It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Curiosity about theories regarding "Pangea"

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
In all the depictions of what was once known as the supercontinent of "Pangea", it is shown basically what it looked like 240 million years ago...then 120 million years ago and then 60 million years ago. Seems they divided 240 by two, and then 120 by two which makes complete sense, since this is just to get a rough idea
about ancient geography.
Now, there evidently is little argument about the age of the earth being approximately 4.5 or 4.6 billion years old. Taking the age of the earth into consideration along with the idea that as recently as 240 "MILLION" years ago, all the land masses on this planet were still in large
one "continent"...
To me that means that for the first, lets say 95% of the earths existence, "Pangea" stayed togeter. AND,
all this change occured within the last 5% of the earths'
life.
Why no change for such a long period of time, then
such a massive amount of change in a relitively"short"
period of time? Does this not mean we could expect
slightly longer days and increased tectonic movement
due to the natural "slowing" of the earths rotation?
I am not neccesarily looking for answers, simply
perspectives. Sorry if this is not the appropriate forum to
solicit views on this kind of topic.




posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
pangea didn't stay together for billions of year and nobody says it did, if you research enough you will find that it is believed that it has cycled throughout the years, the continents drift apart and then come back together and drift apart and come back together



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I think it could be shown that during the expansion of earth we call pangea... was a time that life was in complete chaos.. imagine earthquakes that didnt last a mere seconds or minutes..days or even years.. but hundreds of years///thousands... it would be almost but not impossible for most life to replicate its self. Of course it would make sense that water was a part of the chaos as well. All of this would cause much of existing life to dwindle in numbers and causing mass extinctions in some species. A human is capable of holding each other to create more life. Say like a dinosaur during a constant earthquake. How hard that had to be and completly an agonizing situation. It had to be horrible for any life living and born there after until it settled. To think the continents just miracously grew apart at subtle moments is not realistic for a smaller earth growing at a much faster pace in perspective. If the output in growth maintained the same amount, it only makes sense that after a planet gains enough mass that the growth would show its gains in slower intervals.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I really don't think an earthquake could last hundreds of years, do you?
Likely scenario is that Earth has been expanding, and still is.
Earthquakes could be one of the results, as well as volcanic activity.

Next to consider - cosmic catastrophe.


when Earth nearly died



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

Vaalbara is theorized to be the first super continent.


Followed by Rodinia

en.wikipedia.org...

ANd then Pangaea.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Pangaea is not the only supercontinent, and continental drift existed long before its formation. We learn mostly about Pangaea because that was the most recent one. Due to the recycling nature of the Earth's surface (it's very hard to come by rocks as old as the Earth itself, most are gone now), Pangea is the one that we have the most evidence for.

Here is an image showing some fossil evidence that suggests the existence of Pangaea.

Here is one showing a timeline of supercontinents, including ones that we have hypothesized to have existed before Pangaea.

And here is another image illustrating possible future continental drift.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 



Well the earth doesn't have to act in the ways you have seen in all of its recorded history. It would be hard to record anything during an earthquake. And if human life was without a language at the time, there was nothing to record. Anymore than a moose telling you about it's past. There is no rule for earth that says earth had to always remain livable after life was placed upon it. It could of obtained the stability we have nowdays and go back to having an atmosphere that couldn't sustain life and back n forth again and again. The crust that is upon this earth might be the third million surface this earth has had. Who says this earth always had a gravitational pull that would keep a crust on a surface. How many times life has been completly wiped out and the crust has fallen from its surface into space. Like when you get a dipped cone at dairy queen and the outer shell falls off.

And yes i do believe the earth can sustain and has had what we would now call a earthquake that lasted for hundreds of years. I certainly dont think the earth has always had earthquakes that only last a few seconds or minutes in its early stages of growth as a planet. When its crust hardened for the first time and when it broke for the first time to expand and there after it is likely to become less and less destructive in theory of time elapsed from start to finish of an "earthquake". If the earth always maintained a perticular growth rate output, then after it has gained mass it would show its growth at a much slower and smaller intervals than when it was a tiny planet growing at that same rate. Take a balloon. It would have to be a very durable balloon. Cover it with a substance that hardens, (like a dipped cone being filled from the inside) and is adhesive. Put a large dabble of that substance in one area. before putting any air into it. You will see most of the fracture happens towards the begining. You will see that large dabble spread apart. Much like "pangea" had to.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
IMHO I think that we had the whole Earth freeze over a number of times, which indicates to me that in the past water levels were higher. This is coupled with the fact that we are supposed to lose our water to the mantle over the next 500m to 1bn years. So there may not have been that much land before, so that's why life (or even animal life) left water so late. Don't know, but I've heard it all go back 500m years but not much more.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsUpial
 



I have studied some of the different diagnosis's of the advent of the first plate tectonics of the Earth, didn't know, or couldn't remember every detail of it happening, but it seems as if it was an on going process of the Earth in it's early stages.


The study focuses on an area near the southwestern coast of Greenland where there is a rare outcrop of ancient rock, called the Isua Supra-crustal Belt, which have been dated at 3.8 billion years old. The Isua rocks are ophiolites, which have a green hue from the chlorite minerals within them and are found in all major mountain belts, usually located in areas associated with volcanism and plate tectonics. The Isua deposits were first described in the 1960s. They also have been found to contain fossilized evidence of the earliest bacterial life on Earth, also about 3.8 billion years old, in studies conducted in 1999 by Minik Rosing.


www.terradaily.com...

seems as if there was the beginnings of bacterial life at the advent of the earths crust shifting under different cooling stages.

Good and logical inquiry OP!!!



