets directed to or dammed up in certain spots? I like that idea. I don't know if we have sonor that can detect that deep through the crust though.
@@jamesvaughn7389 A vertical river, yes, called an upwell; the cause of hotspots, and the spreading action at the bottom of the crust. It can be inferred from watching soup boil.
Excellent video as always! A topic I'd really like a video about would be the Guiana Shield between Venezuela, Brazil, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana.
I do not know of any major impacts around that time. Would be unlikely to cause a tectonic shift. Although impacts release extreme amounts of energy, this energy is not enough to reverse the dominant motion of a tectonic plate.
Because plates move, and rotate. Edit: Even sections within a plate can rotate, the US Pacific NW is essentially rotating right now in a clockwise direction. Perhaps some localized intra-plate rotation occurred where the hotspot was to make its track change much more drastically than did other Pacific seamount chains?
Because of the differences of motion noted at different times in different parts of the Pacific Plate, I have wondered if the "single huge plate" idea might be wrong and there's something more structurally complex going on.
East-west is the same direction throughout the Pacific plate, but north-south is not. North-south lines are parallel only at the equator, becoming increasingly convergent towards the poles. How do the bends in the different hotspot tracks compare when corrected to spherical geometry?
The Pacific Plate _should_ mostly be one huge plate (due to the way it formed), perhaps with the odd microplate or remnant of an extinct plate merged with the Pacific Plate
there is quite a bit of deviation in the current hawaiian islands + loihi seamount compared to the last 47 million years track. could we currently be witnessing another bend happening?
How could we know? The volcanoes probably never form exactly over the hot spot as the magma finds its way up through the crust in the path of least resistance. None of the volcanoes are really in a straight line. Though if you look a the placement of the big island, it's quite possible a southward trend may be evident. At the same time, the surface islands don't tell the whole story. The big island is the big island, but only if one doesn't take into account the entirety of Maui-Nui. Seems to me the trend would indicate much greater lava production since the start of Maui-Nui. None of the previous islands was near as big as either Maui-Nui or Hawai'i.
@@wiredforstereo Isn't at least part of the reason that Hawaiian islands WNW of Maui and Hawaii are smaller because bring older they have gradually subsided back into the ocean?
I could be wrong, but I think what the video pointed out about other pacific hotspots, along with the discussion of the Hawaiian one maybe actually moving, suggests that there hasn't been any major change in plate movement more recently. That it's the hotspot moving that is responsible, in other words.
@Michael Deierhoi They have but they create reefs as they do so. They won't completely sink back into the ocean floor. In fact, I was watching a video today about the mantle plume and they were talking about how the island building output has increased exponentially since the early days of the Hawaii Emporer Seamount Chain, 80 million years ago. In 80 million years Maui Nui will be a large family of former atoll reefs, rather than a tiny seamount like the early ones 80-50 mya.
Oh my goodness, thanks for this! I've been wondering and tried finding info online but couldn't find anything definitive. Thanks for breaking it down! My follow-up question would be, what caused that little "curly-q" on the seafloor near the west end of the Aleutian archipelago?
I heard a theory that the Hawaiian hotspot possibly could have been caused by a antipode from a asteroid hitting Africa. There is a crater there almost exactly the opposite of the hotspot and if it was big enough the somhockwave through the earth could have cause the opposite side to open up causing the hotspot. Idk if it’s true but it sounds like an possibility. What do you think?
Is there a similar hot spot track pattern from what eastern Washington thru Idaho to the Yellow Stone in north west Wyoming ? Are the dates of this moving hot spot similar or is this a coincidence? Geology Hub Rocks! Stupid dad joke, I can't help it.
It also appears that after the bend occurred, activity seems to have waned for a period. As the seamounts immediately after the bend appear much smaller/more eroded.
I've often wondered about this myself. I'm not above postulating that when the Farallon Plate subducted beneath N America and the San Andreas Fault began to form was about the same time frame as the Big Bend. What's to say that due to the shift of the Farallon Plate from a convergent boundary to a transform boundary, the North American Plate's continual westward movement hasn't been "pushing" the Pacific Plate in a similar direction?
Sadly we know those features didn't form at the right time nor latitude the situation is way more complicated than that in western North America Nick Zentner's A to Z Baja BC controversy livestream series from this past winter takes deep dive into this.
@@Dragrath1 You're not lyin'. I tried to keep up during Nick's Baja/BC A-Z this winter, but he just got done doing a downtown lecture series that puts it all together in a digestible form that explains a whole lot with a lot more clarity. I attended the "How the Rockies were Formed" lecture in Ellensburg and I wasn't disappointed. Turns everything we thought we knew about the west coast tectonics on its ear.
Topic request: Are these meteor impacts? There are two undersea chains leading to circular areas off the coast of Massachusetts and Nova Scotia. There's an undersea chain leading from the central Atlantic to Nigeria, which include Sao Tome and Principe. There's another chain starting at approximately Edinburgh of the Seven Seas going to the coast of Angola/Namibia. There's a chain to the West of South America starting at Isla de Pascua (Hanga Roa), splitting in two and going to the coasts of Southern Peru and Northern Chile. I'm seeing even more. The first chain pointing to circular underwater features near Massachusetts and Nova Scotia just seem pretty obvious. Is that, or any of the others, discussed in academia?
Impacts seem to be something that nearly all branches hate to discuss. Or maybe I'm being paranoid, but a lot of scientists seem to either ignore or belittle the question.
It looks to me like North West South America is impacting an ancient content firmly ensconced in the Pacific plate. The Galapagos islands (?) look like they're on the South West tip of this ancient content. The stress has compelled a split in the Carribean (?) plate, maybe? ... Good stuff! Thanks!
You could actually calculate the size of it. Confounding factors would be ocean current erosion as they have changed over the time period. My old professor Denis Guiest wrote a paper on how the island chain shrinks as it cools down and that's why they are all under water. He basically got called a crackpot in prominent journals for the idea but was later proved right.
