Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 10 votes

Could Atlantis be under Greenland's Ice?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1166 replies to this topic

#781    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,192 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 July 2014 - 04:04 AM

View PostMario Dantas, on 01 July 2014 - 12:29 AM, said:

Cormac,

Gradualism is again taken for granted, even in catastrophic events. If Greenland was to travel across a semi molten media what would one think of the "interruption in sedimentation", as you put it? An event to provoke continental motions on earth had to be a very destructive and utterly erasing process that could have led to our modern continental configuration. The dating system would in really be telling how old a recently metamorphosed rock is, again, especially the oceanic floor.

Speaking of sedimentation, i read recently on an article that there was a Greelandic Quaternary interglacial period:


http://www.naturewor...to-6-meters.htm

M

This shows that you do not understand plate tectonics at all. The continents do not drift. They are carried by plates. If the plate melts then the continents are not moved by the molten plate. The evidence is very clear that the plate has not melted. Sedimentation and paleomagnetism make that abundantly clear. And that is based on real evidence.


#782    Mario Dantas

Mario Dantas

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cabo Verde Islands (West Africa)

  • Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.

    (Mahatma Gandhi)

Posted 13 July 2014 - 10:31 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 30 June 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

Which shows you know nothing about what dating methods are dependent on. They depend on the known decay rates of radioactive materials, hence the name radiometric dating, and not on the processes that shaped the earth. Which means your further problem with the dating process is just more ignorance since your premise is irreconcilably flawed from the start. With that being said try actually showing valid evidence that any core samples, of which there are many from the Atlantic/MAR, show a gap in sedimentation/deposition during the timeframe you'd like to believe Greenland existed there as Atlantis.

I've seen the core sample data for the area in question and there is absolutely nothing to show an interruption in sedimentation/deposition, like would have to exist for your scenario of Greenland as Atlantis to be true, at any point in the last circa 2,000,000 years. So best wishes on showing the data is incorrect.


cormac

Cormac,

Radiometric dating of the ocean floor would be altered if there was a general liquefaction in the region of the MAR, this is a fact...

One should wonder why is the MAR the longest mountain chain in the world, or why there are portions of it that surpass sea level, like Iceland.

Posted Image



Of course there isn't a proof that this is true, can i ask what evidences would those be? (wait! don't tell me, i guess i know your answer for that)

I can help you if you cannot understand that the dating method can be wrong by means of a disturbance in the oceanic floor. It is a possibility, although not probable...

You all seem very ready in discrediting anything that goes against the "rules". Well, i hope you stick to your ideas and that they are challenged by logic too.

BTW: You say it only show that i know nothing about dating methods, i also can say i am kind of wasting my time here.

M

1. Catalog of Images
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722

2. Was Atlantis in Greenland?
http://a7lan7is.blogspot.com

#783    Mario Dantas

Mario Dantas

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cabo Verde Islands (West Africa)

  • Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.

    (Mahatma Gandhi)

Posted 15 July 2014 - 12:01 AM

View Poststereologist, on 30 June 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:


Continents don't drift apart. The continent is imbedded in a plate. The plates move.

OK. Please point out the traces of the crustal bulk from the break up of Africa and North America. Please tell us what you are thinking about.

You keep saying things like "must be necessarily true" when this idea is just a part of your guessing. You should be asking if this might happen.




Stereologist,

Continents will drift, move or whatever one would like to call it, if the right conditions are met. It does not really matter whether continents are embedded in a plate, because as soon as mid oceanic floor melts away, all rigidity and crustal “cohesion” will be lost.

Why on earth would there be such age disparity between oceanic (< 0.2 million years old) and continental crust (e.g. as old as 4 billion years old)? One should ask: why nowhere on earth should we find an “old” oceanic floor?


Quote

The breakup of Pangea is now explained in terms of plate tectonics rather than Wegener’s outmoded concept of continental drift. Plate tectonics states that Earth’s outer shell, or lithosphere, consists of large, rigid plates that move apart at oceanic ridges, come together at subduction zones, or slip past one another along fault lines. The pattern of seafloor spreading indicates that Pangea did not break apart all at once but rather fragmented in distinct stages.

