To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/GEOGIRL . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription! Hope you enjoy the video and the brilliant lessons! ;D
Hey GeoGirl. What is your opinion on expanding Earth theory? It's an alternate idea to the current plate drift model. Expanding earth explains well for example the gigantism of the animals in the ancient pasts. Back then earth was small and had a smaller gravity force. Less gravity = animal gigantism.
@@GEOGIRL Veritasium is only superior in the beard department. However, personally I find he is almost as infuriating to suffer as v-sauce & an apparent clone there of ! Anton Petrov is a better candidate, if passing on awards. or possibly Cody's Lab, If you can tolerate the intermittent heartbreaks & keen chickenfarming.
So apart from the traditional way of showing groundwater flowing horizontally, water tables can also seasonally be higher and lower. When the water table gets lower, the atmosphere (oxygen) gets sucked down into the sediments. Regular rising and lowering of the water table leads to evaporation, changing ionic concentrations, and varying iron oxidation events which leads to the various black, purple, reds and browns of iron and manganese oxidation states. Pretty cool, complicated and almost infinitely variable environmental conditions leading to all the wonderful types of concretion.
What I like in your videos is that you keep asking (and answering) why. I often watch scientific or historical videos hearing the first layer explanation, but those often raise questions and those second layers questions are usually not asked and answered. Grwat to find them here.
Hi Rachel, thanks for the explanation for the formation of rock balls. My geologic colleague called them cannonballs when we ran into them drilling in Côte d’Ivoire West Africa. His explanation wasn’t as thorough as yours. We saw them as curved surfaces using an imaging logging tool while drilling through the same formation in multiple well locations. I also picked up an iron concretion while overlooking the Horseshoe Bend on the Colorado River just south of Page Arizona. A spectacular view! Thanks!
My Dad wrote a paper on a similar phenomena back in 2013: "Concretions as Sources of Exceptional Preservation, and Decay as a Source of Concretions: Examples from the Middle Devonian of New York", Palaios, Wilson & Brett
Earth pearls would be a nice name for these surprising and very photogenic objects (those Torysh Valley images were truly beautiful). It captures the precipitating formation around a nucleus, and sounds much better than "concretion". Wonderfully clear explanation, GG.
Below is from the state park web page --- the concretions are easily found -- and somewhat fragile. For your ready reference. "Welcome Button Bay, a 253-acre park, is located on a bluff in Ferrisburgh along the 130-mile long Lake Champlain. Historically, the area has been visited by such notables as Samuel De Champlain (1609), Ethan Allen (1776), Ben Franklin (1776), and Benedict Arnold (1777). Once operating as a farm, the area became a state park in 1964. The park is so named for the button-like concretions formed by clay deposits found along the shoreline..."
I wasn't sure since I've probably only seen the word in print, but I looked it up and "ooid" is pronounced "oh-oid", as in "kind of like the letter O". Okay, the word is actually derived from the Greek for "egg stone", but it's a good way to remember it!
Thanks for this video. I've been exploring for agates lately. I've been finding a lot of them in an old volcanic flow. At first, they don't appear banded, but if you use a black light you can see varying florescence. These vary between orange and green flourescent layers. I'm used to thinking about minerals, like gold, precipitating where they can boil. It's different, thinking about layers of differently doped chalcedony depositing over time. It's another really cool facet of nature.
Thank you very much for your videos Your channel was one of the reasons why I started studying geosciences. I am studying geosciences in the Eastern Alps of Austria.
Hi Rachel, some American news reporters talk about children throwing "rocks". In South Africa a rock is something extremely large and heavy, so something that child would never even be able to pick up, and the things that people throw are called "stones" My question is what are the definitions that geologists use for "rocks" and "stones"?
Thank you for explaining this in a cool, precise and easily understandable way! I collect a lot of geodes (not volcanic ones, but from sedimentary rocks where voids or small animal burrows were slowly filled in) and I come across a lot of concretions and people are constantly asking me how they form. I'm going to save your video and send it to them from now on to help explain their formation. Thanks! As always, a great video with tons of information. 🙂
Been to the ones in Oamaru. So amazing how perfectly round they seem. Time is often the thing that trips people up in comprehending geology I think. In astrophysics too, but distance also in that case.
A really clear explanation of the formation of concretions. There is a nice microscopic variant of this at the level of proteins. Many RNA viruses "self-assemble" inside infected cells when the concentration of viral capsid proteins exceeds a threshold value. The proteins precipitated out on the viral RNA that acts as growth nuclei, often forming spherical shells surrounding the viral RNA.
