Jump to content
dthor68

Pangaea ?

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, dthor68 said:

Could it be the earth was smaller and as it expanded the continents split apart?

Could you present a plausible mechanism allowing that to happen, and explain how it works?

16 minutes ago, dthor68 said:

To me that makes more sense and I came up with that as a teen high on marijuana.

Without usage of those substances maybe the current scientific consensus regarding this topic would make more sense?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dthor68 said:

Could it be the earth was smaller and as it expanded the continents split apart? To me that makes more sense and I came up with that as a teen high on marijuana.

This is a science discussion forum. NOBODY is interested in your altered state musings. We want something besides your incredulity to persuade us your idea has merit. "Makes sense to me" is just about the opposite of doing science. Do you have any evidence, or critical reasoning that supports your ideas? Otherwise it's just a wild guess, and that's really not interesting.

Have you studied plate tectonics? It's fascinating stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dthor68 said:

Does anyone ever question Pangaea? 

Maybe. But it is gone now and can no longer answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys. I am real bad with words, not a good first impression. Maybe someone here could direct me to some reading material to help me better understand Pangaea. What I would really like to know is what happened pre-Pangaea. What caused the giant land mass. Having a mass of land on one side of the earth with nothing but water on the other side, did that create unbalance?  

I know that science is always under attack from certain individuals, I am not one of those people.  I love science. Although I am an uneducated electrician.  I have spent my entire life studying all plants and animals, with a huge knowledge of reptiles and amphibians.  LOL, I am not that person.

Edited by dthor68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dthor68 said:

Sorry guys. I am real bad with words, not a good first impression. Maybe someone here could direct me to some reading material to help me better understand Pangaea. 

Well, that's completely different. Your mistake was posting in the Speculations section. It's assumed you're challenging mainstream explanations when you post there, but this sounds like you have some gaps in your knowledge to fill, and are more interested in asking questions than asserting something new. I'll move this to Earth Sciences.

Can we assume you've read the Wikipedia article on Pangaea? Plate tectonics would be relevant as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dthor68 said:

Sorry guys. I am real bad with words, not a good first impression.

No problem, welcome to the forum!

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

but this sounds like you have some gaps in your knowledge to fill, and are more interested in asking questions than asserting something new.

I agree. And this is an interesting topic.

Regarding the opening question, and in addition to Phi's link, here is some info on the history of plate tectonics theories. The articles also contains some references covering competing theories (for instance expanding earth) and reasons why scientists abandoned them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_development_of_tectonophysics_(before_1954)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_development_of_tectonophysics_(after_1952)

Note: the pages are marked as having some issues so some care may be needed when reading. But usually the references sections may point in the right direction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, dthor68 said:

Sorry guys. I am real bad with words, not a good first impression. Maybe someone here could direct me to some reading material to help me better understand Pangaea. What I would really like to know is what happened pre-Pangaea. What caused the giant land mass. Having a mass of land on one side of the earth with nothing but water on the other side, did that create unbalance?  

I know that science is always under attack from certain individuals, I am not one of those people.  I love science. Although I am an uneducated electrician.  I have spent my entire life studying all plants and animals, with a huge knowledge of reptiles and amphibians.  LOL, I am not that person.

Pangaea is just the last of a series of super-continents that existed in the past.   The land masses had collided and separated in ages prior to its formation.

As far as an imbalance is concerned;  The entire mass of the Earth's crust is 2.77e22 kg, which is just 1/72 the mass of the Earth.  In addition,  continental crust is actually less dense than oceanic crust.  So while the crust is thicker under the continents, it doesn't weigh that much different per square mile than oceanic crust.

Thirdly,  even if there were a slight shift in the mass of the Earth, it wouldn't cause an " imbalance". The axis of rotation would just shift to pass through the new center of mass.

It isn't like a washing machine drum which starts to shake the whole machine if the load is unbalanced. In this situation, the axis of rotation is fixed relative to the washing machine and can't shift in response to the center of mass change. Thus the whole washing machine moves in response.

The Earth rotates freely in space and is not connected to something else like the drum is connected to the washing machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dthor68 said:

Maybe someone here could direct me to some reading material to help me better understand Pangaea.

A really good bok for your purposes would be

Ted Nield's

"Supercontinent 10 billion years in the life of our planet."

Ted is an expert in the subject, not a journalist.

