Jump to content

Was Pangea, a Moon?


Jamey
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Jamey said:

We all have heard of the Island of Pangea, but was it a "collision of continents" or as I have found it forms a ball, was it a Moon that lost orbit?

 

 

The short answer is no, not on the evidence we have available to us.

Do you have any evidence to support this ?

Like for instance a comparison of the rocks on the existing Moon and those on Earth ?

Or some other explanation of Rodinia and Pannotia ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If pangea was a moon, why would there be commonality with the current moon? If it was a moon it splashed down on a water planet, tilted axis, techtonic plates, and it can become a partial ball, with all land masses accounted for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamey said:

We all have heard of the Island of Pangea, but was it a "collision of continents" or as I have found it forms a ball, was it a Moon that lost orbit?

tectonics-pangea-animation.gif

The evidence of geology is that there were separate continents long before Pangaea. Pangaea was only a temporary, and fairly recent, lumping together of all or most of the continental crust. We know this from the numerous mountain-building episodes that long predate Pangaea. So it definitely did not arrive from outer space 300m years ago.   

Since it covered a fair chunk of the Earth's surface, one would expect it to form a part of a sphere, more or less. But not a "ball", i.e. a complete sphere.  Furthermore if it had been a moon, it would have dramatically ceased to resemble a ball when it hit the Earth. 

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Jamey said:

If pangea was a moon, why would there be commonality with the current moon? If it was a moon it splashed down on a water planet, tilted axis, techtonic plates, and it can become a partial ball, with all land masses accounted for.

 

A water planet ?

Where did the water come from ?

With Techtonic plates ?

How did they arise on a water planet?

 

Where did I say there would commonality between moons ?

But the composition of the Earth, Moon, comets, meteors, asteroids, and of course the other planets and moons in the system are all different.

But comparisons can be drawn.

 

There was a hypothesis the the opposite happened.

The present Moon separated from the Earth, leaving behind the Pacific basin.

I think lunar geology has since disproved this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deductive reasoning says this is quite possible.

you can only make a perfect sphere outside of earth's gravity, so the earth itself must have formed a nearly perfect sphere in its molten state.

when and how exactly the water got here is still under speculation, but the evidence that it cooled the planet exists, and the amount of water on the planet at this point, is thought to be about 2km deep if the earth was a perfect sphere. "In physics textbooks, it has only stated that Earth cooled down and so, water vapor condenses, and other life form develop and et cetera.  Why did Earth cool down in the first place? What caused it to cool down?" (Question Giving true questions validation.  When in fact did Earth poses this amount of water? We can only speculate as to how it got here but we can prove it exists now. As a perfect sphere the earth at the beginning was on a perfect axis, molten, solid or otherwise. If the planet cooled by water however it got here, then it would have caused a shell of cooler material completely around the planet core. Oldest fossils ever found show life on Earth began before 3.5 billion years ago (wisc.edu) This proves that life could exist at 3.5 billion years, giving the conclusion that water was here then. The Great Oxidation Event (GOE), also called Great Oxygenation Event, was a time interval when the Earth's atmosphere and the shallow ocean first experienced a rise in the amount of oxygen. This occurred approximately 2.4–2.0 Ga (billion years ago), during the Paleoproterozoic era.[2]  Earlier studies by Valley and his team, dating to 2001, have shown that liquid water oceans existed on Earth as early as 4.3 billion years ago, more than 800 million years before the fossils of the present study would have been alive, and just 250 million years after the Earth formed.

If a moon lost orbit and fell to a water planet with a rigid shell over a molten core, that shell would crack and as the weight of this moon tore itself apart the cracks would form around different parts or "Continents" as they would soon be, slowly working themselves apart. 

 The most widely accepted origin explanation posits that the Moon formed about 4.51 billion years ago, not long after Earth, out of the debris from a giant impact between the planet and a hypothesized Mars-sized body called Theia. It then receded to a wider orbit because of tidal interaction with the Earth. The near side of the Moon is marked by dark volcanic maria ("seas"), which fill the spaces between bright ancient crustal highlands and prominent impact craters. Most of the large impact basins and mare surfaces were in place by the end of the Imbrian period, some three billion years ago. 

