Is Pangea true?

[seeker]

This video on You tube has a very radical theory WOW

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI

 

lets chat about it...I am dying to

[Sisyphus]

So... no mention of how the Earth is doubling in size, creating huge quantities of mass out of nowhere? No explanation of why subduction is "impossible," beyond merely asserting it? No mention of any of the many phenomena that plate tectonics explains but this does not, like (from Wikipedia)...

 

1. The existence of Wadati-Benioff zones, elongated regions of high seismic activity within the crust and mantle that are explained as huge shear zones. These zones are located beneath oceanic trenches and seem to indicate a slice of crustal material is moving downward through the mantle. They form one of the best arguments for subduction but cannot be explained by an expanding Earth model.

2. 3D models of the mantle made with seismic tomography show cold zones of sinking material exactly in the regions where plate tectonics predicts slabs of crust are subducting into the mantle.

3. Petrologic research of rocks from mountain belts has yielded countless pressure-temperature-time paths. Paths for the axial zones of mountain belts (the metamorphic core) show many mountain chains went through a period of "deep burial". This is nicely explained by plate tectonics (subduction followed by obduction). An expanding Earth cannot explain the observed vertical motions, rather, it would predict mostly horizontal motions in the process of mountainbuilding. The existence of eclogite in many mountainbelts indicates material was "pushed" to depths far into the mantle (depths up to over 200 km are found). A mechanical force to push (less dense) crustal rocks to these depths is lacking in an expanding Earth model; in plate tectonics this is explained by the slab pull force which occurs at mid-ocean ridges.

4. The existence of major geologic shearzones (sutures) in most mountain belts. Paleomagnetic and mineralogic studies show the rocks that are now lying next to each other were originally thousands of kilometers apart. In other words: a piece of the crust is missing. Structural geology has shown these missing pieces of crust are not located directly underneath the shearzones or laterally. Instead, they seem to have moved along the sutures into the mantle (this is supported by shear indicators in the shear zones). This is again strong evidence that subduction took place and mountains form by the "continental collision" of tectonic plates. The expanding Earth model does not explain the deep reaching shearzones.

5. Rare earth isotope compositions of volcanic rocks that formed above subduction zones are similar to those of sediments on top of the subducting plate. If there are lateral differences in the isotope composition of sediments on subducting plates, these lateral differences are also found back in the composition of the magma that rose from the deeper part of the subduction zone.

 

So yeah, in short, there are lots of reasons this is considered pure pseudoscience. In general, anyone claiming massive "scientific conspiracies" is almost always just a quack.