Are the nodules found on some areas of the ocean floor also considered concretions, because they form by metal compounds (iron, manganese, zinc for example ) accumulating around some nucleus ( like a shark tooth or shell bit)? They take millions of years to form. Some biologists think that bacteria might somehow help build them. Theyre covered in bacteria, and perched on each one are animals such as crinoids, deep sea sponges, anemones, little arthropods, and worms. Also, will you consider a video about ocean floor geology such as: spreading zones and subduction zones, fissures, sea mounts and volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis, types of vent systems, and cycles of carbon, iron, water, rocks, nitrogen, calcium, sulfur, etc involving the oceannfloor? That would be fun.
Whuuuuuht? I was going to wait to watch a show on the History Channel that said that the giant rock balls were formed by ancient astronauts. 👽🛸 And now you come along and give an actual scientific explanation. Bohooo. 😭😭😭 But it's better that you inform the world of the truth. 🥲
Just remember the most implausible, far-fetched explanation, preferably one that is totally disconnected from our understanding of the universe, and involves the most unwarranted assumptions is ALWAYS the correct explanation.
I love the thought of intelligent aliens eventually visiting us, someone asking if they made these, and the aliens responding in disbelief, "We've shown you we have the technology to travel among the stars, and you think we used it to...what? Make a bunch of brittle rock spheres that have the amazing capacity to sit there ... being spherical?!"
Another fun video, thanks! I have walked to Bowling Ball beach several times, but never at low tide- frustrating, but one day I will make it at the right time, I hope.
Come on Rachel, you covered this subject just so someone could say...What a load of balls. Great vid. And once you get your head around the process involved, it all makes sense. Thank you.
(continues) II. How deep below from the surface would provide ideal conditions? This might be a type of question shouldn't be asked. The deeper a core sunk, the more pressure added from above. That'd close tiny pores & hinder precipitation. Too deep to surface. Too shallow would face different kind of problems. III. Size & number. So many balls of a similar size are congregated. Why so? IV. Is it forming somewhere under out feet? This video produced such a deep impact! Thank you very much!
Several points: 1) these are not perfect spheres 2) not particularly pure either 3) imagine a wetting-and-drying cycle of the whole soil 4) ions come in a more soluble form in e.g. CO2-rich and therefore carbonic acid rich groundwater 5) this water imbibes the nucleus 6) water table withdraws 7) permeable nucleus is drenched in ion carrying water 8) by capillarity ion rich water reaches the surface of the nucleus 9) there it dryes and meets air with lower CO2 10) lowering the solubility, concreting, and encasing plenty of inerts. This mechanism was actually used to lengthen the time intervals between maintenances in some water distribution systems using canals instead of pipes, and it's exactly what caused concretions in water jars where some ion rich water is kept. I drink tap water letting it stand up to a few days in cloth covered jars to let chlorine evaporate. The residue is completely harmless. Once it dries and oxygenates it becomes less soluble. Easily removed with acidic vinegar. DO NOT TRY THIS IN A PLACE WHERE WATER ISN'T HIGH QUALITY AND EXTREMELY BIOMASS POOR TO START WITH AND DUST AND INSECTS FLY. The suggestion to avoid dechlorination is entirely valid in most cases. In my area chlorination is jacked up for many months after pipes are worked on, and only later lowered. Concretions were a real problem in underground water distribution systems in places like ancient Rome. In Siena some system is still kept running to show tourists. Systems used open air conduits, which produced evaporation and concretion. One excellent palliative was to let water through shallow underground decantation pools with a large surface and at least a bit of ventilation. These work not just to decant particulates (like in this scene of an open air pool ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EfKFPktklmA.html ) Concretions would preferentially form on the surface, and when thick enough they would fall to the bottom and stay there, rather than in conduits. visitsienaofficial.it/en/the-ancient-underground-aqueducts/ I see this happening in my drinking water. No dust reaches the water, but concretions form on the surface.
Rachel - I think the composition of the nucleus is overlooked here. There's no reason for the shape of these concretions to be spherical unless it is driven by diffusion of the nuclear mineral from the Inside to the outside. Diffusion explains sphericality, but not from the outside...