The first oceans formed from the breakup, some 180 million years ago, were the central Atlantic Ocean between northwestern Africa and North America and the southwestern Indian Ocean between Africa and Antarctica. The South Atlantic Ocean opened about 140 million years ago as Africa separated from South America. About the same time, India separated from Antarctica and Australia, forming the central Indian Ocean. Finally, about 80 million years ago, North America separated from Europe, Australia began to rift away from Antarctica, and India broke away from Madagascar. India eventually collided with Eurasia approximately 50 million years ago, forming the Himalayan mountains.
http://www.britannic...c/441211/Pangea



Posted Image


There has always to be a “guess”, as you put it…

My guess is that actually the thin and frail crust, if “pierced” (for lack of a better word) by outside object, could obliterate a great many deal of things (extinction events). I am not actually saying it did happen, but rather, that “if” it ever happen, we simply would not know since there was no reason to believe that such a event took place at all…

Posted Image


Posted Image


M

1. Catalog of Images
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722

2. Was Atlantis in Greenland?
http://a7lan7is.blogspot.com

#784    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,192 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:50 PM

View PostMario Dantas, on 15 July 2014 - 12:01 AM, said:


Stereologist,

Continents will drift, move or whatever one would like to call it, if the right conditions are met. It does not really matter whether continents are embedded in a plate, because as soon as mid oceanic floor melts away, all rigidity and crustal “cohesion” will be lost.

Why on earth would there be such age disparity between oceanic (< 0.2 million years old) and continental crust (e.g. as old as 4 billion years old)? One should ask: why nowhere on earth should we find an “old” oceanic floor?

http://www.britannic...c/441211/Pangea

There has always to be a “guess”, as you put it…

My guess is that actually the thin and frail crust, if “pierced” (for lack of a better word) by outside object, could obliterate a great many deal of things (extinction events). I am not actually saying it did happen, but rather, that “if” it ever happen, we simply would not know since there was no reason to believe that such a event took place at all…

M
Continents do not drift. That is the idea that Wegener had. Continents do move because they are imbedded in plates which move. There are big differences between the two concepts. If you think they are the same, then please take a basic geology course to learn why these are two very different issues.

The claim that the "mid oceanic floor melts away" is an issue is poppycock. When has that happened? How would it happen? You are making up nonsense here. You need to stick to reality and focus on the geological processes at hand. The evidence is quite clear that the Atlantic Oceanic crust has not melted since the opening of the Atlantic Ocean hundreds of millions of years ago.

Clearly, there are two types of crust: oceanic and continental. They are different in rock type, elevation, thickness, and density to name some of the major differences. There are old pieces of oceanic crust, but they are imbedded in continental material. Oceanic crust in general is destroyed through subduction. That limits the age of the oceanic crust. It is this general age limit that bolstered the theory of plate tectonics.
http://news.national...dest-crust.html

Your claims of a frail and thin crust obliterated by outside whatever is obviously wrong.  The symmetrical paleomagnetic lines along spreading ridges, and the sediments show that nothing such as what you suggest has happened. Your suggestion that "we simply would not know" is wrong. There are ways to know.


#785    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,192 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:53 PM

I also want to point out that radiometric dating would notice that dates are not symmetrical across the spreading ridge.
Sedimentary evidence across the spreading ridge would not be symmetrical if there was an event such as you suggest.
Paleomagnetic symmetry shows that your suggestion is a fantasy - not a part of reality.

If you want to "guess" at least do not make a wild stab at something so easily shown to be unrelated to reality.


#786    Mario Dantas

Mario Dantas

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cabo Verde Islands (West Africa)

  • Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.

    (Mahatma Gandhi)

Posted 16 July 2014 - 01:03 AM

Stereologist,

I cannot agree more with what you are saying, although i also think the contrary...

It does seem "impossible" and completely disproportionate for an island such as Greenland to have in fact traveled all the way through the MAR region and simply stopped near the north pole...

