Vancouver Island, oriented NW-SE, is a land of Terranes. It has been slammed from the SW several times, and these exotic portions of the island are called terranes- sequences of rocks which are not similar to anything found on the island further to the east. The sequences are roughly parallel to each other, indicating that they came from the same direction. Let’s analyze them from the standpoint of Coriolis rotation, using the rule that there is no influence of the Equatorial Bulge in these latitudes north of 40N. There are high mountains, however, so that the westward TIDAL SHOVE, CAUSED BY INCREASED INFLUENCE OF SLOWING OF THE CRUST FOR REGIONS WITH EXCESS BULGE OF PROTRUDING MOUNTAINS, creates westward movement of the part of the island west of the mountains. In addition, there are high mountains on the mainland, so that a basin is created by the differential westward shove between both sets of protrusions. This is shown for the states of Oregon and Washington, where a DIAGRAM, FOR A VERTICAL ROTATION, WITH THE SUBDUCTION (A CYLINDRICAL CELL DIVING UNDER AND DEEPER TO THE NORTH) MOVING THE CRUST UNDER OR AND WA:
I have found that movements of two or more greater entities (such as the Sierras-Central Valley cell in CA, and the Basin and Range, B&R, cell for Nevada) create a diagonal portrait between them- as in Death Valley. In this case, I will compare the Vancouver Island and Mountains to the east- British Columbia- to determine whether a similar portrait results. This will include SE Alaska later, after the initial result is found to be positive. The coastline for both SE Alaska and Vancouver is similar- trending NW-ward. Tentatively, it appears that Coriolis Forces move mass further from the Equator faster than mass to the south. In other words, the island moved further to the west the further it occurs from the Equator. This would cause the coast to trend NW-ward in the northern hemisphere. Conversely, the coastline would trend SE-ward in the southern hemisphere (considering only Coriolis rotation)
NOTICE THAT THE COASTLINE OF CANADA AND ALASKA IS BREAKING UP INTO ISLANDS, DUE TO THE WESTWARD DRAG OF TIDAL INFLUENCE ON THE VANCOUVER MOUNTAINS (MOVING RELATIVELY WESTWARD COMPARED TO NON-MOUNTAINOUS REGIONS).
TESTING THE RELATION OF MOUNTAIN CHAINS AND THEIR CREATION OF TRANSFORMS AND WESTWARD-MOVEMENT OF THE CRUST, THIS IS PORTRAYED IN THE FOLLOWING GOOGLE EARTH PHOTO:
FROM WHENCE COMES THE TERTIARY MOUNTAIN RANGES?
The principal result of all of my analysis of EQUATORIAL BULGE (EB)TERMINATION (40N AND 40S LATITUDES) AND MOUNTAIN RANGE MOVEMENT TO THE WEST DUE TO INCREASED TIDAL ACTION is that a significant range of mountains augments the normal slowing of the earth with time. Mountains within the spread of roughly 70n to 70S latitudes offset the normal drag of the CRUST TO THE EAST (DUE TO THE MANTLE MOVING SLIGHTLY FASTER THAN THE CRUST).
There is an interplay displayed in structural geology on GOOGLE EARTH: FOR THE NORMAL CASE, SUBDUCTION OCCURS UNDER OR OVER PACIFIC COASTLINES, WHENEVER MANTLE DRAG IS DOMINANT (N-S LONGITUDINAL CELLS ROTATE UNDER THE CONTINENTS); WHEREAS, WHERE THERE IS AUGMENTED TIDAL SHOVE TO THE WEST, MOUNTAINS ARE PRESENT WHICH EFFECTUATE AND DOMINATE THE ACTION. FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE MENDOCINO 40N LOCATION, THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN WESTWARD SHOVE BY TIDAL INFLUENCE AND EASTWARD DRAG BY MANTLE MOVEMENTS. THE MANTLE WINS ON THE NORTH SIDE, WHILE TIDAL SHEAR IS DOMINANT TO THE WEST (from combination of EB plus Range protrusion)WINS ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
The question arises: What brought the Tertiary Mountain Ranges to the surface in the first place?
