2241 replies to this topic

[Peter Cox]

hahahahaaahahahah lol lol lol lalalalalalalalalalalala - sorry just thought I should post some dribble here too like Mario .... lol

Ok now to reality again, its simply NOT possible for Greenland to have moved and in 11 000 years to the degree it would have had too to get to where it is now without changing shape or form.

I have to stress again that you need to first establish if Plato was proving a point using a fable (made up story) or if he based his story on a real life city and event?

So first PROVE Atlantis is not a bed time story before trying to say where it was? it the Alice in wonder land story, just because there white rabbits does not mean there is a secret world hidden down there rabbit holes....

Thanks

Peter

[Mario Dantas]

Abramelin, on 10 April 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Mario, you say I am not fair and all that, but you will have to take into account that whatever happened to Greenland according to your theory should have happened like 11,000 years ago. That is, if you still want to follow Plato's account.

If Greenland somehow 'moved' north, what process could have caused it? How could it have 'ploughed through' the Mid-Atlantic Ridge' without changing shape as Swede already wondered about?

And even then, the geological and tectonical turmoil would have reshaped the lands bordering the Atlantic beyond recognition, and you would not have been able to fit Greenland in like a piece of a puzzle.

Abramelin,

I propose Greenland might have moved through a partially molten oceanic floor, as a consequence of an impact in the Indian ocean. I am trying to construct a thought experiment, in which time is not taken under consideration. I hope i am entitled to do this...

Regarding your remark on the change of size and shape of Greenland and other regions involved being transfigured after the event, i will say this: If this proposition was to be true (Greenland move northwards), then erosive processes would have been in place without a doubt (diminishing the size of the landmass, but you cannot forget that under this experiment the oceanic floor was momentarily molten, allowing a smooth move. Are you doubting that somewhere in the Universe, when a hard crust planet is hit by a meteorite, the plates constituting its crust will move rapidly? If this event took place, Greenland would have indeed changed size and shape, although i doubt that it would not be recognizable:



Regards,
Mario Dantas

[Mario Dantas]

Leonardo, on 10 April 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

Mario,

To pick up on the points cormac makes, how do you propose to explain the movement of the Earth's land masses without the theory of plate tectonics?

That theory, which has evidence to back it up, relies on a slow, constant motion of the plates making up the Earth's crust to bring the orientation and position of those plates to the configuration we witness today. This process also demands this plate motion only be meaningful over geological ages - which your hypothesis contradicts.

If you are proposing some geological form of 'punctuated equilibrium', then you must have a mechanism (not plate tectonics) which instigates the movement of the crust. I believe you mentioned impact events in some of your earlier posts - is that the mechanism by which you imply this motion occurs?

If so, then I might point to the complete lack of evidence for any recent event that might have caused the movement you allude to in your hypothesis. Plus the fact that any impact large/energetic enough to initiate any such massive movement of the Earth's crust would likely sterilise the planet. If you are going to try to upset the orthodoxy, then you'd better have some damn good evidence with which to do so, and I don't see that anywhere in your hypothesis.

Leonardo,

You are right about my theory being related to a catastrophic impact event, 10.000 years ago. I disagree that in all circumstances it would sterilize the planet. There are many elements that could have prevented this from happening, e.g. the impact angle, the strength of the impact, whether the outer body penetrated the crust or just touched it, etc, etc. Thus, one cannot affirm that this or that happened without knowing the facts first. Modern Plate tectonics could be nothing less than the inertial force still acting upon the plates, since that event. When you look at how plates move nowadays you will notice that their motion is in all aspects corroborating that a sizable impact might have occurred in Indian ocean:





Why would there be a lack of continental fit in the northern Atlantic, exactly where the strongest positive anomaly in geoid map is is situated?

Regards,
Mario Dantas

[Harte]

Mario Dantas, on 10 April 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

Cormac mac airt,

You will have to excuse me for being this direct, but it is my prerogative to carry my experiment as i find fit! You are saying that my research must follow "canonical" parameters, but i again state that this research is an experiment and he who is creating such experiment gets to dictate the rules within the universe of the experiment.

SNIP

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Yes, and apparently you "find fit" to both ignore and include the very timeline you shun in your "experiment" (read - "fantasy.")
To wit:

Quote

The geological development of Greenland spans almost four billion years.

That line is right out of your quote.

You simultaneously discard, and cite, the very timeline under discussion here.

That's not logic, it's ignorance.

Harte

[Peter Cox]

I am trying to construct a thought experiment, in which time is not taken under consideration. I hope i am entitled to do this... - posted by Mario

If that is how you feel fit to do an experiment on the events that happened 11 000 years ago then surly i can say my in my experiment Plato never existed and seeing he is the only person who mentions Atlantis we can then say for sure it never existed? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean here?

you cant say this is my theory and anything that could/might/does disprove we will just take out of the equation? Im hoping i misunderstood what you meant.

Thanks..

Peter

[Mario Dantas]

Harte, on 11 April 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Yes, and apparently you "find fit" to both ignore and include the very timeline you shun in your "experiment" (read - "fantasy.")
To wit:

That line is right out of your quote.

You simultaneously discard, and cite, the very timeline under discussion here.

That's not logic, it's ignorance.

Harte

Harte,

I have already told you that in this thought experiment the dating is not taken into account, but the hierarchy of geological events is. Four Billion years is way older than 2.5 Million... Thanks for calling me an ignorant!

