New Tectonics 2016 Revised (II)
Instead of including here the text I wrote last year, I put the link, and I will make a translation to Italian, because the post below is already written in English and Spanish.
And after the Italian text I’ll comment some aspects regarding why I say so, which might be not clear to everyone.
(Escusatemi degli errori, vi l’ho detto ormai: il mio italiano è molto pericoloso… 🙂 )
Non è facile… rivisare gli ultimi cincuanta millardi di anni di prestoria geologica della Terra…
Però proverò di farcela bene. Anteprima dovete guardare queste imagini, somo movimenti che ho fatto lasciando fuori aree dove non ci sono dei continenti (continental crusts) e ponendo insieme profili simili non avendo in conto i suoi dimensioni apparenti, perché le distorsioni nelle lunghezze dei bordi vengono del diferente modo di risultare quando le proiezioni delle aree sono lontane dil punto dove si centra il fuoco. È per questo che ci aviamo distinti profili dipendendo del tipo di proiezioni nelle carte.
Su questo delle diferenti proiezioni ho scritto ormai.
Quest’è una proiezione Peters, in questo tipo, c’è una distribuzione uguale delle aree in quanto riguarda la latitudine (nella Mercator che è quella che si usa di solito, non sono equidistanti: se guardate nei margini di qualche carta Mercator e misurate col metro, vedrete che latitudini più vicini all’equator apariscono più vicini di quelle ai poli, 25 gradi d’arco vi darano una misura maggiore col metro, di 25 gradi d’arco all’equator, addiritura mancano diferenti sezioni d’arco al Nord e al Sud), questo vuol’ dire che se misurate col metro le stesse quantità di gradi d’arco avrete la stessa misura nel metro. È per questo che i profili dei continenti apariscono pi’u ‘alti e magri’. Nonostante, la distorsione in largo per latitudini lontane dell’equator sono grandi, e questo sgnifica che Nord America (Alaska, e Canada), Greenland, Nord Scandinavia, e Russia apariscono molto di più larghe dil che sono in realtà:
Bene, l’imagine non è tanto attualizzata, pe`r l’unica diferenza è che l’America del Sud e l’Africa erano unite migliardi d’anni fa’.
Peters Projection: l’Australia era situata nella profondità in basso della Penisola della India (non è soltanto per i profili che dico questo, ma spiegherò dopo).
Se guardate attentamente (adiritura del che potete vedere dove ci sarebbe il mare nel Golfo di Bengala, si ne vede uno spicchio al est di Cambodya penisola) vedrete Australia nascosta sotto la Penisola dell’India al Golfo di Bengala. Geologicisti coincidono tutti a dire che l’isola di Madagascar si trovava qualche tempo nell pasato al Golfo di Bengala. E ne dicono per gli strati e dei fosili di suoli, piante ed animali dei due aree oggi lontane, però unite nell pasato, perché coincidono tra loro, però lì , sotto le sassi del suolo ed il che oggi è il letto del mare è dove l’Australia era nascosta, come pure nella imagine sopra questo testo. Nonostante, non ci sono ancora studi su questo che vi sto dicendo, oppure se ci sono non sono molto conosciuti, io non ho mai travato un bel niente su questo punto della Australia che vi raconto qui. E come questo è importante e non ho scrito niente in più da alcuni giorni, escusatemi il resto del testo lo meterò in inglese, che è un idioma molto più estensivo del italiano. Se volete qualche traduzione fatemilo sapere.
This text below in italics is an excerpt of the post for which I gave the link above at the beginning of this one.
If you look carefully you will see Australia hidden under Indian Peninsula in Bengal Gulf. Indian Bengal Gulf had Madagascar Island (for which there are fossil animals , plants, and grounds studies) some time in the very distant past, but there (and for this, as far as I know, there are not studies, but only because nobody has compared yet, given the fact that geology is an extensive science, so it would not be very difficult to check if what I am stating is or is not so), below bedrock and today’s ocean bottom was Australia also. You only have to compare bathymetries, as I told you in another post, and you will see it was so.
There was a downward, split-half and 180 degrees twist movement there, it is easy to see on any map with bathymetry scale.
This is from Google maps (Mercator). Madagascar was next to Thailand and Myanmar.
America and Africa were joined to Australia too (and so it was Antarctica).
