Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Why was Pangaea perfectly circular?

The following is a map of Pangaea from the America Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG);



The above diagram can still be found at

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/9701904.gif
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97019/index.htm

The AAPG claim their maps of Pangaea are the most accurate ever produced.

Note that Pangaea (together with the shallow Tethys ocean) is neatly circumscribed by a circle.

Why do you think that Pangaea (plus Tethys) fits neatly within a circle?

Remember, the America Association of Petroleum Geologists drew the circle in this diagram, not me.

So; why do you think that Pangaea fits neatly within a circle?

Current geological theories provide no explanation.

However, the PreEarth-Heaven collision provides a simple explanation.

Namely; The impacted area is contained within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

Therefore, the non-impacted area is also within a circle on the globe (i.e., is circular).

The non-impacted area is by definition Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea).

Therefore, Pangea (PreEarth-Pangea) is circular.

To get from PreEarth-Pangea to Earth-Pangea you have to adjust for the fact that Earth has a smaller curvature than PreEarth (PreEarth has a larger curvature than Earth). This adjustment introduces splits. Indeed, if you reduce the curvature of a rigid circular cap (e.g., PreEarth-Pangea), i.e., you flatten it somewhat, then you necessarily introduce splits in the cap.

Therefore, Pangea (Earth-Pangea) is circular with splits.

Where the main split is, of course, the pie-shaped region, called the Tethys ocean.

Read all about the PreEarth-Heaven collision here.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

Note, that to fully understand what is written above, you need to read the thread;

Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis: Update.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

So, then? No one is able to give a reasonable explanation (other than the one presented here which involves two planets colliding) for why Pangea was almost perfectly circular.

And,... what does this say about the standard geological theories?

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Pre. Perhaps it has more to do with the possibility that people are reluctant to post in your threads because you tend not to answer questions.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
BTW. Does the theory proffer any explanation for the claim that PreEarth Pangaea was circular?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Tend not too ... Has ever answered any of your questions Bill S .... I have seen you pose about 20 so far.

Last edited by Orac; 10/24/11 01:53 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Patience, Orac, when answers come the may be worth waiting for.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 9
O
Oph Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
O
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 9
Originally Posted By: preearth
The AAPG claim their maps of Pangaea are the most accurate ever produced.
Where do they make this claim? Do you think the rough sketch map you have reproduced here represents the accuracy they are talking about? Do you understand this is a sketch map?

Originally Posted By: preearth
Why do you think that Pangaea (plus Tethys) fits neatly within a circle?
It doesn't. There are several areas with positive and negative deviations from circularity.

Originally Posted By: preearth
Remember, the America Association of Petroleum Geologists drew the circle in this diagram, not me.
And why do you think they did that?

Originally Posted By: preearth
Current geological theories provide no explanation.
Don't you believe in chance?

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Oph didn't stick around long. Oh well, he didn't have a clue, anyway.

Originally Posted By: Bill S
BTW. Does the theory proffer any explanation for the claim that PreEarth-Pangea was circular?

I didn't answer this because I thought you couldn't possibly not see the connection. But maybe you really can't see it, even though it is obvious.

The mapping projection mentioned below is the one used by the AAPG (America Association of Petroleum Geologists) in their sketch map of Pangea (the illustration in the first post).

The impacted region was a circular cap, which maps to an annular area in the chosen flat map projection. In fact, the impacted region maps to the annular area of ocean surrounding Pangea (i.e., the region outside the AAPG map circle).

PreEarth-Pangea, which is by definition the non-impacted region, was a larger circular cap, which actually ran over Preearth's equator. PreEarth-Pangea maps to the circular area within the AAPG map circle. That is, PreEarth-Pangea corresponds to Earth-Pangea.

The AAPG map circle itself corresponds to the circle marked in the following animation;



The impacted region is within the circle (ring) in the above animation.

PreEarth-Pangea, i.e., the non-impacted region outside the circle, is pictured here just as it fractures into continents (which will soon be expanded apart to their current positions on the soon to be formed Earth). PreEarth-Pangea, corresponds to all of Pangea in the AAPG map (i.e., the region within the AAPG map circle).

