• jaaake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Every time I see Pangea, I have the same thought. Before I say it, I should preface that I know nothing about plate tectonics or geology or planetary physics or any other related science.

    Are we sure that’s how it was? I mean the whole one continent and the rest of the globe is ocean. Is there a chance that in addition to the super continent, the planet was also way smaller? Like maybe that continent wrapped around the majority of a smaller sphere instead of just one clump on one side of the current size of the sphere.

    • humorlessrepost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not sure if troll, too lazy to respond just in case.

      If not troll, tldr: no, the energy required would liquify (or worse) the earth.

      • jaaake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not trolling, just ignorant on most related sciences.

        Honestly, that much continental drift (Pangea to modern geography) seems so unbelievable to me. For some reason it’s easier to wrap my head around the globe expanding from a roughly Pangea sized sphere and the cracks between the continental shelves filling with water as the sphere got bigger.

        I feel like to someone who is familiar with this science, this probably sounds like me saying “Yeah, but a flat earth just makes more sense.”