I have previously assumed that there was a POLAR AXIS RE-SET, AFTER A SIGNIFICANT EARTH SHOCK (KT IMPACT). Then, the earth attempted to reach a new mechanical equilibrium, and both pole and equator exhibited wobbles, with a re-distribution of mass (such as Australia and India moving north). After Cretaceous time, previous inland seas and distribution of earth stresses were replaced with uplift of continents and emplacement of basins under the influence of Coriolis rotation and EB shear. But what causes the mountains to rise in Tertiary Time? We won’t use the old “bugaboo” of Mantle Plumes and Hotspots, since this is a cop-out. Furthermore, it is not simple radioactive HEAT, since the linear nature hints otherwise. IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A NEW SHRINKAGE OF THE CRUST WHICH HAS NOT BEEN INCORPORATED! We have put LOD increase (Length of Day) and TIDAL INFLENCE AND DRAG into the mix; how about simple contraction of the Earth, creating compression-driven mountain chain rise?
SLOWING EARTH AND INCREASING LENGTH OF DAY (LOD) SCENARIO
The long term slowing of the earth’s spin rate results in several anticipated phenomena:
1. The LOD increases, which reduces the spatial velocity along all latitude lines;
2. Reduction of centrifugal force causes the EQUATORIAL BULGE, EB, to shrink;
3. The EARTH trends toward a more spherical configuration (less elliptical, and more rounded)- shrinking at the equator and expanding at the poles;
4. The bulge mass is transferred to regions outside of the EB zone; and,
5. The central portion is squeezed LATERALLY, creating zones where crust is re-distributed near ocean basins.
Let’s examine the location of mountain ranges, to see how this fits with the PHENOMENON OF A SLOWING EARTH.
There seem to be three general categories where mountain ranges occur:
A. Those rising today (indicated by GPS ELEVATIOIN CHANGES, such as the Sierras);
B. Those eroding more rapidly than they are rising (the Appalachians); and,
C. Those being peneplained or leveled (ARBUCKLES AND Ouachitas).
The ones of interest to today’s dynamics are in category A, where the age is less than that occurring in the Mesozoic. The west coast of the Americas exhibit the dominant type, where the Rocky to the Andes Ranges stretch along the entire coast with few exceptions. The exceptions should give clues, to whether this scenario of creation of chains next to oceans is the proper choice.
A DIAGRAM MAY HELP TO YIELD HINTS AS TO THE INCIPIENCE OF THE SIERRAS:
CLUES TO THE FORMATION OF MOUNTAIN RANGES IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE MAY BE FOUND BY COMPARING THE COASTAL ZONES WHICH HAVE NO MANTLE DRAG, BUT WHICH HAVE TIDAL PUSH (MAD-MACS): ALASKAN PANHANDLE, SIERRAS-CENTRAL VALLEY, AND BAJA PENINSULA SOUTH, MEXICO:
COMPARE NW AMERICA WITH THE COASTLINE OF CHILE, WHERE THE LATITUDE IS SOUTH OF 40S ( NO EB AND BOTH VERTICAL ROTATION AND RIFTING ARE PRESENT:
OBSERVATIONS: 1. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ROTATION (RIFTS AND CIRCULAR COASTLINE), AS WELL AS WEST TIDAL SHOVE (MTNS. WITH NO TRANSFORMS) ARE NOTICEABLE;