Because the crust is moving over the hot spot welling up through the mantle. The mantle moves as well but more slowly than the crust. But there's still a lot we don't know about hotspots or mantle plumes as geologists call them. "Mantle Plumes" as a theory, while much of it seems to hold up based on the data so far, is still a little up for debate as there are a lot of unanswered questions. We're still not even very sure why they form in the first place. A smaller group of geologists even contend mantle plumes as theorized don't exist, and that plate tectonic theory can explain most hotspot/mantle plumes. In other words they argue that hotspots are created by the interactions of plates, and are not created by random heat plumes emanating from the mantle. This is of course hotly debated among the rest of the geology field as they view the mantle plume theory as having the firmer data.
I think the best way to look at it is that yes, everything is moving in its own different way, but you have to pick something to define all that motion against. Since the mantle represents a sizeable chunk of the planet, and it's the part the crust is directly in contact with, it's reasonable to define the mantle as 'stationary'. That said, there really is no reason to expect what is essentially a thermal updraft of hot plastic rock to remain perfectly fixed relative to the average motion of the mantle. Though, unless the source of heat is moving as well, you would expect the motion of the hot spot at the surface to be small, random, and averaging to zero over long enough time periods. All of this of course assuming mantle plumes are actually a thing, as No Thanks said.
"stationary" is always in the context of a length of time. I don't know of anyone who proposed that today's hotspots have existed since the formation of the earth. Keep in mind that the mantle can move, churn if you will, but the timescale is vast. The term "hot spot" gets used too freely, IMO. One instead should think of _hotter_ regions in the upper mantle.
@@torydavis10 More to my point, it's suggested (I don't know what top geologists think about it) that the tectonic plate has no influence on the hot spot. Given everywhere we look, bodies in motion (this is a massive body!) always affect other bodies they're in contact with. So a continental plate's movement is affecting the hot spot as well. A relatively quick shift in direction would likely involve both bodies. 👍
My hypothesis is that the bend was caused by the collision of the Pacific plate with the SW tail of the Juan De Fuco plate off the Oregon coast and the mid locking of the San Andreas north of Los Angeles. The Pacific Plate partially sub-ducted under the Juan de Fuco and then locked with the northward direction being forced to be North West instead. It is why the pacific plate has a divergent boundary with the Juan De Fuco except at the lock where the Pacific plate is trying to force theJuan De Fuco plate to subduct at the Cascadia subduction boundary. Such activity can be seen in mechanical terms where it it makes sense.
Very spectacular view watching the lava inside Mauna Loa at night. Daringly walked the rim of Fissure 8, now named Ahu'aila'au, in Leilani Estates on the Big Island. It was still smoking & hotter in the area.
The big island doesn't follow in line with the past few millions of years. And it seems massive compared to recent island clusters (even if clusters has been conjoined "big islands" of their time) Is it turning again? Is it slowing?
I've wondered about the sizes of the seamounts / islands too. The recent ones do seem much more massive, especially compared to the ones that formed right after the bend. And the Emperor Seamounts look larger and appear to have flat tops that might have eroded at the surface. Does the hot spot vary in intensity? Maybe that was in between convection cells bubbling up to the surface? I looked up maps of seafloor age and it doesn't look like the seafloor moved dramatically faster or slower over time. (PS, greetings from a Bay Stater)
I am not a geologist, but have always had an active interest. I also have a tendency to look at things quite differently from the accepted norm. I have often wondered about the direction change at the Emperor seamount. This video has given a historical date of about 47 million years for the direction change, which falls about 18 million years short of what I believed. Hearing of the other Pacific hotspot changes (Rurutu, Macdonald and Louisville) I again thought: Is there an error in the time table? Extending the southeasterly direction of growth, you come very close to the Chicxulub impact site. I am sure that there is also some tectonic drift of that location as well, but was it possible that the impact was so great that the entire Pacific plate was "pushed" into a new westerly direction causing the change in hotspot movement? Assuming that the hotspot location is fairly stable, I think that the movement of the Pacific plate over the hotspot is slowly trying to resume a northerly direction (elastic memory of the crust?) which may account for the "mostly straight line with some minor variations" towards the southeast. This video shows that the geologic timing overrides my assumption, but it was an interesting concept for me for a while.
I beleive its a likely combination, the plates tend to grind along the edges like a boat, this can make the plate continuously change direction like a grounding boat. Molten hotspots can also move, flowing with the major viscosity like a heat plume from a fire in the wind.
The Pacific plate was born from the triple point of the three main plates of Panthalassa: Farallon, Phoenix and Izanagi. A major decrease in spreading rate of the Antarctic-Phoenix Ridge and the convergence rate of the Phoenix Plate with the Antarctic Plate occurred around 52.3 Ma ago, followed by subduction of a segment of the Antarctic-Phoenix Ridge between 50 and 43 Ma ago. This ridge, was the main engine of the Pacific plate's northward momentum. When the ridge itself was subducted, the south-north expansion lost most of its drive. That sounds to me like a possible explanation.
I’ve always thought the idea that the Hawaiian plume was caused by the impact at its antipode in South Africa, Ngorongoro Crater, was an interesting idea. Creating a shockwave within the earth creating the hot spot. I don’t think it’s really possible due to continental drift as the antipode may have changed since the impact. But still interesting to think about.
@@CJB787 curious -- reminds me of the hypothesis that the Hellas Planitia impact basin on Mars led to the formation of the Tharsis Rise & related shield volcanoes...
This reminds me of a similar question I had about the aleutian island chain. There seems to be a “hook” in the bering sea off the coast of kamchatka, that spirals north off of the plate boundary that forms the aleutian chain. What caused/causes that structure? I cant find much online
I am curious what you think the shape AND size of the Hawaiian hotspot might be. I've seen some images from Wikipedia (yeah I know) of the mantle plume head potentially being dragged by the Pacific plate. I've seen some figures that the size of the hotspot could be 500-600 kms wide (310-370 miles - also source linked in wiki). However I am curious if you think the width AND length of the hotspot are vastly different or not. It seems to me like it might be, since there aren't many volcanoes around Hawaii. They are pretty packed in a tight bunch. But I only have an elementary knowledge of geology and volcanology. Thanks!
What if "nothing" directly related to the hot spot actually ever changed ? What if (sometime in the past), Earth's axial rotational orientation changed ? Ridiculous I know, however if such a thing could occur, the effects would probably be seen in the form of specific geometries of varying magnitude..................................................................................................