Love it! FWIW, I have a video titled "Spheres" that I put all the structures of this nature in a video of rapid succession. They are certainly highly revealing. I'm not the biggest fan of the differentiation of the processes so drastically between ice balls and rock balls. I know it would require very high energies to in any way induce a rock sphere as compared to ice balls, but from a "fractal" standpoint of things occurring across scales, it is more unifying for them to share more common processes. Some very interesting structures of this nature occur in the tufa of Pyramid Lake, where there are some that show the nucleus flowed out from the center (like it was relatively liquid) before solidifying fully, displaying unique features that likely could not be the result of a process as described by modern science for the formation of rock spheres. Additionally, Moeraki Boulders (which tend to be void at the center and just composed of a shell) are dated to 66Ma--the K/T boundary. I cannot reiterate enough how many major global events "happen to" have occurred at this time in Earth's history. For instance, the separation of North and South America reached its maximum divergence at 66Ma. I have two videos ("Events of the K/T Boundary" parts 1 and 2) where I went through a nonexhaustive list of major global events that were occurring at this time. I know it is not really considered plausible in modern science any longer, but the alternative theory to plate tectonics of Earth's expansion points to the K/T Boundary as the moment in time when continents were forced to break apart by internal pressures below the crust. Plate tectonics claims that oceanic crust older than ~200Ma has subducted and all evidence is hidden from our capacity to document it, but the reality is that the mean age of oceanic crust is ~64.2Ma, ~69.2Ma for the Atlantic and very significantly 65.7Ma for the Pacific specifically. This is very telling of when the Earth went past a "point of no return" (sort of like a star producing iron) and a runaway process of expansion was initiated (i.e. the K/T Boundary). "Chicxulub caused the mass extinction of the K/T Boundary"--but there are at least 15 impact structures at the K/T boundary in scientific literature (albeit debated on ages)--Shiva crater, Boltysh crater, Silverpit crater, Nadir crater, Tin Bider crater, Jebel Hadid structure, Tefe River structure, Dumas astrobleme, Omeonga structure, Kara/Ust-Kara twin impact craters, Manson crater, Donetsk twin impact craters. More, there is an anomalously high ratio of them that are along coastlines (suggestive they are results of the Earth's expansion process and involved in breaking the crust apart, rather than impacts). And of course the Deccan traps were erupting prior to Chicxulub occurring, coupled with their general antipodal nature strongly pointing to a relationship--which points further toward the improbability of impact craters being the result of extraterrestrial objects striking the Earth. Modern interpretations can only invoke coincidence to explain such parallels, but Earth expansion has the capacity to show why these are not actually coincidences. Its all very complicated to explain in short, but technical data very much points to Earth expansion, which points to these spheres being resultant from its processes--which involved intense currents in a similar but fractal manner to those experienced by ice balls (i.e. indicating a more similar formation process). Please pardon the upfront absurdity of what I am saying. These types of angles of analyzing the data are not yet considered in science, yet are very fruitful in terms of interconnecting observations across the world into a more complete "single thread" of a storyline of what occurred than the modern approach that has a very general description of plate tectonics and then quickly diverges into describing individual regions largely in a vacuum without relating one another in a specific thread of what occurred. There are many, many anomalies. Things that plate tectonics truly struggles to explain. For example, the Jurassic Quiet Zone of the Pacific, based on magnetic anomalies, is predicted to be composed of Jurassic crust. Yet drilling results in the area have repeatedly shown it to be composed largely of Cretaceous basalts. Only Earth expansion can really provide adequate explanation of the nuances of the Earth. I know this is a bit of a rant (which I frequently bombard you with) but it all relates to these rock balls and why they are not just cool but very important to be part of the picture of Earth history that is compiled into a single narrative and described. Generally speaking, the model of plate tectonics does not take these into account and only attempts to explain them peripherally while in no way looking to such observations as possible indications of flaws in the underlying model. So even if things of this nature don't find adequate explanations, the underlying model is not really perceived as being "threatened" by observations that disprove the model. When there is only one model which all evidence is put into and genuinely considered in view of, even if some doesn't fit, it still "tips the scale" in its favor because no alternatives are being weighed on the opposing side of the scale (like one of those scales of justice type of scales). The rest just becomes a mystery that people attempt to explain but even if unable, it is not viewed as detrimental unless that same evidence actually fits quite well into alternative potentials.
Thanks! I Enjoy these videos that explain natural wonders found in the world in terms of the best available science. I also love the analogy to Martian Blueberries we found on Mars. Could pearls be in included in this grouping even though the concretion involved organic material?
Thanks for the explanation. You've explained that the balls are formed by a solution of CaCO3 and Si0x. Of course these can form homogenous layers of limestone and sand, but do they ever for a matrix containing Ca, C03 and various forms of Si/Si0x? Are there some new properties unlike limestone and sand?
There are several videos saying these spheres are made man from ancient civilizations, implying there is lost technology, thank you for debunking those.
*Who has the Biggest balls of them all (rock balls)?* Anyway, Have a Wonderful Winter Solstice. A traditional celebration dating back more than 5000 years in which the Sun is literally rebirthed in the passageway of an ancient tomb, (where have you heard that before?) "The Grand Passage Tomb", a World Heritage site. A celebration of life and renewal, peace and camaraderie with food, song, dance drink and good cheer. Happy Holidays. *Let the Sunshine In...* a clue; Rock and Roll Music.
If SiO2 is soluble, how can we use glass test tubes in chemistry? Everything else about concretion formation makes sense to me, but that part threw me off.