  • 2 Ancient Texts Speak Of A Time ‘Before The Moon’ Many ancient writings speak of a time “before the Moon.” In turn, many scholars have quoted these works over the centuries. For example, Aristotle wrote of Arcadia, stating that the land was occupied “before there was a moon in the sky above the Earth.”
  • It all started some 4.5 billion years ago when, as theory has it, our nascent Earth was blindsided by a Mars-size planetary embryo, believed to have spun Earth into its initial fast rotation of roughly 12 hours per day. The molten mantle thrown into orbit after the catastrophic lunar-forming impact quickly coalesced into our moon. Within a few thousand years, Earth cooled to an object with a molten surface and a steam atmosphere. Life emerged some 700 million years later, or about 3.8 billion years ago. 
  • can't have it both ways, can you?
  • unless the original moon fell and and a new moon put in place.

 

 

 

Edited by Jamey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jamey said:

Deductive reasoning says this is quite possible.

you can only make a perfect sphere outside of earth's gravity, so the earth itself must have formed a nearly perfect sphere in its molten state.

when and how exactly the water got here is still under speculation, but the evidence that it cooled the planet exists, and the amount of water on the planet at this point, is thought to be about 2km deep if the earth was a perfect sphere. "In physics textbooks, it has only stated that Earth cooled down and so, water vapor condenses, and other life form develop and et cetera.  Why did Earth cool down in the first place? What caused it to cool down?" (Question Giving true questions validation.  When in fact did Earth poses this amount of water? We can only speculate as to how it got here but we can prove it exists now. As a perfect sphere the earth at the beginning was on a perfect axis, molten, solid or otherwise. If the planet cooled by water however it got here, then it would have caused a shell of cooler material completely around the planet core. Oldest fossils ever found show life on Earth began before 3.5 billion years ago (wisc.edu) This proves that life could exist at 3.5 billion years, giving the conclusion that water was here then. The Great Oxidation Event (GOE), also called Great Oxygenation Event, was a time interval when the Earth's atmosphere and the shallow ocean first experienced a rise in the amount of oxygen. This occurred approximately 2.4–2.0 Ga (billion years ago), during the Paleoproterozoic era.[2]  Earlier studies by Valley and his team, dating to 2001, have shown that liquid water oceans existed on Earth as early as 4.3 billion years ago, more than 800 million years before the fossils of the present study would have been alive, and just 250 million years after the Earth formed.

If a moon lost orbit and fell to a water planet with a rigid shell over a molten core, that shell would crack and as the weight of this moon tore itself apart the cracks would form around different parts or "Continents" as they would soon be, slowly working themselves apart. 

 The most widely accepted origin explanation posits that the Moon formed about 4.51 billion years ago, not long after Earth, out of the debris from a giant impact between the planet and a hypothesized Mars-sized body called Theia. It then receded to a wider orbit because of tidal interaction with the Earth. The near side of the Moon is marked by dark volcanic maria ("seas"), which fill the spaces between bright ancient crustal highlands and prominent impact craters. Most of the large impact basins and mare surfaces were in place by the end of the Imbrian period, some three billion years ago. 

  • 2 Ancient Texts Speak Of A Time ‘Before The Moon’ Many ancient writings speak of a time “before the Moon.” In turn, many scholars have quoted these works over the centuries. For example, Aristotle wrote of Arcadia, stating that the land was occupied “before there was a moon in the sky above the Earth.”
  • It all started some 4.5 billion years ago when, as theory has it, our nascent Earth was blindsided by a Mars-size planetary embryo, believed to have spun Earth into its initial fast rotation of roughly 12 hours per day. The molten mantle thrown into orbit after the catastrophic lunar-forming impact quickly coalesced into our moon. Within a few thousand years, Earth cooled to an object with a molten surface and a steam atmosphere. Life emerged some 700 million years later, or about 3.8 billion years ago. 
  • can't have it both ways, can you?
  • unless the original moon fell and and a new moon put in place.

