Another history of the Earth. Part 1c

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Start

In the diagrams in which the ends of the oceanic plates plunge into the mantle to a depth of 600 km, there is one more inaccuracy that I want to mention before we move on to considering other facts that are the consequences of the described catastrophe.

Few people think about the fact that lithospheric plates actually float on the surface of molten magma for exactly the same reason that ice floats on the surface of water. The fact is that during cooling and solidification, the substances that make up the earth's crust crystallize. And in crystals, the distance between atoms in most cases is slightly greater than when the same substance is in a molten state and atoms and ions can move freely. This difference is very insignificant, the same water has only about 8.4%, but this is enough for the density of the solidified substance to be lower than the density of the melt, due to which the frozen fragments float to the surface.

With lithospheric plates, everything is somewhat more complicated than with water, since the plates themselves and the molten magma on which they float consist of many different substances with different densities. But the general ratio of the density of lithospheric plates and magma should be met, that is, the total density of lithospheric plates should be slightly less than the density of magma. Otherwise, under the influence of gravitational forces, the lithospheric plates should have begun to gradually sink down, and molten magma should begin to flow out very intensively from all the cracks and faults, of which there are a large number.

But if we have a solid matter that makes up an oceanic plate, has a lower density than the molten magma into which it is immersed, then a buoyant force (the force of Archimedes) should begin to act on it. Therefore, all the zones of the so-called "subduction" should look completely different from how they are now drawn to us.

Now on all the diagrams the region of "subduction" and subsidence of the end of the oceanic plate is depicted as in the upper diagram.

But if our instruments by indirect methods really record the presence of some anomalies, then if these are precisely the ends of oceanic plates, we should observe the picture as in the lower diagram. That is, due to the buoyancy force that acts on the end of the plate, which is sunk down, the opposite end of this plate should also rise. Here are just such structures, especially in the region of the coast of South America, we do not observe. And this means that the interpretation of the data obtained from the devices proposed by official science is erroneous. The instruments actually record some anomalies, but they are not the ends of the oceanic plates.

Separately, I would like to emphasize once again that I do not set myself the goal of "putting things in order" in the existing theories of the internal structure of the Earth and the formation of its appearance. Also, I have no goal to develop some new, more correct theory. I am perfectly aware that for this I do not have enough knowledge, facts and time. As it was rightly noted in one of the comments: “the bootmaker should sew boots”. But, at the same time, in order to understand that the craft offered to you in fact is not any kind of boots, you do not need to be a shoemaker yourself. And if the observed facts do not correspond to the existing theory, then this always means that we must recognize the existing theory as either erroneous or incomplete, and not discard facts inconvenient for the theory or try to distort them in such a way as to fit into the existing erroneous theory.

Now let's return to the described disaster and look at the facts that fit well into the model of the disaster and the processes that should occur after it, but at the same time contradict the existing officially recognized theories.

Let me remind you that after the breakdown of the Earth's body by a large space object, presumably having a diameter of about 500 km, a shock wave and a flow along the channel pierced by the object were formed in the molten layers of magma, directed against the daily rotation of the planet, which ultimately should have led to the fact that the outer the solid shell of the Earth slowed down and rotated relative to its stable position. As a result of this, a very strong inertial wave should have appeared in the oceans, since the waters of the world's oceans should have continued to rotate at the same speed.

This inertial wave should go almost parallel to the equator in the direction from West to East, and not in some particular place, but across the entire width of the ocean. This wave, several kilometers high, meets on its way the western edges of the continents of the Americas. And then it begins to act like a bulldozer's knife, washing away and raking up the surface layer of sedimentary rocks and crushing with its mass, increased by the mass of washed away sedimentary rocks, the continental plate, turning it into an "accordion" and forming or strengthening the mountain systems of the Northern and Southern Cordilleras. I want to once again draw the readers' attention to the fact that after the water begins to wash away sedimentary rocks, it is no longer just water with a specific density of about 1 ton per cubic meter, but a mudflow, when washed away sedimentary rocks are dissolved in the water, therefore, firstly, its density will be noticeably higher than that of water, and secondly, such a mudflow will have a very strong abrasive effect.

Let's take another look at the relief maps of the Americas already cited.

In North America, we see a very wide brown stripe, which corresponds to an altitude of 2 to 4 km, and only small blotches of gray, which correspond to an altitude above 4 km. As I wrote earlier, on the Pacific coast, we observe a rather sharp elevation change, but there are no deep-water trenches in front of the faults. At the same time, North America has another feature, it is located at an angle of 30 to 45 degrees to the direction to the North. Consequently, when the wave reached the coast, it partially began to rise and enter the mainland, and partially, due to the angle, deviate downward to the south.

