2241 replies to this topic

[Leonardo]

docyabut2, on 09 April 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

I respect all theories however Plato spoke of two different plains, one of the city and one surrounding the city.


I have before remarked in speaking of the allotments of the gods, that they distributed the whole earth into portions differing in extent, and made for themselves temples and instituted sacrifices. And Poseidon, receiving for his lot the island of Atlantis, begat children by a mortal woman, and settled them in a part of the island, which I will describe. Looking towards the sea, but in the centre of the whole island, there was a plain which is said to have been the fairest of all plains and very fertile. Near the plain again, and also in the centre of the island at a distance of about fifty stadia, there was a mountain not very high on any side.


I have described the city and the environs of the ancient palace nearly in the words of Solon, and now I must endeavour to represent the nature and arrangement of the rest of the land. The whole country was said by him to be very lofty and precipitous on the side of the sea, but the country immediately about and surrounding the city was a level plain, itself surrounded by mountains which descended towards the sea; it was smooth and even, and of an oblong shape, extending in one direction three thousand stadia, but across the centre inland it was two thousand stadia. This part of the island looked towards the south, and was sheltered from the north.

There are not two plains mentioned in this part of the narrative.

The plain on the island Atlantis was 3000 stadia East-West, and 2000 stadia North-South. The south border of the plain was on the south coast of the island, and centrally located on that coast (the centre of the island). Again, central to the south coast of the island and 50 stadia inland was a small, solitary 'mountain' (a hill). On the East, West and North, the plain was surrounded by mountains.

The hill was where the city of Atlantis was founded and the area around it was enclosed by the canals the Atlanteans dug - one of which reached to the sea.

[Abramelin]

Arbitran, on 08 April 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

I may disagree entirely with your theory, but I have enough respect for you to warn you.
These people do not believe you when you state that your information is too expansive (mine is very similar); they will simply make repeated claims that it is somehow proof that you have no evidence.

Is it too much to ask to finally show something substantial??

Your theory is not even original as I have shown you, but at least the one who started with "Atlantis in Bolivia" published his theory in a book and he created a website about it. http://www.atlantisb...oliviapart1.htm

Mario keeps saying there is new geological proof of the Cape Verde islands being once part of or connected with Greenland. It's possiblle I have missed that post where he showed that new geological proof, but even if there is proof, then it will be of the time when Gondwana split up and the Atlantic Ocean came into existence. In that case we are talking about many millions of years ago, and nothing like near the end of the last ice age.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 09 April 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[Sensible Logic]

Arbitran, on 08 April 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

I may disagree entirely with your theory, but I have enough respect for you to warn you.
These people do not believe you when you state that your information is too expansive (mine is very similar); they will simply make repeated claims that it is somehow proof that you have no evidence.

Then it's quite simple.  Don't post "your work".  Pick a small section of the work and make you4 post with links to sources or references to printed materials and go from there.

[Mario Dantas]

Abramelin, on 09 April 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Is it too much to ask to finally show something substantial??

Your theory is not even original as I have shown you, but at least the one who started with "Atlantis in Bolivia" published his theory in a book and he created a website about it. http://www.atlantisb...oliviapart1.htm

Mario keeps saying there is new geological proof of the Cape Verde islands being once part of or connected with Greenland. It's possiblle I have missed that post where he showed that new geological proof, but even if there is proof, then it will be of the time when Gondwana split up and the Atlantic Ocean came into existence. In that case we are talking about many millions of years ago, and nothing like near the end of the last ice age.


.

Abramelin,

I guess you are not being fair, but it is a start...

Firstly, my theory has to be evaluated under a "no geological timescale" reality. (The results that can be taken from such exercise are amazing! Try to make an effort in order to understand what is being forwarded first.) If the geological timescale is not taken into account you there are a lot of coincidences that take shape (namely continental motions and many, apparently unrelated geological events). You deny that a continental fit occur when Greenland is posited in front of Gibraltar:



You also deny that there is evidence of a geological similarity between Greenland and the Cape Verde Islands. Flood basalts and mobile belts all around Greenland seem to be telling a different story than what is advanced by science until now. I know for a fact that the present geological knowledge of the two groups of islands (leeward and windward) forming the Cape Verde arquipelago, is insufficient and lacks deeper analysis with regards to its true origin. Some weeks ago,e.g. it was discovered a different mineral in one of the islands while building a dam, guess what? Greenland is also one the few places in the world where this mineral is found. It is actually a rare mineral (Leucite)...