You can see Indonesia, Borneo Island, Papua New Guinea, Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia crossing Australia in my Peters’ composition. The fact is that their relieves match exactly the shapes of the depressions in Australia, you only have to swing them a bit in some cases (I’ll put you my 2 meters x 1,40 meters wall map in which elevations of the terrain are more clearly visible below this text to make it comfortable for all of you to check in one post). There are two important formations today in and next to Australia.
Traditionally geologists explain the separation between Madagascar and India peninsula by continental drifting. This is a process which took millions of years. It seems everybody agrees in saying that first there was a big supercontinent called Pangaea, which started splitting and moving, dividing itself in other pieces of land. It was not so, not as slow as it is thought, nor as steady, but before explaining better than I did last year as you can read in the excerpt, the movement itself, let me tell you something about Australia.
Australia has mainly soils composed of sand, it could be thought of as a sort of sedimentary type of stratum, but in fact, what Australia is, is a piece of the bottom of the see deep under in Bengal Gulf, next to India on its South-East, which is where it was situated thousands of years ago. It is a desert, a big one, and some ranges on the east, it contains depressions, and also the Ayers Rock which is thought to be a meteorite, but I don’t think so, I am much more inclined to think that Ayers Rock is a piece of the Earth’s primal Mohorovičić discontinuity, so it is a piece of the border between the outer core and the mantle, having then a noticeably higher composition in iron than its neighboring rocks in the soil, but this is my theory, and it is all of you who should see how to peer-check if it is so.
The shapes of depressions, deserts, and ranges fit almost perfectly (and also the rocks compositions) with all the geographical areas I already mentioned in the excerpt.
In addition to its depressions, there is a great range: The Great Dividing Range, whose highest peak is Kosciuko, with 2227 meters height, and situated on its east, next to Sidney and Camberra. The other important formation is the Great Coral Barrier, which runs parallel and north to that range, and is on an active tectonic fault in Pacific West (East Asia) which reaches the Aleutian volcanic islands of Alaskan Peninsula, islands whose arc has an elongation into another active tectonic fault in the east of Russia, and that are elongated also from Anchorage southward into the West Coast of North, Central, and South America, that from Magallanes Strait onwards has South Sandwich Islands and Antarctic Peninsula and Ridge in the South Pole.
What happened was that iron started to decay rapidly, then Australia crashed with what today is known as Andes Ridge, which was then joined to it also (and other minor in comparison ridges) while moving that way, and in one of those movements Africa, Antarctica and South America got split from it, (this is why Madagascar and its oceanic crust vicinities have so similarly scars) in a split (like tearing a label accidentally while trying to detach it from a bottle) and twisted away one another, but making the appropriate movements they match together, not only in profiles and shapes, but also in soils fossils and compositions.
In that expansion movement of the Earth’s radius, which I already have told you had more or less a half of its current length (for further explanations read my posts on iron-56 decay, isotopes and properties), was when most important movements (Alpiner included) took place.
The band I added here starts with New Zealand next to South America (Magallanes) and South Africa, and the two big islands up the map are Papua New Guinea and Philippines. This seems a contradiction, but think twice: New Zealand was as it is seen, but Papua and Philippines were upside down also (I din’t fold the paper in order to let you see the shapes, just compare them), just as Madagascar, and being Australia deep under and radius a half of its length today, what I am trying to explain fits perfectly.
It makes sense, it fits.
North America was situated there, but it is distorted ( as is also Russia) in width, so it is only an indication of Saint Andreas and Mariana faults matching too.
You can see here how Turkey was more or less next to Panama and Honduras, and Arabian Peninsula was next to Brazil and North West Africa, there is distortion also, but not so much as that for Canada, Russia or Alaska.
To understand this, you MUST understand that the image above closes itself in a sphere, it is easy to join at different distances, both because of distortion in maps and the generation of new crust (most of it oceanic because… say the envelope or the shell of the original sphere, a half of today’s in radius, got on top of the newly generated crust, so the vast majority of the land above the sea level is what then was the peel of our planet
[(?), (…) 🙂 ]
in the process, taking a central axis going from North to South more or less where India is and enclosing the non-flat three-dimensional space inside the limits of the lands in the image.
By the way, Hawaii has some peculiarities most people don’t know, such as being a place with a gravimetric anomaly, and being the highest elevation above the horizontal plane onto which it is situated, it is more than 10000 thousand meters high, higher that the Himalaya, but this elevation starts under the sea level that is why most people don’t know.
And this post ends here, I’ll go on re-reading my last year’s posts on tectonics and explaining better in this year’s series.