Pangaea Theory Debunked! Time for a New Model

I've always wondered about the pangea theory...
Can't quite buy into the expanding theory either.
Perhaps a combination of the two in some aspects with some other ideas thrown in, but I don't think either theory takes care of all the questions.

I could comprehend, instead of one land mass, having several, perhaps gathered together at the poles and then "shifting down" toward the equator. I dunno....

Will be interesting to see what theory takes front stage next.

Slapped this together. The American continent fits right in to Asia

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Slapped this together. The American continent fits right in to Asia

Uhm.....

It might just be me, but I'm not seeing it. It only looks like a very small part of the west coast of the US touching Japan.

Am I missing something or looking at it wrong? Is that what you were saying about being connected in the Pacific side?

you guys are so full of it.. and the people who star this .. did you guys ever go to school . or outside to study rocks and geological processes ...

This is just a portion of my paper that supports paleo tectonics evidence here in the tri-state area this is just a tiny tiny portion of supporting evidence for Pangaea and other super land mass forming events in our past. This is just from my paper with my own eyes on the field. I can link 10000000 of research papers not written by me with supporting facts to prove that all land mass connect and reconnect.. also just do a search on Convergent boulders and divergent boundary's to learn and have a basic understand of rifting and mountain building events. /The earth recycles its mats and does not create new mats to expand. Nor does the earth collect enough mats from outer ) space debris to expend maybe at the beginning of times but not any more.)

"""New York State paleotectonic history is very rich and has a abundant of evidence that can be viewed present day. The outcrops are located throughout New York state and parts of New Jersey. When all the pieces come together a unique story takes place. A story about chaos and peace and its repeating cycle. Continental landmass colliding with one another then rifting apart to drift away from each other causing passive margins.

Our history begins during the Precambrian roughly 1 billion years ago. The Grenville orogeny takes place. This landmass crashes into North American forming the super continent Rodinia. This orogeny forms massive mountains , cause faulting and many folds. Our crystalline basement forms during this event. We can see this crystalline basement throughout New York City and parts of upstate New York. The crystalline basement consists of igneous and metamorphic rocks for example the Manhattan formation and Hartland formation.
After the Grenville orogeny when the moment stop erosion took place and form a passive margin. A passive margin is created as continents rift apart. This event forms two unique results , a new ocean named the Iapetus ocean formed, and a long extending continental shelf. This initiates a divergent boundary. The continent shelf collects sediments from the newer form mountains forming a shallow marine environment for example the Heldeberg Limestone's ZYX zones. Although the Heldeberg group formed millions of years later. Normal faulting is a trait we commonly see during this time period. Mafic dikes is another characteristic that forms though the thinning of the crust.

Then after our passive margin was fully formed another huge land mass was incoming from the east. This was the Taconic Orogeny. Massive uplifts and folding was the results of this orogeny. More sediments accumulated as the uplifts eroded away. These uplifts form braided streams and meandering streams. Followed by our Heldeberg limestone formation during a passive margin.

The Alleghanian Orogeny occurred after the passive margin of the Acadian. This Orogeny form the Alleghanian mountain can be view in most of PA.

The Newark Basin forms and rifting occurs again then the Palisades dike forms.

Around 15k years ago we get major glarier events migrating from north to south in cycles ; Evidence of this can be seen in parts of New jersey and New York.

This is our new York state geology history. A complex history and with these facts we can see and fore see what is happening in present day East Africa. In east Africa a new rifting event is occurring and a ocean basin will form. The outcome millions of years from now Africa will collide with North America again. """

I can give chemical facts to support, location of dikes and sills, folding and many fault locations that supports the colliding and rifting or north America just in the Tri-State ( New york , New jersey, CN ) area alone... I can explain in newbie speak for you so it can be easy to follow how each and every Fact and location supports plate movement.

I love this site and many postes but HOGWASH is HOGWASH. Basic geology can express why the earth is not expending.
.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

At times like this with increased tectonic activity, the expanding hypothesis can possibly explain this as well. The theory is more Sun activity energizes the deep rock and speeds up the expansion process, causing more earthquakes and volcanism.

Through what mechanism does the sun energise deep rock?

Ah......Neutrinos? Gamma Rays? Particles we don't know about?