Thank you for this video. I'd been wondering why the bend existed, and I had not noticed the bends in the other hot-spot island chains. Interesting that a connection to the movement (and collision) of the Indian/Australian plate(s) is possible.
Movements of the magnetic poles is recorded in the basalt the is extruded at mid-ocean ridges as it freezes. That is how reversal of magnetic poles was proven. But as the ocean crust records these things it is then clear that the mid ocean ridges keep pumping out basalt regardless of magnetic field changes, so there's no reason to thing the magnetic field changes are that important to the dynamics of the crust.
ECD - Earth Crust Displacement. The wiggles and wobbles of the chain and the abrupt bend are not a change of direction of the what lies beneath but of a what is above (crust) being in a different location. Move you globe until the NW line is on and West-East axis.... and you will see one of the previous locations of the North and South Pole. ECD occurs every 12.5k to 50k years.
I would think that each time the Farallon Plate and its children, e.g. Juan de Fuca, Nazca, Cocos, split, the pressures along all the adjacent plates' boundaries would have changed and therefore the trajectory and rotation of the Pacific Plate particularly. What developed into the North American western coast is a complicated history of such changes in the plate boundaries. Once the North American Plate ran out of Farallon Plate along what is now California, where the Pacific and North American Plates now met shifted into a primarily transform fault system,, the entire region squeezed, twisted, and sheered. Plate tectonics to me appears somewhat analogous to bubbles in a hot tub or other films on water-shifting, merging, changing directions, breaking apart; only the substrate is a sphere and I doubt solar wind makes any difference.
Fascinating stuff - most things of my experience either takes place over a human scale, or the physics are straightforward (if more complex than I can do the Maths for...) - plate tectonics, however, are long-term and still not well understood fully...
I always hear that the Pacific plate is subducting under the Asiatic plate. And that the duration that the Hawaiian Hotspot has been active is indeterminate. But I have never heard where the Pacific plate is growing. I know the North American plate is moving westward and growing at the mid Atlantic Ridge. I also have heard that it is overrunning the Pacific plate. Does this mean that the Pacific plate will someday be fully overwhelmed, and Asia and North America will collide, with the Hawaiian Hotspot ending up in the Atlantic Ocean off the East coast of Brazil, or central America ??
Could you please do a video on palimpsest plate boundaries, that is, ancient plate boundaries that are now extinct yet still visible? One look at the Pacific seafloor in Google Earth should illuminate what I'm talking about. Thanks.
See the Growing Earth theory. The continental crust broke apart in the Atlantic around this time period. The crust in the Pacific looks like it pivoted. You can see this in the Russia-Alaska region. Once you realize that subduction does not account for a significant amount of loss of basaltic crust-that there was no loss; the earth has grown-geology makes a whole helluva a lot more sense. And the geologists who kick and scream are sad to watch and usually get very hostile and defensive.
Do you think that an old mid-ocean ridge got shoved under the North American plate, causing the super volcanoes Valles, Long Valley, Yellowstone and other active and extinct volcanic features?
For the many millions of years before the Indian plate hit Asia, it was still moving northwards, and hence there must’ve been subduction of the floor of the Tethys ocean at the plate margin. Wouldn’t this have led to volcanic activity in what is not the Tibetan plateau, much like the pacific ring of fire? Are there any remnants today? Even if the cones were destroyed, I’m thinking there must be basaltic plugs and other formations scattered in the Himalayas?
It was giants. The first Polynesians. That one underwater island totally looks like a person lying down. I mean it was global warming, man made global warming. That's the reason for everything.
At the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, they had an exhibit called Science on a Sphere, where they projected animations onto a sphere that you could walk around while it was being displayed. One of the displays was the hurricane season, the year that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Another display was an animation of the tectonic plates moving. In this animation it showed the older Hawaiian islands that now make up the Emperor Seamount Chain, as they were being formed in chronological order back in time, which starts about 75 million years ago. As I walked around this globe, I noticed that the kink in the Hawaiian island chain coincided with when the Indian subcontinent slammed into Asia, forming the Himalaya mountains, including Mount Everest, the highest mountain in the world. The Hawaiian Astronomical Society which I was a member of at the time, meets at the Bishop Museum, that's why I was there to see this. I told the members of the Astronomy club about my idea that maybe India slamming into Asia, jammed up the tectonic plates somehow and caused the direction of the Pacific plate to change, thus causing the change of direction in the formation of the Hawaiian islands. They all said that I was crazy. A couple of years later while printing out maps about Hawaii for my tour company, I came across a scientific paper that suggested the same thing that I thought. It's still the best idea I've heard.
The problem with theory may be that geologists have not yet been able to draw a causal link from one to the other. So at present it is at best secondary influence on the Pacific plate redirection.
I always noticed the bend on maps, but I never thought much of it. I don’t know much about continental drift so I assumed “yup, pacific just decided to go in a different direction”
How about tectonic plate movement between the Antarctic Peninsular and the southern tip on South America and the South Sandwich Islands. What's going on there?
The bend occurred right about the time the North American plate overrode the Pacific spreading ridge. Until then the Pacific plate was moving North then it started moving West. Overriding progressively younger crust was probably easier as NA moved west so the Pacific plate could continue North but when the ridge was crossed, NA started riding over old,tougher crust, friction increased and started pushing the Pacific crust westward,
Too many fascinating things on RUclips and too little time, memory and brain power to appreciate it all. People don't believe me when I say I haven't watched my 📺 even once in the last four years.
If the Hotspot is relatively stationary and the Pacific plate is moving over it then the collision of two other plates - Indian and Asian, could alter the Pacific plate's movement, resulting in the perceived bend in the Hawaiian chain.
I’m a native US English speaker and can hardly understand you. Can’t you speak more slowly and clearly? It sounds mostly like garbled nonsense to me, and I’m a geologist! It’s not like the vocabulary is unfamiliar to me.
Could the pouring out of the glacier lake in Montana and a big chunk of Canada make the pacific plate move like that? Moving a big mass closer to sea level would increase earth’s rotation too no. Damnifino.
The crust slipped when the magma coefficient of friction decreased due to magnetic disturbance Since the ice caps have more mass, they swung the entire crust until the ice caps were at the equator due to rotation. This magma source is below the crust, so it stayed put relative to the Earth itself. Only the crust slid, like an outer shell loosening up due to slippage
Uhh, Mauna Loa recently did erupt lava down its north face. Nov 27 2022 to Dec 13 2022.