By the way, the difference between PreEarth-Pangea and Earth-Pangea is their curvatures.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thanks for the response, Pre. I still have a sticking point, but I will try to resolve it myself first.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Thanks for the response, Pre. I still have a sticking point, but I will try to resolve it myself first.

Guess you resolved that one.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Perhaps it's easier to draw. :-)

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Pre
Guess you resolved that one.


Not yet. Time is still at a premium. If/when I do I will let you know, as there will either be an acknowledgement that I see your point, or another question.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 24
B
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 24
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: Pre
Guess you resolved that one.


Not yet. Time is still at a premium. If/when I do I will let you know, as there will either be an acknowledgement that I see your point, or another question.


[quote] by Blobby2

Well i got to disagree with a pangea circle like most everybody esle
Even a spinning world is not perfect circle so why do you believe a millions year old continent like pangea was even close to a circle
supposition yes proof no

Thanks Blobby2

[/quote)

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
I wasn't being entirely facetious when I suggested that it would be easier to draw Pangea as a circle. I know nothing about Pangea except that it contains Gondwanda. It seems to me that it is an ancient idea/myth/ truth which some do not acknowledge as fact, in the form discussed here.

There are many depictions of the ancient worlds and their beliefs, we do not often assume them to be 100% accurate! A circular depiction of a mysterious object makes it even more mysterious and much easier for the story teller to draw. Naturally occurring perfectly circular objects, especially something as big as half a planet would be very unusual indeed. The circle would be easier to explain as a magical, unique event, and it would be easier to depict. (if indeed anyone did).

And what happened to Tethys? It disappeared apart from the title. Did I miss it? If Tethys was really there then Pangea as depicted would not be circular but would look more like Pac-man.

Also the petroleum guys would be only too happy to depict Pangea as circular--- surveying would be a cinch without all those pesky angles.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Blobby2
Even a spinning world is not perfect circle


Somehow I doubt that Pre was talking about that degree of perfection in the circle.

Quote:
why do you believe a millions year old continent like pangea was even close to a circle


Think azimuthal equidistant projection you should find your circle. The problem I have is finding a scenario which does not include a circle. I suspect that Pre’s point, though, is that Pangaea seems to fit very neatly into its circle; not in the way that, for example, a square can be fitted into a circle with lots of extra space.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Ellis
It seems to me that it is an ancient idea/myth/ truth which some do not acknowledge as fact, in the form discussed here.


Even such widely accepted ideas as plate tectonics are obviously not universally held, or there would be four less threads in the GSD Forum. smile

Possibly the main difference between a myth and a scientific idea is that latter requires some reasonable evidence, whereas the former can be sustained on faith alone. Of course, this does mean that the scientific idea can change as new evidence is discovered, but such evidence must be open to criticism and honest discussion. Simply shouting “rubbish” by supporters of either side achieves nothing apart from ruffled feathers.

You seem to be saying that when dealing with ancient worlds a degree of guesswork is bound to be involved. I agree, but it is easy for those directly involved in the evolution of ideas to lose sight of that, and believe they are dealing in absolutes.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Pac-man.


Is it only "ancient Brits" who see Pac-man as the CC41 (utility clothing) sign? smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Bill S -- That's amazing--the utility sign WAS what I thought of first!!!!! I did not know there was another person here who would recognise it. Here in OZ, no-one would know what I meant.


I have been researching Pangea on line and if seems to me it is a rather controversial topic!!! I still find it hard to believe that the circular feature is any more than any (for example) crater, and is circular-ish but not perfect.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Pre, your AAPG map also shows the Kula and Farallon "plates". In your theory, what happened to these?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
The fact that plate-tectonics is a stupid theory is very relevant to all this:

Mantle currents, and thus plate-tectonics, is wrong.

