GEOLOGY is a System of CLASSIFICATIONS, a Language (excellent bookkeeping, without Accounting). Earth Science uses their Nomenclature, with Mathematics and PHYSICS, to understand the Earth. Learning a Language yields NO INSIGHT into the DYNAMICS of the Earth, when TERMS are used for FACTS! I will Correct inaccurate Assertions, as I find them. Ignore ASSERTIONS such as Mantle Plumes and Plate Theory- which are ARTIFICIAL concepts, created by Man; these require Continuous ADJUSTMENT!
Saturday, April 7, 2012
AUSTRALIA has a WASATCH LINE, 4096 km diameter, ANALEMMA ENCLOSED
*NOTE: The GRAVITATIONAL FRAGMENTATION SCENARIO requires that we find a FLAT-and-LEVEL ROCK FORMATION, which has survived the 1024 billion year destruction, in order to disprove the episode. It is not enough to find an outcrop which has been “saved” in a graben or other protected environment. The grand canyon 1.1 b.y. deposit is in a tilted position, and appears to remain because it has apparently dropped into the crevasse while the several m.y. episodes occurred. I have found that these fragmentations occur over several million years, as seen in the transition of type of sedimentary deposits found from PTr to the Triassic Chinle petrified wood much higher in the stratigraphic column (3-5 m.y. later). I have found that there are many outcrops of 1.7 b.y. metasediments remaining in AZ and NM, and I had a ranch which exhibited these vertically-oriented rocks. The grain of the rocks was generally upward, and this is not necessarily the same as the original bedding planes. It merely indicates that the compression was lateral- where the grain is perpendicular to the direction of shove. How is it that some older rock was not “scalped” during the destruction? The fact of their appearance at the surface tells us that there has been NO deposition., and that likely they were partially planed by the destruction- leaving the part that was not “shaved”. These metasediments occur in a belt from Minnesota to Mexico, as shown in a plan view below. Notice that the trend is arcuate, indicating that the influence of GRAVITATION was similar to now. We cannot tell if the orientation occurred contemporaneously with their uplift, and it might have been imposed on the chain later (a moving feature describes the time interval of the arc, and the AGE of the event may be calculated by: diameter, km/10.24 km/m.y. for arcs convex to the east. Oppositely-oriented arcs have 20 km/m.y. TIDAL MOVEMENTS to the west). An EVENT which might be helpful is the occurrence of an uplift or intrusion- such as the Dewey Batholith- which rose after the 1.024 b.y. EVENT. THIS CASE occurs as a result of the ISOSTASY transpiring after the opening in the crust (and removal of overburden) has occurred. This will be an indicator of the longevity of the EVENT- CREATING UPLIFTS long after the original GRAVITATIONAL FRAGMENTATION.
Notice that the trend is convex to the east for the cross-continent outcrops, and the AGE is greater than 10,000km/10 km/m.y. or > 1 b.y:
THE CALCULATIONS ABOUT THE LINEAR FAULT INDICATE THAT THE OLDER ARC HAS AN AGE OF 578 m.y. THIS IS NOT CORRECT, AND RELATES AGAIN, THAT AGE MUST NOT BE CALCULATED AT OR NEAR A SOLAR VS. LUNAR LINEAR; THE FEATURE CHANGES SO RAPIDLY ON GOOGLE EARTH- from left to right- THAT THERE IS GREAT PERSONAL ERROR IN MEASURING AND CALCULATING THE AGE (BECAUSE OF THE GREAT CHANGES FOR SMALL SEPARATIONS OF ARCS). HOWEVER, THE ARC TO THE WEST YIELDS AN AGE OF KT- THE CRETACEOUS-TERTIARY BOUNDARY. GEOLOGISTS RELATE THAT THE AGE OF THE DEWEY BATHOLITH IS CRETACEOUS IN AGE, AND THIS FARTHER-FROM-THE-LINEAR ARC POSSIBLY IS CORRECT. I USED THE AVERAGE OF ALL MY FINDINGS- for CONVEX to the EAST FEATURES- TO USE THE DIVISOR OF 10.24KM/M.Y., AND ONE COULD USE THE SMALLEST MEASUREMENT OF 3.072KM/M.Y. TO CALCULATE AN ADJUSTED AGE OF 10.24/3.072 X 578m.y.= 1.926 m.y. (13% error), but STATISTICALLY, I cannot justify it.TAKING ANOTHER PART OF THE AZ PC, ALONG 1-17 and Cordes Lakes, we see that the LATERAL FAULTS CALCULATE LESS THAN 1 m.y.; I HAVE WORKED THIS AREA CONSIDERABLY, and know that the rocks are of 1.7 m.y. AGE. WE HAVE TO CONCLUDE THT THIS TECHNIQUE IS NOT SENSITIVE ENOUGH FOR THESE LARGE DIAMETER ARCS TO BE USED FOR AGE CALCULALTIONS.
