Pangaea - how weird is that?

Hey all,

I've been thinking about how ridiculous it appears to me that all landmasses on Earth would have been all connected to each other at some point in the past and looked into it a little.

Not only were we connected to each other but it appears that this is a cyclic system which has occurred at least a couple of times before.

Prior to the supercontinent of Pangaea there wasPannotia and prior to that another called Rodinia.

These each would have been surrounded by a superocean with water flowing from East to West.

Not only that but in about 50 million years we'll all be squashed back up again into another land mass speculated at either being Pangaea Ultima or Amasia.

Now the weird thing for me is can you imagine (using entertainment as you standard) a planet with 1 huge landmass surrounded by water?

I know all oil and hydrocarbons come from organic matter that has received tons of pressure put upon them so there must have been huge amounts of life around during each of these previous supercontinents.

I realise this opens the doors for previous advanced civilizations and perhaps a 'Genesis' (from Star Trek 2) kind of approach but I just wanted to make a thread to say "Wow!".

This world is pretty neat when you look at it, like a huge slow heartbeat.

Cheers for reading and please chip in anything that you think is useful or interesting.

-m0r

Not sure it all adds up,

Check out this vid

Well that explains Australia and New Zealand....
I so couldn't help it....

It is a very amazing thing to think about, the sad part is the devastation it causes to human and animal existence. One day perhaps we will get it right and truly learn to live in harmony with the beating of earth's heart, and she won't feel the need to purge herself of us.

Have a great day.

i think he's onto something

reply to post by Blogbuster



Thanks for that!

His argument doesn't hold water though - literally.

-m0r

I have always found the pangea theory to be fascinating, but after just watching the vid provided here about expanding earth, I gotta say that it makes total sense. However, I would like to know what is science's argument against expanding earth, why, since it is not a new theory, hasn't this theory been examined and brought to attention? And I don't think the answer would be that they are afraid of telling the truth, or afraid to change what we have always been told.

How does either argument "hold water" It's all just theory right?

does current information lead to evidence that suggests continents are floating around moving away from, and likewise in the direction of each other as Pangaea theory would have you believe, or are they constantly moving away from one another. Probably need at least all the satellite data ever collected.

anyone have any thoughts, where can we find the data.

How is oil made? Check out this thread

[edit on 1-3-2010 by Blogbuster]

reply to post by Blogbuster


Hey Blogbuster,

By hold water I mean actually that - hold water.

Were there a much smaller, more compressed Earth then the pressure of steam would be through the roof ripping it apart until it was mostly smooth (if a bit expanded). There would be no poles which would mean no magnetic field which may mean no atmosphere.

As it is we have 3 separate supercontinents as defined by markers in the tectonic plates which shows that the landmasses of Earth have been broken up and put back together at least three times now, and we're headed for the 4th.

I'm not saying that Earth wasn't much smaller and broken apart by water and magma away back when it was just being formed - it's just with Neal's model it doesn't account for the full passage of time.

It's a good theory though, but Boyle's law supersedes it.

-m0r

Originally posted by m0r1arty
reply to post by Blogbuster

 

Hey Blogbuster,

By hold water I mean actually that - hold water.

Were there a much smaller, more compressed Earth then the pressure of steam would be through the roof ripping it apart until it was mostly smooth (if a bit expanded). There would be no poles which would mean no magnetic field which may mean no atmosphere.

As it is we have 3 separate supercontinents as defined by markers in the tectonic plates which shows that the landmasses of Earth have been broken up and put back together at least three times now, and we're headed for the 4th.

I'm not saying that Earth wasn't much smaller and broken apart by water and magma away back when it was just being formed - it's just with Neal's model it doesn't account for the full passage of time.

It's a good theory though, but Boyle's law supersedes it.

