Neal Adams: 06 – Pangea Proven Wrong

Neal Adams 06 - Pangea Proven Wrong

Neal Adams also utilises his graphical skills to demonstrate that Pangea is Wrong.



Pangaea or Pangea was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras.

It assembled from earlier continental units approximately 300 million years ago, and it began to break apart about 175 million years ago.

In contrast to the present Earth and its distribution of continental mass, much of Pangaea was in the southern hemisphere and surrounded by a super ocean, Panthalassa. Pangaea was the last supercontinent to have existed and the first to be reconstructed by geologists.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Catastrophism, Earth, Geology, Geomagnetism, Glaciology, History, Science, Solar System. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Neal Adams: 06 – Pangea Proven Wrong

  1. Pari Spolter says:

    Equating the gravitational force with the quantity or density of inert matter is incorrect. The correct interpretation of Kepler’s third law is: Gravitational force is equal to acceleration times the area: F = a . A. The weight of a body is equal to its mass times the acceleration: W = m . a. Weight is not Force. Please see my book GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF THE SUN, my articles “New concepts in Gravitation” in PHYSICS ESSAYS, Volume18, (2005), pages 37–49, “Problems with the Gravitational Constant” in INFINITE ENERGY, Volume 10, No. 59, (2005), page 39, and
    Pari Spolter
    Biography of Dr. Pari Spolter is in Contemporary Authors, Volume 163.

  2. gymnosperm says:

    You can’t just write off subduction.

    The subduction of the Pacific below east Eurasia is very clear seismologically and is further supported by Benioff zones of shallow earthquakes.

    There is every reason to believe some subduction would occur from all that spreading and it will reduce the amount of growth required, helping satisfy the “principle of least astonishment”.

    We can watch the continents currently “moving” with GPS, but these measurements must be tied to a surface reference which might be moving in relation to the center of mass if the planet is growing. Still, there must be a way to parse the GRACE and other satellite data to find out if the planet is in fact growing, unless their orbits were also growing in perfect symmetry.

  3. gymnosperm says:

    Incidentally, the graphics could also be visually true without planetary growth if new ocean floor buried substantial continental areas. A Russian school of geology led by Vladimir Beloussov (which dismissed plate tectonics out of hand) has long maintained that vast continental areas have “sunk”. This notion is supported by lots of drilling results that find felsic materials in the ocean basins where they should not be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.