2. DIAMETER OF THE VERTICAL ROTATING CELL INCREASES TO THE NORTH, SIMILAR TO THAT OFFSHORE OREGON;
3. THERE IS CCW ROTATION ON THE EXTREME SOUTH COAST (TERRA DEL FUEGO); AND,
4. THE FIRSTS SIGNIFICANT TRANSFORM EXISTS AT 40S, THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF EB.
NOTICE BELOW, THAT THE 40S TRANSFORM (TERMINATION OF EQUATORIAL BULGE) DIVIDES THE COAST AND PORTRAYS INCREASING ELEVATION TO THE NORTH. FURTHER, THERE IS NO SUBDUCTION TO THE SOUTH, WHILE IT IS ABUNDANTLY NOTICEABLE TO THE NORTH:
NOW COMPARE CHILE COAST LINE WITH THE ANALYSIS OF THE ALASKAN PANHANDLE, SHOWING A ZONE OF TIDAL SHOVE TO THE WEST (WITH NO SUBDUCTION, UNTIL REACHING THE LYNN CANAL:
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS:
1. SUBDUCTION IS MORE CORRECTLY VERTICAL ROTATION OF THE COASTLINE, WITH THE DIAMETER OF THE VERTICAL CELL INCREASING GENERALLY TO THE NORTH (DIVING);
2. MOUNTAIN RANGES FORM PARALLEL TO COASTLINES, AS CRUST IS SQUEEZED UPWARDLY FOR A CONTRACTING EARTH;
3. CORIOLIS FORCES AUGMENT UPLIFT IN THE NORTHERN HEMISHERE AND DETER IT IN THE SOUTH (THIS IS A BIT OF A PROJECTIOIN, AND WE WILL LOOK AT NEW GUINEA, WHERE THE OWEN STANLEY RANGE RUNS ALONG THE EQUATOR); AND,
4. MOUNTAIN RANGES TREND PERPENDICULARLY TO THE DIRECTION TO THE OCEAN, AND THIS IS A PUZZLE TO BE SOLVED.
THE OWEN STANLEY MOUNTAINS LIE SOUTH OF THE EQUATOR, IN NEW GUINEA, AND ARE RELATED TO TWO SPIRALING CELLS SOUTH OF THAT DIVIDER. REMIND ME TO TELL YOU SOMETIME, ABOUT MY EXPERIENCES ON MANUS ISLAND, WHERE I WAS ACCOSTED BY A BLACK-AS-NIGHT SECURITY GUARD FOR MY B-29 AIRCRAFT. FORTUNATELY, I LIVED TO TELL THE STORY, AND SURVIVED EVEN THE "AUSSIES"- WHO MANNED THE BASE- WHO WERE DETERMINED TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE SUPERIOR TO ANYTHING WE COULD "DRAG UP".
I THINK THAT WITH THIS PORTRAIT, WE CAN SOLVE THE MARIANAS TRENCH PUZZLE, BUT THAT WILL BE POSTED ON ANOTHER BLOG. NOTICE NOW THAT THE SPIRALS ARE IN THE MIDST OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC AND INDIAN OCEAN VOLCANIC ZONES, AND THAT GUAM IS DISTANTLY-RELATED (BUT WE STILL HAVE TO CONTEND WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE EQUATOR).
FINDING THE ANOMALOUS LINEAR MOUNTAIN CHAIN
The Pacific Ocean surroundings have most of the major mountain chains for the whole world. Exceptions include the Alps, the Taurus of Turkey, the Himalayas, and the Atlas mountains of Africa. For the others, here are generalizations:
A. The Pacific Rim has chains parallel to coastlines; of course you will say, when a mountain linear appears, it makes a border. The case of the Sierras shows that the chain is parallel to the ocean even when it is far inland;
B. The most dramatic ranges are inside the Equatorial bulge, EB. An example is for the Andes, where the range diminishes with approach to the 40S latitude. An exception is Denali or Mt. McKinley, which is the highest in North America, and this is with arcuate presentation (not linear). The highest of all is Everest, which is far inland and still rising;
C. Mountain ranges are mainly uplifted sedimentary rocks. The ones I have studied have Mesozoic or younger columns elevated- sometimes at drastic angles (such as in the Rockies and the Sierras), so that they indicate that the stress which has shoved them is nearby. Paleozoic uplifts are mostly eroded or peneplained, and yield few clues as to what elevated them;
D. Mountain ranges terminate at interferences- such as EB, major transforms in the oceans, or at initiation of vulcanism or geothermal anomalies; and,
E. Inflections in the linear presentation correlate with major stress changes in the Crust, such as near super volcanoes and large Coriolis cell changes in elevation.
THE SIERRAS SEEM TO BE THE STERLING EXAMPLE OF ALL OF THE ABOVE CHARACTERISTICS, EXCEPT THAT IT HAS A METAMORPHIC AND IGNEOUS ROCK CORE, IT HAS SHARP BOUNDARIES ON BOTH ENDS, AND IT OCCURS ABOUT 250 KM FROM THE PACIFIC OCEAN (COMPARED TO ZERO FOR THE ALASKAN PANHANDLE).
QUESTIONS:
1. WHY WOULD MOUNTAIN RANGES PROTRUDE SO CLOSELY TO THE OCEAN, WHICH HAS A THIN CRUST AND WOULD MORE EASILY ABSORB COMPRESSIONAL SQUEEZING, WITH EARTH CONTRACTION (DUE TO SLOWING AND REDUCED CENTRIFUGAL FORCE?
