It is known (by me) that Romans invaded Transylvania and adjacent parts of Dacia with the sole purpose of extracting the gold. Emperor Trajan financed two campaigns with hundreds of thousands of soldiers, a permanent stone bridge over Danube that ended in 164 years of occupation, and during that occupation they carried back to Rome some 200 tones of gold and many other goods every year, an era that started with suicide of Decebalus, the Dacian king, 123 days of celebration in Rome with erasing all debts or roman citizens to Fiscus (Roman style IRS). Since then all Roman economy was based on that gold, all they did was import, they got lazy and after the Goths allied with Free Dacians drove them out of Dacia, the Empire collapsed within a couple hundred years after attracting "barbarians" from all over the known world, searching for gold, from Scandinavia to Eastern China that started to pound at the gates of Rome until it fell. Here is a map showing the distribution of metals in Europe and then another one showing first migration known in history, the Indo European Migration.
Nowadays nobody will tell exactly how much gold is left in Transylvania.
But tonight i ran into some information i can't ignore and have to pass along to others.
A few weeks ago, maybe a month i started to browse for some free documentaries from the free streaming box i got from XFINITY (forgot the name sorry). And i saw one about the Universe. I watched it, an abundance of spectacular video effects and a Japanese presenter professor something.
Until i ran into some contradictions that were too big for my curiosity and willingness to admire those visuals that i started to doubt with a frequency of once every ten seconds or so. The representation of black holes with the gravity lens effects while they (or the viewer) were moving across the Universe with other stars in the background. First. The black hole may be black but the event horizon surrounding them is not due to intense heat by friction of falling (cosmic) objects inside. If the swirl around the black hole known as accretion disk may be quasi bi-dimensional, like a solar system, the black hole itself will never look black even seen perpendicular on that disk because of intense radiation caused by the event horizon because of friction of all the elements just before entering it. And let's say the event horizon is less dense at the poles of the black holes, enough to make it appear black, or gray and blacker at the pole, but will they always present perpendicular to our point of view? Nothing like the also quasi bi-dimensional 3D presented galaxies scattered in images of the Universe? So i quit watching that, not before memorizing the way the heavier elements are produced in Universe. Collision of two neutron stars.
All the heavy metals on Earth including gold are coming from those and fell on Earth like asteroids.
There was a time in Earth's history when it didn't have water and asteroids were falling galore, and Earth was looking more like the Moon... The final phase of planet formation, when bigger and bigger chunks of rocks were added (falling due to gravity, already in place). Water came later, from comets, when the planet was cooled enough not to boil it, like on Venus.
Until i ran into some contradictions that were too big for my curiosity and willingness to admire those visuals that i started to doubt with a frequency of once every ten seconds or so. The representation of black holes with the gravity lens effects while they (or the viewer) were moving across the Universe with other stars in the background. First. The black hole may be black but the event horizon surrounding them is not due to intense heat by friction of falling (cosmic) objects inside. If the swirl around the black hole known as accretion disk may be quasi bi-dimensional, like a solar system, the black hole itself will never look black even seen perpendicular on that disk because of intense radiation caused by the event horizon because of friction of all the elements just before entering it. And let's say the event horizon is less dense at the poles of the black holes, enough to make it appear black, or gray and blacker at the pole, but will they always present perpendicular to our point of view? Nothing like the also quasi bi-dimensional 3D presented galaxies scattered in images of the Universe? So i quit watching that, not before memorizing the way the heavier elements are produced in Universe. Collision of two neutron stars.
All the heavy metals on Earth including gold are coming from those and fell on Earth like asteroids.
There was a time in Earth's history when it didn't have water and asteroids were falling galore, and Earth was looking more like the Moon... The final phase of planet formation, when bigger and bigger chunks of rocks were added (falling due to gravity, already in place). Water came later, from comets, when the planet was cooled enough not to boil it, like on Venus.
Of course when those asteroids hit there was this smashing effect, due to speed, the asteroid, like we can see on the Moon, enters the planet and only some sort of crown of mountains remains. Like a drop of water falling on a water surface where we can see briefly a crown like structure which is temporary due to liquidity of water. According to this theory, the outer slopes of the crater will still have sedimentary composition, the inner would be mixed, and richest in metals would be center, under the deposits of sedimentary rock carried by water flows. And yes, volcanoes are the drops, whatever bubbles is left of the hot magma climbing up. Earthquake are thunderous freezing and thawing of bubbles of magma under influence of gravity of Sun and Moon and atmospheric air pressure.