Oceanic floor part of the crust is way thiner than continental crust and that is perhaps why the rupture occurred there and not somewhere else. There is an normal equilibrium of forces in our planet and all other planets like ours. But as soon as any of them is actually perturbed by a seizable object, will, according to logic suffer some damage on its crust. It should be possible for an impact to occur within "safety" boundaries of planetary integrity and, at least, some preservation of life.

The MAR was probably open since Pangea breakup, but the final push where Atlantis vanished from the map and the MAR became oddly young, came 10.000 years ago. look at a simple and straight forward chronological map and notice how the mid Atlantic younger crust is wide enough for Greenland to "slide" through an eventual "blanket" of molten rock:

Posted Image



Of course you will find all of this is rubbish and i kinda thank for that since you have now "embodied" the vast geologic knowledge there is since time immemorial, up until now, and revealed to us the beauty of the geologic thinking and how mankind thrived to actually understand how things actually work, in terrestrial matters.

Nevertheless, the carbonized fossils in my backyard tells me otherwise, no offense. You are correct until proven wrong.

Wegener died in Greenland, and he just did not know that he was actually in Plato's Atlantis.

When you say there are ways of knowing, i ask: why would science know something it is not looking for? Unless, science "stumbles" on new discoveries inadvertently, it will not find any sense in an island that suddenly disappeared, because it just is not looking for it. Science is not looking for any possibility of extremely violent events 10.000 years ago, as Plato posits, period.

Thank you for your highly interesting posts and preoccupation on getting me to think alike all geologists without exception. Geologists are extremely smart people that do not allow any interference from the outside world, and nonetheless were taught a lesson by Wegener (a geophysicist/meteorologist)...

Quote

In November 1926 Wegener presented his continental drift theory at a symposium of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in New York City, again earning rejection from everyone but the chairman. Three years later the fourth and final expanded edition of "The Origin of Continents and Oceans" appeared.
http://en.wikipedia..../Alfred_Wegener


M

Edited by Mario Dantas, 16 July 2014 - 01:13 AM.

1. Catalog of Images
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722

2. Was Atlantis in Greenland?
http://a7lan7is.blogspot.com

#787    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,192 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 July 2014 - 02:42 AM

View PostMario Dantas, on 16 July 2014 - 01:03 AM, said:

Stereologist,

I cannot agree more with what you are saying, although i also think the contrary...

It does seem "impossible" and completely disproportionate for an island such as Greenland to have in fact traveled all the way through the MAR region and simply stopped near the north pole...

Oceanic floor part of the crust is way thiner than continental crust and that is perhaps why the rupture occurred there and not somewhere else. There is an normal equilibrium of forces in our planet and all other planets like ours. But as soon as any of them is actually perturbed by a seizable object, will, according to logic suffer some damage on its crust. It should be possible for an impact to occur within "safety" boundaries of planetary integrity and, at least, some preservation of life.

The MAR was probably open since Pangea breakup, but the final push where Atlantis vanished from the map and the MAR became oddly young, came 10.000 years ago. look at a simple and straight forward chronological map and notice how the mid Atlantic younger crust is wide enough for Greenland to "slide" through an eventual "blanket" of molten rock:

Of course you will find all of this is rubbish and i kinda thank for that since you have now "embodied" the vast geologic knowledge there is since time immemorial, up until now, and revealed to us the beauty of the geologic thinking and how mankind thrived to actually understand how things actually work, in terrestrial matters.

Nevertheless, the carbonized fossils in my backyard tells me otherwise, no offense. You are correct until proven wrong.

Wegener died in Greenland, and he just did not know that he was actually in Plato's Atlantis.

When you say there are ways of knowing, i ask: why would science know something it is not looking for? Unless, science "stumbles" on new discoveries inadvertently, it will not find any sense in an island that suddenly disappeared, because it just is not looking for it. Science is not looking for any possibility of extremely violent events 10.000 years ago, as Plato posits, period.