POSSIBLE ANSWER:
The deep ocean has a bulge, but it is immediately rectified for any mechanical rearrangement by shifting of the water column. The continents, with their 100 million times greater viscosity, rearrange their height much more slowly, and possess anomalous bulges more so than the liquid oceans (BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER!).
2. WHY ARE THE NORTH AMERICAN RANGES IN LINEAR PATTERNS, WHEREAS THE HIMALAYAS AND THE ALEUTIANS OCCUR IN CIRCULAR PATTERNS?
POSSIBLE ANSWER:
Crushing tests reveal failure in planes or linear patterns; if the earth is shrinking, it will fail along N-S lines or their orthogonals.
With this explanation, the Himalayas and the Alaskan mountain ranges are not due to shrinkage, but to other interferences (such as Coriolis forces or mass transfer because of wobbling of the earth).
3. Why are the Alaskan panhandle ranges so close to the ocean, compared to the rest of the trans-continental Andes, Sierras, and Sierra Madre?
POSSIBLE ANSWER:
The ranges near Juneau and Skagway are metamorphic and crystalline rock, due evidently to greater shove with TIDAL FORCES at these high latitudes. We will have to compare these to others at similar parallels.
THE GOOGLE PHOTO OF THE EAST INDIES, NEAR THE EQUATOR, YIELDS CLUES AS TO FORMATION OF A LINEAR MOUNTAIN CHAIN (OWEN STANLEY RANGE) WHEN THERE IS NO CORIOLIS ROTATION AND THE MOVEMENT IS SPIRALING TO PRODUCE NEW GUINEA AS A MASS BETWEEN TWO MAJOR ENTITIES:
A FEATURE IN THE PHOTO ABOVE IS THE MOVEMENT OF NEW GUINEA AWAY TO THE NORTH FROM AUSTRALIA (FASTER THAN THE CONTINENT IS MOVING- LEAVING A SHELF OF LARGE EXTENT BETWEEN THEM). THIS IS HAPPENING, LEAVING CLUES AS TO THE MECHANICS INVOLVED:
1. THE ISLAND IS DIAGONAL BETWEEN THE TWO SPIRALING ARRAYS, INDICATING THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION (CW);
2. FEATURES ALONG THE EQUATOR INDICATE THAT IT IS A BARRIER TO FURTHER MOVEMENT TO THE NORTH, EVEN THOUGH INDIA OBVIOUSLY OVERCAME THIS RESISTANCE;
3. SULAWESI (CELEBES FORMERLY) IS ORIENTED E-W, INDICATING THAT THE EQUATOR IS IMPORTANT TO WHATEVER CREATES THIS ARRANGEMENT;
4. KALIMANTAN (BORNEO FORMERLY) AND SUMATRA STRADDLE THE EQUATOR, AND INDICATE THAT VULCANISM TERMINATES THERE, ALTHOUGH LAKE TOBA IS A COLLAPSED VOLCANIC CALDERA (NORTH OF THE EQUATOR); AND,
5. THERE ARE DISCONTINUITIES AT THE EQUATOR, INDICATING THAT THERE IS SHEAR TRANSPIRING.
SCENARIO FOR THE NEW GUINEA MOUNTAIN CHAIN
For a feature at the equator, there is no significant Coriolis rotation, no Mantle shove for a mass oriented E-W, no shear for the Equatorial Bulge; so where does that leave us?