So tonight i just started to work with web based Google Earth and centered it on the area of Romania where the gold is and tried to figure the names of places in several languages like Romanian, Latin, Sanskrit and then something else looking for linguistics clue for another project and like many times before i was looking at that map, it caught my eye: The Carpathian (Mountains) Basin is round. Could never figure out why. How can this this be explained by the Tectonics Plates theory. Solid plates that flow on semi-liquid magma bla bla that bump into each other at the point of collision of two opposite surface horizontal convection currents that turn vertical and sink to the bottom of Earth (at an excruciating speed of a few mm or cm a a year) to raise somewhere else etc. By plates bumping into each other mountains are created together with seismic areas. But there's got to be a limit of how narrow those magma currents are within the Earth. Can they be small enough to create an almost round relatively small, maybe 500 km diameter mountain chain? Then i remembered what i saw on TV about the gold (as all the other elements) being brought on Earth by asteroids. Most of it probably goes deep into the Earth at the impact, but some, mixed with "local" rock will stay at the surface and is found especially on the "crown" mountains, where there are no sedimentary deposits to cover it. Then i said to myself. What if the Carpathian Mountains were formed by the collision with such a gold and other heavy elements rich asteroid? But that would contradict all current theories about the formation of those mountains, however will not contradict my little theory about earthquakes. (You can distinguish the mountains in this image because they are dark green being covered with forests)
So tonight i just started to work with web based Google Earth and centered it on the area of Romania where the gold is and tried to figure the names of places in several languages like Romanian, Latin, Sanskrit and then something else looking for linguistics clue for another project and like many times before i was looking at that map, it caught my eye: The Carpathian (Mountains) Basin is round. Could never figure out why. How can this this be explained by the Tectonics Plates theory. Solid plates that flow on semi-liquid magma bla bla that bump into each other at the point of collision of two opposite surface horizontal convection currents that turn vertical and sink to the bottom of Earth (at an excruciating speed of a few mm or cm a a year) to raise somewhere else etc. By plates bumping into each other mountains are created together with seismic areas. But there's got to be a limit of how narrow those magma currents are within the Earth. Can they be small enough to create an almost round relatively small, maybe 500 km diameter mountain chain? Then i remembered what i saw on TV about the gold (as all the other elements) being brought on Earth by asteroids. Most of it probably goes deep into the Earth at the impact, but some, mixed with "local" rock will stay at the surface and is found especially on the "crown" mountains, where there are no sedimentary deposits to cover it. Then i said to myself. What if the Carpathian Mountains were formed by the collision with such a gold and other heavy elements rich asteroid? But that would contradict all current theories about the formation of those mountains, however will not contradict my little theory about earthquakes. (You can distinguish the mountains in this image because they are dark green being covered with forests)
Then i said to myself. Can they be others? (by the rule: when there's one crater they will be one million). Bigger, smaller? Older? Partially wiped out by erosion and many other smaller ones, also visible on the map, that fell after? With northern rim made by Atlas Mountains in Morocco, the Pyrenees, Alps, Tatra, a branch of Carpathian Mountains, then whatever those mountains are in Turkey, on a circle that includes mountains in Africa, with center somewhere around Malta. Pretty much following the distribution of metals seen in the map above from Wikipedia.
Then i remembered, there are areas within Sahara desert (called basins) that are under the sea level, they were talks about cutting a canal, bringing water from Mediterranean Sea to form a sea in the desert, maybe change local climate, etc.. People forgot about those too. Could the Qattara depression, others, be proof that the crater existed.
How about frequency, there seem to be areas, like around Mediterranean Sea with more craters than others. Maybe it has something to do with period rotation of Earth synced with some other cicles.
Then something else caught my eyes. The lines in the Sahara desert. There are all kinda lines in the desert reminding those seen on the bottom of the oceans, again, a novelty brought by Google Earth, but also... on the Moon. (not the borderlines like Madonna would say, of course).
How about the Hymalaians, don't they look to you like the southern rim of a crater, with signs of erosion on the right, and with the other rims eroded to the point they are not visible? Why the higher plateau? Maybe that asteroid came during a time when Earth was cooler?
Besides lines, on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean there is a crack, that may be indeed created by two parts of the crust moving apart from each other, with continents kinda matching rims, suggesting they were one single part sometime in the past. But could be aksi shaped like this (with matching coastal lines) because of erosion and the Coriolis effect on ocean currents, never heard anybody saying anything about except once when i casually met with Gabi, my mentor during HS.
However, the spectacular one. Same thing here, cracks on the bottom of the ocean. But forget about those. It's the lines that are interesting. There are two groups that seem to converge to two single points. Can't help but mention. The Pacific Ocean is huge, if you look at the planet from this direction, all you see is... sea sea sea. (Could it had been created maybe by the collision of proto-Earth with another planet, some billions years ago, when orbits of the planets and asteroids were still stabilizing going into the resonance with each other the way we know about today). Click on any image to enlarge it to see more detail.
Pretty similar to those seen on the Moon, that are obviously caused by rocks being thrown sideways after an impact.
Then something else caught my eyes. The lines in the Sahara desert. There are all kinda lines in the desert reminding those seen on the bottom of the oceans, again, a novelty brought by Google Earth, but also... on the Moon. (not the borderlines like Madonna would say, of course).
How about the Hymalaians, don't they look to you like the southern rim of a crater, with signs of erosion on the right, and with the other rims eroded to the point they are not visible? Why the higher plateau? Maybe that asteroid came during a time when Earth was cooler?
Besides lines, on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean there is a crack, that may be indeed created by two parts of the crust moving apart from each other, with continents kinda matching rims, suggesting they were one single part sometime in the past. But could be aksi shaped like this (with matching coastal lines) because of erosion and the Coriolis effect on ocean currents, never heard anybody saying anything about except once when i casually met with Gabi, my mentor during HS.
However, the spectacular one. Same thing here, cracks on the bottom of the ocean. But forget about those. It's the lines that are interesting. There are two groups that seem to converge to two single points. Can't help but mention. The Pacific Ocean is huge, if you look at the planet from this direction, all you see is... sea sea sea. (Could it had been created maybe by the collision of proto-Earth with another planet, some billions years ago, when orbits of the planets and asteroids were still stabilizing going into the resonance with each other the way we know about today). Click on any image to enlarge it to see more detail.
Pretty similar to those seen on the Moon, that are obviously caused by rocks being thrown sideways after an impact.
I hope i may have suggested strongly enough how big is the amount of gold in Romania's mountains or even underground in the circular valley of Transylvania, and answered other questions but in the end i have one of myself. Could they have come this with "Tectonics Plate Theory" only to cover that and that includes lying about all Geology of Earth and one million other things. Who cares, most people are interested about their daily lives only.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Friendly comments welcome
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.