Now let's look at South America. There the picture is somewhat different.

Firstly, the strip of mountains here is much narrower than in North America. Secondly, most of the area is silver colored, that is, the height of this area is over 4 km. In this case, the coast forms an arc in the middle and, in general, the coastline goes almost vertically, which means that the impact from the approaching wave will also be stronger. Moreover, it will be strongest in the bending of the arc. And it is there that we see the most powerful and highest mountain formation.

That is, exactly where the pressure of the approaching wave should have been the strongest, we just see the strongest deformation of the relief.

If you look at the ledge between Ecuador and Peru, which juts out into the Pacific Ocean like the bow of a ship, then the pressure there should be noticeably less, since it will cut and deflect the oncoming wave to the sides. Therefore, there we see noticeably less deformations of the relief, and in the region of the tip there is even a kind of "dip", where the height of the formed ridge is noticeably less, and the ridge itself is narrow.

But the most interesting picture is at the lower end of South America and between South America and Antarctica!

First, between the continents one can clearly see the "tongue" of flushing, which remained after the passage of the inertial wave. And secondly, the very edges of the continents adjacent to the washout between them were noticeably deformed by the wave and bent in the direction of the wave's motion. At the same time, it is clearly seen that the "lower" part of South America is all, as it were, torn to shreds, and a characteristic light "train" is observed on the right.

I suppose that we observe this picture because a certain relief and mountain formations in South America should have existed before the cataclysm, but were located in the central part of the continent. When the inertial wave began to approach the mainland, then reaching the elevation, the speed of water movement should have decreased, and the wave height should have increased. In this case, the wave had to reach its maximum height exactly in the center of the arc. Interestingly, it is in this place that there is a characteristic deep-sea trench, which is not found along the coast of North America.

But in the lower part of the mainland before the disaster the relief was lower, so there the wave almost did not lose its speed and simply flowed over the land, carrying further the sedimentary rocks washed away from the mainland, which formed a light "trail" to the right of the mainland. At the same time, in the mainland itself, powerful streams of water left traces in the form of many gullies, which, as it were, tear the southern end into small pieces. But above, we do not see such a picture, since there was no rapid through flow of water across the land. The wave hit a mountain ridge and slowed down, crushing the land, so there we do not observe a large number of gullies, as below. After that, most of the water, most likely, passed over the ridge and flowed into the Atlantic Ocean, while the bulk of the washed away sedimentary rocks settled on the mainland, so we do not see a light "plume" there. And another part of the water flowed back into the Pacific Ocean, but slowly, taking into account the existing relief at that time, losing its power and also leaving washed away sedimentary rocks in the mountains and on the new coast.

Also interesting is the form of the "tongue" that was formed in the washout between the continents. Most likely, before the catastrophe, South America and Antarctica were connected by an isthmus, which was completely washed out by an inertial wave during the catastrophe. At the same time, the wave dragged the washed away soil for almost 2,600 km, where it precipitated, forming a characteristic semicircle when the power and speed of the wave dried up.

But, what is most interesting, we observe a similar "ravine" not only between South America and Antarctica, but also between North and South America!

At the same time, I assume that this washout was also through, as well as below, but then, due to active volcanic activity, it closed again. At the end of the flushing, we see exactly the same arcuate "tongue", which indicates the place where the power and speed of the wave dropped, due to which the washed-out soil precipitated.

The most interesting thing that makes it possible to connect these two formations is the fact that the length of this "language" is also about 2600 km. And this, well, can in no way be a coincidence! It seems that this is exactly the distance that the inertial wave was able to travel until the moment when the outer solid shell of the Earth again restored its angular velocity of rotation after the impact and the inertial force stopped creating the movement of water relative to land.

Letters and comments in which they send me an image of the formations between North and South America, as well as between South America and Antarctica, which I talked about in the previous part, I have been receiving for a long time and regularly, including there were similar comments to the first parts of this work. But at the same time, a variety of explanations are given for the reasons for their formation. Of these, two are the most popular. The first is that these are traces of the impact of large meteorites, some even argue that these are the consequences of the fall of the Earth satellites, called Fata and Lelya, which she once had. Allegedly, this is reported by the "ancient Slavic Vedas."The second version is that these are very ancient tectonic formations that formed a very long time ago, when the solid crust was formed as a whole. And so that no one doubts this version, the maps of lithospheric plates even depict two small plates that coincide in outline with these formations.