Thank you for your highly interesting posts and preoccupation on getting me to think alike all geologists without exception. Geologists are extremely smart people that do not allow any interference from the outside world, and nonetheless were taught a lesson by Wegener (a geophysicist/meteorologist)...


http://en.wikipedia..../Alfred_Wegener


M
Greenland did NOT pass through the mid-Atlantic region. No. No. No. Land masses do not drift. They are carried by plates. They do not drift across plate boundaries.

No matter how much you pretend there is a fantasy rupture it remains a fantasy. You are simply making up stuff that is by now becoming rather silly and frankly it is becoming rather boring. You also state "forces in our planet and all other planets like ours." So please tell me how the forces in Mars are like ours or are you not aware that Mars does not exhibit plate tectonic activity?

Are you kidding with this: "actually perturbed by a seizable object, will, according to logic suffer some damage." It is not logical. It is some of the gibberish spewed by the 2012 believers who thought animal die offs and other events were evidence for an unknown giant planet that snuck into our solar system and other dim witted ideas. That sentence you posted is illogical. It is fantasy and unrelated to reality.

An impact does not change the plate movements. If  you think it does then please point out the change in plate activity from the Chesapeake Bay impact from 35Ma and the Yucatan impact from 65Ma or any other impact event. Until then you have no evidence for your pipe dream.

Where do you come up with this idiotic notion that Atlantis disappeared? Where do you get the loco idea that "the MAR became oddly young"? You are spouting nothing but childish gibberish.

Of course I have found nearly everything you posted rubbish since it is clear that 100% of the geological evidence shows you are wrong. What other conclusion could anyone reach?

Here is a joke essay that makes more sense than anything you have posted. It is a reply to a youth who has sent a fossil to the Smithsonian.
http://www.snopes.co...smithsonian.asp

About the only thing reasonable you posted is the following:

Quote

When you say there are ways of knowing, i ask: why would science know something it is not looking for? Unless, science "stumbles" on new discoveries inadvertently, it will not find any sense in an island that suddenly disappeared, because it just is not looking for it. Science is not looking for any possibility of extremely violent events 10.000 years ago, as Plato posits, period.
The problem here is that you have no clue about  how science works, but that can be fixed. Science is not just looking for things haphazardly. It looks to test and verify by making predictions. It is trivial to point our your glaring mistakes. In science it is trickier to create tests since so many good tests have been made to verify or reject theories. Scientists look for things because they want to verify or reject the current understanding of things. Are there such things as this 10Ka event as you fantasize about? No. The evidence is quite clear that you are completely and utterly wrong. The evidence is quite clear on that. As I have repeatedly pointed out there are many lines of evidence that show you are completely and utterly wrong. There is zero chance for your ideas to be correct because the data, the evidence, the geological evidence shows you are wrong - dead wrong.

This is like having a piece of plywood without blemishes on it and you suggesting that maybe someone shot it with a rifle. I ask you to point out the holes from the rifle. You counter that maybe the wood was melted. I tell you that wood does not melt and ask you to point out where the fibers of the wood are in any way disturbed. You claim that it was not a rifle but a shotgun. Again I ask for the holes or any places in the plywood where fibers have been disturbed. You post a picture of a burned house and say there it is. I tell you that is not this piece of plywood and you post a picture of a canoe paddle and a piece of bamboo and claim that it happened. That is how absurd your posts are.

As far as Wegener is concerned, he was quickly shown to be wrong. His rejection was correct due to his mistake of thinking that continents drifted. There are mechanical reasons for rejecting the idea that continents can drift.


#788    Mario Dantas

Mario Dantas

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cabo Verde Islands (West Africa)

  • Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.

    (Mahatma Gandhi)

Posted 22 July 2014 - 11:24 PM

View Poststereologist, on 01 July 2014 - 04:01 AM, said:


The problem is that you are not using science. You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting even the basics of science. You wrote "A continental piece of the crust, according to Plato, disappeared." That is not true at all is it? Plato does not suggest that crust disappeared. What Plato writes does not suggest that any crust disappeared.

