Latest image of Pangea utterly fascinating

Whelp, my mind is completely blown.
This artists latest world map of Pangea (a proposed
supercontinent that existed 300 mya) has put all the
other representations to shame.

article link

Here is a smaller more vague Pangea from wikipedia



And here is the masterpiece!

To me, it doesn't even matter if it's not completely correct - still really cool!

Cheers!

a reply to: shlaw

Got stuck staring at that for a while. Thanks

Excellent find. F & S to you!

Perhaps the borders are off a little, the relationships are more important. I'll file this for the future.

I love odd items like this.



VF

originally posted by: darepairman
a reply to: shlaw

Got stuck staring at that for a while. Thanks

Ugh... I'm still looking at it...

I live in Canada, and I can't believe our Newfies and Portugalians, um... Portugesites...er
them folks were kissing cousins!

Plus, Florida is placed rather inappropriately....Awkward.

a reply to: shlaw

With me I try to imagine the pull apart and flow of it all

a reply to: shlaw

with all the landmasses bunched together like that i really can't help but wonder...whats on the other side of the sphere? that seems like it would make for one really off balance marble.

I call bs because this is saying the sea levels aint changed much since we was One continent

a reply to: darepairman

I was just checking the timeline, and it looks like
dinosaurs had the run of the place.

neat!

a reply to: shlaw

Ya, Them and me

darepairman:

With me I try to imagine the pull apart and flow of it all.

I promise you that I am not simply being a contrarian, but I am rather sceptical regarding Pangea and the break up of the continents. Bear with me, and I'll try and articulate my scepticism.

The artists impression is rather too specific for my liking, but let us assume that Pangea was as the artist depicts it. I am sure most of you are quite aware of the theory of the tectonic movement of the earth's crust? Over the years I have read of, and seen, a number of wonderful documentaries regarding the subject.

Some time ago I watched a documentary on the subject of how the Himalayas formed, specifically why Everest was so high. The theory is that when Pangea broke up, India separated and moved north-eastwards at around 10 inches a year, and over the millions of years it eventually collided with the Eurasian plate. My question is...how was the Indian landmass able to do this? What earthly dynamics drove it all the thousands of miles across the vast ocean to have it finally collide with the Eurasian plate?

Think of the colossal forces involved that drove the North and South American continents westwards, separating them from what became the Western coast of Africa, creating the Atlantic ocean.

The Australian and New Zealand landmasses separated to go South East towards where they currently are, yet the Indian landmass was driven north eastwards. All these land masses piggybacked atop of the tectonic plates, but there is no evidence of tectonic movement that would account for the current positions of the land masses after they broke apart from Pangea.

Obviously, the question to ask, and evidence that needs to be looked for is the cataclysm that broke up Pangea in the first place? Something is certainly not right with the theory?

Bummer, I was hoping it would look like a really big dragon.

I'm not understanding. Why is this rendition better than others, especially if you're not even sure it is correct? Seems to me it is variations on the same theme.

Sweden has lake Vättern and Vänern in the image, however they were not there 170 million years ago.

The volcanic activity that spawned all of that must of been spectacular. I wish it was still like that, I would of been just a stone's throw from Morocco... I love Moroccan food!

Imagine what WWII would of been like if it was still like that!

a reply to: elysiumfire

Thanks for the reply, I do not subscribe to any theory as I haven't done a lot of research on the subject, but the subject
fascinates me. I must explain that I had just returned from the garage where I partook in my after work relaxation, if
ya get my meaning and this thread caught my eye.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Likely the force of a giant impact at some point. It would explain a lot.

What if the Pacific Ocean is just one giant impact zone, of many?

So how will the globe look in 300 million years from now? Will it all be lumped together again on the other side?

originally posted by: elysiumfire
darepairman:

With me I try to imagine the pull apart and flow of it all.

I promise you that I am not simply being a contrarian, but I am rather sceptical regarding Pangea and the break up of the continents. Bear with me, and I'll try and articulate my scepticism.

The artists impression is rather too specific for my liking, but let us assume that Pangea was as the artist depicts it. I am sure most of you are quite aware of the theory of the tectonic movement of the earth's crust? Over the years I have read of, and seen, a number of wonderful documentaries regarding the subject.

Some time ago I watched a documentary on the subject of how the Himalayas formed, specifically why Everest was so high. The theory is that when Pangea broke up, India separated and moved north-eastwards at around 10 inches a year, and over the millions of years it eventually collided with the Eurasian plate. My question is...how was the Indian landmass able to do this? What earthly dynamics drove it all the thousands of miles across the vast ocean to have it finally collide with the Eurasian plate?

Think of the colossal forces involved that drove the North and South American continents westwards, separating them from what became the Western coast of Africa, creating the Atlantic ocean.

The Australian and New Zealand landmasses separated to go South East towards where they currently are, yet the Indian landmass was driven north eastwards. All these land masses piggybacked atop of the tectonic plates, but there is no evidence of tectonic movement that would account for the current positions of the land masses after they broke apart from Pangea.

Obviously, the question to ask, and evidence that needs to be looked for is the cataclysm that broke up Pangea in the first place? Something is certainly not right with the theory?

You make good points, kind sir, and I would be shocked if the current
theory was completely correct.

I started this thread not to tout a theory or claim to have discovered
someone else's, but just to point out something interesting. There is
no doubt the creator of this map needed to use a fair amount or even
a lot of artistic license. I think the finer details some have mentioned
are really just reference points- there's no way to know if that specific
part was there that long ago.

As for where the continents are joined, I was under a layman's
understanding that as the separated, new crust was coming up
from below, so that is all new 'surface'. Where the ocean is
'shrinking' is where part of the crust is going back under. I have
neither the time or desire to prove or disprove this, but anyone
more sciency is welcome to chime in.

a reply to: carewemust

According to the theory, there will likely be another
supercontinent in the future. So prepare for new
neighbors.

originally posted by: smkymcnugget420
with all the landmasses bunched together like that i really can't help but wonder...whats on the other side of the sphere? that seems like it would make for one really off balance marble.

As now, the other side is the Pacific. It would take a really determined Captain Cooke to get across it, before the continents voted for "Jurexit".