Regards,
Mario Dantas

[Leonardo]

Mario Dantas, on 11 April 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Leonardo,

You are right about my theory being related to a catastrophic impact event, 10.000 years ago. I disagree that in all circumstances it would sterilize the planet. There are many elements that could have prevented this from happening, e.g. the impact angle, the strength of the impact, whether the outer body penetrated the crust or just touched it, etc, etc. Thus, one cannot affirm that this or that happened without knowing the facts first. Modern Plate tectonics could be nothing less than the inertial force still acting upon the plates, since that event. When you look at how plates move nowadays you will notice that their motion is in all aspects corroborating that a sizable impact might have occurred in Indian ocean:

Regards,
Mario Dantas

I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of energy an impact would have to impart to effect the crustal movement you are envisaging. If an impact in the Indian Ocean could impart enough energy to melt (or partially melt) the sub-oceanic crust of the Atlantic, then consider the effect it would have closer to the point of impact!

You are essentially suggesting an impact that melts the crust of half (or over half) the planet. This is a monumental impact, larger than any we know of other than the postulated impact which caused the formation of our Moon. It would sterilise the planet, which would even now not be out of the global winter caused by that impact. On top of this, we have no evidence from geological records, nor from climatological records, to indicate this impact ever occurred.

Notwithstanding all this, you would have to show the motion caused by this impact was slowly abating. Yet there is no data that I know of that indicates of any slowing of the movement of the crustal plates over time.

Edited by Leonardo, 11 April 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[questionmark]

Mario Dantas, on 11 April 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Harte,

I have already told you that in this thought experiment the dating is not taken into account, but the hierarchy of geological events is. Four Billion years is way older than 2.5 Million... Thanks for calling me an ignorant!

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Now let me get this straight: according to you Atlantis sunk 2,5 Million years ago and not 11000?

[Harte]

Mario Dantas, on 11 April 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Harte,

I have already told you that in this thought experiment the dating is not taken into account, but the hierarchy of geological events is. Four Billion years is way older than 2.5 Million... Thanks for calling me an ignorant!

Regards,
Mario Dantas

How refreshing.

You're quite welcome, even if incorrect.

I said your argument was ignorant.  I didn't say you were "an" ignorant.

But, at least you can assign a value of "greater than or less than" to a pair of numbers.

I was wondering.

harte

[Sensible Logic]

Mario Dantas, on 11 April 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Leonardo,

You are right about my theory being related to a catastrophic impact event, 10.000 years ago. Modern Plate tectonics could be nothing less than the inertial force still acting upon the plates, since that event. When you look at how plates move nowadays you will notice that their motion is in all aspects corroborating that a sizable impact might have occurred in Indian ocean:



Regards,
Mario Dantas

If one assumes an impact in the Indian ocean and the plates still acting upon that impact then Greenland should have moved northwest not north resulting in a collision with North America.

[M.A.D CapeBretoner]

I come on again because Impack,Greenland what the f--k any mental midget can plainly see that it was the North American plate that slipped in a counterclockwise motion it is the only one out of them all that is moving in this manner.
But if you rotate it clockwise you would see the truth that I speak of.

[Harte]

Welcome back MAD.

Been awhile since we've seen you, hasn't it?

Harte

[Abramelin]

Don't know where to post this, but as the "Pillars of Hercules" are always mentioned in connection with anything Atlantis, I thought the next is best posted here.

OK, my question: where are - according to Procopius' description - these Pillars of Hercules?

(Procopius lived in the 6th century AD)

History of the Wars by Procopius
Book III: The Vandalic War (pt. 1)

Now the distance from one of the Pillars of Heracles to the other, if one goes along the shore and does not pass around the Ionian Gulf and the sea called the Euxine but crosses from Chalcedon[6] to Byzantium and from Dryous[7] to the opposite mainland,[8] is a journey of two hundred and eighty-five days for an unencumbered traveller. For as to the land about the Euxine Sea, which extends from Byzantium to the Lake, it would be impossible to tell everything with precision, since the barbarians beyond the Ister River, which they also call the Danube, make the shore of that sea quite impossible for the Romans to traverse--except, indeed, that from Byzantium to the mouth of the Ister is a journey of twenty-two days, which should be added to the measure of Europe by one making the computation. And on the Asiatic side, that is from Chalcedon to the Phasis River, which, flowing from the country of the Colchians, descends into the Pontus, the journey is accomplished in forty days.

http://en.wikisource...e_Wars/Book_III


Chalcedon is today a district in Instanbul
The Euxine Sea is the Black Sea.
The Phasis River is a river in western Georgia.

And look at this map: it has a city called "Athenes" on the Georgian coast of the Black Sea:

http://en.wikipedia....._1838_(BJ).jpg

++

Edited to correct link to image.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 18 April 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[Leonardo]

There have been several 'straits' associated with the Pillars of Hercules according to various scholars, Abe. However, in the case of what Plato wrote he mentions those Pillars in the context of defining the entrance into the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, we should not read the Pillars of Hercules that Plato wrote about as being anything other than the north and south prominatories of the Gibraltar Strait.

[Abramelin]

Leonardo, on 18 April 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

There have been several 'straits' associated with the Pillars of Hercules according to various scholars, Abe. However, in the case of what Plato wrote he mentions those Pillars in the context of defining the entrance into the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, we should not read the Pillars of Hercules that Plato wrote about as being anything other than the north and south prominatories of the Gibraltar Strait.

Thanks Leonardo.

But do you know what 'Pillars' Procopius is talking about? Does he mean the strait between Italy and Sicily or something?