You also ask about "generalized metamorphism." What do you mean by that? Are you trying to hedge your bets by saying metamorphism?

Even when you get to the radio metric dating issues you seem quite unsure and make a big speech.  You say things ike partial melt. Well if it melted then it is no longer a rock and dating deals with rocks. So why did you say that?  You mention cooling. Well let me tell you that temperature has no effect on radiometric dating as long as the atoms stay in the solid. Radioactive decay is independent of temperature. It sounds like you do not understand how radiometric dating works.

Your comment at the end concerning metamorphism shows that you really have no idea how rocks are dated. Maybe you don't understand that geologists can determine that a rock has undergone some sort of alteration.

You really need to take an intro course in geology so that you do not continue to make so many mistakes.


Hello Stereologist,

When Plato explained what had happened to the island of Atlantis, what else is there to think other that some kind of movement must have occurred? According to Plato, a large island existed in front of the straits, but today there aren't "any" traces of such an island to have existed at all, this is a fact.

Plato said that the island was lost and therefore somehow that phenomenal piece of crust actually would have disappeared. I don't know about the other zillion interrpretations. It is a fact that Plato does actually affirm that the island simply vanished, shoals of mud took the place. And therefore, the crust also was no more in existence in front of Gibraltar.

Critias says the following:

Quote

Such was the vast power which the god settled in the lost island of Atlantis


Quote

Atlantis, which, as was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.


And Timaeus:

Quote

Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.


Quote

But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.


Regarding metamorphism, it is found all around Greenland, but especially in the southern part, as well as in many Macaronesian islands. Whenever there are conditions for rock transformation by heat, there will be metamorphic changes. Rock metamorphism has occurred around the Macaronesian islands, but very likely for different reasons...

Posted Image


Posted Image






There are basalt and metamorphosed limestone slabs at the quarry. I ask how do you explain such metamorphism? Where did the smooth basalt "peebles" come from? and the shells? the other rocks?

What environment smoothed those nearly perfect round shapes? I can only guess that whatever you are about to tell me, says that this fact does not prove Atlantis existed and so on and so forth, but this is, nonetheless, an important rock metamorphism that should have taken place, should the crust ever be submitted to "stresses", such as those portrayed by Plato. please don't get me wrong...

Dating is another issue on which you are over misenterpreting whatever i say. Have you ever thought about my proposal? I ask do you not think that whatever happened to the limestone shown above did alter radiometric readings of said rock? When you say "for as long as atoms stay in the solid", i ask how would you consider the possibility of atoms not staying in the solid, as you put it?

The disappearance of Plato's Atlantis would have been an immensely large energetic and kinetic event, as a consequence of earthquake(s). You have all the ingredients for an impacting event...

Some years ago there was an environmental meeting in Cabo Verde concerning oil in the west African region, and the representative of Petrobras (semi-public Brazilian multinational energy corporation) started her speech by asking whether anyone knew if there was any vestiges of a continental plate, of any sort, in our territory, and since they'd recently found oil further south in the islands S. Tome e principe, who knows? Everybody laughed in excitement at such prospect, but the truth is that nobody knows for sure, and there were two geologists present, one is my coworker, a bio-geologist.

After having thoroughly visited all the islands (except one), i am inclined to think that there are similar rock formations between southern Greenland and the Macaronesia (at least the Cabo Verde and Canary islands).

There are vestiges of a metamorphosed pieces of continental plate (not from the African plate but from Greenland) in Cabo Verde, i am sure...



M

Edited by Mario Dantas, 22 July 2014 - 11:29 PM.

1. Catalog of Images
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722

2. Was Atlantis in Greenland?
http://a7lan7is.blogspot.com

#789    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,159 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 23 July 2014 - 01:00 AM

Quote

Plato said that the island was lost and therefore somehow that phenomenal piece of crust actually would have disappeared.

