Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Does anyone ever question Pangaea? 

Edited by dthor68
Ramblings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Posted (edited)

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

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.