On this schematic map, these small slabs are labeled the Caribbean Plate and the Scotia Plate. To understand that neither the first version nor the second are consistent, let's once again take a closer look at the formation between South America and Antarctica, but not on a map, where the shapes of objects are distorted due to projection onto a plane, but in the Google Earth program.

It turns out that if we remove the distortions introduced during projection, then it is very clearly visible that this formation is not direct, but has the shape of an arc. Moreover, this arc is very well consistent with the daily rotation of the Earth.

Now answer the question yourself: can a meteorite, when falling, leave a trail in the form of a similar arc? The flight path of a meteorite in relation to the Earth's surface will always be almost a straight line. The daily rotation of the Earth around its axis does not affect its trajectory in any way. Moreover, even if a large meteorite falls into the ocean, then the shock wave that will diverge from the place of the fall of the meteorite will also go from the place of impact in a straight line, ignoring the daily rotation of the Earth.

Or maybe the formation between the Americas is a trace of the meteorite falling? Let's take a closer look at it too through Google Earth.

Here, too, the trail is not completely straight, as it should be in the case of a meteorite fall. In this case, the existing bend is consistent with the shape of the continents and the general relief. In other words, if an inertial wave made a gap for itself between the continents, then it should have moved in exactly this way.

In addition, the likelihood that a meteorite could accidentally fall exactly in such a way as to fall exactly between the continents, in the same direction where the inertial wave will move, and even leave a trail almost the same size as the formation between South America and Antarctica, practically zero.

Thus, the version with a track from a meteorite fall can be discarded as contradicting the observed facts or requiring the coincidence of too many random factors to fit the observed facts.

I personally believe that such an arcuate formation, as we observe between South America and Antarctica, could have formed only as a result of an inertial wave (if someone thinks differently and can substantiate their version, I will gladly discuss this topic with him). When, at the moment of impact and breakdown of the Earth's crust, the outer hard shell of the Earth slips and slows down the relative molten core, the water of the world ocean continues to move as it moved before the catastrophe, forming the so-called "inertial wave", which is actually more correctly called inertial flow. Reading the comments and letters of readers, I see that many do not understand the fundamental difference between these phenomena and their consequences, so we will dwell on them in more detail.

In the case of a large object falling into the ocean, even as large as during the described catastrophe, a shock wave is formed, which is a wave, since the bulk of the water in the ocean does not move. Due to the fact that the water practically does not compress, the fallen body will displace the water at the place of fall, but not to the sides, but mainly upward, since it will be much easier to squeeze out excess water there than to move the entire water column of the world's oceans to the sides. And then this squeezed out excess water will begin to flow over the upper layer, forming a wave. At the same time, this wave will gradually decrease in height, as it moves away from the impact site, since its diameter will grow, which means that the squeezed out water will be distributed over an ever larger area. That is, with a shock wave, the movement of water in our country occurs mainly in the surface layer, and the lower layers of water remain almost motionless.

When we have a displacement of the earth's crust relative to the inner core and the outer hydrosphere, another process takes place. The entire volume of water in the world's oceans will tend to continue moving relative to the decelerated solid surface of the Earth. That is, it will be precisely the inertial flow throughout the entire thickness, and not the movement of the wave in the surface layer. Therefore, the energy in such a flow will be much more than in the shock wave, and the consequences of meeting obstacles in its path are much stronger.

But the most important thing is that the shock wave from the impact site will propagate in straight lines along the radii of the circles from the impact site. Therefore, she will not be able to leave the gully in an arc. And in the case of an inertial flow, the water of the world's oceans will continue to move in the same way as it moved before the catastrophe, that is, to rotate relative to the old axis of rotation of the Earth. Therefore, the traces that it will form near the pole of rotation will have the shape of an arc.

By the way, this fact allows us, after analyzing the tracks, to determine the location of the rotation pole before the catastrophe. To do this, you need to build tangents to the arc that the trace forms, and then draw perpendiculars to them at the points of tangency. As a result, we will get the diagram that you see below.

What can we say based on the facts that we got by building this scheme?

First, at the moment of impact, the Earth's rotation pole was in a slightly different place. That is, the displacement of the earth's crust did not occur strictly along the equator against the rotation of the Earth, but at a certain angle, which was to be expected, since it was directed at a certain angle to the equator line.

