http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/01/researchers-say-long-lost-continent-lies-beneath-indian-ocean-island.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/3-billion-old-crystals-deep-141000169.html
>When the Earth was new, there was one continent called Pangaea. About 175 million years ago this supercontinent started to break apart, and over millions of years the continents we know today were formed.
>Scientists are interested in finding out more about these early continental movements, and they've been gathering evidence that old continental crust may be lying beneath some oceanic volcanoes.
>A new study, which was published this week in the journal Nature Communications, suggests this crust is contributing parts of itself to some of those volcanoes. The evidence? Zircon crystals — some of the oldest rock fragments ever found on Earth — discovered within lava brought to the surface that are estimated to be between 2.5 and 3 billion years old.
>The research took place in Mauritius, where the crust underneath would have been part of the old continent Mauritia that broke away and formed Madagascar and India about 60 million years ago. The new findings could shed new light on the mechanisms of plate tectonics in these underwater hotspots, the researchers say.
>"Our findings tell us that rifting and break-up of continental entities, driven by plate tectonic processes, is more complex and messy than we previously thought," Lewis Ashwal, a petrology and geochemistry professor at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesberg and lead author of the paper, told Business Insider. "Fragments of continents of many sizes can be left behind in the new ocean basins, and some of them can be blanketed by younger lavas, and thus can be 'hidden' from view."
....
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14086
>ancient underwater continent
>Zircon crystals
>possible underground lair
This is looking like the start of a very cool Superman comic.
Atlantis confirmed.
>>107145
>>When the Earth was new, there was one continent called Pangaea
Stopped reading there. Do these science writers never fact-check? Wait, I know the answer already: NO.
It's a fucking disgrace too, because science writing is not the same as ordinary journalism -- you don't have to hide copy from your sources as if having an expert review your interpretation will "taint" or "bias" it. But of course Yahoo! is a piece of shit outlet anyway, as we all know.
(fyi in case you're too lazy to WP it, Pangaea was the name of the most recent supercontinent that formed at the end of the Permian; our knowledge of continents prior to that is sketchy, but they would have drifted and clumped again and again every 300Ma or so, meaning there probably have been on the order of 10 separate "pangaeas" that formed over the history of Earth.)
>>107178
see
>>107564
>Fucking autist
>>107564
/thread
>>107178
While I agree with your general complaint of science journalism being more about cool headlines and sensationalism than scientific validity, if you have ever tried writing an informative article on a scientific topic, you realize the problem that there is no "standard" level of scientific comprehension in the general public. If you make the article too technical, you make it incomprehensible to the majority of your readers, if you write it too soft and easy to understand, you leave the more learned readers frustrated with the lack of information. As a reader, I find it best to find two or three sites that have the right balance you want and get most of your science news from them
Pangexit
>>108033
lol