There is this thing called Google search........

Link to Article on the different penetration depth's of different Sun particles

o and look up passive margins and active margins too...

Stop slapping pieces and saying how it all fits together ..

of cuz asia and american on the other side looks like it fits is cuz they had collided with each other . The rifting processes repeat on both sides on earth when the land masses build up , forcing thickening that prevents heat to escape on one side. This build up stacks up for mya of years to cuz rifting again. when this occurs it breaks up the huge land mass pushing the plates again. The plates repeat and drift away from each other to this process repeats.

In short the plates always meet up on each side of the world. This process is called the Wilson Cycle . This is happening today in Africa. Which will form a new ocean basin , pushing the plates away, resulting in Africa colliding with NA once again , forming a new mid-Ridge at the bottom of this new ocean , further pushing the plates together.

reply to post by Larry L


/faceplam

Law of Superpostion
Principle of original horizontality
Principle of lateral continuity
Principle of cross-cutting relationships
Principle of faunal succession

Do a quick search DENY Ignorance and learn the truth for once

I cant believe the amount of hogwash ppl would end up holding as truth.

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


and these holes are ?

why does Pangaea have holes but Grenville , Rodinia , Laurasia . Ur , Gondwana and many other Super continents don't?

They predate and some formed after Pangaea.

Where are your holes for these other Super landmasses?
The earth is not expanding.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Slapped this together. The American continent fits right in to Asia

Uhm.....

It might just be me, but I'm not seeing it. It only looks like a very small part of the west coast of the US touching Japan.

Am I missing something or looking at it wrong? Is that what you were saying about being connected in the Pacific side?

You have to look at the illustrations by the comics artist Neal Adams to see how it supposedly fits, but in reality, it doesn't. Shadow Herder's illustration doesn't fit like Neal Adams does, but they both have the same problem of claiming the opposite of what their illustrations show, which is that they both badly scrunch up the North American plate to try to make it fit, while making a contradictory claim that evidence of the North American plate proves the expanding Earth. You can't have it both ways, but they try to, which shows how badly they distort facts to try to make this idea fit.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



Well here is the thing:

The Earth's coast lines vary a lot, but there are so many of them, that one could make one part of a land mass look like it would fit up against another.

Sort of like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Many times there are pieces that will fit just fine, but don't belong there. Here's an example I made just a little while ago:

I took Australia and it looks like it could fit along the east coast of the US:



It could also fit along side the east coast of South America:



Or even the west coast of Africa.......okay, I had to flip it upside down to do that, but still the idea is the same:



I think I would see the western part of North America fitting along side the eastern part of Asia if it looked more like how the eastern part of South America seems to fit the western part of Africa.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by TucoTheRat
Well some obvious tings that come to my mind is the Earth is slowly moving away from the sun so i'm sure it has been for a long, long, long time.

Our moon is slowly moving away from Earth but why is it so close to Earth if it is moving away?

The Sun is known for shooting stuff out in huge amounts like it's spitting a wad of paper through a straw.

These are just tree well known things that we simply pay no attention to or how they could impact curent theory and show it's incorrectness.

I read that post and started to write a reply, but I only spent about 2 minutes doing it and stopped because I figured if you were too lazy to spend a few minutes Googling about those things to find out that lots of attention has been paid to them, you were probably also too lazy to read my reply.

Dude...

What is with you guys you will argue forever about the same thing but when it comes to what i have presented you don't even post the links.

If it is simple can you at least post a link or two so see the answers?

Where is the Earth going to be in a billion years, in a million, will it be in the same place it is now?

Why can't you guys say humm makes sense or no it doesn't because bla, bla bla.

Trust me I'll read it.

See you guys are able to defend again earth expansion because you are safe in your current dogmatic scientific religious theories.

But when you come into my court cheeky is the best you can come up with...hahaha funny really.

The Rat.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


How can anyone accept that the Pangaea Theory has been debunked? Besides how can another theory debunk another theory when they both are based on facts but not that of the truth?

reply to post by eriktheawful


I think you look at more how the overall tectonic plates match then the current above sea level landmasses. It then becomes more apparent where things fit together more. The series "How the Earth was Formed" ( think that is the title of the show) gives some great examples of how far apart landmasses have very similar or even exact geographical properties. Add on top of that the common fossil records with those places and you make a persuasive argument for certain landmasses once being in contact with one another.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by TucoTheRat

Did any one at all read my pst a few pages back?