Those who push plate-tectonics are so amazingly stupid, that they never even bothered to check whether, or not, the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle was really lighter than the colder rock above it, as is required by their theory. And, this is though most geology books actually tell you that the hot rock, 3740 K, at the bottom of the mantle has a density of 5,560 kg/m³, and that the density decreases, almost linearly, from 5,560 kg/m³ to 3,370 kg/m³ as one approaches the top of the mantle (3,370 kg/m³ is the density the cold rock, 930 K, at the top of the mantle, about 40 kms down).

This, totally contradicts the assumptions of the theory of mantle currents/plate-tectonics (that is, contrary to known fact, plate-tectonics assumes that the rock at the bottom of the mantle becomes hotter, and thus lighter than the colder rock above it, and consequently rises).

How could scientists be so stupid? Well, whatever the reason, they certainly are extremely stupid.

I also note that, various scientists have now had a year to come up with some sort of answer to this problem (and the other problems presented below) but they have not.


The following was written to point out some of the shortcomings of the current theories of Earth formation. It was printed and delivered to some 600 academics in the Auckland area towards the end of March, 2011. It was added to http://www.preearth.net in December, 2011.

Mansfield's Earth Theory & Proof that
various accepted Earth theories are wrong.


Mansfield's Earth theory, is that the Earth formed from the collision of two smaller planets (which, before their collision, were of a similar size and formed a double planet system, much like the Earth and Moon today, except that the previous moon had about thirty-five times the mass of our current Moon).

It is said, that you can tell a good theory by its explanatory power.

The collision theory of Dr. Kevin Mansfield explains all of the following:

[1] It explains the existence of the Pacific Basin.
[2] It explains the existence of the Pacific Ring of Fire.
[3] It explains the (impact) mountains that ring the Pacific Ocean.
[4] It explains why the Earth has continents.
[5] It explains how, and why, the continents moved apart.
[6] It explains the existence of the ancient continent of Pangea.
[7] It explains why Pangea fits neatly within a circle.
[8] It explains why Pangea had a large split called the proto-Tethys Ocean.
[9] It explains how continental crust formed and where it came from.
[10] It explains why continental crust covers only 40% of the Earth's surface.
[11] It explains why continental crust is so different from oceanic crust.
[12] It explains why the Earth's core is rotating faster than the rest of the planet.
[13] It explains why the Earth has a relatively strong magnetic field.
[14] It explains why the Earth's magnetic field is rapidly decreasing.
[15] It explains why the Earth has a global surface layer of clay.
[16] It explains how the ice-caps were able to build to such a size.
[17] It explains why no evolution occurred in India while a separate continent.
[18] It explains why the severity of volcanism has decreased.
[19] It explains the bimodal distribution of elevation.
[20] It explains the geologically mysterious Gamburstev Mountains.
[21] It explains why magnetic reversals have not caused mass extinctions.
[22] It explains why only the top 500 meters of the sea-floor has a significant magnetic anomaly.

Also, with further assumptions, it provides,

[23] new possibilities regarding the formation of the Moon,
[24] can explain the tremendous size of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, etc, and
[25] can explain the large amount of Ar40 in the atmosphere.

Current theories explain only two (numbers five and thirteen) of the above (and both of these explanations are wrong).

The official explanation for (5) is called plate-tectonics.

Plate-tectonics, is the belief that many of Earth's geological features, such as mountains, are caused by currents of solid rock which circulate in the mantle. These extremely slow flows of rock, are thought to be maintained by convection. The convection is claimed to be due to the temperature difference (about 3,000 degrees) between the top and the bottom of the mantle.

The basic idea, is that the rock at the bottom of the mantle, on being heated by the core, becomes lighter, and thus, rises (in a gigantic up-welling) to the top of the mantle. The rock current, then flows (away from the up-welling and) under the Earth's surface, but parallel to it (carrying the continents with it), until it cools. On cooling sufficiently, the rock becomes heavier and sinks (in a gigantic down-welling) back to the bottom of the mantle, and on doing so, completes one lap of a circuit.