Notice that there is considerable separation between Australia and the island of New Guinea. This implies significant TIME, WHERE THE ISLAND HAS MOVED FROM ITS MORE SOUTHERLY POSITION. I propose the following solution to this set of circumstances below the equator:
1. The Australian continent has moved northward, under the impetus of a mass imbalance since the last re-orientation of the POLAR AXIS;
2. Australia developed an E-W Leading edge, as it moved northward. Why? Shrinkage of the earth created an orthogonal compressional feature (an uplift, in response to the contraction of the earth). This E-W feature developed at a time when Australia was south of the 10S marginal Coriolis zone, and it subsequently separated and rotated CW (UPLIFT, IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE), since sufficient time has transpired, as indicated by the large separation of the two landmasses;
3. The separated landmass (island of New Guinea) rotated CW, as it rose by squeezing. This all must transpire before entering the present 10S to Equator zone, in order to significantly rotate between the two spirals of Indonesia and islands surrounding the Bismarck Sea;
4. As the island rotated, it developed a profile which was somewhat more of a N-S presentation to the tidal friction of the moon. Hence it began to slow compared to islands to the east and west. New Guinea jammed against Indonesia and pulled away from the Bismarck islands. This created an exaggerated spiral for the East Indies, compared to the islands of the Bismarck Sea;
5. As a consequence, Indonesia rotated CCW in response the westward shove of New Guinea. This caused Indonesia to sink, while New Guinea rose. Most of Indonesia is now sub sea, while most of New Guinea is highlands; and,
6. The vulcanism of Indonesia is exterior to the spiral, and the treatment of this conflict is another analysis. STAY TUNED!
What have we learned, which will augment understanding the formation of linear mountain ranges? First, that the ranges may orient E-W., as an orthogonal to earth stresses. Secondly, an important Pacific Boundary island has a linearly-arranged Mountain Range, which originates according to EARTH CONTRACTION PRINCIPLES; and, Thirdly, that MECHANICS can explain GEOLOGICAL ANOMALIES,
This is all very TENUOUS, AND I REJECT IT. It shows some possibilities, and parts of it are acceptable, but THERE IS NO MECHANICS REASON FOR THE CONTNUOUS SEPARATION TO THE NORTH OF NEW GUINEA FROM AUSTRALIA (there is separation of New Guinea westward, by tidal friction, but not northward). The E-W alignment, before rotation, of the island may be used as an example of orthogonal compression with shrinking of the earth, and we will leave this in the inbox.
CONTINUATION OF THE NEW GUINEA TECTONICS ANAYSIS
More likely, the island is moving to the east as was concluded for the crust COLLIDING westward at the TONGA TRENCH. The encroachment of New Guinea toward the Bismarck Sea, and the shove of Indonesia towards the island indicates the reverse of the TIDAL DRAG TO THE WEST.
Further, the separation of the island appears to have moved to the east, relative to Australia, by the shape of the bays and protrusions fitting with the north Australia coastline. The key to further understanding is to find a mechanism for the island to separate from Australia, northward, and to account for the eastward deviation without tidal drag. This infers rotation by Mantle movements eastward faster than the Crust, and this will require another DIAGRAM AND MODEL FOR A LARGE SEGMENT OF CRUST.
STARTING WITH THE BLOCK OF CRUST OCCUPIED WITH AUSTRALIA AND SURROUNDINGS:
ABOVE MAP SHOWS THAT SEVERAL FEATURES FROM THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE STILL APPLY TO THE SOUTH:
1. THE EQUATORIAL BULGE, EB, TERMINATES AT 40S, AS EVIDENCED BY SHEARING OF TASMANIA AND NEW ZEALAND SOUTH ISLAND FROM THE NORTH ISLAND;
2. CORIOLIS CELLS APPEAR, BUT THE RULES ARE REVERSED (CW INDICATES UPLIFT);
3. SHEARING LEAVES A TRAIL OF SILTATION ON THE OCEAN FLOOR; AND,
4. THE TONGA TRENCH OPPOSES THE NORMAL WESTWARD DRAG FOR ALL OF THE EARTH (DRAG IS STILL LESS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 40S).
A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE REACTION TO THE KT STRIKE, RE-ORIENTING THE EQUATOR AND POLAR AXIS IS SHOWN BELOW, FOR THE ANTI-PODAL POSITION TO THE CHICXULUB STRIKE:
THIS IS SHOWN AS A SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM, INCLUDING THE NORTHWARD (now NE-ward) AUSTRALIA MOVEMENTS:
THIS IS ALL HIGHLY SPECULATIVE, BUT SEEMS TO SATISFY THE FOLLOWING PRESENTATIONS:1. PART OF THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE IS MOVING "AGAINST THE GRAIN" OF ALL THE RULES FOR OTHER MECHANICAL ADJUSTMENTS, AND THIS ALLOWS THE NORTHWARD MOVEMENT TO OFFSET A BULGE WHICH REACTED ANTIPODAL-LY TO THE KT STRIKE;
2. THE INFLECTION AT THE INDIA TRACE IS AT ABOUT THE RIGHT LOCATION TO ACCOMMODATE A SUDDEN CHANGE;
3. AUSTRALIA, BEING IN THE "NEIGHBORHOOD" HAS ADJUSTED ITS ORIGINAL NORTHWARD (NOW NE-WARD) ALSO; AND,
4. ITS NORTHERN EDGE (NOW NEW GUINEA) HAS HAD TIME TO DEVELOP A MOUNTAIN RANGE AND PULL AWAY FROM THE CONTINENT (but we still have to find a mechanism for separation and elevation of the NEW GUINEA MOUNTAINS).
