Now I know that Alfred Wegener`s theory is wrong!

Are you aware of the existence of island arcs, accreted terranes, etc.?

And why is that a problem? According to the reconstructions I see, that's exactly what happens. Why does it have to be so far? A collision is a collision. In some places it's ocean-continent and in others it's continent-continent. The Indian subcontinent, which was part of east Gondwanaland, apparently moved quite far to collide with Eurasia. I wish it was that easy. Crustal plates do not simply translate, they rotate about a pole. Take a class in plate movements sometime.

I don`t need to go longer back in time because instead of Pangaea the continents formed a
belt around the equator, spun out as the earth cooled,
as a centrifuge would. The geologist don`t belive at this centrifugal force but in centripital force, but the physicists belive on centrifugal force and I think their words are more credible.

I'm not sure what you are responding to here. There is no evidence for this. The paleomag data indicate otherwise. I love it when people tell me what I think or believe. Please tell me more. When they say it about the early crust of the earth, let me know.

Edge:
There is no evidence for this. The paleomag data indicate otherwise.Are you sure? :-)
If you read the article from New Scientist on my page: http://www.aspevik.net you would see that is proved the paleomag data is proven that the continents were once clustered near the equator, and NOT as the geologist learn today.Here is the article:Magnetic shiftBy Jeff Hechttraces of the earth's magnetic field frozen in rocks are yielding surprises about the planet's past. A re-analysis of old measurements of these fields has forced geologists to conclude that either the migrating continents were clustered closer to the equator than previously thought, or that the Earth's magnetic field was not the simple pair of poles it is today.Geologists track the history of continental motion by measuring the magnetism of ancient rocks. As some rocks form, they retain an imprint of the Earth's magnetic field. The field direction and the age of the rock together show the latitude of the continent at the time the rock formed, provided that the shape of the terrestrial magnetic field at the time can be worked out.Today, the Earth's magnetic field lines, which emanate from the poles and surround the planet, have a simple and predictable distribution. Geologists have proved that for at least five million years the field has been a dipole, like a bar magnet with poles aligned on the planet's axis. And they calculate ancient latitudes assuming the field has always been a dipole, says Dennis Kent of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York.But now Kent and Mark Smethurst of the Geological Survey of Norway in Trondheim have analysed palaeomagnetic data from rocks up to 35 billion years old. Instead of the magnetic distribution expected from a dipole, they found an excess of rocks from older eras with low-angle fields, as if they had formed at lower latitudes than those predicted by standard models that assume a random distribution of the early continents (Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol 160, p 391). "The surprising result is that in the Palaeozoic and Precambrian, the distributions differ markedly," Kent says.One possible explanation is that the Earth's magnetic field has not always been a dipole. Kent calculates that if the ancient Earth contained elements of between four and eight poles, its magnetic field lines would have met the migrating continents at lower angles than the lines of the modern dipole field. That would account for the distribution he and Smethurst observed, he says. Such an arrangement might have been possible before the solid part of the core--which started growing as late as a billion years ago--reached its present size.The other possible explanation for the findings, Kent says, is that the continents were once clustered near the equator. Such clustering could be the result of centrifugal force tilting heavy parts of the outer layers of the Earth away from the poles (" Twist of fate ", New Scientist, 2 August 1997, p 15).Gary Glatzmaier of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico says his unpublished simulations of the Earth's magnetic field may be able to discover which explanation is right. According to his models, multiple poles are unlikely, he says. "When the inner core was smaller, our simulations suggest the dipole was even stronger than today." If correct, Glatzmaier's results would mean that geologists have to redraw their maps of the ancient continents.From New Scientist, 22 August 1998 lhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15921483.500-magnetic-shift.htmlThe geologist I have talked to have told me that there have been up to eight poles at the same time on the Earth. That is the only way they can explain away this discovery.
But we haven`t had more than two poles. Just read this new article here:http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/10/091002132350.htmSo when you say: "There is no evidence for this. The paleomag data indicate otherwise.", that isn`t true at all. The evidence says there had only been two poles and the evidence says that the continents have been clustered to Equator. That`s the truth!The question here is why don`t the geologist`s care about this specific findings at all?The sciens demand a open mind,curiosity, and a desire to discover what really happened here on Earth in the past. I feel there is only a few who lives after those principles.There are few who dare to think independently and make up their own opinions of one reason or another.

Aspevik, it's not that the geos don't care about these findings. They do. It's that geos, like all scientists, change their minds when the evidence warrants it. The paper you posted is very interesting and appears to have some merit, but has more research been carried out that continues to support it? Has it been thrown out over the last 10 years?I personally have never even heard of this theory, but that's not surprising considering the difficulty in keeping up with all the research. There are many, many fields within geology and most of us read research that is pertinent to our own specializations. And the great majority of scientists do live and work by these principles, but scientists are naturally tentative and skeptical of new ideas. They have to be. They can't be jumping from one idea to another every time someone presents something new -- and pretty much every scientist does so at one time or another. It takes time. Sometimes a long time before new ideas have the evidence required for the rest of the world to take notice of them. You've obviously not met many geologists. lol

Yes , I know that, but there is something thats convinces me and that is the locations of the oldest fosils we known, the Ediacara fosils.If I put those locations in the Pangaea model, those locations shows a cluttered image at once.But if I put this locations in my model, something strange happend at once, at that is all this locations get into a unik system.Please, take a closer look at the pictures on this page: http://www.aspevik.net/lifestartedinnorth.htmEdited by Aspevik, : No reason given.