Take a look and see if it possibly makes any sense...

Link to Post

The Rat.

Ok, I've looked at it..... No it doesn't make sense to me. The sun is primarily two elements, that theory would only make some sort of sense (not much I'm afraid) for the Gas Giants, it doesn't explain the rocky planets. Sorry for being so blunt.

Dude we don't even know if mars has water, keep in mind we have sent a few rovers over there too, and your going to tell me we know what the sun is made of?

That's a serious question.

Can you say the the sun is primarily comprised mostly of two elements? If you can should I get NASA on the line? because they should be asking you is mars has water instead of spending so much money n trying to figure out of mars has water.

Every thing you see on our solar system came from the sun my friend, everything.

Even if you where right the sun is so huge that the small amount of other elements besides the primary two would still be enough to spit out millions and million of planets.

So how exactly does it not make sens?

The Rat.

If oceans didn't exist back then, then why are there so many fossils of oceanic creatures?

Expanding Earth = wrong

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Hi there Shadow Herder, great update of information! Sometimes I wonder how many people will never learn of revelations such as this and remain ignorant products of public education systems world-wide.

First, let me apologize for 2 things... 1.) If this post breaks up any ongoing debate, since it is a response to your OP as I am unaware of current discussion beyond the OP and early p.1 posts. 2.) For being kinda/sorta off-topic.

While thinking about the Pangea idea briefly, I started to puzzle on a couple of, what should be, theoretically plausibilities.

Assuming the continents were, at some point, very close together and in many areas touching one another in Earth's ancient past, should we expect to see a different evolution process from region to region?

I understand that sea going life would be able to evolve much the same the world over, because most oceans - if not all - mesh at some point. This would provide open access to all bodies of water, where evolving life could show up.

What about the masses of land that were not touching any other places on Earth?

It would take a very very long time for large bodies of land to move enough that they would touch. We also know that an extraordinary amount of time is needed for different creatures to evolve and adapt.

Even if lthe catalyst for life came from the same place (like a set of microbes on a meteorit), wouldn't the creatures evolve in vastly different ways, depending on the other animals in the food chain and the relative habitat's climate?

Maybe they would start off as the same type of creature when it crawled onto land the first time, but eventually survival and adaptation would drive the evolution in very different direction.

If this were true, fossils of the same animal species wouldn't be found on various continents of the world, because they did not originate there or evolve under the conditions of the habitat.

Each different region that had no connection to other land masses would offer creatures that are incredibly different in appearance, even though they could potentially be built to survive on similar levels of their respective food chain.

It could be hard to prove this is not the case, given that it has been such a long time since their evolution. On the other hand, evidence may be around us, all over the world.

Maybe this is in part why there is such an extraordinary diversity of life on Earth - or maybe such a diversity is required to sustain a properly functioning habitat and eco-system.

I am not really making a point I believe to be fact. I'm mainly just asking the ATS members, who are schooled on this, to confirm or shoot down this thought - or maybe fill in some of the holes that could help me better understand this aspect of continental drift and biological evolution.

Thanks again for the thread, seems like everyone is really enjoying it so far (atleast the discussion I've seen so far)

Originally posted by RealSpoke
If oceans didn't exist back then, then why are there so many fossils of oceanic creatures?

Expanding Earth = wrong

Dude we are not talking about last week.

We are talking expansion happening over millions and millions of years.

plus who is to say that way back when when the Earth was dense and smaller that it was not almost or completely covered in water.

The Rat.

Originally posted by TucoTheRat



Dude we don't even know if mars has water, keep in mind we have sent a few rovers over there too, and your going to tell me we know what the sun is made of?

That's a serious question.

Can you say the the sun is primarily comprised mostly of two elements? If you can should I get NASA on the line? because they should be asking you is mars has water instead of spending so much money n trying to figure out of mars has water.

Every thing you see on our solar system came from the sun my friend, everything.