GREENLAND IS IN A TRAPEZOIDAL BLOCK OF CRUST, AND THIS INDICATES THAT IT HAS A HISTORY OF REVERSED SHEAR (FROM SOLAR VS LUNAR OFFSETTING). THIS PHOTO SHOWS THAT IT IS EXPANDING NORTHWARD- CREATING ITS OWN WASATCH LINE. IT BORDERS THE BASIN AND RANGE OF THE MID-ARCTIC RANGES (LOMONOTOV RIDGE and others):
EQUINOX SHIFT of 3 degrees (21.5 to 24.5?) is measured between the GAKKEL and LOMOMOTOV RIDGES for the TIME INTERVAL of 41 m.y.; SINCE GAKKEL SPREADING RIDGE has HEAT EMISSIONS, this is PROBABLY the AGE also. I have found this TIME INTERVAL in many locations: the ALEUTIANS, CENTRAL AMERICA, OLYMPIC MTS, WA, and now at the CRITICAL LOCATION- the NORTH POLE!
ABOVE GOOGLE PHOTO SHOWS THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT, AS IT DEFORMS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LUNAR and SOLAR TIDES. THIS IS AN ON-GOING PROCESS, and the ANALEMMA - CONSISTING OF A CW SINK IN NE CANADA, AND A CCW RISE FOR THE REST OF THE ELLIPSE- HAS A RATIO OF DIAMETERS OF 1.6. GETTING THIS ENTITY ON SUCH A LARGE SCALE REQUIRES THAT EVEN THE SMALLEST BLACKENED BLIPS, OR RIVER VALLEYS AND COASTAL BOUNDARIES BE CONSIDERED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MAR- WITH ONLY VAGUE SEDIMENTED PATCHES- IS GREATLY IN ERROR, BUT MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A REFERENCE. THIS PHOTO IS INTRODUCED AS A START TO DETERMINING WHETHER MY ANALYSIS OF THE 1.024 B.Y. EVENT IS "IN THE BALL PARK". NOTICE THAT THIS INCORPORATES THE CANADIAN CRATON, AND IS AN INTRODUCTION TO DETERMINING WHY IT REMAINS, AND WHETHER IT WAS "SCRAPED" BY THE 1.1 B.Y. PRECAMBRIAN DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF THE GREAT UNCONFORITY FOUND IN THE GRAND CANYON (AND WHETHER MY "ELLIPTICAL RINGS" FORMULATION IS CORRECT).
The MARIANAS TRENCH exhibits that it moves 30.72 mm/year EASTWARD,causing the PACIFIC to shrink faster on the west side (as opposed to 20.48mm/yr. on the NA side (north Pacific to Hiwaiian Islands):
TRAPEZOIDAL ARRANGEMENT of ANALEMMA RISES and SINKS, due to Solar tides offsetting Lunar tides in the NE CORNER of CRUSTAL BLOCKS:
The appearance of LINEARS- which are of limited distance EXTENT- is so common, that their exhibition must be explained as a general phenomenon:
1. Solar tides are continuous, whereas Lunar tides- although of greater magnitude- do not exert their influence similarly. Both tides are operating continuously, but the lunar gravitation sometimes adds to the solar tide, and sometimes subtracts from it. The literature reports that solar is less than half lunar, but the BINARY THEOREM (WHICH has contributed significant numerical prognostication) indicates that their magnitudes are 10.24 and 20.48 mm/year (and this works well for the Moon also). The average for the long term is near 10mm/year, from the literature- FOR THE ENTIRE GLOBE, and since the western hemisphere lies in the NW corner of an array of 4 continents (Africa, Europe, North and South America), it is dominated by Lunar tides. Europe is in the NE corner, hence has much more THRUSTING, SHEAR, FRAGMENTATION, and IRREGULARITY;
2. The Pacific Ocean is shrinking (refer to the RING of FIRE, which shows that the movement is toward the center of the ocean, from all sides); in order for the average tide to be 10mm/yr., there must be offset to the western hemisphere (so that the 20mm.yr, for the west, is opposed enough for the average to occur). The continuous violent vulcanism- relative to the west coast of the western north America- from Kamchatka to the Philippines is dominant. More rapid tidal shove to the east can explain this phenomenon. I have measured and calculated a few in this zone- such as the MARIANA TRENCH, and Japan coast, and the 30.72 mm/year movement is indicated. I don’t know of the interior of Asia and will leave this as a doubtful category;
3. Why the TRAPEZOIDAL SHAPE? This phenomenon results from LINEARS- which are parallel for two sides of a trapezoid, and these are accompanied by reverse normal tidal action. In Qsna- the North American Quadransphere- there occur about ¼ to 1/8th of the time a linear between opposing curvilinears; these indicate that solar is offsetting lunar to create N-S lines of shear and spreading;
4. Why is the offset occurring in the NE corner of CRUSTAL BLOCKS? I believe that this is due to the TILT of the POLES, where the EARTH faces the sun, and combines with the Moon to allow solar tides to dominate part of the year. The 23.5 degree tilt, combined with the rise of the sun in the east allows the NE corners to exhibit this behavior. That’s the best guess for the moment, but we’ll explore this further, later: and,
5. This is exhibited for the CENTRAL PART OF NEVADA- at Austin, where a trapezoidal feature, enclosing an ANALEMMA- is shown below:
NOTICE THAT the LINES are NOT QUITE PARALLEL, and that the circular feature near the town of AUSTIN, NV is halved by a precipitous SCARP just east of the town. West of the town occurs a SINK, and east there is a RISE, where minerals have been mined.