Secondly, we can say that after this catastrophe there were no other displacements of the rotation pole, especially 180-degree flips. Otherwise, the resulting inertial flow of the world ocean should not only wash away these traces, but also form new ones, comparable or even more significant than these. But we do not observe such large-scale traces either on the continents or at the bottom of the oceans.

By the size of the formation between the Americas, which is located almost near the equator and is about 2600 km, we can determine the angle to which the solid crust of the Earth turned at the time of the catastrophe. The length of the Earth's diameter is 40,000 km, respectively, a fragment of the 2600 km arc is 1/15, 385 of the diameter. Dividing 360 degrees by 15.385 gives an angle of 23.4 degrees. Why is this value interesting? And the fact that the angle of inclination of the axis of rotation of the Earth to the plane of the ecliptic is 23, 44 degrees. To be honest, when I decided to calculate this value, I did not even imagine that there could be any connection between it and the angle of inclination of the Earth's axis of rotation. But I fully admit that there is a connection between the described catastrophe and the fact that the angle of inclination of the Earth's axis of rotation to the plane of the ecliptic has changed by this value, and we will return to this topic a little later. Now we need this value of 23.4 degrees for something completely different.

If, with a displacement of the earth's crust by only 23.4 degrees, we observe such large-scale and well-readable consequences on satellite images, then what should be the consequences if the solid shell of the Earth, as supporters of the theory of revolution due to the Dzhanibekov effect, allegedly turns over almost by 180 degrees ?! Therefore, I believe that all talk about coups due to the "Dzhanibekov effect", of which there are a great many on the Internet today, can be closed at this point. First, show traces that should be much stronger than those that remained from the described disaster, and then we'll talk.

As for the second version, that these formations are lithospheric plates, there are also many questions. As far as I understand, the boundaries of these plates are determined by the so-called "faults" in the earth's crust, which are determined by the same seismic methods, and which I have already described earlier. In other words, in this place, the devices record some kind of anomaly in the reflection of signals. But if we had an inertial flow, then in these places it had to wash a kind of trench in the original soil, and then washed away sedimentary rocks brought by the flow from other places had to settle into this trench. At the same time, these settled rocks will differ both in composition and in their structure.

Also, in the above map-diagram of lithospheric plates, the so-called "Scotia plate" is depicted practically without bending, although we have already found out that this is a distortion of projection and in reality this formation is curved in an arc around the previous pole of rotation. How did it happen that the faults in the earth's crust, which form the Scotia Plate, pass along an arc that coincides with the trajectory of rotation of points on the Earth's surface at a given place? It turns out that here the plates split, taking into account the daily rotation of the Earth? Then why don't we see such a correspondence anywhere else?

The obtained place of the old pole of rotation, which was before the moment of the catastrophe, allows us to draw other conclusions. Now there are more and more articles and materials that the previous position of the North Pole of rotation was in a different place. Moreover, different authors indicate different places of its location, which is why a theory of periodic pole reversal arose, which makes it possible to somehow explain the fact that when analyzing the proposed methods, different points of localization of the previous position of the North Pole are obtained.

At one time, Andrei Yuryevich Sklyarov also paid attention to this topic, which is reflected in his already mentioned work "The Sensational History of the Earth". In doing so, he tried to determine the previous position of the poles. Let's take a look at these diagrams. The first shows the position of today's North Pole of rotation and the location of the proposed position of the previous pole in the Greenland region.

The second diagram shows the estimated position of the S Pole of rotation, which I slightly modified and plotted on it the position of the S Pole defined above before the described disaster. Let's take a closer look at this diagram.

We see that we have got three positions of the pole of rotation. The red dot shows the current South Pole of rotation. The green dot is the one that was at the moment of the catastrophe and the passage of the inertial wave, which we defined above. I marked with a blue dot the estimated position of the South Pole, which was determined by Andrey Yuryevich Sklyarov.

How did Andrei Yuryevich get his supposed position of the South Pole? He considered the outer hard shell of the Earth as an undeformable surface at the moment of the pole shift. Therefore, having received the old position of the North Pole in the Greenland region, which he showed in the first diagram, and also checking this assumption in various ways, he obtained the position of the South Pole by a simple projection of the pole in Greenland on the opposite side of the globe.