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Allred5923
 



With the verification of einstiens thoery of mc sqaured being proven. It showed that something with 0 mass could in fact have motion and be there as a form of energy even if not accountable through a visual perception. If space was that 0 mass and everything outside of life on planet earth was such. Wouldnt it be possible that earth is not rotating...but everything outside of earth)space, sun and everything else is revolving around earth. As in the earth is the center of the universe. When you are in space you might sit there and see the earth appear to be rotating. But with the theory that gives insight that 0 mass can in fact have motion. Space being 0 and everything that comes with it, and be in motion around earth. Much like when u sit here on earth can watch a moon revolve around its planet. Space and everything out there is doing that to earth.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Pangea does not make sense. It will find itself with the flat earth theory very soon.


Just looking at the age of the see floor and the shape of the continents it is almost impossible not see that it was all one landmass.... on a smaller planet.



I have included an excellent video by Neal Adams about the expanding earth theory.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
One must ask, where did the trillions and trillions of tons of mass come from? The video also dismiss the existence of subduction. Unfortunatley subuction is a well proven and observed.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 



I second that motion IvanZana. I don't trust the Pangea theory. The Deluge event is confusing the scientists.

Hanslune, maybe the extra material is coming from the black hole at the center of the earth.Ha Ha. That's a joke. I have no idea where the extra mass is coming from but I like a new theory to ponder over.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Howdy Lostinspace



I second that motion IvanZana. I don't trust the Pangea theory.


Hans: Why? What evidence do you have that it doesn't explain what we can observe and the evidence that fits?



The Deluge event is confusing the scientists.


Hans: How is that? The deluge (in the biblical) concept didn't take place. So how is it confusing scientists?



I have no idea where the extra mass is coming from but I like a new theory to ponder over.


Hans: Yep figuring out where all the mass came from - and how it came here with out heating the planet up - the energy necessary to move or create that amount of mass would be impressive - should take a bit time. It might be worthwhile thinking about what would falsify the idea of an expanding earth....Why has the earth stopped expanding I wonder?



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


The Solar system took a while to form, whose to say one of the functions of that process was for the earth to expand to produce continents and seas for the propigation of the species. I still believe Earth used to look like Venus millions of years ago. I bet you Venus is smaller under that thick atmosphere and the mantle is just waiting to expand when the atmosphere thins out. Remember the atmospheric pressure of Venus is much greater than earth and that may be keeping Venus compressed.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
One must ask, where did the trillions and trillions of tons of mass come from? The video also dismiss the existence of subduction. Unfortunatley subuction is a well proven and observed.


Who says there is trillions of mass added?

Subduction is not supported by observed data to the extent needed to explain geology. Subduction is used as an excuse because no other acceptable explanation is available.(Or else accept expansion)



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by lostinspace
 


Howdy Lostinspace



The Solar system took a while to form, whose to say one of the functions of that process was for the earth to expand to produce continents and seas for the propigation of the species.


Hans: Speculation yes but what would cause a planet to expand - now we do get dust, tons of it landing on the earth from outer space as we speak but add massive amounts of mass? I for one cannot conceive of a mechanism that would do that - and as noted before, if it was doing that once why did it stop?



I still believe Earth used to look like Venus millions of years ago. I bet you Venus is smaller under that thick atmosphere and the mantle is just waiting to expand when the atmosphere thins out.


Hans: As I understand it we did have periods during Earth's history where we had thick cloud cover. Again why would the mantle expand and again you are faced with the problem of obtaining trillions of tons of matter.



Remember the atmospheric pressure of Venus is much greater than earth and that may be keeping Venus compressed.


IMHO I don't think so, you could ask the folks over at the Bad Astronomer's site for the numbers on that. I would suspect that the weight of the Venusian atmosphere would have little compression capacity. But they have science geeks over there who could not only answer your question but give you the formulas.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   


Who says there is trillions of mass added?


Well you did, you said the planet expanded, check the theory of gravity and the compression of matter under its influence. To get the type of expansion you are speculating about would require trillions of tons of matter to be added. Unless you have any other evidenced supported idea as to how this would happen. Unless you are evoking gods metaphysical snapping of his fingers to do this.



Subduction is not supported by observed data to the extent needed to explain geology. Subduction is used as an excuse because no other acceptable explanation is available.(Or else accept expansion)


Really! Perhaps you should inform the geologists around the earth they certainly seem to think that.

So there are around 200,000 professional geologists in the world - are they all in on the conspiracy?

I look forward to seeing your original research on this since in the past you've complained that others are just repeating what they've been told in school. Obviously you aren't just repeataing what you've read in fringe books and website but are basing your opinion on your own original research. I intend to take this proof that you offer to a geologist site so they to ocan learn from this new data.

I surprize to learned that you are a geologist.

As a test of your new and original research please explain this observation
.... the development of mountain chains - subduction explains it nicely. Please explain it using your evidence supported expansion model?



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 



What makes a seed expand and grow?

A process of external environment and an internal mechanism. In the seed's case a biological activation. How do you know the planets do not have a similar mechanism to start the "evolutionary" life mechanism?



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Pangea is an absolutely assinine theory. Think about it for about two seconds and you'll get it. they claim that all he continents are nothing but large islands floating around at whims.

Tell me one thing, under all the world's oceans at the very bottom what is there?

That's correct DIRT, EARTH, BASALT now if Africa moved even 10 inches what would happen to the world due to the amount of EARTH that would be moved into the oceans. Can you say 9000 foot waves across the planet with nothing to stop them ever?

Pangea is the non-believers way of trying to think their is no GOD and the Bible is fables. It's so much easier to live a life of lasciviousness when you think you won't be JUDGED for your actions...

My opinion, SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join