Another history of the Earth. Part 1b

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

Start

Now let's see what we see along the Pacific coast. Let me remind you that according to the general scenario of the catastrophe, a many kilometers wall of water moves from the impact site in all directions. Below is a map of the relief of the continents and the seabed in the Pacific Ocean region, on which I marked the place of impact and the direction of the wave.

I am not suggesting that all visible structures on the seabed and the Pacific coast were formed precisely during this catastrophe. It goes without saying that a certain relief structure, faults, mountain ranges, islands, etc. existed before that. But during this catastrophe, these structures should have been influenced by both a powerful wave of water and those new magma flows that should have been formed inside the Earth from the breakdown. And these influences must be strong enough, that is, they must be readable on maps and photographs.

This is what we now see off the coast of Asia. I specially took a screenshot from the Google Earth program in order to minimize the distortion that occurs on the maps due to the projection onto the plane.

When you look at this image, you get the impression that some giant bulldozer walked along the bottom of the Pacific Ocean from the breakdown site to the shores of Japan and the ridge of the Kuril Islands, as well as the Commander and Aleutian Islands, which connect Kamchatka with Alaska. The force of a powerful shock wave smoothed out irregularities on the bottom, pushed down the edges of the faults that ran along the coast, pressing the opposite edges of the fault, forming embankments that partially reached the surface of the ocean and turned into islands. At the same time, some of the islands could have formed after the cataclysm due to volcanic activity, which after the catastrophe intensified along the entire length of the Pacific volcanic ring. But in any case, we can see that the wave energy was mainly spent on the formation of these shafts, and if the wave went further, it was noticeably weakened, since we do not observe any noticeable traces further on the coast. An exception is a small area of the Kamchatka coast, where part of the wave went through the Kamchatka Strait to the Bering Sea, forming there a characteristic structure with a sharp drop in heights along the coast, but on a noticeably smaller scale.

But from the other side, we see a slightly different picture. Apparently there, initially, the height of the ridge on which the Mariana Islands are located was lower than in the region of the Kuriles and the Aleutian Islands, so the wave extinguished its energy only partially and passed on.

Therefore, in the area of the island of Taiwan and on both sides of it, up to Japan, and also down along the Philippine Islands, we again see a similar structure of the bottom relief with a sharp difference in elevation.

But the most interesting thing awaits us on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of the Americas. This is what North America looks like on a bump map.

The ridge of the Cordillera mountain range stretches along the entire Pacific coast. But the most important thing is that we practically do not see a smooth descent and exit to the ocean coast, and in fact we are told that "The main mountain-building processes that resulted in the emergence of the Cordillera began in North America in the Jurassic period", which allegedly ended 145 million years back. And where, then, are all those sedimentary rocks that were supposed to be formed due to the destruction of mountains during 145 million years? Indeed, under the influence of water and wind, the mountains must constantly collapse, their slopes are gradually smoothed out, and the products of washout and weathering begin to gradually smooth out the relief and, most importantly, be carried out by rivers to the ocean, forming a flatter coast. But in this case, we almost everywhere observe a very narrow coastal strip, or even a complete absence of it. And the strip of the coastal shelf is very narrow. Once again, there is the feeling that some giant bulldozer has grabbed everything from the Pacific Ocean and poured the rampart that forms the Cordillera.

Exactly the same picture is observed on the Pacific coast of South America.

The Andes or Southern Cordillera stretch in a continuous strip along the Pacific coast of the continent. Moreover, here the elevation difference is much stronger, and the coastline is even narrower than in North America. Moreover, if along the coast of North America there is only a fault in the earth's crust without a deep-sea trench that coincides with it, then off the coast of South America there is a deep-sea trench.

Here we come to another important point. The fact is that the force of the shock wave will decay with distance from the impact site. Therefore, we will see the strongest consequences from the shock wave in the immediate vicinity of the Tamu massif, in the region of Japan, Kamchatka and the Philippines. But off the coast of both Americas, the tracks should be much weaker, especially off the coast of South America, since it is farthest from the impact site. But in fact, we are seeing a completely different picture. The effect of the pressure of a huge wall of water is most clearly observed off the coast of South America. And this means that there was still some process that formed an even more powerful impact than the shock wave in the ocean from the fall of the object. Indeed, on the coast of Asia and the nearby large islands, we do not observe the same picture that we see on the coast of both Americas.

What else should have happened with such an impact and breakdown of the Earth's body by a large object, in addition to the consequences already described? Such a blow could not significantly slow down the rotation of the Earth around its axis, since if we start comparing the mass of the Earth and this object, then we will get that if we consider the density of the substance of which the object consisted and the Earth consists of approximately the same, then the Earth heavier than an object about 14 thousand times. Consequently, even in spite of the enormous speed, this object could not have any noticeable braking effect on the rotation of the Earth. Moreover, most of the kinetic energy during the impact passed into thermal energy and was spent on heating and converting the matter of both the object itself and the Earth's body into plasma at the moment of channel breakdown. In other words, the kinetic energy of the flying object during the collision was not transferred to the Earth in order to have a braking effect, but turned into heat.