Год назад
Of course it is pure speculation, but for me it seems that huge asteroid impact changed either tectonic plate movement and/or underlaying mantle plumbing or even it changed earths rotational parameters, like angle and speed so hotspot movement was also affected.
I always wondered about this when I saw it for the first time and wondered why it changed directions? The Hawaiian chain I mean. I always figured a tectonic plate from another area had something to do with it or a oceanic plate change the direction the chain went underneath the mantle. It seems I guessed about a sailor's everybody else because that's such a big thing to do for sure.
I am curious about three tracks intersecting. The Aleutians the Hawaiian islands chain and the Japanese Chain. Is it possible that a major meteor hit causing a hot spot that split. Is it further possible that this might have something to do with the Siberian Traps.
The pieces of the earth's crust follows the natural order of things, The bend means that in the past the crust in that area was moving in a different direction than today. Why? Because it will follow the least path of resistance. Today that path is different than what it was in the past, and in the future it will be different still.
Is this related to the formation of the rocky mountains in the fixed island narrative? There is Paleo magnetism that suggests similar movements of land in North America
After seeing where the hotspot came from, is it possible that maybe the hotspot originated from the Siberian traps. Just like the Yellowstone hotspot originated from something similar in the Pacific northwest?
As the comments section is mentioning, this subject matter is still very much up for debate. It has been like this for several decades.
Thank you for covering this. I've always wondered about the bend, but I also still assert that if you trace movement back far enough, the current Hawaiian hot spot is the same one responsible for the Siberian Traps and the Permian-Triassic mass extinction.
Could you explain why Africa is splitting apart? No, check that. HAS split apart
Are the scientist sure that there's no link betwen de Hawaii hotspot and the Siberian Traps?
Great presentation. Cheers 🌋🥂🌋
@@whiteknightcat that's an interesting hypothesis. I'd watch a video about it if there's merits to the argument
This is a rather perplexing topic for me personally. There really needs to be a high-quality visualization of this strange event.
I've looked into this: There is absolutely no consensus about this. I would like to point out however: All those ridges turn the same direction at the same time, instantly dismantling hotspot movement as a potential cause.
@@Flyingdutchy33 I've read that one author's papers as well and the idea of the mantle plume plasticity never really set right with me. You're absolutely right. The multiple island chains all turning at once blows all of his theories out of the water.
@@Kvantum And so, if the hotspots didn't move.... The crust must have.
I honestly am still confused about the abruptness of the turn compared to the other ones.
@@Flyingdutchy33 why? I mean…I have no basis for arguing against your point…but it seems at least *possible* that some macro scale event in the mantle caused a group of hotspots to all exhibit some kind of common behavior.
We have to admit at all this is guesses, as none of can be proved with certainty
Any theory of hotspot migration would have to explain the thermodynamics of how it would even be possible. As such, until a thermodynamical and physical model of such movement is proposed, its is pure speculation and should treated with skepticism out of hand. I admit I'm not super up to date on the bleeding edge of geophysics research, but as far as I'm aware, no such theory has even been put forward yet. My gut says hotspot migration is probably possible, given the mantle's close interaction with the dynamo effect inside Earth's core, but my knowledge is far too limited to say any more.
I did my Bachelor's in Physics and was trying to switch over to Geophysics for grad school specifically to study this one phenomenon. I've been obsessed with it for decades. I still may go back for it eventually.
I started in astrophysics and and once you know about stars, you have to learn planets!
is it possible that the earth's access changed?? (the controversial hypothesis)
3 to 5 mile thick ice wouldn't melt in the northern regions in a few thousand years, just do the math!
a 1" cube of ice takes almost an hour to completely melt at room temperature.......
(science isn't as smart as science thinks it is)
and is there any model who retrace all impact on earth , biggest eruption, planet movement for millions and millions years?
and we knew few about mantle, can you retrace mantle movement composition temperature and pressure for millions of years?
i dont think so, whereas math and physic are quite universal, specifically in geology each country go with their own strate name, geologic map are hard to mix together and each one is made with different purpose.
and millions years are quite something to handle, if we come back 50millions years ago, continent werent the same, crust cna derive on mantle too. and how can we understand erosion completly?, few thousand years are enough for wipeout mountain range island and about glacier too.. everybody speak about pangee this supercontinent pangée only 250m yo, but who can explain why it form at least and what happened before because you know than the moon is a result of a collision 4b yo ago, so can you model what happen deep in the earth 4b 3b 2b 1b y ago?
lot of approximation.
i mean, do you see how fluid is lava? deepest forage find only caramel consistance,
the earth is a hot rock fluid ball where float a tiny crust. and from the scare of it you try to understand the whole history of mantle for millions years?
its like trying to read marine stream history with just looking at sea surface and coast, isnt it a bit presomptuous dont you think?
@@eriklerougeuh5772 What are you trying to allude to? Why not just come out and say it? Are you a religious believer?
PS I am guessing you are French based on your style of English, is that correct?
There's a lot yet to be learned about hot spots, their nature, origin and structure. Recent work shows that there has been some movement of hot spots relative to each other. Much of what's going on in the mantle is still mysterious, only very generally understood or hypothesized. There's a lot of detail yet to be learned about plate movements, too. Exciting times!
Yeah the discoveries of seismic tomography have shown that the mantle is surprisingly heterogenous one of the most interesting of which is that the boundaries between at least some spreading ridges appear to not be limited to Earth's crust but rather extend down deep into the mantle at least to the Mantle Transition Zone between the upper and lower mantle. Some hotspots such as Yellowstone or Iceland actually appear to lie directly along these discontinuities which in the absence of an overlying continent the same rigid plate like configurations as mid ocean ridges. Its a fascinating subject will be interesting to see what discoveries are made in the future
I heard a hypothesis that some (not all) of the hot spots may be the byproduct of a meteor impact antipodal to the hot spot.
Always wondered about why hotspot changed direction. Thanks for laying out various theories!
Pacific plate rotation induced by plate collision would cause these bends and also explain the greater bending as you move to the edge of the plate.
I wondered this too. The Juan De Fuca plate and the San Andreas motion agree in the concept that the Pacific plate is trying to rotate now. There appears to be a slight twist in the Hawaian hotspot today. [The current sea mount is off line from the rest]. But that's an idea I've had for some time that the pacific plate rotated in the past. As far as I know, the hotspot is static. The plate shifts over it.
Additionally, I imagine the underlying topography of a rotating plate can cause flux in the mantle plumes which can have an effect on hotspot movement or existence.
@@jul1440 Are you suggesting a river of sorts, of magma under the plate? And possibly, the magma gets directed to or dammed up in certain spots? I like that idea. I don't know if we have sonor that can detect that deep through the crust though.
@@jamesvaughn7389 A vertical river, yes, called an upwell; the cause of hotspots, and the spreading action at the bottom of the crust. It can be inferred from watching soup boil.
Excellent video as always!
A topic I'd really like a video about would be the Guiana Shield between Venezuela, Brazil, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana.
Maybe side effect of major meteor impact. Interesting they all move around the same time.
I do not know of any major impacts around that time. Would be unlikely to cause a tectonic shift. Although impacts release extreme amounts of energy, this energy is not enough to reverse the dominant motion of a tectonic plate.
Because plates move, and rotate. Edit: Even sections within a plate can rotate, the US Pacific NW is essentially rotating right now in a clockwise direction. Perhaps some localized intra-plate rotation occurred where the hotspot was to make its track change much more drastically than did other Pacific seamount chains?
As long as we don’t make fun of it. They can’t help that it bends 😅
Hawaii: We're changing Lo'ihi's name to a whole sentence.
Geology Hub: The seamount formerly known as Prince.
Because of the differences of motion noted at different times in different parts of the Pacific Plate, I have wondered if the "single huge plate" idea might be wrong and there's something more structurally complex going on.
East-west is the same direction throughout the Pacific plate, but north-south is not. North-south lines are parallel only at the equator, becoming increasingly convergent towards the poles. How do the bends in the different hotspot tracks compare when corrected to spherical geometry?
The Pacific Plate _should_ mostly be one huge plate (due to the way it formed), perhaps with the odd microplate or remnant of an extinct plate merged with the Pacific Plate
What I'm curious about is what caused the split path of seamounts there at the bend
Good question, thats also very interesting
there is quite a bit of deviation in the current hawaiian islands + loihi seamount compared to the last 47 million years track. could we currently be witnessing another bend happening?
How could we know? The volcanoes probably never form exactly over the hot spot as the magma finds its way up through the crust in the path of least resistance. None of the volcanoes are really in a straight line. Though if you look a the placement of the big island, it's quite possible a southward trend may be evident. At the same time, the surface islands don't tell the whole story. The big island is the big island, but only if one doesn't take into account the entirety of Maui-Nui.
Seems to me the trend would indicate much greater lava production since the start of Maui-Nui. None of the previous islands was near as big as either Maui-Nui or Hawai'i.
@@wiredforstereo Isn't at least part of the reason that Hawaiian islands WNW of Maui and Hawaii are smaller because bring older they have gradually subsided back into the ocean?
I could be wrong, but I think what the video pointed out about other pacific hotspots, along with the discussion of the Hawaiian one maybe actually moving, suggests that there hasn't been any major change in plate movement more recently. That it's the hotspot moving that is responsible, in other words.
@Michael Deierhoi They have but they create reefs as they do so. They won't completely sink back into the ocean floor. In fact, I was watching a video today about the mantle plume and they were talking about how the island building output has increased exponentially since the early days of the Hawaii Emporer Seamount Chain, 80 million years ago.
In 80 million years Maui Nui will be a large family of former atoll reefs, rather than a tiny seamount like the early ones 80-50 mya.
@@wiredforstereo Interesting. Thanks for commenting back.
🌱🌏💚 Have a look between Hawai'i & Pacific Islands/Kermadec Arc. There's visible linear chains there too.
Oh my goodness, thanks for this! I've been wondering and tried finding info online but couldn't find anything definitive. Thanks for breaking it down! My follow-up question would be, what caused that little "curly-q" on the seafloor near the west end of the Aleutian archipelago?
Ohh near Attu Station!! I see it! That’s my favorite thing to do with this channel, find interesting areas and then go look for them on a map.
I heard a theory that the Hawaiian hotspot possibly could have been caused by a antipode from a asteroid hitting Africa. There is a crater there almost exactly the opposite of the hotspot and if it was big enough the somhockwave through the earth could have cause the opposite side to open up causing the hotspot. Idk if it’s true but it sounds like an possibility. What do you think?
What about the proposed bend in the path of the Yellowstone hotspot? Can you cover that as well please?
Is there a similar hot spot track pattern from what eastern Washington thru Idaho to the Yellow Stone in north west Wyoming ? Are the dates of this moving hot spot similar or is this a coincidence? Geology Hub Rocks! Stupid dad joke, I can't help it.
It also appears that after the bend occurred, activity seems to have waned for a period. As the seamounts immediately after the bend appear much smaller/more eroded.
Yes the Volcano formally known as Loihi! Because Efff what ever the heck it's called now.
After consuming the Kula Plate, the Pacific Plate decided to look for new prey.😜
I've often wondered about this myself. I'm not above postulating that when the Farallon Plate subducted beneath N America and the San Andreas Fault began to form was about the same time frame as the Big Bend. What's to say that due to the shift of the Farallon Plate from a convergent boundary to a transform boundary, the North American Plate's continual westward movement hasn't been "pushing" the Pacific Plate in a similar direction?
Sadly we know those features didn't form at the right time nor latitude the situation is way more complicated than that in western North America Nick Zentner's A to Z Baja BC controversy livestream series from this past winter takes deep dive into this.
@@Dragrath1 You're not lyin'. I tried to keep up during Nick's Baja/BC A-Z this winter, but he just got done doing a downtown lecture series that puts it all together in a digestible form that explains a whole lot with a lot more clarity. I attended the "How the Rockies were Formed" lecture in Ellensburg and I wasn't disappointed. Turns everything we thought we knew about the west coast tectonics on its ear.
Could the Farralon plate being subducted under the north American plate have caused this ?
I mean, by the time the bend happened the Farallon had been subducting under North America for 100 million years already, not sure it lines up.
Topic request: Are these meteor impacts? There are two undersea chains leading to circular areas off the coast of Massachusetts and Nova Scotia. There's an undersea chain leading from the central Atlantic to Nigeria, which include Sao Tome and Principe. There's another chain starting at approximately Edinburgh of the Seven Seas going to the coast of Angola/Namibia. There's a chain to the West of South America starting at Isla de Pascua (Hanga Roa), splitting in two and going to the coasts of Southern Peru and Northern Chile. I'm seeing even more. The first chain pointing to circular underwater features near Massachusetts and Nova Scotia just seem pretty obvious. Is that, or any of the others, discussed in academia?
Impacts seem to be something that nearly all branches hate to discuss. Or maybe I'm being paranoid, but a lot of scientists seem to either ignore or belittle the question.
Super! I've been wondering about this ever since the first time I saw Google Earth!
Wondering if someone can connect the most prominent changes of directions with some big plume eruptions or catastrophic event...
It looks to me like North West South America is impacting an ancient content firmly ensconced in the Pacific plate. The Galapagos islands (?) look like they're on the South West tip of this ancient content. The stress has compelled a split in the Carribean (?) plate, maybe? ... Good stuff! Thanks!
I would’ve loved to see the original mantle plume head’s island, it must’ve been enormous, Iceland or larger sized
You could actually calculate the size of it. Confounding factors would be ocean current erosion as they have changed over the time period. My old professor Denis Guiest wrote a paper on how the island chain shrinks as it cools down and that's why they are all under water. He basically got called a crackpot in prominent journals for the idea but was later proved right.
Is it possible that a plate interaction changed from strike slip to subduction?
I have wondered about this for years. I guess the answer still isn’t clear.
I haven't heard an argument for why a hot spot would remain stationary, relative to the planet. It seems everything else is in motion.
Because the crust is moving over the hot spot welling up through the mantle. The mantle moves as well but more slowly than the crust. But there's still a lot we don't know about hotspots or mantle plumes as geologists call them. "Mantle Plumes" as a theory, while much of it seems to hold up based on the data so far, is still a little up for debate as there are a lot of unanswered questions. We're still not even very sure why they form in the first place. A smaller group of geologists even contend mantle plumes as theorized don't exist, and that plate tectonic theory can explain most hotspot/mantle plumes. In other words they argue that hotspots are created by the interactions of plates, and are not created by random heat plumes emanating from the mantle. This is of course hotly debated among the rest of the geology field as they view the mantle plume theory as having the firmer data.
I think the best way to look at it is that yes, everything is moving in its own different way, but you have to pick something to define all that motion against. Since the mantle represents a sizeable chunk of the planet, and it's the part the crust is directly in contact with, it's reasonable to define the mantle as 'stationary'. That said, there really is no reason to expect what is essentially a thermal updraft of hot plastic rock to remain perfectly fixed relative to the average motion of the mantle. Though, unless the source of heat is moving as well, you would expect the motion of the hot spot at the surface to be small, random, and averaging to zero over long enough time periods. All of this of course assuming mantle plumes are actually a thing, as No Thanks said.
@@nothanks3236 Geological arguments! So heated over a nice single malt lol.
"stationary" is always in the context of a length of time. I don't know of anyone who proposed that today's hotspots have existed since the formation of the earth. Keep in mind that the mantle can move, churn if you will, but the timescale is vast. The term "hot spot" gets used too freely, IMO. One instead should think of _hotter_ regions in the upper mantle.
@@torydavis10 More to my point, it's suggested (I don't know what top geologists think about it) that the tectonic plate has no influence on the hot spot. Given everywhere we look, bodies in motion (this is a massive body!) always affect other bodies they're in contact with. So a continental plate's movement is affecting the hot spot as well. A relatively quick shift in direction would likely involve both bodies. 👍
I think my professor said it had something to do with the Juan de fuca plate getting taken over by the continent.
Can you make a video about the other mentioned hotspots like Louisville, MacDonald and the Rurutu hotspot and its current vulcanoes?
Mine got bent years ago, never straightened back out but the girls say they like the shape
My hypothesis is that the bend was caused by the collision of the Pacific plate with the SW tail of the Juan De Fuco plate off the Oregon coast and the mid locking of the San Andreas north of Los Angeles. The Pacific Plate partially sub-ducted under the Juan de Fuco and then locked with the northward direction being forced to be North West instead. It is why the pacific plate has a divergent boundary with the Juan De Fuco except at the lock where the Pacific plate is trying to force theJuan De Fuco plate to subduct at the Cascadia subduction boundary. Such activity can be seen in mechanical terms where it it makes sense.
The turn is not 115 degrees. It's ~65 degrees. The inside angle is ~115 degrees.
Could you do Yeak Lom Lake in Cambodia? It is a very unusual geologic feature.
Very spectacular view watching the lava inside Mauna Loa at night. Daringly walked the rim of Fissure 8, now named Ahu'aila'au, in Leilani Estates on the Big Island. It was still smoking & hotter in the area.
The big island doesn't follow in line with the past few millions of years. And it seems massive compared to recent island clusters (even if clusters has been conjoined "big islands" of their time) Is it turning again? Is it slowing?
I've wondered about the sizes of the seamounts / islands too. The recent ones do seem much more massive, especially compared to the ones that formed right after the bend. And the Emperor Seamounts look larger and appear to have flat tops that might have eroded at the surface. Does the hot spot vary in intensity? Maybe that was in between convection cells bubbling up to the surface? I looked up maps of seafloor age and it doesn't look like the seafloor moved dramatically faster or slower over time. (PS, greetings from a Bay Stater)
the bend has been a geological curiosity for me. thanks for the information!!
I am not a geologist, but have always had an active interest. I also have a tendency to look at things quite differently from the accepted norm. I have often wondered about the direction change at the Emperor seamount. This video has given a historical date of about 47 million years for the direction change, which falls about 18 million years short of what I believed. Hearing of the other Pacific hotspot changes (Rurutu, Macdonald and Louisville) I again thought: Is there an error in the time table? Extending the southeasterly direction of growth, you come very close to the Chicxulub impact site. I am sure that there is also some tectonic drift of that location as well, but was it possible that the impact was so great that the entire Pacific plate was "pushed" into a new westerly direction causing the change in hotspot movement? Assuming that the hotspot location is fairly stable, I think that the movement of the Pacific plate over the hotspot is slowly trying to resume a northerly direction (elastic memory of the crust?) which may account for the "mostly straight line with some minor variations" towards the southeast. This video shows that the geologic timing overrides my assumption, but it was an interesting concept for me for a while.
