I have long been interested in this map of the depths of the Arctic. And where on this territory could the mainland Arctida be (other names: Hyperborea, Daaria)? I saw several attempts by enthusiasts to place the Mercator map and tie the outlines of Hyperborea to the modern shores and islands. Somewhere it looks like, somewhere it does not fit in any way. And that's why …
Mid-ocean ridges are clearly visible on the map. According to the hypothesis of the expanding Earth, it is along them that an increase in the area of the ocean occurs. Or, according to the official theory, the movement of tectonic plates is also the center of the continental spread. But my opinion is precisely the center of the increase in the bottom of the oceans (there are mid-ocean ridges in all oceans). Modern science confirms that the crust in them is the youngest, at the bottom of the coast - the oldest.
Between the two underwater mid-ocean ridges, the Lomonosov Ridge is visible - a narrow section of the shelf.
I tried to remove the area of the formed bottom and move the continental crust: shelves and land.
If you apply the knowledge and skill of working in Photoshop, you can do it more skillfully and merge the shelves of the Arctic Ocean more accurately. I did it as best I could.
It is this picture that needs to be superimposed on the map of Hyperborea Mercator (or vice versa).
An attempt to match the ancient map of Hyperborea with the modern relief and the bottom of the Arctic. As you can see, Greenland is located separately on the map, and when superimposed, one of the quarters of Hyperborea had to be placed on it - otherwise it did not work.
In theory, it should be something like this:
But do not forget that there is an ocean floor on the depth map, which could not have been land in any way.
I tried myself to superimpose the map of Hyperborea on the resulting spliced map (without the ocean floor - only with the shelves). Here's what happened:
Scandinavia has laid down clearly. Although the New Earth has different outlines, it also fell into its present position. Coast of the North. America and Taimyr are also roughly in their place. The map fits very nicely. Of course, I could not have moved that way, not blindly mold the shelf with such precision, and something is diverging. But if you become attached to Scandinavia, that this territory has not changed its area, then the picture, in my opinion, is very plausible.
Option with greater transparency Hyperborea
Hyperborea with the lowest transparency. It can be seen that ancient Iceland is located on modern Greenland. This suggests that the island has moved far to the south. After all, the earth is expanding, and many parts of the land are moving. Greenland itself seems to have turned a little. Parts of Hyperborea: Swaga and Rai - this is now the northern part of the island archipelago of North America. The southern part of Kh'Ara is the New Siberian Islands. Franz Josef Land is also x'Ara. Svalbard is part of Thule.
Do not forget that the most important conclusion is that Hyperborea was torn apart, and the parts of the land themselves went under water, this is now the shelf. Perhaps with the very rapid expansion of the planet. And it was in historical times when these maps either existed, or when they were copied from more ancient sources. In general, when there was a man or his ancestor on this planet, and not 250 million years, when, as scientists suggest, the split of Gondwana began, the movement of lithospheric plates and the Permian extinction of all living things.
The fact that the geotectonic processes of sliding along the mid-oceanic plates continues, says this news: An earthquake of magnitude 4.7 was registered on October 22, 2016. in the area of underwater volcanoes in the Gakkel Ridge, in the Arctic Ocean. The tremor occurred at 18:47 UTC about 500 km from the geographic North Pole. The last known volcanic eruption in this area took place in 1999.
Some will say that it is possible that the version with the expansion of the Earth, and even more so, in historical time, is complete nonsense.I also thought that if this process existed, it was in very distant geological epochs. But it may not be so. There are more examples.
An unnamed globe made in 1543.
Antarctica, connected to Australia.
In rotation. North America is connected to Asia. The Pacific Ocean is only its southern part.
Of course, this can be attributed to the lack of knowledge of the cartographers of those years of all territories, especially the western coast of North America. Therefore, Asia was shown connected to it. But maybe, indeed, Alaska bordered Asia more closely? Then the formation of tens of thousands of square kilometers of the seabed happened almost instantly in geological terms. Could the Earth be expanding so fast? Or maybe she does it in jumps? Let's say, harboring internal pressure from magma, and then quickly, how does the popcorn corn practically explode to form new areas of the seabed? The dry land, most likely, also gets in the form of volcanism, the formation of new mountain systems, etc. And such a rapid expansion, it is possible that it leads to an imbalance of rotation and shift, nutation of the geographic poles. Or, with the growth of the oceanic day, there is a rapid displacement of the lithosphere, parts of the earth's crust rotate about the axis of rotation.
Model of the expanding Earth and the docking of continents along the mid-ocean ridges. This is an average model. Nobody knows whether the continents scattered at the same time, or some could have stayed together for some time, as Asia and North America are shown together on the 1543 globe. The very reason for the expansion may be associated with the rapid decomposition of metal hydrites inside the Earth. Metal hydrides have a higher density than pure metals themselves. When they decompose, hydrogen is released and the volume of the rock where they are contained increases. More details here
Another example from the analysis of old maps:
Distance in degrees in longitude between the "spur" of the Apennine Peninsula and the Volga delta
Let us compare this distance using the map of Willem Janszon Blau in 1640.
If on the old map more meridians were placed at the same distance, then the Earth was smaller?
In A. Sklyarov's video lecture, I found an explanation for the fact: why are hexagonal blocks and such a remnant nearby. This is when the Earth expanded, the platforms parted and along the cracks and magma came out. When solidified, it turned into hexagons. This Franz Josef archipelago is the edge of the ruptured platform of Hyperborea.
Another version of why this happened, why the Earth's expansion process accelerated so much. This is the fall to the Earth of large bodies, asteroids, and possibly a satellite of the Earth, one of the moons.
The movement of tectonic plates says that it was the Indian plate that hit the Asian one and that this has been happening for millions of years. But, you see, this territory is very similar to a heap of the fall of large bodies with an entry into the atmosphere at an angle from the east - against the movement of the Earth. Maybe it was a large comet, because a deep funnel was not formed, and there are many traces of water erosion. Moreover, the impact provoked the formation of folding around the mountains, and the very place of the fall is a plain, a desert.
On old maps of Asia (where the Caspian is still different), we do not see any designated mountain systems.
As an addition. Many modern shelves previously, in historical time, were dry land. Here's an example:
This is another attempt to place Hyperborea on a modern map of the Arctic seabed with an explanation of the possible reasons for what happened.