But the Earth is not a solid solid monolith. Only the outer shell with a thickness of only about 40 km is solid, while the total radius of the Earth is about 6,000 km. And further, under the hard shell, we have molten magma. That is, in fact, continental plates and plates of the ocean floor float on the surface of magma like ice floes float on the surface of the water. Could only the earth's crust have shifted upon impact? If we compare the mass of only the shell and the object, then their ratio will already be approximately 1: 275. That is, the crust could receive some impulse from the object at the moment of impact. And this should have manifested itself in the form of very powerful earthquakes, which should have occurred not in any particular place, but in fact across the entire surface of the Earth. But only the impact itself would hardly have been able to seriously move the solid shell of the Earth, since in addition to the mass of the earth's crust, in this case, we will still have to take into account the friction force between the crust and molten magma.

And now we remember that during a breakdown inside our magma, firstly, the same shock wave should have formed as in the ocean, but most importantly, a new magma flow should have formed along the breakdown line, which did not exist before. Various currents, ascending and downgrading flows inside the magma existed even before the collision, but the general state of these flows and the continental and oceanic plates floating on them was more or less stable and balanced. And after the impact, this stable state of magma flow inside the Earth was disrupted by the appearance of a completely new flow, as a result of which almost all continental and oceanic plates had to begin to move. Now let's look at the following diagram to understand how and where they were supposed to start moving.

The impact is directed almost exactly against the direction of the Earth's rotation with a slight offset of 5 degrees from south to north. In this case, the newly formed magma flow will be maximum immediately after the impact, and then it will begin to gradually fade until the magma flow inside the Earth returns to a stable equilibrium state. Consequently, immediately after the impact, the earth's crust will experience the maximum inhibitory effect, the continents and the surface layer of magma will seem to slow down their rotation, and the core and the main part of the magma will continue to rotate at the same speed. And then, as the new flow weakens and its impact, the continents will again begin to rotate at the same speed along with the rest of the Earth's substance. That is, the outer shell will seem to slip slightly immediately after the impact. Anyone who has worked with friction gears, such as belts, which work by friction, should be well aware of a similar effect when the drive shaft continues to rotate at the same speed, and the mechanism driven by it through the pulley and belt starts to spin slower or even stops due to heavy load … But as soon as we reduce the load, the speed of rotation of the mechanism is restored and again equalizes with the drive shaft.

Now let's look at a similar circuit, but made from the other side.

Recently, a lot of works have appeared in which facts are collected and analyzed that indicate that relatively recently the North Pole could be located in another place, presumably in the area of modern Greenland. In this diagram, I specifically showed the position of the alleged previous pole and its present position, so that it would be clear in which direction the shift took place. In principle, the displacement of the continental plates that occurred after the described impact could well lead to a similar displacement of the earth's crust relative to the axis of rotation of the Earth. But we will discuss this point in more detail below. Now we need to fix the fact that after the impact, due to the formation of a new flow of magma inside the Earth along the breakdown line, on the one hand, the crust slows down and slip, and on the other hand, a very powerful inertial wave will arise, which will be much more powerful than a shock wave from a collision with an object, since it is not water in the volume of an area of 500 km equal to the diameter of the object that will come into motion, but the entire volume of water in the world ocean. And it was this inertial wave that formed the picture that we see on the Pacific coasts of South and North America.

After the publication of the first parts, as I expected, representatives of official science noted in the comments, who almost immediately declared everything written as nonsense, and called the author an ignoramus and ignoramus. Now, if the author studied geophysics, petrology, historical geology and plate tectonics, he would never have written such nonsense.

Unfortunately, since I didn’t manage to get any intelligible explanations on the merits from the author of these comments, instead of which she moved on to insults not only me, but also other blog readers, I had to send her “to the bathhouse”. At the same time, I would like to reiterate that I am always ready for a constructive dialogue and admit my mistakes if the opponent has made convincing arguments in essence, and not in the form of “there is no time to explain to fools, go read smart books, then you will understand”. Moreover, I have read a large number of smart books on various topics in my life, so I cannot be scared with a smart book. The main thing is that it is actually smart and meaningful.

In addition, according to the experience of the last few years, when I began to collect information about the planetary disasters that occurred on Earth, I can say that most of the proposals from the "experts" who recommended me to go and read the "smart books" for the most part ended with the fact that I either I found in their own books additional facts in favor of my version, or I found errors and inconsistencies in them, without which the slender model promoted by the author fell apart. For example, this was the case with soil formation, when theoretical constructions, adjusted to the observed historical facts, gave one picture, while real observations of soil formation in disturbed territories gave a completely different picture. The fact that the theoretical-historical rate of soil formation and actually observed now differ at times, does not bother any of the representatives of official science.