That Atlantis is always referred to as an island and not a continent, the two words being used within the same texts which means that Plato knew the difference, should tell you the obvious. That Atlantis was never part of any continental crust but was made up of oceanic crust. Something of which rather definitively invalidates Greenland which IS composed of continental crust.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#790    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,192 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 July 2014 - 03:02 PM

View PostMario Dantas, on 22 July 2014 - 11:24 PM, said:


Hello Stereologist,

When Plato explained what had happened to the island of Atlantis, what else is there to think other that some kind of movement must have occurred? According to Plato, a large island existed in front of the straits, but today there aren't "any" traces of such an island to have existed at all, this is a fact.

Plato said that the island was lost and therefore somehow that phenomenal piece of crust actually would have disappeared. I don't know about the other zillion interrpretations. It is a fact that Plato does actually affirm that the island simply vanished, shoals of mud took the place. And therefore, the crust also was no more in existence in front of Gibraltar.

Critias says the following:

And Timaeus:

Regarding metamorphism, it is found all around Greenland, but especially in the southern part, as well as in many Macaronesian islands. Whenever there are conditions for rock transformation by heat, there will be metamorphic changes. Rock metamorphism has occurred around the Macaronesian islands, but very likely for different reasons...

There are basalt and metamorphosed limestone slabs at the quarry. I ask how do you explain such metamorphism? Where did the smooth basalt "peebles" come from? and the shells? the other rocks?

What environment smoothed those nearly perfect round shapes? I can only guess that whatever you are about to tell me, says that this fact does not prove Atlantis existed and so on and so forth, but this is, nonetheless, an important rock metamorphism that should have taken place, should the crust ever be submitted to "stresses", such as those portrayed by Plato. please don't get me wrong...

Dating is another issue on which you are over misenterpreting whatever i say. Have you ever thought about my proposal? I ask do you not think that whatever happened to the limestone shown above did alter radiometric readings of said rock? When you say "for as long as atoms stay in the solid", i ask how would you consider the possibility of atoms not staying in the solid, as you put it?

The disappearance of Plato's Atlantis would have been an immensely large energetic and kinetic event, as a consequence of earthquake(s). You have all the ingredients for an impacting event...

Some years ago there was an environmental meeting in Cabo Verde concerning oil in the west African region, and the representative of Petrobras (semi-public Brazilian multinational energy corporation) started her speech by asking whether anyone knew if there was any vestiges of a continental plate, of any sort, in our territory, and since they'd recently found oil further south in the islands S. Tome e principe, who knows? Everybody laughed in excitement at such prospect, but the truth is that nobody knows for sure, and there were two geologists present, one is my coworker, a bio-geologist.

After having thoroughly visited all the islands (except one), i am inclined to think that there are similar rock formations between southern Greenland and the Macaronesia (at least the Cabo Verde and Canary islands).

There are vestiges of a metamorphosed pieces of continental plate (not from the African plate but from Greenland) in Cabo Verde, i am sure...

M

As I stated you are not using science. Instead you are trying to determine what happened in the story written by Plato. You make a claim about Plato and crust and the notion of crust was not known to Plato. That is a modern idea. Please separate out what you know about the Earth from what Plato knew about the Earth. Plato has no idea about plates, crust, the core, the origins of the land masses that he sees, the age of the world, etc.

Learn a little about metamorphic changes. Heat is one way. I'm not the one using an odd term like "generalized metamorphism." I asked you what you meant by that. All of the chit chat about the existence of metamorphic rocks in Greenland has nothing whatsoever to do with explaining what you meant. The existence of those rocks has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.

The fact is that Greenland is on the other side of the mid-Atlantic ridge. That ridge system opened up nearly 200Ma. I am not misinterpreting what you say. You are making up ideas which are completely wrong and trivial to show to be wrong. For example, you ask about dating of rocks.

Do you really think that scientists that date rocks have no idea how it is done? Do you really think that rock dating is done so poorly that you can point out glaring mistakes in dating? For example, do you think that limestone is dated radiometrically. You ask about it right here. You stated, "that whatever happened to the limestone shown above did alter radiometric readings of said rock." Let me give you a hint. That's a glaring error. People dating rocks understand the issues on a level which you might reach in a decade of study.