But the book is meant ofr interest amateurs, and you will find his explanations highly understandable.

He answers your questions about many things including unbalance.

But also critically why Atlantis could not have existed, and many other ideas from the past and today and into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2020 at 3:29 PM, dthor68 said:

Does anyone ever question Pangaea? 

Just to add to the geologist/geophysics POV, that's been suggested, explained/given references for by other members:

Cross checks make for a very robust understanding. Formation of Pangaea is related to the biggest extinction event on record besides snow-ball Earth: The Permian extinction.

Intuitively, it's not hard to understand that the formation of a supercontinent the size of Pangaea would have resulted in, at least:

1) Most of the inland extension being desert (little or no rain)

2) High-intensity long-term vulcanism (the so-called Siberian traps)

3) Water circulation in the oceans reduced to a very-little-local-variation, very-slow pattern

Very, very dramatic change in global climate for sure. That could and would have done it. This becomes the more compelling as you realise how much present and recent-past biodiversity depends on water circulation patterns in the oceans.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/permian/

https://phys.org/news/2013-11-biggest-mass-extinction-pangea.html

https://www.science20.com/news_articles/pangaea_formation_linked_permian_mass_extinction-123693

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been fascinated with the subject for many years.  I am here to learn, positively argue, but not to battle in this controversial matter.
To my understanding here are the scenarios that exists on how the continents are getting farther away from each other that can also be reversed in time to understand how these continents have been joined together in the past.

Plate Tectonics: mainstream argument,  basis for the Pangea "island".  In this case continents were joined on one side of the globe, while the rest was covered with oceans.  In plate tectonics the oceanic crust is constantly being recycled, rising at fault lines from a slushy magma underneath, spreading, creating ridges, subducting in other places under the continental crust.  The older lighter material (continental plate) float above the denser newer material (oceanic plate).  Denser material dives under the continental plate, mountains are created, volcanos channel the magma released where the subduction curve meets the magma.  This recycling mechanism of the oceanic crust does not effect the size of Earth's radius in a major way. 

-- My main problem with plate tectonics is the subduction part.  I've looked at sea floor maps and see no evidence of subduction, but rather that the so called oceanic and continental plates are ONE.  The only separation of these giant plates occur at fault lines, and if fault lines happen to be under a so called continental plate, then ridges (mountains) are being created in a same way that we see them being created at the bottom of oceans (like the mid-Atlantic ridge for ex.).  Now if subduction was to take place in the California region for example (and hence causing the Pacific chain of mountains) then the Oceanic crust should be the oldest here being California the final stage where the sea floor takes a dive as it subducts.  But sea floor age map shows the opposite.  The material at this fault line is NEW spreading in both direction (in this case East and West).  This phenomena is the SAME FOR ALL THE FAULT LINES around the globe, so the possibility that these could be an entrance for an oceanic plate to dive into is eliminated.  The way I see, California ridge is constantly being created by the newly emerging material from underneath pushing the lighter (and older) crust not only upwards but TO THE SIDEs also.  Because this happens over a long time, meanwhile erosion is also work at hand  the mechanism is not as obvious.  Also on all terrestrial planets in our Solar System the phenomena of spreading is evident, but subduction is not.

Expanding Earth.  This theory argues that the Earth has a larger radius now than in the past but with the same mass.  In this case continents were joined together on all sides in the past without significant room for oceans between them.  Heavier elements like iron were still mixed with lighter elements at the surface, which held the structure together uniformly.  As iron started to sink deeper into the Earth's center, the inner part started getting denser, the outer lighter material was left to expand eventually cracking giving way to fault lines.  Then these upper lighter pieces started floating above the newly exposed magma.  Inflating balloon with dots moving away from each other is used commonly to illustrate this example.

-- I am still in the process of completely understanding expanding theory and its related possibilities.  Seems very intricate if we consider gravity, tidal, convectional forces, but perhaps worth investigating.  Could there be immense hollow areas beneath the Earth, or sponge like structures keep getting stretched by tidal forces perhaps? What about other planets.. would this theory fit to explain spreading in a convincing manner?  As I understand unfortunately our current scientific knowledge /instruments are preventing us from exploring the subject in more detail.

