Talk:Pangaea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Location of Pangea[edit]

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)

I'm going to testify against the accuracy of the relative size of Antarctica when it is not in a frozen state. I have heard of other sources supporting the idea that it is an archipelago and should not be of that size in comparison with the other "continents." Dtwedt (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Large parts of the rocky continent of Antarctica are below sea level due to the weight of the ice sheets. If these ice sheets were removed, isostatic post-glacial rebound would result in a rising of the rocky continent, most or all of rocky "Antarctica" would then be above sea level. A similar process of post-glacial rebound is underway right now in Fennoscandia. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Poor writing in later sections?[edit]

I have no knowledge in this subject area and was reading through the article for personal interest; I was disappointed to see that the quality of writing seems to diminish in the later sections, starting from 'tectonic plate-shift'. I'll try to give a few examples:

"The formation of each environment and climate on Pangaea is due to plate tectonics [extremely vague statement which conveyed little information to me], and thus [the use of 'thus' here seems unnecessary], it is as a result of these shifts and changes [the word 'that' is missing here] different climatic pressures were placed on the life on Pangaea."

Later on, "Over the 100 million years Pangaea existed, many species had fruitful times whereas others struggled." - again, not much information conveyed - this can surely be said for any period of earth's history.

"These plants were also able to transport water internally, allowing animals that ate it to also improve hydration." - Transport water internally - meaning the plants absorbed water? Second half reads even more awkwardly; presumably what is meant is simply that they were a good source of water for many animals.

"The restructuring of the continents, changed and altered the distribution of warmth and coolness of the oceans." - Surely, 'altered the distribution of heat in the oceans' [changed and altered are almost the same thing right]??

The rest of the article reveals a few other errors/awkward phrases, and should be re-written. I don't want to change it myself as I have no knowledge of the subject.

Error in "Life" section[edit]

The section on Life includes the statement "Later on, insects (beetles, dragonflies, mosquitos) also thrived during the Permian period". (Note: The plural of mosquito is spelled "mosquitoes")

The earliest mosquito fossils are from the Cretaceous, some 200 million years later. The linked reference makes no mention of mosquitoes. It does mention the true bugs (cicadas, aphids, leafhoppers), which have piercing, sucking mouthparts.

Better sentence would be "Later on, insects (beetles, dragonflies, true bugs) also thrived..."

M.jenkins (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I recall that a lot of the discussion on life was created by 08D EXT2015: [1]. If you think there is a mistake or that things can be improved, please go ahead and work on it. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Scientific theory[edit]

The word "theory" is used twice on this page to refer to, well, theories, so I've added the words "Scientific theory" to the WP:Lead, as the first step in WP:BRD, if anyone is so minded to use that process. Without this or a similar kind of preface, it seems that everything stated in this article has been proven. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've shifted the scientific theory link down to where theory was first used. The scientific theory was continental drift which was subsumed into plate tectonics. The continent Pangea was a part of all that, but not the theory itself. I suppose maybe some would start the article with The theoretical continent..., but that would be just a quibble by science deniers or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't deny the science, far from it; the data is there. What the data implies, though, is something entirely different. But if nobody else is troubled by the tone of this article, I won't attempt to go further. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
According to whom? Scientific consensus backs the article.104.169.44.141 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is this page misspelled?[edit]

It's Pangea, literally everyone knows that, and some angry britbong took it upon themselves to impose their bullshit on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4200:d8a1:f48e:1562:10d5:f128 (talkcontribs) 11:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Pangaea is not misspelled; it is a legitimate correct spelling in some varieties of English. The Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline states "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." Please see MOS:ENGVAR for more details. GeoWriter (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The one super-continent was originally spelled 'Pangea', but that is only 6 letters. 'Pangaea' is 7 letters and is, therefore, symbolic of the 7 continents. 2601:589:4700:2390:C530:8663:9D18:9179 (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Link Gondwana[edit]

The mention of Gondwana deserves a link. Possible also an approximate chronological mention of when it was created during the rifting, rather than just when it broke up. AnmAtAnm (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)