Furthermore, i came to the conclusion that the so called Gardar Province (southwest Greenland) is where this mineral is found, in Greenland. Exactly where we are proposing the location of windward group, (the island where the mineral was found belong to the same group):



A link about pseudoleucite in south Greenland:

http://www.google.co...KMKjNvy4QZY8XQg

I could be wrong, but i bet that leucite has at least some relation with metamorphosed rocks. The southern region of Greenland is characterized by metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks, which are equally common in Cape Verde.

Quote

The sedimentary rocks of macaronesia

Raoul C. Mitchell-Thomé

Abstract

In all the archipelagos forming Macaronesia, volcanis predominate, but pre-Quaternary sediments are also present, though playing a humble role.

Calcareous deposits have by far the greatest significance throughout the known stratigraphic record. Tertiary occurrences tend to be thin, show more gentle dips, whereas the Mesozoics attain thicknesses of 400 m (certain), attitudes steeper, often vertical.

To date, Mesozoics are recognized only in Maio (Cape Verde), are possible in S. Nicolau (Cape Verde) and Fuerteventura (Canary Islands). Whether strata as old as Jurassic is present in these three islands is a moot point. Ample arguments, pro and con, have been presented for Maio; there is meagre evidence in S. Nicolau; pure conjecture in Fuerteventura.

Beginning with the Neogene, the stratigraphic record for Macaronesia is more substantial, the Vindobonian being present or then strongly suspected in all archipelagos.

The sedimentary rocks in these islands have not aroused the same interests as the volcanics, and undeniably they are of far less importance as regards rock constitution. The status of investigations varies widely within the different islands, and as of the present, we must frankly recognize that our knowledge of the sedimentaries is only of reconnaissance standard.

http://www.springerl...r5728868877573/

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas, 09 April 2012 - 11:17 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

Mario Dantas, on 09 April 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

Abramelin,

I guess you are not being fair, but it is a start...

Firstly, my theory has to be evaluated under a "no geological timescale" reality. (The results that can be taken from such exercise are amazing! Try to make an effort in order to understand what is being forwarded first.) If the geological timescale is not taken into account you there are a lot of coincidences that take shape (namely continental motions and many, apparently unrelated geological events). You deny that a continental fit occur when Greenland is posited in front of Gibraltar:



You also deny that there is evidence of a geological similarity between Greenland and the Cape Verde Islands. Flood basalts and mobile belts all around Greenland seem to be telling a different story than what is advanced by science until now. I know for a fact that the present geological knowledge of the two groups of islands (leeward and windward) forming the Cape Verde arquipelago, is insufficient and lacks deeper analysis with regards to its true origin. Some weeks ago,e.g. it was discovered a different mineral in one of the islands while building a dam, guess what? Greenland is also one the few places in the world where this mineral is found. It is actually a rare mineral (Leucite).

No, your theory (and I use the term loosely) of Greenlands movement MUST be evaluated under the geological timescale in evidence and NOT pulled out of context or out of its given timeframe in order to substantiate your claim of relevance to ancient human history.

As to the second bold portion above, you've presented no scientific evidence whatsoever that the geological origins of Greenland and the Cape Verde Islands are even remotely one and the same. Which makes any speculation on your part rather baseless.

cormac

[Leonardo]

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.

Edited by Leonardo, 10 April 2012 - 06:54 AM.

[Mario Dantas]

Sensible Logic, on 09 April 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Then it's quite simple.  Don't post "your work".  Pick a small section of the work and make you4 post with links to sources or references to printed materials and go from there.

Sensible Logic,

Thank you for the tip! I hope i can manage to explain my point of view, but i know beforehand this is not going to be an easy task...

Regards,
Mario Dantas

[Abramelin]

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.

[Mario Dantas]

cormac mac airt, on 09 April 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

No, your theory (and I use the term loosely) of Greenlands movement MUST be evaluated under the geological timescale in evidence and NOT pulled out of context or out of its given timeframe in order to substantiate your claim of relevance to ancient human history.

As to the second bold portion above, you've presented no scientific evidence whatsoever that the geological origins of Greenland and the Cape Verde Islands are even remotely one and the same. Which makes any speculation on your part rather baseless.

cormac

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. Under a normal evaluation, it is obvious that such hypothesis has no truth in it...