Therefore, I decided to spend some time studying the views of official science on how the mountain systems of the Northern and Southern Cordilleras were formed, not doubting that I would find there either further clues in favor of my version, or some problem areas that would indicate the fact that representatives of official science only pretend that they have already explained everything and figured out everything, while there are still plenty of questions and blank spots in their theories, which means that the hypothesis of a global cataclysm put forward by me and the consequences observed after it quite has the right to exist.

Today, the dominant theory of the formation of the Earth's appearance is the theory of "Plate Tectonics", according to which the earth's crust consists of relatively integral blocks - lithospheric plates, which are in constant motion relative to each other. What we see on the Pacific coast of South America, according to this theory, is called the "active continental margin." At the same time, the formation of the Andes mountain system (or the Southern Cordillera) is explained by the same subduction, that is, the diving of the oceanic lithospheric plate under the continental plate.

General map of lithospheric plates that form the outer crust.

This diagram shows the main types of boundaries between lithospheric plates.

We see the so-called "active continental margin" (ACO) on the right side. In this diagram, it is designated as the "convergent boundary (subduction zone)". Hot molten magma from the asthenosphere rises upward through the faults, forming a new young part of the plates, which move away from the fault (black arrows in the diagram). And on the border with continental plates, oceanic plates "dive" under them and go down into the depths of the mantle.

Some explanations for the terms that are used in this diagram, as well as we can meet in the following diagrams.

Lithosphere - this is the hard shell of the Earth. It consists of the earth's crust and the upper part of the mantle, up to the Asthenosphere, where the velocities of seismic waves decrease, indicating a change in the plasticity of the substance.

Asthenosphere - a layer in the upper mantle of the planet, more plastic than neighboring layers. It is believed that matter in the asthenosphere is in a molten and therefore plastic state, which is revealed by the way seismic waves pass through these layers.

MOXO border - is the boundary at which the nature of the passage of seismic waves changes, the speed of which sharply increases. It was named so in honor of the Yugoslav seismologist Andrei Mohorovich, who first identified it based on the results of measurements in 1909.

If we look at the general section of the structure of the Earth, as it is today presented by official science, then it will look like this.

The earth's crust is part of the lithosphere. Below is the upper mantle, which is partly the lithosphere, that is, solid, and partly the asthenosphere, which is in a molten plastic state.

Next comes the layer, which in this diagram is simply labeled "mantle". It is believed that in this layer the substance is in a solid state due to very high pressure, while the available temperature is not enough to melt it under these conditions.

Beneath the solid mantle is a layer of the "outer core" in which, as it is assumed, the substance is again in a molten plastic state. And finally, in the very center is again a solid inner core.

It should be noted here that when you start reading materials on geophysics and plate tectonics, you constantly come across phrases like "possible" and "quite likely." This is explained by the fact that we actually still do not know exactly what and how it works inside the Earth. All these schemes and constructions are exclusively artificial models, which are created on the basis of remote measurements using seismic or acoustic waves, the passage of which is recorded through the inner layers of the Earth. Today, supercomputers are used to simulate the processes that, as the official science suggests, occur inside the Earth, but this does not mean that such modeling allows one to unambiguously “dot all the i's”.

In fact, the only attempt to check the consistency of theory with practice was made in the USSR, when the Kola superdeep well was drilled in 1970. By 1990, the depth of the well reached 12,262 meters, after which the drill string broke off and drilling was stopped. So, the data that were obtained during the drilling of this well contradicted theoretical assumptions. It was not possible to reach the basalt layer, sedimentary rocks and fossils of microorganisms were encountered much deeper than they should have been, and methane was found at depths where no organic matter should in principle be present, which confirms the theory of non-biogenic origin of hydrocarbons in the bowels of the Earth. Also, the actual temperature regime did not coincide with that predicted by the theory. At a depth of 12 km, the temperature was about 220 degrees C, while in theory it should have been around 120 degrees C, that is, 100 degrees lower. (article about the well)

But back to the theory of plate movement and the formation of mountain ranges along the western coast of South America from the point of view of official science. Let's see what oddities and inconsistencies are present in the existing theory. Below is a diagram in which the active continental margin (ACO) is indicated by the number 4.

This image, as well as several subsequent ones, were taken by me from the materials for the lectures of the teacher of the Geological Faculty of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov, Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences, Ariskin Alexey Alekseevich.

The complete file can be found here. The general list of materials for all lectures is here.

Pay attention to the ends of the oceanic plates, which bend and go deep into the Earth to a depth of about 600 km. Here is another diagram from the same place.

