New Study Finds Lost Continent Was Sunk By Pacific Ring of Fire
What sank the lost continent of Zealandia? If you said its crust was too thin to support this land mass – only recently (2017) confirmed to be a continent and not a piece broken off of the ancient supercontinent original continent of Gondwana – then you’re a follower of the conventional wisdom shared by most modern geophysicists (a good crowd to be in).
However, this conventional wisdom may have been upended by an unconventional new theory that the demise of Zealandia was actually caused by the birth of something we’re still dealing with – not to mention fearing – today … the circle of active volcanoes known as the Pacific Ring of Fire.
“We propose a “subduction resurrection” model in which a subduction rupture event activated lithospheric-scale faults across a broad region during less than ~5 m.y., and tectonic forces evolved over a further 4–8 m.y. as subducted slabs grew in size and drove plate-motion change. Such a subduction rupture event may have involved nucleation and lateral propagation of slip-weakening rupture along an interconnected set of preexisting weaknesses adjacent to density anomalies.”
Run that paragraph, from a new study published in the journal Geology, through Google’s Geophysicist-to-English translator, and you’ll find it means that one tectonic plate converged on another and sank it (subduction) back deep into the earth, causing violent plate movements that enlarged a ring of pre-existing small ruptures until they simultaneously created a string of new supervolcanoes that became the Pacific Ring of Fire. If your browser doesn’t support the Geophysicist-to-English translator, study authors Rupert Sutherland, Professor of tectonics and geophysics and Victoria University of Wellington, and Gerald Dickens, Professor at Rice University in Houston, do a nice job in The Conversation of explaining what happened next.
“The subduction rupture event included unique geological phenomena that that have no present-day comparison, and there may have been fewer than 100 such massive events since Earth formed. Our new evidence from Zealandia shows these events can dramatically alter the geography of continents.”
“Alter” in this case means turn a continent into a lost continent. Zealandia today is 94{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} submerged under the Pacific, making it difficult to study. This is why it took until 2017 to confirm it was actually a continent. That’s when Sutherland, Dickens and a team of 32 scientists formed the Tasman Frontier Subduction Initiation and Paleogene Climate International Ocean Discovery Program Expedition (try fitting that on a T-shirt) to obtain new fossil samples that might better explain what sank Zealandia. They drilled holes up to 864 meters (2835 feet) deep where the water was up to 5 km (3.1 miles) deep at six remote sites to collect sediment samples from the center of the lost continent. Those samples contained the birth announcement of the Pacific Ring of Fire.
“We don’t know where or why, but something happened that locally induced movement, and when the fault started to slip, like in an earthquake the motion rapidly spread sideways onto adjacent parts of the fault system and then around the western Pacific.”
As Sutherland explained in a press release, this movement caused portions of northern Zealandia to rise 1-2 km (.6 to 1.2 miles) while other parts dropped underwater by the same amount sections until the entire continent sank to twice that depth and more. The study shows that this event coincided with “the bend in the Emperor-Hawaii seamount chain, the reorientation of numerous mid-ocean ridges, and the onset of subduction—and the related volcanism and seismicity” – events that signified the birth of the Pacific Ring of Fire, where today about 90{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the world’s earthquakes occur and where all but three of the world’s 25 largest volcanic eruptions of the last 11,700 years have taken place.
If the Ring of Fire caused one continent to sink, can it happen again? Sunderland admits that similar subduction rupture events have not been found … yet. But, now that they know what kind of geological records to look for, that may change. In the meantime, his group will be studying Zealandia to determent precisely how and why it sank and “what the consequences were for animals, plants, and global climate.”
Sutherland has an excellent philosophy that we all should consider:
“Geologists generally assume that understanding the present is the key to understanding the past. But at least in this instance, this may not hold.”
Read more at mysteriousuniverse.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Tom O
| #
Sounds like fantasy built on fantasy. I am not a believer in a primal super continent that was stable on a stable planet for millions if not billions of years suddenly breaking up and all its parts started moving willy nilly about the fluid center. But when something takes a life of its own in science, other “science” will be built upon it, and, after all, any thing that can cast doubt on “Creation” will be promoted, no matter how awkward it is.
Reply
Matt
| #
” if not billions of years suddenly breaking up and all its parts started moving willy nilly about the fluid center.”
Like time, suddenly is a relative thing.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
The Ring of Fire map is noticeable for the small dot in the middle, which represents the Hawaiian Islands.
IMO this is the remains of the mega volcano which launched the Moon from Earth. Since then, the land masses have been encroaching towards Hawaii from all sides and NZ is closing in from the south.
More details at https://bosmin.com//PSL/PlanetsSatellitesLandforms.pdf
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Moon being launched from Earth is a very interesting conjecture, but the physics would be hard to imagine.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi JD,
The physics looks like this: https://bosmin.com//PSL/moon2.gif
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
If Earth’s gravity could stop the ejected moon, then it would pull it back to Earth. Moon would need a tangential velocity to remain in orbit. Such a force could not be supplied by a volcano, no matter how large.
Reply
Robert Beattty
| #
Correct.
The tangential velocity is provided by the Earth having moved along its orbit, by the time the Moon returned to where it exploded from. More details available at the PSL reference.
JDHuffman
| #
Earth moving from the ejection location would not provide Moon with a tangential velocity. The gravitational force is from center of mass to center of mass. The returning Moon would be steered back to Earth. It would just follow Earth due to the gravitational pull. Your conjecture has several problems:
1) How much force would be required to launch the moon, from Earth?
2) If that much force launched the moon, why wouldn’t the resulting momentum carry the moon free of Earth’s gravitational field?
3) If the Moon were still trapped by Earth’s gravitational field, it would be pulled back to Earth, without the necessary tangential velocity needed for orbit. Where did the tangential velocity come from?
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi JDHuffman,
The graph at 7.3 shows Earth had sufficient internal energy during Archean times to launch material into obit, using steam heat.
When considering the trajectory of the Moon coming back to Earth, you need to remember there is a combination of momentum and gravitational attraction which determines the satellite’s return path. The net effect is that the satellite is playing catchup and never quite gets to crash back to Earth in some projectile tracks, but continues to orbit. The other aspect to consider here is that the Earth is emitting gas from the vent as it rotates, which also helps to keep the satellite in an orbiting trajectory.
Reply
geran
| #
Referring to conditions that were supposedly existing billions of years ago is NOT science. Science is something that can be verified, tested, demonstrated, etc. The force that supposedly ejected the moon has not been stated. Too much force, and Moon leaves Earth’s gravitational field and goes off into space. Too little force, and Moon returns to Earth.
The known science is that the moon is there, about 240,000 miles away. The science of orbital motion is known. We know that for Moon to remain in orbit, two vectors are required, one involving momentum and one involving gravity. Momentum must provide an instantaneous linear tangential velocity which counters the gravitational pull of Earth. One vector is trying to push Moon out of orbit, and the other vector is holding Moon in orbit. The resultant of the two vectors then steer the moon in its orbit.
To speculate that the moon was somehow ejected from Earth, and then held in orbit, there must be a source for the momentum necessary to provide the sufficient instantaneous linear tangential velocity. Otherwise, Moon would just fall back to Earth. Such a vector could not originate from Earth.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Thanks Geran,
You raise some interesting points.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geran,
It was pointed out to me when I made the same mistake you are that the force of gravity is not equal to the momentum of an object but the centripetal force, GM1M2/d^2= V^2/d. Gravity is a result of energy (V^2) not mass with the only mass coming from G which Newton invented to provide a source for his force.
Reply
geran
| #
Herb, I have no idea what you are talking about, and obviously, neither do you.
I never said that gravity was equal to the momentum. And gravity is not “equal” to the centripetal force. Gravity causes the centripetal force.
Whoever is “pointing out” things to you doesn’t have a clue. That’s maybe why you have so many strange illusions. Like the equation you supplied, which is WRONG. The units don’t even equate.
Hilarious. What a clown! More please.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Geran,
You are correct the formula should be GM1M2/d^2 = V^2d.
Herb Rose
| #
Another correction. GM1M2/d^2 = M2V(m2)^2d. Since I don’t believe that gravity is a unction mass I forget it.
geran
| #
STILL wrong, Herb. And, you’re getting worse instead of better.
Why not do as that other clown, Norman, has done, and take some time off. He’s recuperating after his last huge disaster. Take some time off and maybe learn some physics.
Moffin
| #
Hi Djeran. You make a lot of sense when you talk science. Congratulations. Keep it up.
Reply