You said i have not yet presented scientific evidence on the same geological origins of Greenland and the Cape Verde Islands:

https://lh6.googleus...1Q/s512/xxx.jpg
https://lh6.googleus...512/souhtgr.jpg
https://lh5.googleus...12/Atlantis.jpg

The Canary Islands:

https://lh3.googleus...y%20islands.jpg
https://lh5.googleus...y%20islands.jpg

The Cape Verde Islands (but also the Canary Islands) and the south of Greenland bear evidence of similar metamorphosed rocks (both volcanic and sedimentary (limestone or sandstone) and even some rare minerals like Leucite, as stated earlier). The geology of the Ketilidian mobile belt (southern Greenland) (a small territory compared to the huge size of the island) is nevertheless accompanying that of the Cape Verde Islands everywhere you look, except in places where glacial  erosion erased volcanic evidence.

Please consider what Niels Henriksen wrote on Greenland’s geological development:

Quote

The geological development of Greenland spans almost four billion years. The central basement shield is composed of gneiss complexes and belts of metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks that came into existence during mountain-building episodes 3800-1600 million years ago. Around the margins of this basement shield, thick sedimentary deposits accumulated in extensive basins. Two coast-parallel younger mountain chains formed in North-East and North Greenland about 430-350 million years ago. Major volcanic successions, related to the plate-tectonic opening of the North Atlantic Ocean 60-55 million years ago, were erupted in both East and West Greenland. The Ice Age that began about 2 million years ago is represented by widespread glacial deposits, erosional features and the present-day Inland Ice.

All geological “ingredients” are there in order to posit that Greenland could have performed some kind of “drift”, if we do not consider the important but restricting “time” factor. Why would major volcanic successions erupt on both sides of Greenland? And why would it relate to the opening of the North Atlantic?

I cannot stress more the fact that a continental fit existing between Greenland and Iberian peninsula and north western Africa, is maybe the proof that something is not entirely correct regarding plate tectonics?

The origin of the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP) is one large event that took place synchronously, the whole north Atlantic floor was molten at some stage. Those were the conditions that might have led to Greenland’s free buoyancy, and consequent ability to move.  

The Greenland move towards north might have occurred (as India and other land masses) by the impacting force of a meteor or asteroid. Notice how in the geological time scale animation, continents seem to perform a “radial” movement towards the north direction. Land masses could have been impacted where the strongest negative anomaly exist, in the Indian ocean. All land masses could have “drifted” much faster. In this line of thought, Continental masses must also have stopped their rapid motion, after the molten oceanic floor ceased to be fluid. The high temperatures of the hot upper mantle outside the oceanic crust could have been cooled down by the influence of the gigantic cryosphere, ocean water, exterior temperatures, mud and debris.

http://www.agci.org/...a-animation.php
http://www.classzone...o=visualization

I again state that an odd lack of continental fit exists in the north Atlantic region, near Gibraltar, at the beginning of nearly all animations concerning Pangaea. Why does this happen? Why does Greenland fit so well in that continental gap? Why is the geoid map’s strongest gravitational anomaly in front of Gibraltar and on the northern MAR?



http://op.gfz-potsda...en-grace02s.jpg
http://op.gfz-potsda...en-grace02s.jpg

Regards,
Mario Dantas

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

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. Under a normal evaluation, it is obvious that such hypothesis has no truth in it...

Wrong, as on multiple occasions you've called this a theory and as such are constrained by the geological and chronological facts of the situation. Nor is this your thread, so you're therefore also constrained by the OP. If you want a "make it up as I go along" thread, might I suggest you start your own.

Quote

Under a normal evaluation, it is obvious that such hypothesis has no truth in it...

Which makes it meaningless as a REAL theory.

Quote

You said i have not yet presented scientific evidence on the same geological origins of Greenland and the Cape Verde Islands:

That's correct, because your pictures DO NOT constitute scientific evidence of your claims. Also, as "scientific evidence" it should be noted that once again you are constrained by the geological and chronological facts of the situation.

Quote

Please consider what Niels Henriksen wrote on Greenland’s geological development:

None of which has anything to do with the Cape Verde Islands. Nor do your animations support a claim of Greenland being directly in front of the Straits of Gibraltar.

cormac

[Abramelin]

Mario, you maybe either are a lunatic or a troll.