Here, too, the edge of the plate bends down and goes to a depth of more than 220 km beyond the boundary of the scheme. Here is another similar picture, but from an English-language source.

And again we see that the edge of the oceanic plate bends down and goes down to a depth of 650 km.

How do we know that there actually are some kind of bent solid plate ends? According to seismic data, which record anomalies in these zones. Moreover, they are recorded at sufficiently large depths. Here is what is reported about this in a note on the portal "RIA Novosti".

“The largest mountain range in the world, the Cordillera of the New World, may have formed as a result of the subsidence of three separate tectonic plates beneath North and South America in the second half of the Mesozoic era,” geologists say in an article published in the journal Nature.

Karin Zigloch of Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, West Germany, and Mitchell Michalinuk, of the British Columbia Geological Survey in Victoria, Canada, have figured out some of the details of this process by enlightening rocks in the upper mantle beneath the Cordillera in North America as part of the USArray project.

Zigloch and Michalinuk theorized that the mantle may contain traces of ancient tectonic plates that sank beneath the N American tectonic plate during the Cordillera formation. According to scientists, the mantle should have retained the "remains" of these plates in the form of inhomogeneities, clearly visible for seismographic instruments. To the surprise of geologists, they managed to find three large plates at once, the remains of which lay at a depth of 1-2 thousand kilometers.

One of them - the so-called Farallon plate - has long been known to scientists. The other two were not previously distinguished, and the authors of the article named them Angayuchan and Meskalera. According to the calculations of geologists, Angayuchan and Mescalera were the first to submerge under the continental platform about 140 million years ago, laying the foundations of the Cordillera. They were followed by the Farallon plate, which split into several parts 60 million years ago, some of which are still sinking."

And now, if you haven’t seen it yourself, I’ll explain what is wrong in these diagrams. Pay attention to the temperatures shown in these diagrams. In the first diagram, the author somehow tried to get out of the situation, so his isotherms at 600 and 1000 degrees bend downward following the bent plate. But on the right we already have isotherms with temperatures up to 1400 degrees. Moreover, over a noticeably colder stove. I wonder how the temperature in this zone above the cold plate is heated to such a high temperature? After all, the hot core that can provide such heating is actually at the bottom. In the second diagram, from an English-language resource, the authors did not even begin to invent something especially, they just took and drew a horizon with a temperature of 1450 degrees C, which a plate with a lower melting temperature calmly breaks through and goes deeper. At the same time, the melting temperature of the rocks that make up the downward bending oceanic plate is in the range of 1000-1200 degrees. So why didn't the end of the plate bent downwards melt?

Why, in the first diagram, the author needed to pull up a zone with a temperature of 1400 degrees C and above, it is just well understandable, since it is necessary to somehow explain where volcanic activity comes from with outflowing flows of molten magma, because the presence of active volcanoes along the entire South Ridge The Cordillera is a fixed fact. But the downward curving end of the oceanic plate will not allow hot flows of magma to rise from the inner layers, as shown in the second diagram.

But even if we assume that the hotter zone was formed due to some lateral hotter flow of magma, then the question still remains as to why the end of the plate is still solid? He did not have time to heat up to the required melting temperature? Why didn't he have time? What is our speed of movement of lithospheric plates? We look at the map obtained from measurements from satellites.

At the bottom left there is a legend, which indicates the speed of movement in cm per year! That is, the authors of these theories want to say that those 7-10 cm that went inside due to this movement do not have time to heat up and melt in a year?

And this is not to mention the strangeness that A. Sklyarov in his work "Sensational history of the Earth" (see "Scattering continents"), which consists in the fact that the Pacific plate moves at a speed of more than 7 cm per year, plates in the Atlantic Ocean at a speed of only 1, 1-2, 6 cm in year, which is due to the fact that the ascending hot flow of magma in the Atlantic Ocean is much weaker than the powerful "plume" in the Pacific Ocean.

But at the same time, the same measurements from satellites show that South America and Africa are moving away from each other. At the same time, we do not record any ascending currents under the center of South America, which could somehow explain the actually observed movement of the continents.

Or maybe, in fact, the reason for all actually observed facts is completely different?

The ends of the plates actually went deep into the mantle and still have not melted because this happened not tens of millions of years ago, but relatively recently, during the catastrophe I am describing when a large object broke through the Earth. That is, these are not the consequences of a slow sinking of the ends of the plates by several centimeters a year, but the rapid catastrophic indentation of fragments of continental plates under the influence of shock and inertial waves, which simply drove these fragments inside, as it drives ice floes into the bottom on rivers during a stormy ice drift. placing them on the edge and even turning them over.

Yes, and a powerful hot flow of magma in the Pacific Ocean can also be the remnant of the flow that should have arisen inside the Earth after the breakdown and burning of the channel during the passage of the object through the inner layers.

Continuation