You make an intriguing point!
That's wild. Mahalo from the Lower East Rift Zone, Hawaii.
I beleive its a likely combination, the plates tend to grind along the edges like a boat, this can make the plate continuously change direction like a grounding boat. Molten hotspots can also move, flowing with the major viscosity like a heat plume from a fire in the wind.
The Pacific plate was born from the triple point of the three main plates of Panthalassa: Farallon, Phoenix and Izanagi. A major decrease in spreading rate of the Antarctic-Phoenix Ridge and the convergence rate of the Phoenix Plate with the Antarctic Plate occurred around 52.3 Ma ago, followed by subduction of a segment of the Antarctic-Phoenix Ridge between 50 and 43 Ma ago. This ridge, was the main engine of the Pacific plate's northward momentum. When the ridge itself was subducted, the south-north expansion lost most of its drive. That sounds to me like a possible explanation.
I’ve always thought the idea that the Hawaiian plume was caused by the impact at its antipode in South Africa, Ngorongoro Crater, was an interesting idea. Creating a shockwave within the earth creating the hot spot. I don’t think it’s really possible due to continental drift as the antipode may have changed since the impact. But still interesting to think about.
Ngorongoro Crater is a volcanic caldera in Tanzania. Are you thinking of a different place that's an impact site?
@@smiler0charon oh you’re right. I meant the Vredefort impact site in South Africa.
@@CJB787 curious -- reminds me of the hypothesis that the Hellas Planitia impact basin on Mars led to the formation of the Tharsis Rise & related shield volcanoes...
If ya look at the Big Island and where Lohihi is, it's pretty clear the chain is bending again.
Love big picture questions like this!
Have always wondered about this 👍
I've been curious about this for years actually since its clearly visible on Google earth
New drinking game. Every time he says "thus" take a sip!
I still miss how he used to end each video with “pay-tree-on”.
This reminds me of a similar question I had about the aleutian island chain. There seems to be a “hook” in the bering sea off the coast of kamchatka, that spirals north off of the plate boundary that forms the aleutian chain. What caused/causes that structure? I cant find much online
Just remembered: I think it is called bowers ridge. Still not entirely sure of its origin however
I am curious what you think the shape AND size of the Hawaiian hotspot might be. I've seen some images from Wikipedia (yeah I know) of the mantle plume head potentially being dragged by the Pacific plate. I've seen some figures that the size of the hotspot could be 500-600 kms wide (310-370 miles - also source linked in wiki). However I am curious if you think the width AND length of the hotspot are vastly different or not. It seems to me like it might be, since there aren't many volcanoes around Hawaii. They are pretty packed in a tight bunch. But I only have an elementary knowledge of geology and volcanology. Thanks!
Go West young Ham! Go NW!
This is very interesting 🤓
What if "nothing" directly related to the hot spot actually ever changed ? What if (sometime in the past), Earth's axial rotational orientation changed ? Ridiculous I know, however if such a thing could occur, the effects would probably be seen in the form of specific geometries of varying magnitude..................................................................................................
Thank you for this video. I'd been wondering why the bend existed, and I had not noticed the bends in the other hot-spot island chains. Interesting that a connection to the movement (and collision) of the Indian/Australian plate(s) is possible.
Do we know how (and when) earth's magnetic shift effect the tectonic plates?
Movements of the magnetic poles is recorded in the basalt the is extruded at mid-ocean ridges as it freezes. That is how reversal of magnetic poles was proven. But as the ocean crust records these things it is then clear that the mid ocean ridges keep pumping out basalt regardless of magnetic field changes, so there's no reason to thing the magnetic field changes are that important to the dynamics of the crust.
Thank you for this information. 🤗
ECD - Earth Crust Displacement. The wiggles and wobbles of the chain and the abrupt bend are not a change of direction of the what lies beneath but of a what is above (crust) being in a different location. Move you globe until the NW line is on and West-East axis.... and you will see one of the previous locations of the North and South Pole.
ECD occurs every 12.5k to 50k years.
I would think that each time the Farallon Plate and its children, e.g. Juan de Fuca, Nazca, Cocos, split, the pressures along all the adjacent plates' boundaries would have changed and therefore the trajectory and rotation of the Pacific Plate particularly. What developed into the North American western coast is a complicated history of such changes in the plate boundaries. Once the North American Plate ran out of Farallon Plate along what is now California, where the Pacific and North American Plates now met shifted into a primarily transform fault system,, the entire region squeezed, twisted, and sheered. Plate tectonics to me appears somewhat analogous to bubbles in a hot tub or other films on water-shifting, merging, changing directions, breaking apart; only the substrate is a sphere and I doubt solar wind makes any difference.
Very good and informative! Short and concise.
Fascinating stuff - most things of my experience either takes place over a human scale, or the physics are straightforward (if more complex than I can do the Maths for...) - plate tectonics, however, are long-term and still not well understood fully...
I always hear that the Pacific plate is subducting under the Asiatic plate. And that the duration that the Hawaiian Hotspot has been active is indeterminate. But I have never heard where the Pacific plate is growing.
I know the North American plate is moving westward and growing at the mid Atlantic Ridge. I also have heard that it is overrunning the Pacific plate. Does this mean that the Pacific plate will someday be fully overwhelmed, and Asia and North America will collide, with the Hawaiian Hotspot ending up in the Atlantic Ocean off the East coast of Brazil, or central America ??
Could you please do a video on palimpsest plate boundaries, that is, ancient plate boundaries that are now extinct yet still visible? One look at the Pacific seafloor in Google Earth should illuminate what I'm talking about. Thanks.
I’ve always thought this would (one-day) prove there was a change of direction due to a change of spin of the earth caused by a poll shift. 🤷🏻♂️
See the Growing Earth theory. The continental crust broke apart in the Atlantic around this time period. The crust in the Pacific looks like it pivoted. You can see this in the Russia-Alaska region. Once you realize that subduction does not account for a significant amount of loss of basaltic crust-that there was no loss; the earth has grown-geology makes a whole helluva a lot more sense. And the geologists who kick and scream are sad to watch and usually get very hostile and defensive.