Growing Earth:  Earth with a radius and mass that is constantly growing.  Similar to expanding Earth theory, continents were joined together in the past on all sides without significant room for oceans between them.  As more mass was acquired underneath, spreading started to occur at fault lines hence the top land (older land) getting farther away from each other.  In this argument whether the land was completely covered with oceans or if the oceans were introduced later by another process is less significant than the question of where the additional mass came from, and is still coming from.  The amount of solid material entering Earth's atmosphere cannot account for this process to be taken seriously.  Pair-production, and a presently very narrow understanding of neutrino interaction are the two possibilities of explaining how the Earth acquired and is still acquiring additional mass, which is not happening at the surface level, but rather near or at the core level.  It is interesting to me that all the experiments of neutrino detection are taking place deep inside the Earth as possible, giving me the idea that the immense amount of neutrinos passing through our Earth somehow do interact under unknown conditions, hence making way for generating additional mass which originated from the Sun's core.

Combination of some or all of the above:  At this point I would say that the combination of all of the above (minus subduction) makes more sense than plate tectonics alone that includes subduction.  Note that both expanding earth and growing earth suggest that the continents not only join in the Atlantic, but also in the Pacific.  What do you think?

Edited by robert1978bp
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, robert1978bp said:

I have been fascinated with the subject for many years.  I am here to learn, positively argue, but not to battle in this controversial matter.
To my understanding here are the scenarios that exists on how the continents are getting farther away from each other that can also be reversed in time to understand how these continents have been joined together in the past.

Plate Tectonics: mainstream argument,  basis for the Pangea "island".  In this case continents were joined on one side of the globe, while the rest was covered with oceans.  In plate tectonics the oceanic crust is constantly being recycled, rising at fault lines from a slushy magma underneath, spreading, creating ridges, subducting in other places under the continental crust.  The older lighter material (continental plate) float above the denser newer material (oceanic plate).  Denser material dives under the continental plate, mountains are created, volcanos channel the magma released where the subduction curve meets the magma.  This recycling mechanism of the oceanic crust does not effect the size of Earth's radius in a major way. 

-- My main problem with plate tectonics is the subduction part.  I've looked at sea floor maps and see no evidence of subduction, but rather that the so called oceanic and continental plates are ONE.  The only separation of these giant plates occur at fault lines, and if fault lines happen to be under a so called continental plate, then ridges (mountains) are being created in a same way that we see them being created at the bottom of oceans (like the mid-Atlantic ridge for ex.).  Now if subduction was to take place in the California region for example (and hence causing the Pacific chain of mountains) then the Oceanic crust should be the oldest here being California the final stage where the sea floor takes a dive as it subducts.  But sea floor age map shows the opposite.  The material at this fault line is NEW spreading in both direction (in this case East and West).  This phenomena is the SAME FOR ALL THE FAULT LINES around the globe, so the possibility that these could be an entrance for an oceanic plate to dive into is eliminated.  The way I see, California ridge is constantly being created by the newly emerging material from underneath pushing the lighter (and older) crust not only upwards but TO THE SIDEs also.  Because this happens over a long time, meanwhile erosion is also work at hand  the mechanism is not as obvious.  Also on all terrestrial planets in our Solar System the phenomena of spreading is evident, but subduction is not.

Expanding Earth.  This theory argues that the Earth has a larger radius now than in the past but with the same mass.  In this case continents were joined together on all sides in the past without significant room for oceans between them.  Heavier elements like iron were still mixed with lighter elements at the surface, which held the structure together uniformly.  As iron started to sink deeper into the Earth's center, the inner part started getting denser, the outer lighter material was left to expand eventually cracking giving way to fault lines.  Then these upper lighter pieces started floating above the newly exposed magma.  Inflating balloon with dots moving away from each other is used commonly to illustrate this example.

-- I am still in the process of completely understanding expanding theory and its related possibilities.  Seems very intricate if we consider gravity, tidal, convectional forces, but perhaps worth investigating.  Could there be immense hollow areas beneath the Earth, or sponge like structures keep getting stretched by tidal forces perhaps? What about other planets.. would this theory fit to explain spreading in a convincing manner?  As I understand unfortunately our current scientific knowledge /instruments are preventing us from exploring the subject in more detail.