However, it is a fact that seismic studies have allowed scientists to determine the density of rock at all levels of the mantle, and laboratory experiments have given reasonable estimates of the temperatures (briefly, the deeper the rock is, the hotter and more dense it is). In particular, we know the densities of the cold rock at the top of the mantle and the hot rock at the bottom.

The cold rock (930 K) at the top (about 40 kms down) of the mantle has a density of 3,370 kg/m³.

The hot rock (3,740 K) at the bottom (about 3,700 kms down) of the mantle has a density of 5,560 kg/m³.

So, one of the many, many, many problems with the mantle currents scenario (plate-tectonics), is that, contrary to assumption, the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle is much heavier than the colder rock anywhere above it. Thus the hot rock at the bottom of the mantle will never rise, it will just sit at the bottom of the mantle, forever.

Consequently, mantle currents, do not, and cannot, exist.

Seismic studies have revealed mantle details, such as, the 410 km, 520 km, and 660 km, density discontinuities. These discontinuities are related to chemical, and or, phase changes in the rock, and the discontinuities are globally found to be within a few kilometers of the depths that they are named after. If giant rivers of rock were really flowing through these structures, there would be significant distortion of them, but these discontinuities are always found close to the depths that they are named after.

Seismic studies have told us much about the Earth's interior. They have told us, that at a depth of about 660 km, the density of mantle rock changes suddenly (over about 4 kms) from 4,000 kg/m³ to 4,380 kg/m³. High-pressure studies in the laboratory have revealed that the main component, Mg2SiO4, of olivine (olivine comprises about 60% of the upper mantel and is a solid solution of Mg2SiO4 and Fe2SiO4) undergoes a reversible change to a mixture of MgSiO3 and MgO. This new structure occupies a smaller volume (which accounts for the density change) and is only stable at pressures, corresponding to depths greater than 660 km.

In the mantle current scenario, lower mantle rock is continuously being raised through the 660 km discontinuity. As it rises above 660 km, the reduced pressure allows the MgSiO3 and MgO to recombine as Mg2SiO4. This is accompanied by a decrease in density and an increase in volume. The increase in volume can be found from the density change, and is about 10%. This massive increase in volume of rock, around the up-welling, would cause the Earth's surface to swell and would be accompanied by almost continuous earthquakes, of tremendous magnitude, as existing rock is moved, many kilometres, to accommodate the newly created volume.

On the opposite side of the mantle current (which may be 3,000-4,000 kms away) upper mantle rock is continuously being forced downward through the 660 km discontinuity. As the Mg2SiO4 changes to MgSiO3 and MgO, the rock suffers a large decrease in volume, which would lead to a subsidence of the Earth's surface and would be accompanied by almost continuous earthquakes. Since, none of this is observed, the mantle currents scenario cannot be correct.

To overcome this, and other problems, some geophysicists have suggested that the mantle has stacked convection currents, one circulating above the 660 km discontinuity and another circulating directly below it. But, of course, this new model has serious problems of its own.

That geophysicists cannot tell you whether the mantle has stacked convection current loops, or single loops, shows how very little they actually know about these mythical convection currents. Of recent years, some geophysicists have tried to downplay convection as the main power source of these currents and tentatively suggest that they are really caused by slab push and slab pull, but this is equally hopeless.

There are other arguments against plate-tectonics, that, while not proving it wrong, do render it less plausible. For example, it is claimed that, 200 million years ago, the single continent Pangea covered about 35% of the surface of the Earth, with the remaining 65%, covered by ocean. Obviously, any ocean sea-floor from this time, still existing today, must be more than 200 million years old. However, it is well-known that there is no sea-floor, existing today, that is more than 180 million years old. This tells us that none of the ocean sea-floor that covered 65% of the Earth, 200 million years ago, still exists as sea-floor today. So, what happened to 65% of Earth's surface? Did it just disappear into thin air?

