Talk:Pangaea Proxima

message: I think Pangaea Ultima shuld be complete 200 millon years from now. animalAM7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimalAM7 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this stuff seems like a guess. Does anyone have any citations to add for some of these statements? Brandonrush 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This idea goes against what I'm being taught in my current geology class (Fall 2007).  This information needs to be disseminated to the wider geologic community for study and debate, as the current train of thought being passed on to students in my area is that the new "Pangaea" will form by eliminating the Pacific ocean basin/spreading of the Atlantic. sm32404 14:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this page would make a good citation and image for the article. Orthografer 18:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Worse than a guess, it ignores known facts on the ground today.  The most glaring ommission is the African Rift.  Africa cannot remain whole in the future.  An educated guess is that the African rift will split Africa at least from Ethiopia to Malawi, and open a new sea, and which will also split Israel and Lebanon off from Asia.  The mid-Atlantic ridge is the most powerful ridge of all, it is the one that should be assumed to dominate, that is driving South America into Australia.  North America seems to not to be driven West, but at a slip-fault (San Andreas) at its margin.  Africa and India should continue to drive North, driving Siberia over the arctic.  The Antarctic might well continue to drive into the Pacific, which may get in the way of South America driving West, and it may split at the mid-Atlantic ridge.  There is ample room for guesses.  There is no room for ignoring facts on the ground. Bbharim (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guessing

message: References in the Future is Wild to "Pangaea II" are actually referencing to Amasia. I wonder how many of the other "Appearances in culture" are doing the same thing. My guess is a lot. Neitherday (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Amasia

message: These statesments about sun and its fate, and becoming a white dwarf should be remove. This article is about the continents, and they obviously have nothing to do with the article.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 23:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun's fate 

message: Wow; this article is ina great damger. I did white-out speculation stuff without providing source. 300 to 600 million years, we don't know how the continents will play. Earth will be much mor greenhouse than now, infact 100 million years from now, Earth will be hot and sticky. South Africa would have almost hit the equator, and Australia would have merge with Eurasia. North and South America would be futher west, not certain if it would move north. In Fact some say in 500 million time, Earth's life would have end.--Freewayguy Msg USC 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orange tag 

message: What is the point of an article that is based on an image that is copyrighted and sold by a spammy site? Unless there's an image, I believe that this article should be eliminated, or added as a one-line observation in the Pangaea article. Albmont (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link I post below makes most sense. Americas is both moving north and west, Greenland will eventually touch the north pole and tip of South America connect up latitude with 35 or so. After when the deep blue Atlantic is wide enough, it will begin to shut, that's after 100 million years, then Americas back southeast, Antartica will move north, and slowly become less whiter.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This smells like spam spirit, not science 

message: This site if is valid is probably the ones we want. Update 2007. North and South America in about 100 million years show to move further west and forther north, and Greenland will be all the way up to North Pole. Of course in less than 50 MY Europe will move southeast and closing of course Black Sea, meitt sea, all the european sea masses. Pangaea ultima is all single continets one small hole of indian ocean. The Scotese site may be old. And Antartica will start mivng north in about 100 million years, and should be up to subtropic by 200 million years.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can somebody fix this article. I don't have time.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The NY Times article in question is already cited here. — Lomn 20:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I would implement this source overplace Scotese in 2000. This shows complete slide, Scotese in 2000's site is less detail and less update. But when you cite in 5 times they will start at the beginning, even if the slide cursor highlihgt in black is on the fourth site. Scotese also have an animination, you drag the continents yourself, also shows the same movements.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

text: This  is the animation, is most commonly run and complete than the maps Scotese drawn himself.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 2007 

message: This page was moved from "Pangaea Ultima" to "Pangaea Proxima" with the comment that the latter is a more common name.  I don't believe this is correct.  I've never even heard it called "Pangaea Proxima", which isn't a good start.  A little Google searching also supports the conclusion that Ultima is the more commonly used name.
                 	Google	Google Scholar	Google Books
"Pangaea Ultima" 	4550  	15            	58
"Pangaea Proxima"	367   	1             	2
Limitations of Google testing aside, I would support restoring the previous name, as I feel it is more common.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: This is to the guy whos bickering over the name, it may be more common were he/she lives, cant blame em for thinking that, either way though, I think the whole "pangaea" name should be taken out and just call it ultima or proxima, yknow? Also if you dont like the name the dude gave it, move it back, or change it to your likeing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTacoMan (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, maybe the name fits better 

message: Well first off, Like the other guy said, I didnt think about ggogle searching before I changed it. But like the other other dude said, many people including my professors, freinds, family etc. say proxima, I have no clue why. Myself I say Ultima but who realy cares. Would it matter if it were called digzel mcfiffenel? no, as long as the article still gives us the facts, thats what counts. Feel free to change it back. And one more thing, they SHOULD change the name to something official without the word pangaea in it. Like "Ultima", or "Proxima", or "Omega" or something. But as long as theres no official name, who cares.--Aurongurdian (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change, the reason 

message: The whole "Amasia, Novopangea, and Pangea Proxima are discussed in the book Supercontinent by Ted Nield, and illustrated in "Pangaea, the comeback" in the New Scientist magazine issued 20 October 2007" thing is pasted on all three pages mentioned, those being Amasia, Novopangaea, and Pangaea. They can't even be bothered to spellcheck. Shameless (and lazy) advertising to me.
Seems to me like someone is trying to promote their book; there is no particular reason why these mentions are noteworthy by themselves. If anything this sort of shameless plugging only makes Ted Nield look bad.  112.201.51.47 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Copypasta Spam 