 

 

 

I don't follow this. Can't have what both ways?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is hands down one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard.

Just to add a couple more to what Studiot already said:

What about nicely-deposited billions-year-old sedimentary rocks, and surfaces of rock with the unmistakable fingerprint of ancient tides and water waves?

What about the perfectly-preserved fossils (billions of y.o.) of stromatolites?

How did they survive the crash?

Do you have any idea of the range of collision velocities for astronomical bodies?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No such thing as perfect spheres.
The amount of water on the Earth can't store much heat; after several billion years, most of the Earth's interior is still molten.

Again, Studiot's first question is still the most pertinent ...
Where is the evidence ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, joigus said:

This is hands down one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard.

Just to add a couple more to what Studiot already said:

What about nicely-deposited billions-year-old sedimentary rocks, and surfaces of rock with the unmistakable fingerprint of ancient tides and water waves?

What about the perfectly-preserved fossils (billions of y.o.) of stromatolites?

How did they survive the crash?

Do you have any idea of the range of collision velocities for astronomical bodies?

 

And then there is the fact that Pangaea is just the most recent of a series of super-continents  that formed and then broke up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Janus said:

And then there is the fact that Pangaea is just the most recent of a series of super-continents  that formed and then broke up.

Indeed. And every minute I can think of more and more examples of why this 'idea' can't even get off the ground.

But,

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Again, Studiot's first question is still the most pertinent ...
Where is the evidence ?

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jamey said:

We all have heard of the Island of Pangea, but was it a "collision of continents" or as I have found it forms a ball, was it a Moon that lost orbit?

 

17 hours ago, Jamey said:

We all have heard of the Island of Pangea, but was it a "collision of continents" or as I have found it forms a ball, was it a Moon that lost orbit?

I can't see why you merit a downvote for you opening post so I have added a balancing +1.

It is clear from your second post that you are using old data, which is not only incomplete but in part incorrect to draw your conclusions.
So you seem to have a genuine misunderstanding.

Yes there have been many hypotheses over the years concerning the origin of the Moon and we still cannot be sure of the true origin.
But, as we gather more data we can at least rule out those which do not fit observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can say what you want about old data, all I know is that if you take the time to put the continents together yourself and realize the structure forms a complete ball minus the underside, and the alignment of the island itself says it was a moon that fell. I have a BA in mechanical engineering, and common sense will tell you the accuracy of my claim, if you put it together to the ball and line it up on a globe. there is no doubt at that time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamey said:

you can say what you want about old data, all I know is that if you take the time to put the continents together yourself and realize the structure forms a complete ball minus the underside, and the alignment of the island itself says it was a moon that fell. I have a BA in mechanical engineering, and common sense will tell you the accuracy of my claim, if you put it together to the ball and line it up on a globe. there is no doubt at that time. 

How much energy would be involved in a "moon that fell"?

What would be the effect on the materials involved?

Can you show that the claimed moon would have remained a ball (while being embedded within the Earth)?

... yet somehow only that part on the surface then becomes part of our plate tectonics?

 

Have you read-up on theories about out current moons formation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jamey said:

you can say what you want about old data, all I know is that if you take the time to put the continents together yourself and realize the structure forms a complete ball minus the underside, and the alignment of the island itself says it was a moon that fell. I have a BA in mechanical engineering, and common sense will tell you the accuracy of my claim, if you put it together to the ball and line it up on a globe. there is no doubt at that time. 

Does common sense also tell you to ignore all the evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, as you seem intent on doing?

And how does your BA in Engineering help you account for why, if, as you suggest, Pangaea is the remnant of a moon, it is only the outer shell that is splattered on the surface of the Earth? Why would an outer shell detach and be preserved, and what happened to all the rock inside? Or do you perhaps think this moon was hollow? 