I use Silicon Dioxide test tubes for high temperature reactions, so I know exactly what you mean. But SiO2 is only barely, I mean barely, barely, barely soluble in water. Almost all things are, given the right conditions like the local pH, temperature, pressure, etc. These form over thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years with the process pausing and starting again occasionally over time. We don't notice the tubes dissolving as we really only use them for a few hours at a time or days at most. If you left it out, especially in acid rain and wait decades, you'd see it dissolve over time and become part of the geologic record as either a rock, geode or whatever it ends up coming into contact with that it can then precipitate out on. It's basically a time and starting conditions type of thing. That's why we still have things like sand, quartz and stuff as rocks that seem to sit there for lifetimes out in the open weather without them weathering away. It just depends on the environment that you have it in. I can dissolve a quartz test tube in under an hour...... given the right conditions. See what I mean? 🙂
"Poorly soluble", is still soluble, get things hot enough and wait long enough and some of it is invariably going to end up in solution, cool it down some and it will precipitate.
That's a great question, it is actually wayyy less soluble that CaCO3 or most minerals for that matter, but it can still dissolve under high T and P conditions in Earth's crust :)
Google polywater, a phenomenon that was interpreted as a new form of water but was actually due to dissolved silica. It takes very little to alter the fluid properties.
I have a rather BIG question about the first type... (not the iron ones, but those blew my mind!) Coal was only formed once: the period of time from the evolution of wood, to the evolution of something capable of breaking down lignin. The trees piled up and became coal- eventually. These balls seem to have all formed at roughly the same time. My question is: is the anything in evolutionary history that could account for these concretions? (a microbe? a crustacean? something built with a LOT of silica or calcium?)
Excellent video. Some spheres known are Basalt, not concretions, but of volcanic origin. The basalt spheres were controversial for many years, as they were used by the Pre-Columbian peoples of Mexico and Central America, and archaeologists were not sure if they were fabricated or natural. National Geographic did a couple of articles on these, and concluded the basalt spheres were both natural, formed in volcanic eruptions, and then found and worked by the ancient peoples. The Colossal Heads of the Olmec (17 examples known) were made from large basalt spheroid shapes. As I recall (not sure) sources for these basalt monolithic stones were determined to be found in Veracruz and Costa Rica.
Costa Rica ? Has the round boulders i belive the Moeraki. Boulders New Zealand could be ballast rocks in a ship that was grounded on the beach..either the ship was dedtroyed or the ballast was unloaded to refloat the ship.
Has the formation processed been reproduced in a laboratory setting. I know it's *really* slow in nature, but fiendish scientists have been known to figure out how to accelerate natural processes.
The question regarding there were 200 Ma old civilizations that created rock balls should be answered by: Ockham disagrees! Strictly we cannot know, we can make a qualified guess, but a 200 Ma old civilization might not leave enough fossils for us to know of it. The problem with that line of reasoning is that it is a too complicated solution to a pretty simple problem, it is like explaining "that pulsars are lighthouses put out there by an interstellar civilization", it is not a parsimonious explanation, but instead a wildly buzzy one.
My colleagues and I after a long and exhausting scientific journey have agreed upon one conclusion, the balls that were deposited upon the earth are from giant rabbits, yes rabbit dung, how amazing was our discovery you asked, stinky.
From the beach to underground, it's a nice introduction. Ice ball formation may be referable, but was discarded immediately, as stone is much heavier & harder. So, it's a false clue. Not all though, as there're shared features like spherical shape, mechanism (precipitation) & abundance. Unlikely occurrence underground is explained with clarity & simplicity even for a layman like me. That should be in consensus. Unfortunately & frustratingly, however, as a layperson, hardly conceivable such a geological timescale slow process with a clear image. Precipitation-expansion vs. compaction is the first hurdle. As shown here, a layered structure is clearly visible. How the stone keeps a spherical shape is hardly imaginable. Why not get deformed or flattened? Fossils from fluvial beds show such a taphonomic effect. Expansion stays out of touch. Minerals may accumulate internally through pores, but pushing outward in every direction requires a Herculean task for me to depict a picture. Tremendous pressure comes downward from the upper layers of sediment. Further, gravity may work for pulling downward minerals, although this may be irrelevant to this case. To be continued ..
Before watching the video my best guess is they were formed on the deep ocean floor millions of years ago and somehow the ocean floor sediment is now on surface and eroded, leaving the boulders on show.
They're interstitium balls, they're very hard to start with and petrify into stone quite easily. They were in the skin of giants or rather Titans that died some 4,500 years ago.
I suppose you've been told about "Mud Fossil University" before? He'd love this video and just claim it's all some kind of skin cell from giant creatures. He us unintentionally hilarious, poor guy.