message: I find there is a bit of dicrepency between the second section and the third. "According to the Pangaea Ultima hypothesis" and "Other theories" (heading). I find this could be confusing, as it implies that pangaea ultima is a theory, when it says clearly in the aforementioned area that it is but a hypothesis. Perhaps that should be looked into. Just my two cents.--69.165.219.252 (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a theory, and hardly even a hypothesis -- I would characterize it more as a wild-ass guess.  It was really never intended to be more than a plausible possibility -- Scotese never said otherwise, but unfortunately some writers have taken his pictures more seriously than he intended.  There just isn't sufficient understanding of plate tectonic mechanics to make meaningful predictions that far into the future.  (The trick is to say all that in an encyclopedic way.) Looie496 (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed--it seems highly unlikely to me. Most other predictions don't predict an atlantic rift, anyway. Oceans formed by divergent rifts have opened up completely without subduction zones forming before, so why this time? Dayshade (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it as those proposed supercontinents aren't based on theories, more like science fiction based on current science. Vsmith (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory or Hypothesis? 

message: Not too sure how this estimation came about, however, I have studied from a professor who graduated from the University of Iceland who quoted that he suggests based on study of the continental plate movement that a landmass moves at a rate of 1 inch per year. He created a project where he took a nail from a given point in the ice (of course he may have been on Greenland for this experiment) and measured it from a continental plate that is visible to the ground and runs along the landmass. The data that I have developed from this scientist concludes that by this estimation, 1 foot is equal to 12 years, and 1 mile is equal to 63,360 years. Based on the measurement that we have in miles, we can take a point from one continent to the other (say from New York to London), estimate a crow flight distance from one point to another and come to the answer of 219,558,049.9 Years. Of course, this may not be an accurate reading because London does not reach the closest point England has to the United states, so it most certainly be less. However, don't be tricked. This is not the official estimation when Pangea Ultima will be formed. By the time you have connected Europe and North America together, there are other measurements you have to take into consideration, like how long will it be until the Australian plate come in contact with the San Andreas fault, or connect to Asia. So after estimating the movements of the landmasses, figure out how much space needs to be covered before the last continent conforms with the new singular piece of land. Not only that, it is my personal prediction with its own imperfections that if Australia really did connect with the San Andreas fault, the fault would come together and push up as more and more of Australia keeps pushing into the coast of California possibly creating the largest mountain range on Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamapounds (talk • contribs) 
:There is no "official estimate" of when Pangaea Ultima will form.  In fact, there is no reason based on established science to believe that it will form at all:  as the article tries to make clear, Pangaea Ultima was invented by Christopher Scotese on the basis of a very speculative simulation.  In order to change the information in this article, we would need a reputable published source that specifically uses the name "Pangaea Ultima".  Does such a source exist? Looie496 (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A correction to Pangea Ultima 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pangaea Ultima. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405145237/http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Pangea/Pangea9.html to http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Pangea/Pangea9.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Per the opening paragraph of the article itself (as of March 2018), the very person who put forward the original proposition of this potential future supercontinent in question in the first place has changed his titling of same to Pangaea Proxima to "reduce confusion" about the title "Pangaea Ultima"'s implying it is the "last" supercontinent. Given this fact (and said proposer's subsequently referring to said concept exclusively as such); that (anecdotally) it seems the PP name is somewhat more widespread than the PU version; and that wikipedia strives for providing the most currently-accurate information (rather than having one of its primary goals be, say, the ossification of historical (sensu lato) perspectives (for, although rummaging about in the subterranean bowels of the Article Change-Log Caves can certainly provide the requisite underlying historical references for such a goal, this is, nevertheless, not a primary aim of the site at this time, afaiui)), I am led to Extremely Strongly Think™ this article ought to be renamed to this preferred, more widespread (perhaps), and most importantly, both the currently-intended *and* the far less Potentially Misleading title of (ahem) <reverb> Pangaea Proxima </reverb (after sufficient pause)>, with the name Pangaea Ultima remaining perpetually as a redirect target to this updated name, thereby making sure any party looking for this older label will be brought to their (presumably) intended search result. (And, For The Record, I also think this is a sort of dead-obvious thing to do, in light of A) the very facts currently listed on the page itself, B) existing and historical wikipedia precedent when it comes to titling of articles with multiple available choices, and C) the much-maligned yet still apposite concept of Common Sense. But, of course, what is dead-obvious to me may seem quite questionable to, psssh, say, oh… MARTIANS, for example (not to imply anything about any of my potential polar-opposite-viewpoint-holders, of course — just sayin': it's quite conceivable that Martians just might find it questionable, mkay?).) Ahem. So… Thoughts? :o) Saturn comes back around (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your renaming suggestion seems reasonable to me. One small point about the spelling, however. I think Wikipedia uses Pangaea rather than Pangea only because of historical precidence in article edits by non-American editors (also applies to the Pangaea article.) Scotese seems to have named the possible future supercontinent "Pangea Proxima" not "Pangaea Proxima" - see his website . (Also, I think his original name was Pangea Ultima not Pangaea Ultima). Therefore, it seems logical to me that Pangaea Ultima should be renamed to Pangea Proxima, not Pangaea Proxima. (The Pangaea article should remain as Pangaea.) GeoWriter (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

text: I've decided to go through with the move and have edited the article accordingly. Itswikisam (talk) 6:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROPOSAL: article name change to Pangaea Proxima 

message: The article claims:
South America is predicted to be wrapped around the southern tip of Africa and Antarctica, completely enclosing the Medi-Pangaean Sea, which will become a supertoxic inland sea that begins to poison the surrounding oceans, lands and atmosphere, leading to another great extinction event.[7]
That claim should be supported by source 7, but that source (heavily cited in the article), does not deal with the future evolution of earth, it only discusses the past 750million years. That needs to be removed and other claims citing 7 should be revised Inkms (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported claims