Growing Earth:  Earth with a radius and mass that is constantly growing.  Similar to expanding Earth theory, continents were joined together in the past on all sides without significant room for oceans between them.  As more mass was acquired underneath, spreading started to occur at fault lines hence the top land (older land) getting farther away from each other.  In this argument whether the land was completely covered with oceans or if the oceans were introduced later by another process is less significant than the question of where the additional mass came from, and is still coming from.  The amount of solid material entering Earth's atmosphere cannot account for this process to be taken seriously.  Pair-production, and a presently very narrow understanding of neutrino interaction are the two possibilities of explaining how the Earth acquired and is still acquiring additional mass, which is not happening at the surface level, but rather near or at the core level.  It is interesting to me that all the experiments of neutrino detection are taking place deep inside the Earth as possible, giving me the idea that the immense amount of neutrinos passing through our Earth somehow do interact under unknown conditions, hence making way for generating additional mass which originated from the Sun's core.

Combination of some or all of the above:  At this point I would say that the combination of all of the above (minus subduction) makes more sense than plate tectonics alone that includes subduction.  Note that both expanding earth and growing earth suggest that the continents not only join in the Atlantic, but also in the Pacific.  What do you think?

I had to post this, I just could help myself....
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, robert1978bp said:

Plate Tectonics: mainstream argument,  basis for the Pangea "island".  In this case continents were joined on one side of the globe, while the rest was covered with oceans.  In plate tectonics the oceanic crust is constantly being recycled, rising at fault lines from a slushy magma underneath, spreading, creating ridges, subducting in other places under the continental crust.  The older lighter material (continental plate) float above the denser newer material (oceanic plate).  Denser material dives under the continental plate, mountains are created, volcanos channel the magma released where the subduction curve meets the magma.  This recycling mechanism of the oceanic crust does not effect the size of Earth's radius in a major way. 

-- My main problem with plate tectonics is the subduction part.  I've looked at sea floor maps and see no evidence of subduction, but rather that the so called oceanic and continental plates are ONE.  The only separation of these giant plates occur at fault lines, and if fault lines happen to be under a so called continental plate, then ridges (mountains) are being created in a same way that we see them being created at the bottom of oceans (like the mid-Atlantic ridge for ex.).  Now if subduction was to take place in the California region for example (and hence causing the Pacific chain of mountains) then the Oceanic crust should be the oldest here being California the final stage where the sea floor takes a dive as it subducts.  But sea floor age map shows the opposite.  The material at this fault line is NEW spreading in both direction (in this case East and West).  This phenomena is the SAME FOR ALL THE FAULT LINES around the globe, so the possibility that these could be an entrance for an oceanic plate to dive into is eliminated.  The way I see, California ridge is constantly being created by the newly emerging material from underneath pushing the lighter (and older) crust not only upwards but TO THE SIDEs also.  Because this happens over a long time, meanwhile erosion is also work at hand  the mechanism is not as obvious.  Also on all terrestrial planets in our Solar System the phenomena of spreading is evident, but subduction is not.

 

First congratulations for looking at alternative proposals and trying to evaluate them.  +1

 

Thre are many factors in play here so you probably haven't considered all of them.
After all the experts tend to only consider a subset of the total facts.

However some that you should give consideration to.

  1.   The Earth is ball shaped not flat. So imagine a plate the size of North America moving. What direction is it moving in, on the curved surface of the ball ?
    You cannot say that Alaska, Washington and California are all moving bodily in the same direction or in a linear fashion. And what about Maryland on the other side ? What trajectory is it moving in?
    Yet that is so often what is depicted in the simple sections showing subduction, or else the mind of the viewer wrongly assumes this.
     
  2.  Such motion as actually occurs induces sideways motion and rotation along much of the interface.
     
  3. These two facts alone make the task of reconstructing the eventual motion over hundreds of millions of years quite difficult to put it mildly.
     
  4. Much of the rheology of the processes are just our best guesses.
     
  5. Remember also the history of the development of the theories.Plate tectonics grew out of measured inconsistencies  in  continental drift, which itself had not long been confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stating absurdities is easy.  Providing evidence of said absurdities is more difficult. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Olorin said:

dthor68:

The continents jigsaw into a globe of the right size, with a piece missing in the Pacific area. The reason for this requires a discussion that could be a

THREAD CALLED THE ANOMALOUS MOON
 

Never heard of this, any chance of starting this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2020 at 3:50 AM, robert1978bp said:

-- My main problem with plate tectonics is

!

Moderator Note

This is NOT the thread to challenge well-established science. If you have the evidence to support your counter-concepts, post them in a new Speculations thread . It's off-topic here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.