I don't think you are a troll, but I think you have a language problem.

Now that is settled, what about answering MY post??

==

I read your post to Cormac.

Dunno about Cormac. but to me your post to him looked like fkg crazy.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 11 April 2012 - 12:01 AM.

[Abramelin]

Mario, you will HAVE to tell us how Greenland moved to the North Pole 11,000 years ago, without disfiguring the shape of the countries bordering the Atlantic.

.

[cormac mac airt]

Abramelin, on 10 April 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

Mario, you maybe either are a lunatic or a troll.

I don't think you are a troll, but I think you have a language problem.

Now that is settled, what about answering MY post??

==

I read your post to Cormac.

Dunno about Cormac. but to me your post to him looked like fkg crazy.


.

My take would be that he has a problem separating fantasy from reality. The closest he can achieve with his idea is Science Fiction.

cormac

[Abramelin]

cormac mac airt, on 11 April 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

My take would be that he has a problem separating fantasy from reality. The closest he can achieve with his idea is Science Fiction.

cormac

Damn, I was about to delete what I posted.

OK, so be it.

-

Hey Mario, how about finally give us something more than fancy pictures, and something to chew on?

I would like to be convinced, but up to now I think I am reading posts of some madman.

[Swede]

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. Under a normal evaluation, it is obvious that such hypothesis has no truth in it...

You said i have not yet presented scientific evidence on the same geological origins of Greenland and the Cape Verde Islands:

https://lh6.googleus...1Q/s512/xxx.jpg
https://lh6.googleus...512/souhtgr.jpg
https://lh5.googleus...12/Atlantis.jpg

The Canary Islands:

https://lh3.googleus...2520islands.jpg
https://lh5.googleus...2520islands.jpg

The Cape Verde Islands (but also the Canary Islands) and the south of Greenland bear evidence of similar metamorphosed rocks (both volcanic and sedimentary (limestone or sandstone) and even some rare minerals like Leucite, as stated earlier). The geology of the Ketilidian mobile belt (southern Greenland) (a small territory compared to the huge size of the island) is nevertheless accompanying that of the Cape Verde Islands everywhere you look, except in places where glacial  erosion erased volcanic evidence.

Please consider what Niels Henriksen wrote on Greenland's geological development:




All geological "ingredients" are there in order to posit that Greenland could have performed some kind of "drift", if we do not consider the important but restricting "time" factor. Why would major volcanic successions erupt on both sides of Greenland? And why would it relate to the opening of the North Atlantic?

I cannot stress more the fact that a continental fit existing between Greenland and Iberian peninsula and north western Africa, is maybe the proof that something is not entirely correct regarding plate tectonics?

The origin of the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province (CAMP) is one large event that took place synchronously, the whole north Atlantic floor was molten at some stage. Those were the conditions that might have led to Greenland's free buoyancy, and consequent ability to move.  

The Greenland move towards north might have occurred (as India and other land masses) by the impacting force of a meteor or asteroid. Notice how in the geological time scale animation, continents seem to perform a "radial" movement towards the north direction. Land masses could have been impacted where the strongest negative anomaly exist, in the Indian ocean. All land masses could have "drifted" much faster. In this line of thought, Continental masses must also have stopped their rapid motion, after the molten oceanic floor ceased to be fluid. The high temperatures of the hot upper mantle outside the oceanic crust could have been cooled down by the influence of the gigantic cryosphere, ocean water, exterior temperatures, mud and debris.

http://www.agci.org/...a-animation.php
http://www.classzone...o=visualization

I again state that an odd lack of continental fit exists in the north Atlantic region, near Gibraltar, at the beginning of nearly all animations concerning Pangaea. Why does this happen? Why does Greenland fit so well in that continental gap? Why is the geoid map's strongest gravitational anomaly in front of Gibraltar and on the northern MAR?



http://op.gfz-potsda...en-grace02s.jpg
http://op.gfz-potsda...en-grace02s.jpg

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Based upon the voluminous qualified research of numerous fields, your "experiment" has no rational basis. Period.

Should you wish to engage in fantasies of your own construction, that would certainly be your right. However, to expect others to "play with you" may be rather presumptive.

Until such point as a rational presentation on your part may appear, there would appear to be remarkable little need to "entertain" you or your patently unrealistic speculations.

.