You claim that "would have been an immensely large energetic and kinetic event" yet you offer no evidence to support such an event. Rather, the lack of evidence should point out to you that Atlantis never existed in the first place. In other words, you are working to disprove Atlantis.

As far as your oil anecdote, there does not have to be any continental crust to have an oil deposit. Once again, continental plate break up does not leave pieces behind because the continents do not drift. They are imbedded in plates. Your idea is without merit and 100% of the evidence is against your position.


#791    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,192 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 July 2014 - 10:46 PM

Mario this is never going to work for you. The simple and direct is that you have an idea and you want to support that idea at the expense of attempting to claim that hundreds of thousands of others with far greater knowledge of many fields are wrong. Not happening.

This is the same tactic used by creationists and others. You have to disregard the huge amounts of evidence collected in a variety of fields.

You wonder if a huge part of the Earth's surface could be melted. Seriously? That would raise the air temperature to the point of annihilating land bound creatures and plants. Think about these things. Rocks melt at 800+C. Look this up if you don't know. That heat is going to boil the ocean. That heat is going to raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Following me so far. These are simple ideas. Nothing fancy so far. How long can plants and animals on land survive if the air temperature is raised to 200C, or 300C, or 400C, or 500C? What happens to the oceans as well? Think about it!

You wonder if that melting could affect dating of rocks. Do you think that others such as people dating rocks thought about that? Do you think you are the first person to wonder about that? You ask about radiometric dating of limestone. Do you know what radiometric dating is? Do you know how it works? Do you have any idea which minerals are used?

Do you understand the difference between plate tectonics and continental drift? I know the answer is no. Why do you think they are the same? Why do you think islands are left behind? It tells us all that you do not understand the process. The process is not like grabbing opposite sides of a cookie and pulling and seeing crumbs left behind.

I kept telling you that the image you posted did not show a dent in the Earth. Yet, you posted that image ad did not understand what it represented. That should have been a signal to you to get out of regular school and go on to college and learn about things like graphs and plots and data visualization.


#792    Mario Dantas

Mario Dantas

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cabo Verde Islands (West Africa)

  • Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.

    (Mahatma Gandhi)

Posted 23 July 2014 - 11:19 PM

Posted Image



Stereologist,

I find your opinion valid but unfair!

The only thing important here is logic thinking. You are constantly misinterpreting the whole process of my experiment. I could not care less if a group of people think that they got it made in this life, and kinda of know everything. That is somewhat prejudice, don't you think?

Metamorphism is a phenomena which can change radiometric dating, this is fact…

Millions of years can turn into a few hours? Of course…

What would happen if a “generalized” ocean floor melt occurred? I have to ask you this…

Are you denying that dating would be incorrect? It is a logic assumption! I am not saying that it occurred but, rather, trying to show that if it ever occurred radiometric dating would have to be flawed because of the assumption of a gradual geologic transformation.

Regarding Plato not knowing about plate tectonics, i can only say that it is irrelevant, since he was probably only telling the story as he heard it (even if you think it is a lie). Plato was not an architect nor an engineer either, but Critias tale is full of spectacular palaces described with great detail and state of the art engineering, such technology was not possible until recently, e.g. the plain, the tunnels, the rings, cannals, etc, etc, etc…

M

1. Catalog of Images
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722

2. Was Atlantis in Greenland?
http://a7lan7is.blogspot.com

#793    stereologist

stereologist

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,192 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 July 2014 - 03:20 AM

View PostMario Dantas, on 23 July 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:



Stereologist,

I find your opinion valid but unfair!

The only thing important here is logic thinking. You are constantly misinterpreting the whole process of my experiment. I could not care less if a group of people think that they got it made in this life, and kinda of know everything. That is somewhat prejudice, don't you think?

