Here is a rebuttal against Neal Adams "Pangea... Possible... No it is not... And this is why" video:
Neal Adams Pangaea Video:
Neal Adams claims to have mathematically proved that Pangaea could not exist, using simple physics and calculations. Fair
enough, he is not a physicists or a mathematician, and I can't argue with that. On the flip side, I am not a physicist of
a mathematician, however I have taken some advanced calculus, linear algebra and geophysics courses in my day. I am a scientists
and a geologist though. That been said, I can argue against Neal's math. Now, I just want to remind you all that a mathematical
proof of something is very powerful. A mathematical proof can make or break scientific theories, so this isn't just an exercise.
Neal Adams claims that when the "classic" Pangaea configuration had assembled 250 million years ago, the centerofmass
of the Earth would be heavily weighted on the continental side by a ratio of 4:1. This would cause heavy flooding of the Panthalassic
Ocean (or global ocean) and the opposite side would be exposed.
I will mathematically prove that Neal Adams math skills are faulty and lacking. In his video, the gives values for density
of granite, basalt and water. However, those values are inaccurate. But, that doesn't matter, because they are not off by
much.
I would also like to note that Neal Adams has the configuration of Pangaea wrong. His video has the supercontinent going EastWest,
while current Plate Tectonic Theory has it going NorthSouth like the picture in the previous page.
Mathematical Proof: Here is a list of the following equation I will be using:
Density = mass/volume
Mass = density*volume
Volume = Area*depth
* Density conversions are not shown, however are accurate.
** The format of my equation are only going to be spelled out once in order to save time and space.
*** Present day values of area and thickness are applicable for Pangaea because the overall geometry of Pangaea matches
those of today.
List of facts known (even by Neal Adams):
Average thickness of continental crust: 30km
Average thickness of oceanic crust: 9km
Average depth of the ocean: 3km (*Neal Adams value is 4km)
Area covered by continental crust: 148,939,100 km2
Area covered by water (and by default, oceanic crust): 361,126,400 km2
Average density of continental crust (granite): 2.75g/cm3 = 2.75x1012 kg/km3 (*Neal Adams value is 2.5g/cm3)
Average density of oceanic crust (basalt/gabbro): 3.3g/cm3 = 3.3x1012 kg/km3 (*Neal Adams value is 3.0 – 3.3g/cm3)
Average density of Sea Water: 1.025gmL1 = 1.025x1012 kg/km3 (*Neal Adams value is 1.0g/cm3)
Mass of the Earth: 5.9736x1024kg
* The values I have listed are the overall consensus given by the scientific community. Neal Adams has his own values,
however they are close.
Volume of continental crust = Area of continental crust * average depth
Volume continent = A continent * Davg
Vcont. = 148,939,100 km2 * 30 km = 4,468,173,000 km3
Mass of continental crust = Average density of cont. crust * Cont. Crust volume
Mcont. = RhoCont * Vcont.
Mcont. = 2.75x1012 kg/km12 * 4,468,173,000 km3
Mcont. = 1.228743575x1022 kg
Now this looks like a huge mass for the continents, considering that the mass of the Earth is 5.9736x1024, however it
only makes up 0.2% of the Earths total mass. This makes sense because the crust is such a small portion of the Earth.
Voceanic crust = 361,126,400 km2 * 9 km = 3,250,137,600 km3
RhoOceanic. = 3.3x1012 kg/km3
Moceanic. = 1.072545408x1022 kg
Vwater = 361,126,400 km2 * 3km = 1,083,379,200 km3
RhoWater = 1.025x1012 kg/km3
Mwater = 1.11046368x1021 kg
Now to find the ratio, to actually see if Neal Adams 4:1 ratio (favoring the continent) is actually true.
MO = Moceanic. + Mwater = 1.183591776x1022 kg
MO / Mcont. = 1.183591776x1022 kg / 1.228743575x1022 kg = 0.9632536846 = 96.32536846%
This math here proves that the 4:1 ratio that Neal Adams claims is faulty. In fact, albeit with some calculation errors due
to rounding, the oceanic side and continental side completely balance one another in an almost perfect 1:1 ratio. I have not
altered or falsified these values or calculations. These are the values and calculated values from those given by the general
scientific community that can be found in any geology, physics or math textbook.
Note: this is just a very rough estimate. However, the values of the area of the ocean and continental crusts, and density
of granite and basalt/gabbro are accurately calculated and measured by geophysical instruments and calculation (done be mathematicians
and physicists far better at math then me). Please note, that even though curvature of the Earth is not taken into account,
this math here still holds true.
Pangaea and Plate Tectonic Theory make sense within the realm of science, more specifically in this case, physics and
mathematics. Neal Adams using fancy videos and faulty math to gain support for his idea. Don't believe it. At least here,
I've provided my calculation and list of equations and facts that I used in determining my answer, unlike Neal Adams. I have
given you all my work in order for it to be peerreviewed and critiqued, like science is usually done. If there is an error
in my work or my assumptions, do not hesitate to reply.
Link to a "clearer" mathematical proof:
Well, i bet you are all saying "well thats all good an all, but what does that prove?" What this here math proves
is that:
1) Neal Adams is lying about his calculations on Pangaea.
2) That my calculations basically show that in Plate Tectonic Theory, it holds up mathematically, which is very powerful.
ie) 2 + 2 = 4 in Plate Tectonic Theory.
3) My calculations also show that in Neal Adams model of the Earth, 2 + 2 = 5. Your all good in arithmetic, thats not
right.
