Was Pangaea the surface of a smaller planet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seraph316
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Planet Surface
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the hypothesis that Earth was once a smaller planet and that the addition of water could have caused the supercontinent Pangaea to split into separate continents. Participants refute this idea, asserting that the Earth has undergone numerous supercontinent cycles explained by plate tectonics, rather than a dramatic change in size or water levels. The consensus is that the scenario proposed is not workable, as geological processes over billions of years account for the formation and breakup of supercontinents.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of plate tectonics and supercontinent cycles
  • Knowledge of geological time scales, specifically billions of years
  • Familiarity with Earth's formation and the role of water in geological processes
  • Basic concepts of planetary science and accretion theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the supercontinent cycle and its implications in geology
  • Study plate tectonics and its role in continental drift
  • Explore Earth's formation theories, including accretion and atmospheric development
  • Investigate geological time scales and their significance in understanding Earth's history
USEFUL FOR

Geologists, earth scientists, students of planetary science, and anyone interested in the historical processes that shaped Earth's continents.

Seraph316
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I feel curious about Earth having one supercontinent in a global ocean; it seems a little lobsided.

Could it be that, once upon a time, Earth was much smaller, and then water was added?

If a small planet was somehow globally deluged (No, not Noah's Ark - millions of years earlier) would the sudden new weight massively compress and lower or even sink some of the land levels, and maybe split the surface - Pangaea - into new continents? If a lot of water broke through and stayed underground while more water at sea level became more ocean, would this result in the planet swelling, and land masses seeming to separate proportionately, like maps drawn on a swelling balloon? Did water split Pangaea? If so, where did it all come from?

Please tell me if this is possibly a workable scenario. Thanks.

Seraph316.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
Seraph316 said:
I feel curious about Earth having one supercontinent in a global ocean; it seems a little lobsided.
What's wrong with "lopsided"?

Work out how much the Earth would have been "lopsided" by. You'll see it's only a very tiny proportion of the overall radius.

Could it be that, once upon a time, Earth was much smaller, and then water was added?
I think the standard approach has water being in the atmosphere and raining down later - so, "water was added" in that sense. But what's wrong with the water arriving during the accretion and early formation?

If a small planet was somehow globally deluged (No, not Noah's Ark - millions of years earlier)
Your time-frame is still too short. Try replacing "millions" with "billions".

would the sudden new weight massively compress and lower or even sink some of the land levels, and maybe split the surface - Pangaea - into new continents? If a lot of water broke through and stayed underground while more water at sea level became more ocean, would this result in the planet swelling, and land masses seeming to separate proportionately, like maps drawn on a swelling balloon? Did water split Pangaea? If so, where did it all come from?

Please tell me if this is possibly a workable scenario. Thanks.

Seraph316.
OK - the short answer is "no", it's not a workable scenario.
I can see why you'd look for something dramatic like that if you are thinking in terms of mere million-year timescales though.
 
Seraph316 said:
Could it be that, once upon a time, Earth was much smaller, and then water was added?
No.

If a small planet was somehow globally deluged (No, not Noah's Ark - millions of years earlier) would the sudden new weight massively compress and lower or even sink some of the land levels, and maybe split the surface - Pangaea - into new continents?
No.

Please tell me if this is possibly a workable scenario.
It's not.

The Earth has seen a number of supercontinents form and then break up, Pangaea being but the most recent. The supercontinent cycle is easily explained by plate tectonics.


This forum is not the place to expound personal theories. Read our rules. Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
19K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
10K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K