>Not at all. It fits the convection cell theory.

Baloney. Show me a working convection cell model that explains Pangea.

>But your tidal guess doesn't explain the breakup.

I'm not audacious enough to presume what the other side of the planet must have looked like during Pangea. You seem to be forgetting that whatever was on the other side of Pangea, it's now under the crust and disolved into the mantle. There's no way anyone will ever know what was on the other side of the earth when Pangea was a single continent. There could have been another continent the size of Australia or bigger before it subducted.

Naturally if I don't know what the earth looked like during Pangea, and neither do you, then it would be pointless to attempt to explain the primary driving forces at that time.

It may very well have been tidal forces. It may have been an interplanetary body. It may have been a weakness in the crust that suddenly failed (much like the weakness under the New Madrid Fault but worse). It may have been an ancient civilization that invented a fission bomb. Unless we can see some evidence for what existed there, there is no way anyone can even attempt to answer that question.

The fact that you claim knowledge of the unknowable makes me question your sincerity in these discussions.

Dave