You've got a few problems here with your theory vis a vis, your source data.From your source: First of all, the time period considered here is considerably older than the Ordovician Period, during which glaciation occurred in North Africa. Furthermore, it is much much older than the 13ky age that you ascribe to the glaciation. Yes, that is possible and I see that in the late Precambrian much of the continents were located closer to the equator than in the Ordovician. File Not Found - UW-Green Bay But you have another problem. According to your source, the heavier crust is forced to the equator while your model says that lighter material is forced to the equator. Please explain.Another shortcoming of this analysis is that the magnetic poles have wandered resulting in divergences of up to 30 degrees since the early Mesozoic, for instance. I do not see this correction in any of the papers you present. Maybe they have made this correction, but I dont' see it. This makes a major difference in the inclination of the magnetic field compared to the rotational axis.In the second article the researchers found gently dipping mag inclinations in the Keeweenawan Basalts. First, these are quite a bit older than the Ordovician by about 600my. Second, according to the paleogeographic reconstruction presented above, that part of the continental crust was much closer to the equator than North Africa. In other words it has little to do with Gondwana.ETA: So, as you can see, North Africa is supposed to have been both near the equator and near the pole in the time frame you are discussing and, frankly has little to do with how the Eurasian mountain chains formed. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Well, this is kind of silly since Ediacaran time and the existence of Pangea are only about 400my apart.Not only that but your reconstruction of Ediacaran time bears no relationship to this: File Not Found - UW-Green Bay And neither is there any evidence that Africa and South America have done the little dance you require.

Yes, my theory is either very stupid, otherwise it's just amazing that we find most of the discovery areas of these fosils who by chance formed an exact half circle on my model.http://www.aspevik.net/lifestartedinnorth.htmIt is also amazing that some of the largest gold deposits in the world would now lay close to each other if we put them into my model.And it is amazing that a huge areas of minerals fits perfect together on south and north-Americas west cost if we lay them togheter and compare the minerals there.And it is amazing that the mountain range on both side is parallel to each other if we take a closer look at them.It is also amazing that all continents constitute a belt around Equator, only by moving the Gondwanaland.I am sure the geologist have done a big mistake someplace in the beginning when they construct their model, and a larger mistake when they builds on this mistake.My theory is simple. Instead of Pangaea the continents formed a
belt around the equator, spun out as the earth cooled by the same force who press the poles togheter and lift Equator out 15 kilometers, as the same as all other planets we known about.This page you shows me here is not a evidence at all, it is only a result of a guesswork built on something who is wrong from the start.We only need to compare the areas in North and South-America after we have put the coast togheter to find the truth.I know that soner or later somebody will compare those landmasses.

If we are to find out if my theory is right or wrong, it's actually just to comparing North America with South America, when these two lands are put together like here on figur 4: http://www.aspevik.net/themovements.htmThat is just all my theory stands or falls on.

Do you have an explanation for why those gold deposits occur there?

... and Roxrkool, is that the "initial question" of your post title?

Yes, I have some thoughts about this. When the continents was formed as a belt aroundt the Earth, some sort of a metor hit the seafloor from north, northwest and
penetrated there where the Cannada-bassin are today.This metor broken up the continents and get into the Earth. I have read that more heavier metal we have, deeper we have to go into the eath to find it. Some people mean there is a lot of liquid gold near the middle of the Eart, because it is so heavy.When this meteor penetraded the crust og get further into the Earth,this new mass press the gold up into "veins" in the area nearby the impact zone.There fore I belive these findings are so close to each other. But some of this gold didn`t follow the "veins" the metorit made. In Alaska and in the area there, the goldt have been picked from the surface and I belive it was "pumped" up ant out over this area as a result of this hit.But that is just something I have just think about a litle. Edited by Aspevik, : No reason given.

Umm, exactly where is this? There are a number of basins in Canada, including Sudbury which does have some impact features, but this has little to do with the cordilleran gold belts, or the alkaline intrusive-related deposits. Unknown. There are plenty of heavy elements to make up the core and gold would still likely be quite rare. Then where are the other heavy elements known to be related to the mantle? They are strangely absent, while gold does have a close afinity with such light elements as sulfur, arsenic and antimony, or volatile elements such as mercury. I think you need to think these things out a bit more. Well, if you want to ignore the magmatic, hydrothermal and host rock associations, sure... They are also on the same planet. I know of no evidence that gold veins were created by a meteorite impact. On the other hand we can see gold deposited in all kinds of structures related to folds, faults, breccias and conducive host rocks. This makes no sense at all. What do you mean? How do you pump gold? Let me know when you've thought about it for a couple of decades.