Talk:Pangaea

CG Render of Pangaea

Sorry, but this is an unhelpful, unclear artists conception that ultumately just adds clutter. A projected reconstruction with no clouds is preferred

It's not as much an artist's conception, as the map-texture is from the same source as the other terrain maps on this article. I think it would be helpful to show the supercontinent rendered on a globe. 4/11/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvinsong (talk • contribs) 21:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A need to remove/replace the picture.

Graphic representation of Pangaea entitled "Map of Pangaea" does not match the reality. You can actually see in Google Earth that the entire circle at N66 (polar circle) represents one unbroken continental plate. It means North America and Eurasia were never apart. Northeastern Eurasia is joined to North America by the Bering-Chukotsk shelf while Greenland is joined to Europe by the continental Faeroe-Iceland-Greenland Ridge (see Meyerhoff, 1974). Can someone show us at least one suture between plates of North America and Eurasia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shee-un (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Location of Pangea

Where was Pangea located?

in the animation it is displayed as sitting on one side of the earth, the today European / African side. What was on the other side at this time? Why should all the landmass of the Earth gather on one side of the earth? does this even make sense? woulndt this create a huge gravitational imbalance, especially in combination with Earths rotation?

Why arent these questions adressed? How can this be an accepted theory, yet be so flawed?

I sincerely request a link to expanding Earth theory as an alternative theory. Pangea covering the entire Earth makes strictly more sense, instead of claiming it just randomly sits on one side of the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.0.201 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an animation in the article showing where Pangaea was located. As stated in the article, Panthalassa was on the "other side". For more information on plate tectonics, see Continental drift#Evidence that continents 'drift'. Expanding Earth is a rejected hypothesis and should only be discussed on that page. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

couldnt we at least add a link under "See also"? Pangea covering the entire surface of a smaller earth is very related to pangea after all, even if it is a rejected theory at this time. I mean at least let the people know that not only the South America and African plates join, but also Australia and South America, well basically the entire pacific, too.

The statement above is more plausible, that Pangea covered the entire surface, and the size and mass of earth was most likely smaller and more tightly compressed. The best model I've seen was by the Google Earth people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl5KYKz52dQ This is a better (and more current) simulation model than the existing example, gives example of static size, and the alternative. Mapsurfer49 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why a link to that article should be on this page. According to the Expanding Earth theory, Pangaea never happened. There is a link in Continental drift. That should be enough IMO. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll boldly state that this theory is not only a fact as an idea in the history of the Earth sciences, but also (and maybe more importantly) a patent and obvious absurdity. It defies common sense and seems misaligned and irreconcilably at odds with the established theory of plate tectonics. Look at any image for the current state of this alleged mechanism of geological shaping and you'll see a dozen or so plates, separated by plate boundaries, and visibly in a state of deadlock. There might be some grinding at the edges, and some breaking, yes: but there's no moving about like in this pangaean, laureanian and gondwanian bumper car scenario. If this is indeed what plate tectonics continues to claim: how do they explain the possibility of moving about and around back then in Earth's past when it's obvious from today's state that such wild movement is an impossibility? --Lumi71 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Pangea is an example of the junk science that plagues modern science. Literally Pangea and continental drift are centuries-old theories revived nearly a century ago before we had satellites orbitting Earth and before the ocean floor was mapped. Anybody with Google Earth and common sense will see that Pangea does not work because Central and South America fit quite nicely against the underwater land mass near the Solomon Islands. I'm not saying the expanding Earth theory is perfect, but it makes more sense than this archaic floating continent theory which is literally one-sided. Planetary collision, comets, impacts, strong tidal forces creating the Pacific rim, whatever. It is all plausible and makes more sense. If science is going to continue following dead ends like we did in the dark ages, that sends a pretty powerful message that they really don't know anything about our planet's past. It's all guesses with circumstantial and even no evidence, not even applying their own scientific method. Why does North America appear on several pre-Columbian maps connected to Asia? Obviously when the maps were drawn they were not. And this is why they mis-label America with known Asian locations. But it is unmistakenly the Americas. Florida, the Mississippi, Michigan, the rocky mountains. Usually the Sierra Nevada mountains and Arkansas are labeled with phonetically similar names and the area next to a giant non-existent River where the Pacific Ocean should be is labeled California. Oronce Fine has the most detailed of these maps. With detail which were unmapped at the time. Later on he drew the far more accurate fool's map which also contains more detail than many cartographers were aware of at the time. That was likely a message, he knew the truth. Our world had been mapped for centuries and used to look very different. Either science is stubborn or worse this information is kept hidden from us deliberately. I'd much rather want to believe the stubborn version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.97.248 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Well, let's just put aside that last comment for a while, and hope that some kind soul affords our guest the benefits of 5mg trifluoperazine, twice daily. In response to the original question, you're making the same logical fallacy of people who don't understand evolution--- the inability to imagine large aggregate changes comprised of innumberable smaller changes over extremely long periods of time. Let's take, for instance, your assertion that "it's obvious from today's state that such wild movement is an impossibility." So what you're saying is that there weren't supercontinents when you were a kid, and there aren't supercontintents now, so we can only conclude that there won't be supercontinents 300 million years from now. Yuh-huh.

As for "some grinding at the edges," I think you should take a look at the Continental drift article, which will give you a better sense of how the continental plates are moving. Just to give one of many examples, the earthquake that caused the 2011 tsunami in Japan resulted in plate slippage of up to 40 meters. The distance from Tokyo to San Francisco is about 8,900 km, so if that gap were to close in 150 million years, an event like the Tokyo earthquake would only have to happen ONCE every 1,200 years at that rate. And you said what about the stability of the current state?Googlymoogly64 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk page archive

This talk page needs to be archived. I propose the we ask a bot to archive the page regularly. The following code will result in threads inactive for more than 125 days will be automatically archived.

Any objections? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Fama Clamosa (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Something went wrong, but I think I managed to clan things up manually. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another Timing of the Break

The other possiblity of the contenintal breakup describe by what God says happened in the days of Peleg. “for in his days the earth was divided” (Genesis 10:25). Peleg’s generation was from 3153 B.C. to 2914 B.C. See The Biblical Calendar of History By Harold Camping at familyradio.com You’ll also note that this was the time the Mayans thought time began as a new earth or are marking a starting-point for their calendar. Date taken from Wikipeadia Mayan Calendar “A different calendar was used to track longer periods of time, and for the inscription of calendar dates (i.e., identifying when one event occurred in relation to others). This is the Long Count. It is a count of days since a mythological starting-point.[3] According to the correlation between the Long Count and Western calendars accepted by the great majority of Maya researchers (known as the GMT correlation), this starting-point is equivalent to August 11, 3114 BCE in the proleptic Gregorian calendar or 6 September in the Julian calendar (−3113 astronomical).” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Privatepop (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Movement description

In the final paragraph of the 'formation' section, the article says "Pangaea rotated a little, in a southwest direction". As far as I can tell, that doesn't mean anything. Should it not be clockwise or anti-clockwise? I'm pretty sure you can't rotate something south-west. Maybe it means it rotated while moving towards the south-west? Hopefully somebody who knows can rewrite that more clearly. Chrysics (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree and chopped that bit, I think counterclockwise would be correct, but don't have a reference for it. That section is in need of references. Vsmith (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Pangea aginsta the world

Tell about Pangea useing the 5 things of Geography ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.234.4 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

yeah, i know right where's asia? and wats with the science diagrams.

This page needs Semi-Protection?

This article has been attracting a great deal of vandalism lately. I think it would be better is semi-protection was added to it. Kelvinsong (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)