Do you think that an old mid-ocean ridge got shoved under the North American plate, causing the super volcanoes Valles, Long Valley, Yellowstone and other active and extinct volcanic features?
For the many millions of years before the Indian plate hit Asia, it was still moving northwards, and hence there must’ve been subduction of the floor of the Tethys ocean at the plate margin. Wouldn’t this have led to volcanic activity in what is not the Tibetan plateau, much like the pacific ring of fire? Are there any remnants today? Even if the cones were destroyed, I’m thinking there must be basaltic plugs and other formations scattered in the Himalayas?
Brilliant with 1 problem.
Why was Hapgoods's theory on Earth Crustal Displacement theory not entertained even as a side note?
It was giants. The first Polynesians. That one underwater island totally looks like a person lying down.
I mean it was global warming, man made global warming. That's the reason for everything.
At the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, they had an exhibit called Science on a Sphere, where they projected animations onto a sphere that you could walk around while it was being displayed. One of the displays was the hurricane season, the year that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Another display was an animation of the tectonic plates moving. In this animation it showed the older Hawaiian islands that now make up the Emperor Seamount Chain, as they were being formed in chronological order back in time, which starts about 75 million years ago. As I walked around this globe, I noticed that the kink in the Hawaiian island chain coincided with when the Indian subcontinent slammed into Asia, forming the Himalaya mountains, including Mount Everest, the highest mountain in the world. The Hawaiian Astronomical Society which I was a member of at the time, meets at the Bishop Museum, that's why I was there to see this. I told the members of the Astronomy club about my idea that maybe India slamming into Asia, jammed up the tectonic plates somehow and caused the direction of the Pacific plate to change, thus causing the change of direction in the formation of the Hawaiian islands. They all said that I was crazy. A couple of years later while printing out maps about Hawaii for my tour company, I came across a scientific paper that suggested the same thing that I thought. It's still the best idea I've heard.
The problem with theory may be that geologists have not yet been able to draw a causal link from one to the other. So at present it is at best secondary influence on the Pacific plate redirection.
I always noticed the bend on maps, but I never thought much of it. I don’t know much about continental drift so I assumed “yup, pacific just decided to go in a different direction”
How about tectonic plate movement between the Antarctic Peninsular and the southern tip on South America and the South Sandwich Islands. What's going on there?
The bend occurred right about the time the North American plate overrode the Pacific spreading ridge.
Until then the Pacific plate was moving North then it started moving West.
Overriding progressively younger crust was probably easier as NA moved west so the Pacific plate could continue North but when the ridge was crossed, NA started riding over old,tougher crust, friction increased and started pushing the Pacific crust westward,
It's like trying to put together a giant 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle but all the pieces keep moving/changing over time.
Too many fascinating things on RUclips and too little time, memory and brain power to appreciate it all.
People don't believe me when I say I haven't watched my 📺 even once in the last four years.
If the Hotspot is relatively stationary and the Pacific plate is moving over it then the collision of two other plates - Indian and Asian, could alter the Pacific plate's movement, resulting in the perceived bend in the Hawaiian chain.
I’m a native US English speaker and can hardly understand you. Can’t you speak more slowly and clearly? It sounds mostly like garbled nonsense to me, and I’m a geologist! It’s not like the vocabulary is unfamiliar to me.
Could the pouring out of the glacier lake in Montana and a big chunk of Canada make the pacific plate move like that? Moving a big mass closer to sea level would increase earth’s rotation too no.
Damnifino.
I've lived in Hawaii all by life, but have never heard of Makuhona. Please make a video featuring more information of Makuhona. Mahalo!
The crust slipped when the magma coefficient of friction decreased due to magnetic disturbance
Since the ice caps have more mass, they swung the entire crust until the ice caps were at the equator due to rotation.
This magma source is below the crust, so it stayed put relative to the Earth itself. Only the crust slid, like an outer shell loosening up due to slippage
Very interesting. I would like to hear your thoughts on the coso volcanic field in California.
Uhh, Mauna Loa recently did erupt lava down its north face. Nov 27 2022 to Dec 13 2022.
Of course it is pure speculation, but for me it seems that huge asteroid impact changed either tectonic plate movement and/or underlaying mantle plumbing or even it changed earths rotational parameters, like angle and speed so hotspot movement was also affected.
I always wondered about this when I saw it for the first time and wondered why it changed directions? The Hawaiian chain I mean. I always figured a tectonic plate from another area had something to do with it or a oceanic plate change the direction the chain went underneath the mantle. It seems I guessed about a sailor's everybody else because that's such a big thing to do for sure.
Great topic that has always interested me since I noticed the bend many years ago. thanks for making more content on the subject.
I am curious about three tracks intersecting. The Aleutians the Hawaiian islands chain and the Japanese Chain. Is it possible that a major meteor hit causing a hot spot that split. Is it further possible that this might have something to do with the Siberian Traps.
Catastrophic Crustal Displacement, but I would like to verify the dates? 👍👏
0:14 "The submarine volcano formerly known as Lo'ihi"
Yeah I wouldn't try pronouncing that name either
Love, love, love your stuff! But you speak so fast I have to slow the speed down to understand. It's like one long unending word.
The pieces of the earth's crust follows the natural order of things, The bend means that in the past the crust in that area was moving in a different direction than today. Why? Because it will follow the least path of resistance. Today that path is different than what it was in the past, and in the future it will be different still.
Notice how the Hawaiian volcanic arc mimics exactly the deep oceanic contours of the south pacific island landmasses.
Is this related to the formation of the rocky mountains in the fixed island narrative? There is Paleo magnetism that suggests similar movements of land in North America
After seeing where the hotspot came from, is it possible that maybe the hotspot originated from the Siberian traps. Just like the Yellowstone hotspot originated from something similar in the Pacific northwest?
90 degree angles. Elliptical readjustment? During pole shift.
I just assumed it was from solar wind patterns. Ancient history tells a story about the day the world stood still, makes one think.🤔
How would the pacific plate changing have effected the plates in the north pacific around Washington?
Video request: Geology of New Mexico/ Valles Caldera? (or other cool geologic sites there!)