The official answer (from qualified geologists) is that, over the last 200 million years, 65% of the Earth's surface has fallen down various holes and disappeared. So, the disappearing into thin air, answer, is closer than one may have thought. In the language of geology; 65% of the Earth's surface has been subducted. How easy is it to believe that, over the last 200 million years, 65% of entire surface of the Earth has fallen down holes and disappeared?

The official explanation for (13) is called the geo-dynamo theory.

The geo-dynamo theory, is the belief that Earth's magnetic field is caused by convection currents which circulate the molten iron of the outer core. The fact that the outer core is a true liquid, means that if convection really occurred, the outer core would have reached a uniform temperature, a very, very long time ago. The reason this hasn't happened, is that convection cannot actually occur. And this is because the cold liquid iron at top of the outer core weighs 9,900 kg/m³, while the hot liquid iron at the bottom of the outer core weighs 12,160 kg/m³, and the heavier material at the bottom, has absolutely no incentive to rise into the lighter material above it.

It is worth noting that even if the outer core had a uniform temperature, the material at the bottom would still be heavier than the material anywhere above it. This is simply due to gravitational compression.

Consequently, convection in the outer core, does not, and cannot, exist.

So, the geo-dynamo theory, like plate-tectonics, is fatally flawed.

I have only presented difficulties that can be described in a few sentences, but the list of problems with these two theories is very long and thick books could be written on the subject. I have been absolutely stunned by how easy it has been to find significant holes in these theories. But, I guess, this is what one should expect from false theories.

I am certainly not the first to claim that plate-tectonics is simply wrong. That honour belongs to the renowned Australian geologist, Professor Warren Carey. I particularly like his simple observation that there are no subduction zones in, or around, Africa (and similarly for Antarctica). This deficiency in plate-tectonics theory, is so hard to explain, that it is just ignored.



The problem is clear. If there is no subduction, in, or around, Africa, then there is no feasible arrangement of the mantle currents below the African plate.

Returning to Mansfield's Earth theory.

Evidence for this theory is presented in the articles; When Worlds Collided, and Evidence supporting Mansfield's Earth Formation Hypothesis, both of which can be found on the websites named below. A senior geophysicist from the University of Auckland has read the above mentioned articles, and for the first of them, kindly contributed a number of pages of suggestions, and helpful comment. Unfortunately, he believes that plate-tectonics is much too well established, for any competing idea (as different as mine) to be true.

Whether Mansfield's Earth theory is correct, or not, it certainly warrants careful consideration. Any theory that explains such an array of otherwise unexplained facts, is likely to be correct. From a parochial viewpoint, Kevin Mansfield is a New Zealander, who can attract significant attention to New Zealand science. And with attention, comes funding.

Dr. Kevin Mansfield has a BSc(Hons) [mathematics and chemistry] from the University of Auckland and a PhD [mathematics] from the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia). His mathematical research involves the study of certain algebraic structures with normed topologies (these being of interest as a framework, in which both relativity and quantum theory, may eventually find a compatible home).

Websites: www.preearth.net and www.preearth.info; 21 March 2011.

PDF version.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Pre. Maybe I'll work through your list of 25 points and see what comes up. I may even be tempted to post some thoughts in the future. Nothing like leaving the door ajar, is there? smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Nothing like leaving the door ajar, is there? smile

Yes,.... the door is a jar,.... or is it?


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Pre, your AAPG map also shows the Kula and Farallon "plates". In your theory, what happened to these?

Nothing. They are still there.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
They are still there.


They were there - they are still there - they have moved!

Sounds alarmingly like Plate Tectonics!!!


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370

So why are the "scientists" so amazingly stupid? That's the question.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5
The forming of super continents and their breaking up appears to have been cyclical through Earth's 4.6 billion year history. There may have been several others before Pangaea.


[b][b]http://en.docsity.com/answers/54108/any-one-from-you-know-what-is-pangea[/b][/b]

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: SunnyXX
The forming of super continents and their breaking up appears to have been cyclical through Earth's 4.6 billion year history. There may have been several others before Pangaea.

Oh really? Perhaps you could list the evidence for us.


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5