QUESTION: Does plate tectonics, which points to a single Pangaea continent in the distant past, conflict with what the Bhagavatam says about the Earth?

Plate tectonics may help make sense of references from some very ancient stories, especially Rāmāyana, which seem to place Africa and South America considerably closer to India than we currently see them. As for Bhagavatam’s cosmology, however – so far (see this playlist) the 5th Canto, Chapter 16 hasn’t actually described any specific geographical features on Earth. It describes a solar system, a spherical lat-long system, and an a four-post, 12-zone ecliptic. 

There seems to be geographical implications in the way I explained one of the latitude zones: the high-alt southern hemisphere zone, Kimpuruṣa. 

With modern tectonic plate positions, there is very little habitible land in this zone – suggesting the name means “are there (kim) people (puruṣa) here?” With Pangaea positions or something intermediary, the name may still be valid. But, really, this name could also be saying this zone has “unusual (kim) people (puruṣa)”. Or, following the rest of the naming convention, it can refer to zone’s weather tendency, “its not (kim) for most people (puruṣa)” (i.e. it is stormy and unfriendly).

The bottom line is that plate tectonics doesn’t affect what we have learned so far from Bhagavata, C5, Ch 16. The only thing we have really heard about Earth itself from there is:

1. It is part of a system of concentric orbits, defined by the Sun, but apparently centered on Earth.

2. It is a rotating sphere.

3. Its shape is defined by latitudes and longitudes based on the equator. These latitudes and the zones between them are named by very basic geographical characteristics, mostly their climate, not intrinsically related to any specific continents, etc.