My India Challenge

[Nithavela]

Just out of curiosities sake, AV, I assume that you do not believe the whole plate tectonic stuff, but do you accept our understanding of todays state of plate tectonics? As in "there are plates in the earths crust, they are moving and so are the landmasses on those plates" and so on? Or do you think that it's all the kind of science that can take a hike and that the earth is made up completely differently?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just out of curiosities sake, AV, I assume that you do not believe the whole plate tectonic stuff, but do you accept our understanding of todays state of plate tectonics?

Yes.

And for the record, I do believe plates are underneath us, moving things around.

I even believe plates are shoving India into the Eurasian continent, causing the Himalayas to increase in height.

I just don't believe India crossed the waters and hit the continent and so on.

As in "there are plates in the earths crust, they are moving and so are the landmasses on those plates" and so on?

Yes, indeed.

And thanks for asking that.

It helps clarify my position.

Or do you think that it's all the kind of science that can take a hike and that the earth is made up completely differently?

Nope.

I accept the science of plate tectonics to a point.

I just don't believe they are responsible for everything academia says they are.

 

[Nithavela]

Yes.

And for the record, I do believe plates are underneath us, moving things around.

I even believe plates are shoving India into the Eurasian continent, causing the Himalayas to increase in height.

I just don't believe India crossed the waters and hit the continent and so on.



Yes, indeed.

And thanks for asking that.

It helps clarify my position.



Nope.

I accept the science of plate tectonics to a point.

I just don't believe they are responsible for everything academia says they are.

So then your answer to your own challenge would be "still connected to the eurasian continent, just about 300 meter longer to the south"?Though I guess anything before Noah's flood would be impossible to discern, anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

So then your answer to your own challenge would be "still connected to the eurasian continent, just about 300 meter longer to the south"?Though I guess anything before Noah's flood would be impossible to discern, anyway.

Let's use this map of Pangaea to demonstrate what I believe:

At the breakup of Pangaea in Peleg's time, simply place your finger on India and move it up to Eurasia.

 

[Nithavela]

Let's use this map of Pangaea to demonstrate what I believe:

View attachment 342775

At the breakup of Pangaea in Peleg's time, simply place your finger on India and move it up to Eurasia.

Do you have any inkling on the timeline of indias speed? Did it move there in a matter of minutes? days? years? Instantaneously?

And I guess that any of the other pieces of pangaea also moved to their current-ish place at the same time and speed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have any inkling on the timeline of indias speed?

I do not.

Did it move there in a matter of minutes? days? years? Instantaneously?

I'm going to go with "instantaneously," although I wasn't there.

The Bible simply says, "In his days":

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Given that Peleg live 239 years:

Genesis 11:17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.
18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters.

It could be anywhere from instantaneously to 239 years.

But for the record, I'll go with "instantaneously."

And I guess that any of the other pieces of pangaea also moved to their current-ish place at the same time and speed?

Correct.

And again, thank you for allowing me to clarify my position on this.

Good questions!

 

[Occams Barber]

Can you show me this?

Hi @Kylie

I used a global map of the Earth at the time of Pangea (see post 49) to get an approximation of the position (latitude and longitude) of India in Pangean times.

I transferred this position to a modern map to get an approximation of Pangean Indias location relative to current geography. This approximation should be roughly correct providing the lat/long on the Pangean map (post 49) is correct.

OB

 

[Kylie]

Post 57

Given the facts of continental drift, the reversal of Earth's magnetic field and the effects of precession, I don't see how this can be used to find a fixed point on the Earth's surface that stays the same over billions of years.

After all, how can you claim that there's a fixed point unless you specify what it's fixed in relation to?

 

[Kylie]

Hi @Kylie

I used a global map of the Earth at the time of Pangea (see post 49) to get an approximation of the position (latitude and longitude) of India in Pangean times.

I transferred this position to a modern map to get an approximation of Pangean Indias location relative to current geography. This approximation should be roughly correct providing the lat/long on the Pangean map (post 49) is correct.

OB

But this requires a point that you can show was fixed in pangean times and is still fixed in the same position today. How can you do this?

 

[Occams Barber]

But this requires a point that you can show was fixed in pangean times and is still fixed in the same position today. How can you do this?

Latitude and longitude haven't changed. The Pangea globe in post 49 shows approx latitude and longitude allowing for an approximation of the position of the India bit of Pangea.

Locating the same lat/long on a modern globe indicates roughly where India was relative to modern geography. In this case, off the African coast in the Mozambique Channel.

 

[Astrophile]

If India "torpedoed" into the Asian continent at the rate of 2cm/year, forming the Himalayan Mountains, where out in the ocean was India's starting point, and how did scientists ascertain it?

Please note: I want an exact starting point in the ocean where India began its journey, as I'm using this challenge to point out that science chisels and force-fits their data to get the results they're looking for.

It may take several tries, a computer, and several moments of "back to the drawing board" to force their conclusions to agree with other scientific disciplines (such as astronomy), but with the aid of computers it can be done.

So please tell me:

Where exactly was India's starting point, according to current models?

So far as I know, India didn't start in the ocean. It was part of the super-continent of Gondwanaland and was freed to move northwards and collide with Asia after Gondwanaland broke up.

 

[AV1611VET]

So far as I know, India didn't start in the ocean. It was part of the super-continent of Gondwanaland and was freed to move northwards and collide with Asia after Gondwanaland broke up.

Okay.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Occams Barber]

So far as I know, India didn't start in the ocean. It was part of the super-continent of Gondwanaland and was freed to move northwards and collide with Asia after Gondwanaland broke up.

Parts of Gonwana and Laurasia eventually formed Pangea - the most recent supercontinent.

Gondwana and Pangea

Abstract. Pangea, the most recent supercontinent, attained its condition of maximum packing at ~250 Ma. At this time, it consisted of a northern part, Laur

academic.oup.com

This thread has been largely about straightening AV out on the geographical relationship between Pangea and the part of Pangea which would eventually become India. (see posts 49 on).

 

[Ophiolite]

Where exactly was India's starting point, according to current models?

Define India.

 

[AV1611VET]

Define India.

Will a pic do?

 

[Kylie]

Latitude and longitude haven't changed. The Pangea globe in post 49 shows approx latitude and longitude allowing for an approximation of the position of the India bit of Pangea.

Locating the same lat/long on a modern globe indicates roughly where India was relative to modern geography. In this case, off the African coast in the Mozambique Channel.

Okay, and how do we determine latitude and longitude?

 

[Occams Barber]

Okay, and how do we determine latitude and longitude?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

If it's about the latitude and longitude of Pangean India, I took it from the map below published in Live Science (see post #49).

I have assumed the latitude and longitude figures are based on scientific study of continental drift along with analogous landforms, climate and botanical zones which shows how things "fitted together" over time as well as approximate past locations relative to the current locations of Pangea's bits.

Facts About Pangaea, Ancient Supercontinent

Pangaea is Earth's most recent supercontinent, which existed 320 million to 195 million years ago.

www.livescience.com

OB

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

If it's about the latitude and longitude of Pangean India, I took it from the map below published in Live Science (see post #49).

I have assumed the latitude and longitude figures are based on scientific study of continental drift along with analogous landforms, climate and botanical zones which shows how things "fitted together" over time as well as approximate past locations relative to the current locations of Pangea's bits.

View attachment 343575

Facts About Pangaea, Ancient Supercontinent

Pangaea is Earth's most recent supercontinent, which existed 320 million to 195 million years ago.

www.livescience.com

OB

I think the point @Kylie may be making is that the allocation of longitude is entirely arbitrary. We have no fixed location on the crust, only relative positions. Thus on the map the 0 deg. meridian appears to pass through Greenwich - a weird coincidence unless the selection is deliberate. (Arbitrarily deliberate!)

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have assumed the latitude and longitude figures are based on scientific study of continental drift along with analogous landforms, climate and botanical zones which shows how things "fitted together" over time as well as approximate past locations relative to the current locations of Pangea's bits.

It looks more like it is the location of Pangea's Brits.

 

[Occams Barber]

I think the point @Kylie may be making is that the allocation of longitude is entirely arbitrary. We have no fixed location on the crust, only relative positions. Thus on the map the 0 deg. meridian appears to pass through Greenwich - a weird coincidence unless the selection is deliberate. (Arbitrarily deliberate!)

I've assumed that the wealth of evidence for the existence of Pangea can also be applied to reverse engineer its movements over time. The Live Science map appears to corroborate this. Since we know India's current position in relation to longitude and latitude, this reverse engineering should allow for a rough prediction of where it was 250 mya.

The fact that Greenwich's position on the 0 meridian hasn't changed much may indicate that whatever forces drive tectonic plate movement haven't had much effect on land masses in the general area of Greenwich. For instance, I would expect centrifugal forces at the Equator to be greater than similar forces at the Poles. The degree of movement due to tectonic plate forces varies across the globe.

I happily admit I could be wrong about all this. I've basically assumed that the Live Science map can be scientifically justified although I have yet to find anything backing this up apart from the map itself.

OB