World Ocean Impact Craters
Tectonics and Impact - Forensically you are working backwards in an event sequence. The earth was some shape with water. It acquires more mass by impact accretion. The shape gets bigger but is reconstructed each time a large accretion impact occurs. Very large accretion impacts go inside the earth and this is not the same as impact cratering i.e. surface impacts. These kind reshape the planet. The reason Earth appears lumpier is because it does not have a uniform mass - which is one of the key elements in measuring gravity. If you could sample different sections of Earth’s mantle, you would get different materials of varying densities.
Crater >>
<<< Crater
Earth’s high spots show up dramatically when magnified x7000
(Image: ESA/HPF/DLR)
A sleek satellite orbiting Earth has confirmed that the planet is not the simple squashed sphere we often imagine it to be. It is, in fact, more like a lumpy potato.
Nearly a year’s worth of gravitational measurements from the European Space Agency’s Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) have yielded a colourful map portraying the geoid – the shape the Earth’s surface would be if it was entirely covered by water and influenced by gravity alone.
The result is not a smooth sphere because mass is not distributed evenly within the Earth’s mantle. Different parts of the globe exert a different gravitational pull on the ocean, meaning that sea level is lower than expected in some places – represented by blue patches – and higher than expected in others – the red and yellow areas.
In the visualisation, the vertical scale has been exaggerated by a factor of 7000, so the pits and crests are 7000 times shallower or taller, respectively, than depicted here.
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20335-earth-is-shaped-like-a-lumpy-potato/#ixzz6gJfKNZBp
So as you can see above, even an object as large as the earth is a multi density form. This is also the principle of an impact explosion with the smaller impacting bodies. This is one of the issues I discuss in the "General Theory of Impacts" that sounds better than shock chaotic chain reaction.
https://www.hillbillyu.com/shock-prop
1 >
2 >
3>
So which came first the impacts or the tectonic shifts? Both. The tectonic situation we have today is a result of the earth surface resolving the impacts as they occurred. Impact Cascade Theory suggest that the early impacts were larger. These will be big and misshaped. For the Pacific Ocean we can see the vestigial arcs 1 & 2 of earth accretion craters. These went into the earth and never made the surface type crater. Often the arc suggest angle in this type more than later change alteration.
Two as a time shift. Crater 2 is very old and time has flatten it which pushes the crater wall (Andes Mountain Chain) outward.
The only indicator of crater 1 is the seam crossing the ocean. This would be the biggest possible accretion record of the plant formation. Crater 3 would be the youngest of these large accretion planet formers. They would all be pre Cambrian. The Earth Navel shown below would be another contender for the largest accretion vestigial record.
Circular! The large earth forming impacts are all as different as the surface craters. This one went inside the earth far enough to leave a density sink or void. The fault lines and earthquakes are the crust resolving the impact. As the earth's crust is thicker at the equator the fault cracks are showing that. Also the angle of impact will cause a push up toward the direction it hit, in this case a little from the bottom left or bottom but the early impacts were fast and that signature leaves less surface resolving. Complexity increases as more impacts occur and the earth crust moves to resolve each.
Earth Navel >
Plate movement and resolving impact crust break stress.
Impact Tectonic Healing Theory - So you have accretion impacts which combine to make the earth but the crust is broken by these impacts and is in constant resolving of these many stresses.
This gravity map from the GRACE satellite shows the variation of the gravitational field across Earth’s surface; red indicates higher gravitational field strength and blue lower.
Push apart complexity - The vestigial scar healing traces as seen with gravity show how subsequent impact can distort the previous impacts. Impact Cascade Theory of large to small with the early earth forming or the moon hit which broke off part of earth is widened as seen by gravity but the surface line is smaller in diameter. The two subsequent large impacts did that. The plate rift and drift keeps moving the impact record around. Two even smaller impacts occur, one in the crater wall of the South American wall rim and one in the Gulf of Mexico.
Low angle impacts that penetrate the earth's crust do not leave a circular surface crater but an arc. Another such crater can overlay this which complicates seeing the sequence. The amount of earthquake activity favors the more recent impact as the earth is resolving the impact crack stress. The earth's crust as a tectonic activity has no physics reason to produce arcs.
The crater arcs of Antartica - Dead planets show overlapping craters with the largest being the most wall removed. Arcs are what you can expect to find for very large craters. They often come in at angles and make crater subduction. The earthquakes of Antartica are the earth still resolving that stress.
garnet-biotite-feldspar-quartz gneiss – Larsemann Hills, Antarctica - The energy to make this rock is higher than that of a volcanic eruption. It is thought that tectonic pressure makes them but these tube flows are not a compression signature. In and around 5,000 degrees F would be an estimate for this specimen. The diversity of minerals present per inch is high. That is not indicative of a crustal material. This is a sudden made process made by explosion diversity and high pressure and heat. The Larsemann Hills are coastal Princess Elizabeth Land. So why are rocks like this identified as crustal made pressures? Geology does and does not embrace Impact Theory. On the one hand they accept that the earth is made of impact accretion. On the other they cling to the previous theory that the earth is a sediment rock making mechanism of tectonics. The tectonics are a result of impact accretion. While many rocks are clearly sediments compacted this concept is overused. Clay for example is an impact made pulverization. Impact can strike again forming a rock. Not a tectonic or sedimentary process but two instant impact processes.
.jpg)
Antartica is highly tectonically active. The two large craters above are the source of this activity.
.jpg)
Gondwana tectonic theory presumes the earth was always this size of sphere. Sphere expansion by impact accretion is what has happened. Crustal stress today is just the earths record of expansion and the continued resolving of this crustal stress. That is what tectonic theory really represents. The landmass of the Antarctic is an ancient accretion mass that did not penetrate to the earth's core and therefore remained as a continent. Two subsequent large accretion impacts also have occurred. I say accretion because they were of such size as to add significant mass.
Also what appears as subduction is the large meteor mass going at an angle into the crust. On average impactors will hit at 45 degrees. A large enough mass at a fast enough speed will only make a partial circle or arc as it will cause recoil to the planet as a physics of relative size. Surface circle explosion are a product of a smaller mass hitting a very large mass therefore kinetic unloading an explosion circle.
.jpg)
The famous 1755 Lisbon Portugal earthquake is a crater interrupting an old earth accretion seam. While old and mostly stress resolved these subsequent impacts make that wound fresh. Two later craters break this seam.
The Meteor Deep Impact Crater - Rather ironic this crater was named the "Meteor Deep" after a ship of that name. March 21, 2024.
South Sandwich Trench - Wikipedia