THE NEXT STEP IS TO FIND HOW AUSTRALIA REACTED TO THE KT STRIKE:
THE START OF THE SEPARATION (1ST STAGE) OF NEW GUINEA FROM AUSTRALIA, CAN BE SEEN AS A SERIES OF PARALLEL ARCS ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUSTRALIA. THIS IS ANOTHER "SURGE" PHENOMENON, WHICH WE WILL SOLVE LATER. BUT NOW IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE SEPARATION HAS BEGUN, AND I ASSUME THAT THE FORWARD FRONT OF THE ISLAND CREATES THE HORIZONTAL VERTICALLY-ROTATING CELL (WHICH IS THE ISLAND OF NEW GUINEA AND ITS COUPLET OF RISING MOUNTAINS AND SINKING AREA BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND THE ISLAND).
THE NW CORNER OF AUSTRALIA SHOWS THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION AND MOVEMENT OF THE CONTINENT, BY THE DIVERSION OF THE OFFSHORE RIFT TO A CORIOLIS CELL ROTATING ABOUT THIS CENTERLINE (SIMILAR TO THAT AT MENDOCINO):
AUSTRALIA IS ROTATING IN THE LATITUDES GREATER THAN 10S, WHILE NEW GUINEA IS IN THE DOLDRUMSThe below Google photo shows that the continent “down under” is rotating CW, which is a rising entity (southern hemisphere). This is seen several ways:
1. The transform on the WEST SIDE OF AUSTRALIA is displaced to the north, referenced to the centerline of the Coriolis cell which surrounds this linear ON LAND. Offshore, this linear traces WNW-ESE, while onshore the linear is rotated to the NE;
2. Relative to the island of New Guinea, the continent is rotating to the east, taking parts of the island with it. The continent is south of 10S, while New Guinea is in the latitudes where Coriolis has minimum effect. There is still a rough fit of the two separated coastlines;
3. The west side of Australia has protruding land, while the east side has sinking lands, with shallow seas and shelves; and,
4. Although Australia was tracing NE-ward before the impact of the KT strike, it now is moving to the east, and will not cross the Equator. Evidently, the collision of India is sufficient to forego any further movement across the Equator. A caveat exists for the Shetland Islands and those south of South America, where Antarctica has “slung off” additional crust during the Pliocene- indicating some mass imbalance remaining.
SO THERE IT IS! THE OUTBACK AND ITS CONTRAVENING MOVEMENTS AND LIFE HAS CHANGED THE ORIENTATION OF THE WHOLE QUADRANSPHERE, BECAUSE OF THE KT ASTEROID STRIKE! Australia has separated from New Guinea because of the Coriolis Effect, where the island has almost no rotation.
Below diagram shows HOW THE ROTATION AT 10S, WHICH IS STILL SIGNIFICANT, SPIRALS THE ISLAND OF NEW GUINEA INTO THE CRUST- THEREBY WRENCHING THE EAST END OF THE ISLAND AND ELEVATING THE OWEN STANLEY MOUNTAINS:
BELOW ARE THE SPECTACLES FOUND IN MY WATCHING GOOGLE EARTH "WATCHING ME": 
But we still have to solve the puzzle of the rising New Guinea E-W horizontal cell, bringing up a linear chain of the Owen Stanley Mountains (I'M NOT QUITE SATISFIED SUFFICIENTLY, FOR A WORLD-WIDE APPLICATION). KEEP TUNED!
TO BE CONTINUED, UNTIL WE FIND THE SOLUTION TO THE MOUNTAIN RANGE CREATION PUZZLE.
No comments:
Post a Comment