Is it possible that we had a pole in the place indicated by Sklyarov, then he somehow moved to the position of the pole before the catastrophe, and after the catastrophe eventually took the current position? I personally think that such a scenario is unlikely. First, we do not see traces of the previous catastrophe, which should have moved the pole from position 1 to position 2. Secondly, it follows from the works of other authors that the planetary catastrophe, which led to the displacement of the North Pole and serious climate change in the Northern Hemisphere, occurred relatively recently, within a few hundred years ago. Then it turns out that somewhere between this catastrophe and today's time, we must place another large-scale catastrophe, which I describe in this work. But two consecutive global cataclysms in a relatively short time, and even with a change in the position of the rotation poles? And, as I already wrote above, traces of only one large-scale catastrophe are very clearly observed, during which there was a displacement of the earth's crust and the formation of a powerful inertial wave.

Based on the above, the following conclusions can be drawn.

First, there was only one global cataclysm with a displacement of the earth's crust and the formation of a powerful inertial wave. It was he who led to the displacement of the earth's crust relative to the poles of the Earth's rotation.

Secondly, the displacement of the North and South poles of rotation occurred asymmetrically, in different directions, which is possible only in one case. At the time of the catastrophe and for some time after it, the earth's crust was significantly deformed. At the same time, the continental plates in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres moved in different ways.

While looking through materials on plate tectonics theory, I came across an interesting diagram that shows the dependence of the viscosity of various types of magma on temperature.

The thin line in the graphs shows that at these temperatures, this type of magma is in a state of melt. Where the line becomes thick, magma begins to freeze and solid fractions are already formed in it. At the top right, there is a legend indicating which color of the line and the icon refer to which type of magma. I will not describe in detail what type of magma corresponds to what designation, if anyone is interested, then all the explanations are available at the link from where I borrowed this diagram. The main thing that we need to see in this diagram is that regardless of the type of magma, its viscosity changes abruptly when a certain threshold value is reached, which is different for each type of magma, but the maximum value of this threshold temperature is around 1100 degrees C. Moreover, as it rises further temperature, the viscosity of the melt is constantly decreasing, and in the types of magma that belong to the so-called "lower crust", at temperatures above 1200 degrees C, the viscosity generally becomes less than 1.

The moment an object breaks through the Earth's body, part of the object's kinetic energy is converted into heat. And taking into account the huge mass, size and speed of the object, a huge amount of this heat should have been released. In the very channel through which the object passed, the substance should have heated up to several thousand degrees. And after passing through the object, this heat should have been distributed over the adjacent layers of magma, increasing its temperature relative to its normal state. At the same time, part of the magma, which is located on the border with the solid and colder outer crust, before the catastrophe was in the upper part of the "step", that is, it had high viscosity, which means low fluidity. Therefore, even a slight increase in temperature leads to the fact that the viscosity of these layers sharply decreases, and the fluidity increases. But this does not happen everywhere, but only in a certain zone that adjoins in the punctured channel, as well as along the flow that formed after the catastrophe and transported further hotter and more fluid than usual magma.

This explains why surface deformation in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres occurs in different ways. The main part of the channel in our country is under the Eurasian plate, therefore, it is in the territory of Eurasia and in the areas adjacent to it that the greatest deformations and displacements should be observed relative to the initial position and the rest of the continents. Therefore, in the northern hemisphere, the earth's crust relative to the north pole of rotation has shifted more strongly in a different direction than in Antarctica.

This also explains why when trying to determine the previous position of the poles by the orientation of the antediluvian temples, several points are obtained, and not one, which is why the theory of a regular change of the poles of rotation appears. This is due to the fact that different fragments of continental plates were displaced and rotated relative to their original position in different ways. Moreover, I suppose that the stream of hotter and liquid magma formed after the breakdown in the upper parts of the mantle, which sharply disturbed the balance of the flow in the inner layers that existed before the catastrophe, should have existed for some time after the catastrophe, until a new balance was formed (quite it is possible that this process has not completely ended until now). That is, the movement of land fragments and the shift in orientation of structures on the surface could continue for decades or even centuries, gradually slowing down.

In other words, there have not been many crustal flips and there is no periodic pole change. There was only one large-scale catastrophe, which led to a displacement of the earth's crust relative to the core and the axis of rotation, while different parts of the crust were displaced in different ways. Moreover, this shift, the maximum at the time of the catastrophe, continued for some time after the event. As a result, we have that temples that were built at different times and in different places are oriented to different points. But at the same time, due to the fact that the temples that were built at the same time in areas located on the same fragment of the continent, which moved as a whole, we observe not a chaotic spread of directions, but a certain system with the localization of common points.

By the way, as far as I remember, none of the authors who tried to determine the previous position of the poles did not take into account the fact that when the earth's crust flips, it does not have to move as a whole. That is, even after one single coup, according to their version, old temples and other objects are not at all obliged to point to the same place on the surface of the Earth.

Continuation