Why the Contours of the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica Coincide

Last modified date

Why the Contours of the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica Coincide

The long history of studying continents allowed scientists to work out the fundamentals of geology as a science with the whole complex of research methods that are now more or less effectively used in studying the geology of the oceans and continents. In particular, this science is trying to answer the question of why the contours of the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica coincide. 

The dimensions and contours of the continents are relatively constant, but the opinions of geologists and geophysicists, and leisurely curious people about this are extremely different, down to fantasy and devilry. Here, let us recall the words of Charles Darwin: “A scientist must be the enemy of his own ideas and the results obtained, that is, stubbornly doubt them until numerous experimental facts make him believe that he is right.” Or wrong …The situation with the contours of Antarctica and the Arctic Ocean is identical. There are two theories about this, but which of them is correct?

Mirror Reflection of Antarctica

Investigating the shapes and sizes of two geological formations that are opposite on the globe (the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica), scientists were surprised to find that their contours are almost identical. It was suggested that the Arctic Ocean, in fact, is the most giant meteorite crater on the planet. A huge asteroid, crashing into the North Pole, pressed through the Earth’s crust. Seismic waves, focused in the solid core of the planet, as in a lens, hit on the opposite side, squeezing the continent of Antarctica of the same shape as the “northern dip”. This seemingly fantastic hypothesis today has quite a lot of supporters.

Alternative Theory

Another group of scientists was able to formulate a new hypothesis explaining all the features of the Earth-Moon system since so far none of the competing theories has been able to do this.

The components of the competing hypotheses are:

  • Once the moon was captured by the gravitational field of the earth;
  • The moon was formed from a swarm of particles circling around the young Earth;
  • The moon was formed from a part of the Earth’s mantle, torn off and thrown into near-earth orbit as a result of a strike on the Earth by a space body the size of Mars.

The essence of the proposed alternative hypothesis is that this “space body the size of Mars” was the Moon itself.

As a result of the impact on the Earth in Megaga (a single massif of which the entire continental crust of the Earth was 1.7 billion years ago), a dent was formed, which later became the Arctic Ocean. And at the opposite end of the diameter of the Earth, as a result of the addition of a seismic shock wave with a reflected one, a bottom of Megatalass (a single ocean opposing Megaga), called Antarctica, bulged. The gravitational forces of the Earth were able to prevent a “breakaway” (similar to that which occurs when a projectile is hit by armor). 


As you can see, both these theories are based on the unified approach of bouncing a certain celestial body against the Earth. We can only guess about its nature. Unfortunately, natural patterns are unpredictable. The only thing that today can be predicted with greater or lesser accuracy is the weather, so we recommend using the weather API on your website. 

Tags: physics, API, changes, Earth, Arctic Ocean,  Antarctica, science

License: For copying and reprinting of materials the references to the website are obligatory.

Pictures used in post taken from: Unsplash, Pexels


%d bloggers like this: