6
$\begingroup$

The thing I find most interesting about Pangaea is that, if all the landmasses were connected, it leaves a massive amount of uninterrupted ocean everywhere else. It seems to suggest that there is a significant difference between the two areas of Earth; one area being where Pangaea was located, and the other area being the rest of Earth.

Why would only that portion of the Earth be above water? Is there something significant about where Pangaea was located which made it different from the rest of the Earth?

$\endgroup$
11
$\begingroup$

The formation and break up of supercontinents have happened throughout Earth's history in almost a cyclical manner. There may have been many others supercontinents before Pangaea and the total number of such is uncertain. The 4 last supercontinents are: Nuna (some other people call it Columbia) that was present in the period 2.0–1.8 Ga (billion years ago or 1000 million years ago, if you use the long notation); Rodinia that formed around 1.1 Ga and lasted until about 750 Ma; Pannotia that lasted 650-560 Ma; and finally, Pangaea.

The location of the supercontinents seems to have varied throughout Earth's history and it doesn't seem likely that there was something special about the location of Pangaea, except the underlying forces of plate tectonics.

Here is good animation of the evolution in time of the different supercontinents.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ interesting stuff. these supercontinents. $\endgroup$ – gansub Dec 17 '15 at 15:05
5
$\begingroup$

You asked

Why did all the land mass [Pangaea] form in one area?

It didn't "form" in one area; the continents were simply joined together through the process of continental drift. To put it another way, the continents were formed in various locations before they were united - though the formation of continents never really stops.

It seems to suggest that there is a significant difference between the two areas of Earth; one area being where Pangaea was located, and the other area being the rest of Earth.

This statement doesn't make sense (to me, at least). There was an obvious difference between Pangaea and the surrounding sea - but there would be a dramatic difference wherever Pangaea was located. Similarly, there's a major difference between contemporary North America (or any other continent) and the surrounding sea.

Why would only that portion of the Earth be above water?

For the same reason only the Americas, Eurasia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica and various islands are above water today.

Is there something significant about where Pangaea was located which made it different from the rest of the Earth?

That's a hard question to answer. You're asking if there was something special not about Pangaea but about its location. Pangaea would have been underlain by its continental plate(s), which was structurally part of Pangaea.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Just to add, cause I don't see it in the answers above. Continents are no heavier than oceans. As far as the Earth is concerned, they weigh about the same and they drift according to the flow of the mantle underneath.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0c45130b76a53362063b36df567c5d08

Like marshmallows in cocoa, sometimes they will drift and touch (and by touch, I mean, crash into each other and form Himalaya sized mountain ranges) and sometimes they will float apart. There's nothing strange about the continents all being together.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.