Lastly, why pose a question on a science forum, when you are convinced you already know the answer and are not prepared to consider any objections to your hypothesis?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jamey said:

you can say what you want about old data, all I know is that if you take the time to put the continents together yourself and realize the structure forms a complete ball minus the underside, and the alignment of the island itself says it was a moon that fell. I have a BA in mechanical engineering, and common sense will tell you the accuracy of my claim, if you put it together to the ball and line it up on a globe. there is no doubt at that time. 

As a mechanical engineer you will be familiar with tech drawing and projections, perhaps less so with cartographic projections.

You seem to be using a Mercator projection which does not preserve shape in the large.
For that you need something like a Goude projection. (fig 18 here)

https://www.cbsd.org/cms/lib010/PA01916442/Centricity/Domain/1691/Map Projections- Text.pdf

 

Shape is actually a poorer indicator of continental fit than the rocks themselves.
Are you aware of isotope distribution analyses we have for Earth material different extra terrestrial bodies ?

Animated Mercator pictures that rotate large landmasses must of necessity distort the shapes as they rotate them, something you can see in your animation.

Perhaps you could also offer some calculation of the masses involved in your 'ball' of extra terrestrial material and compare these with the masses of continental material on your map.

 

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Was Pangea, a Moon?

No. Pangea is part of the Earth. The Moon is a non-artificial satellite of the Earth....

Quote

 

We all have heard of the Island of Pangea, but was it a "collision of continents" or as I have found it forms a ball, was it a Moon that lost orbit?

 

No. It was the protoplanet Theia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theia_(planet)

The collision of the protoplanet Earth with the protoplanet Theia formed the present Earth and the present Moon from their debris.

On 12/13/2021 at 9:38 PM, Jamey said:

Deductive reasoning says this is quite possible.

Scientists use simulations to confirm or deny such a hypothesis. Learn programming, create an algorithm, run the simulation with some input parameters, and observe the results. Change the parameters to observe something else. Repeat millions of times...

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, studiot said:

As a mechanical engineer you will be familiar with tech drawing and projections, perhaps less so with cartographic projections.

You seem to be using a Mercator projection which does not preserve shape in the large.
For that you need something like a Goude projection. (fig 18 here)

https://www.cbsd.org/cms/lib010/PA01916442/Centricity/Domain/1691/Map Projections- Text.pdf

This is a brilliant point I was thinking about. Only laziness prevented me from ellaborating.

OTOH, the collision seems to have been a head-on hit. A lot of collisions are at an angle. Examples are the Thea-Earth collision or the Chichxulub even.

We seem to require a head-on collision at nearly zero relative velocity --otherwise we would be talking about a huge amount of debris flying off in all directions. Wildly different results depending on collision parameters.

The Mercator projection heavily distorts anything close to the poles, and is more accurate near the equator, as I remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jamey said:

you can say what you want about old data, all I know is that if you take the time to put the continents together yourself and realize the structure forms a complete ball minus the underside, and the alignment of the island itself says it was a moon that fell. I have a BA in mechanical engineering, and common sense will tell you the accuracy of my claim, if you put it together to the ball and line it up on a globe. there is no doubt at that time. 

Moon's don't just "fall" or "lose orbit",  as that is not how orbits work.  As far as arriving at a conclusion via "common sense" goes, in my experience, it very often is actually arriving at a conclusion by starting with insufficient or just plain incorrect information, and then applying faulty logic to it.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jamey said:

I have a BA in mechanical engineering, and common sense will tell you the accuracy of my claim, if you put it together to the ball and line it up on a globe. there is no doubt at that time. 

Doubt is part of science as far as I know; how do you falsify your idea? 

 

On 12/13/2021 at 7:47 PM, Jamey said:

a Moon that lost orbit

Just curious; what does "lost orbit" in your idea mean and how would it happen?

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.