Metamorphism is a phenomena which can change radiometric dating, this is fact…

Millions of years can turn into a few hours? Of course…

What would happen if a “generalized” ocean floor melt occurred? I have to ask you this…

Are you denying that dating would be incorrect? It is a logic assumption! I am not saying that it occurred but, rather, trying to show that if it ever occurred radiometric dating would have to be flawed because of the assumption of a gradual geologic transformation.

Regarding Plato not knowing about plate tectonics, i can only say that it is irrelevant, since he was probably only telling the story as he heard it (even if you think it is a lie). Plato was not an architect nor an engineer either, but Critias tale is full of spectacular palaces described with great detail and state of the art engineering, such technology was not possible until recently, e.g. the plain, the tunnels, the rings, cannals, etc, etc, etc…

M

I'm not misinterpreting your mistakes. If I were you'd point them out. I'm not. You are simply wrong and constantly disregard the overwhelming evidence against your claims. If not 100%, then 99% of what you post is not logical.

Your claims about mnetamorphism are not germane. That has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand. Can it as you claim turn a million years into a few hours? In general, that is nonsense. That is utter nonsense and you have no basis for that claim.

What would happen if the ocean floor melted? It would boil the oceans and cook all life on Earth. How is that for a start? If you disagree then please tell me why rock that melts at 800C or higher does not boil off the oceans and destroy all life on Earth?

As far as dating is concerned, please tell us all why the dates across a mid ocean ridge are symmetrical. How can that be if the rock had been in any way altered to reset the clock? How can there be continuous sediments for the time periods involved if the ocean melted? How can the paleomagnetic striping remain symmetrical across the mid ocean ridges? Why do you overlook evidence that has been repeatedly pointed out to you? Why do you continue to take completely illogical stances? Why do you continue to post rubbish notions that have been pointed out as rubbish time and time and time again?

Do  you actually think scientists are so stupid that they would not notice that the rocks had been melted? Do you think everyone in the world is an idiot and would not notice this? That is what you must think when you post these fairy tales.

You are the one connecting modern ideas to Plato - no one else. Only you have made claims about Plato and crusts and plates. Plato told a story. Fiction is not a lie. Learn the difference. Learn not to use anachronisms in dealing with people of different time periods. Today and even in the past stories have been imagined that could not be implemented even with today's technology. Does that mean stories of faster than light travel must be true? Is Star Wars true because we can't build light sabers? What sort of wishy washy illogical claptrap comes next?


#794    Mario Dantas

Mario Dantas

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • Joined:01 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cabo Verde Islands (West Africa)

  • Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.

    (Mahatma Gandhi)

Posted 25 July 2014 - 11:18 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 23 July 2014 - 01:00 AM, said:

That Atlantis is always referred to as an island and not a continent, the two words being used within the same texts which means that Plato knew the difference, should tell you the obvious. That Atlantis was never part of any continental crust but was made up of oceanic crust. Something of which rather definitively invalidates Greenland which IS composed of continental crust.

cormac


Cormac,

This subject is maybe too complicated for me to explain correctly. I don't even know what to say...

Quote

[...] the Indian subcontinent covers about 4.4 million km² (1.7 million mi²), which is 10% of the Asian continent or 3.3% of the world's land surface area.[32][33]

Greenland is about half that size (2,166,086 sq km)...

Why would Atlantis description lead you to think that it was composed of oceanic floor? I am sorry. i just did not follow your logic.

M

1. Catalog of Images
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722

2. Was Atlantis in Greenland?
http://a7lan7is.blogspot.com

#795    Peter Cox

Peter Cox

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 380 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa

  • The man who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the man busy doing it.

Posted 25 July 2014 - 11:42 AM

Mario - hate to be a hater here but I dont think you are following any logic here. It would be impossible for greenland to travel that distance on its plate, and it cant "drift" away either.

If it did "drift" as you say void of its plate then why has it stopped so fast?

Taking what Plato wrote in a book and using it as science is much the same as looking for the shire from lord of the rings. They both written down in a book and both are meant to resemble a place on earth however i believe both are no more than fictional writing.

I must applude your efforts here but in the realm of possibilities what you are suggesting does not fin it very well.

Cheers





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users