Even if you where right the sun is so huge that the small amount of other elements besides the primary two would still be enough to spit out millions and million of planets.

So how exactly does it not make sens?

Because it doesn't make logical sense.
1. The Sun is primarily composed of 2 Elements. Really. It is.
2. The Sun did not form everything in the solar system. An accretion disk of material is the genesis of our Sol System. Once the matter in the center coalesced into the Sun and ignited, everything else started to gather up the leftovers of said disk. None of the planets, asteroids or comets were birthed from the Sun outright.
3. The only mass ejection of heavy elements from a Star occurs during a Super Nova, that plainly has not occurred in the Sol System.

Sorry, none of you assertions stand up.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by TucoTheRat



Dude we don't even know if mars has water, keep in mind we have sent a few rovers over there too, and your going to tell me we know what the sun is made of?

That's a serious question.

Can you say the the sun is primarily comprised mostly of two elements? If you can should I get NASA on the line? because they should be asking you is mars has water instead of spending so much money n trying to figure out of mars has water.

Every thing you see on our solar system came from the sun my friend, everything.

Even if you where right the sun is so huge that the small amount of other elements besides the primary two would still be enough to spit out millions and million of planets.

So how exactly does it not make sens?

Because it doesn't make logical sense.
1. The Sun is primarily composed of 2 Elements. Really. It is.
2. The Sun did not form everything in the solar system. An accretion disk of material is the genesis of our Sol System. Once the matter in the center coalesced into the Sun and ignited, everything else started to gather up the leftovers of said disk. None of the planets, asteroids or comets were birthed from the Sun outright.
3. The only mass ejection of heavy elements from a Star occurs during a Super Nova, that plainly has not occurred in the Sol System.

Sorry, none of you assertions stand up.

1.) Says who? A bunch of people who a few years ago did not know if our own double-damned moon has water and still today don't know if their is water on mars even though we have contact with mars with on the ground probes.

how can we know what the sun is made of if we don't even know what our moon is made of or mars even though we have been foot on ground on the moon and have probes on mas. how can you sit there and say 'Really it is." It's Scientifically incorrect to do so because the evidence of not knowing what is on objects near us vastly shadows the arrogant speculations of one so, so, so far away and unreachable due to it's temperature.

Saying "It really is" is about as not logical as things get, and you feel safe enough to say "it really is" because our highest paid best and brightest with credentials up the rear and with as many doctorates as nose hairs say the same. they say what is not logical and you parrot it as most logical. Use your own head for a change.

2.) And that honestly makes more sense than the sun spits out the planets and they slowly move away from the sun and expand? Why then does the Planet now move away from the sun and how long has it been doing so and where will it be in a million years? How does what the planets are and have been doing which is moving away from the sun make more logical sense with the accretion disk theory vs Sun spit, move away and expand theory?

Everything came from the sun in our solar system. question is where did the Sun come from if you discount accretion disk theory?

please try to say something more than 'It just does"

3.) WHAT?!?!? I guess those SOHO guys should stop calling them big, huge way bigger than Earth or any planet in our solar system spits the sun does every once in a while "coronal mass ejections" LOL!

Well if the not logical is what you consider logic why would my assertions stand up in your or someone else's eyes.

The Rat.

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
I think the expanding earth theory explains a lot. The Earth might not actually be growing as much as it's getting bigger due to the Centrifugal force. The spinning eventually makes the Earth larger and larger. Which would also make the Earth more and more hollow as time goes on. Uh Oh, now a hollow Earth theory.

edit on 11-9-2012 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)

Gravitational forces are strongest at the center of mass of an object (like the Earth).

Centrifugal forces are greatest the furthest away from the pivot point.

This means that if cavitation was to be caused by centrifugal forces, then it would be most likely to happen where centrifugal force is greatest and gravity the weakest; i.e: at the surface of the Earth.

Since we don't see any such forces overcoming gravity at the surface of the Earth, it isn't happening by this method.

The accrual of mass by accretion also doesn't seem to have messed with the Earth/Moon systems orbital mechanics in any significant way, so that debunks that theory quite a bit too.

We are also currently not seeing any sort of obvious expansion of the Earth (at least enough to move continents by the distances required) either.

Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, just that it hasn't happened by the methods proposed.