-m0r

I'm a little confused, Could you elaborate or at least cite where your info comes from on the following as it relates to Planetary Physics:

Boyle's Law
No Poles
Magnetic feild

Lets say the Earth was smaller, for arguments sake, then how does it not still have pole or a magnetic feild, It would still have rotation, thus generating both. And I fail to see the connecting behind Boyle's law, and the oceans being steam and smooth or something?? Shed some light

I would think theoretically speaking, the earth is one giant land mass connected by what we dont see, and the oceans are just on top of it, filling in the 'concave' parts of land...

I have never heard of those continents other than Pangaea though thanks!

reply to post by Blogbuster


No worries.

As far as I see it water doesn't come from anywhere but here. there's no space rain or shipments brought in so I'm going to assume that after the initial big crunching up of energy and space dust what was left eventually found the simplest molecules to form and set about getting to business.

Now Boyle's law dictates that pressure and volume have an inversely proportional relationship with each other within a closed system. A smaller Earth means more pressure IE. more heat. Accroding to Neal's hypothesis the Earth being as small as it would be within his model means that ripping winds of 100 degree centigrade would be what makes up the air of Earth (similar to Venus I suppose - only with water and not acid). This would mean that there would be no chance of ice which would mean that the poles would be much weaker and this may (see how that's still in italics) affect the magnetic field as there would be no ice caps.

I'm not against the Earth being smaller idea - I just think that would be a long, long time before Pangaea is all. Water + Magma = stone (in essence) and so there would have been plenty of that at one point of another.

I hope I came across understood well enough in my amateur outlook

-m0r

I get what you are saying but I think it is important to remember that earth is not a closed system, we receive heat/energy from the sun and likewise radiate energy into the vastness of space, our tides and movements are acted upon by the moon and other objects in the universe, And as it turns out water seems to be one of the most abundant resources in the universe found on our moon, most other planets, comets and celestial beings.

reply to post by Blogbuster


I'm with you. I hadn't even considered the outside forces on a smaller Earth so cheers for that

It still makes it hard for me to believe that unless we were spouting water out through pressure (To the Moon, Mars and whatever else was it its was) then it'd have been a real vicious place to be during this forming of the continents and we've got evidence of life (not extremophiles) existing at that time.

again they are both only theories - I just can't get water out of my head with Neal's theory - it doesn't make sense. He goes on to use Mars as an example why his theory is right but completely negates to mention or show that Mars has no water.

I think he had a good theory and when it didn't stand up to scrutiny, rather than dump it or adapt it, he just kept on truckin'.

I've enjoyed this talk Blogbuster and look forward to learning more from you and anyone else that has any thoughts on Pangaea or it's earlier incarnations.

I'm just amazed about the whole thing.

-m0r

I, too have always found the idea of Pangea or supercontinents interesting.

So here is my WOW to add to yours

A&F


Casing

I've always been more interested in Panacea a decent hip hop group out of Cal. Think about it, if you were an landmass, wouldn't you reposition from time to time? Have you ever stood still for thousands of years?

well granted you probably have not split apart, but if you could I know you would.

reply to post by m0r1arty
Hiya m0r, I like your style in the OP. I've gotta go to work and wanted to add an image that gives a rough idea of the time periods involved. Looks like it could be an interesting thread

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ea2085b12f3.gif[/atsimg]

SnF

reply to post by m0r1arty

Now the weird thing
a planet with 1 huge landmass surrounded by water?

Why is a planet with one huge landmass surrounded by water any more or less weird than a planet with several huge landmasses sirrounded by water?

reply to post by LordBucket


You ever seen a planet with one large landmass surrounded by water?

That's what's weird about it.

-m0r

reply to post by Blogbuster


Please stop misusing "theory." it has an actual scientific definition, and does not mean "guess" or "hunch" like you think it does.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has so much supporting evidence that it is regarded as true fact. The theory of gravity. Cell theory. Circuit theory. Evolutionary theory. All these things are fact.

The expanding earth is, at best, a hypothesis that has yet to gather any evidence... and that's being very charitable. Perhaps if it tried to gather evidence, rather than playing off a hokey salesman's assurances to his audience that every scientist on the face of the earth is engaged in a massive, totally perfect conspiracy to tell you that crustal plates move...