Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13
Egyptian-Illuminati

Could Atlantis be under Greenland's Ice?

1,167 posts in this topic

I beg you to at least try to understand what is being forwarded. Yes, i agree that it is absurd!

Plato's story is first in my experiment, then everything had to be "re-engineered", geologically speaking. I believe that the time scale is not correct because there is a continental fit, in front of Gibraltar and a massive gravitational anomaly in the north Atlantic, not to mention that the Sahara desert appears at roughly the same time, etc, etc, etc.

I again ask, what would you expect to see? Orogenies, submerged ridges, young sea floors, hot-spots?

~SNIP~

Regards,

Mario Dantas

You don't get to "re-engineer" the facts, they speak quite well for themselves and what they show is that your "thought exercise" never happened.

I expect you to use the facts that exist and explain how your exercise could have happened based on same, not make up your own facts.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cormac,

I will be straight with you! I had done a while ago a somewhat long text, in which i explain why i believe Greenland might have moved "instantaneously" northwards. My theory (or whatever you might want to call it) evolve around a basic idea: that an hypothetical impacting event occurred, forcing continents to “drift” apart with dire geologic consequences. It is my belief that there is scientific evidence of an ancient impact on earth.

The geoid map’s gravitational anomaly in the north Atlantic ocean floor indicate that something might have happened there (within the strongest positive gravitational anomaly in the world), and moreover, covering almost entirely that segment of the northern MAR, where coincidentally, Plato says Atlantis was located...

It is possible that an intense tectonic event might have happened in the north Atlantic, and the ocean floor somehow is very similar to the shape of the island of Greenland (i hope you cannot deny this):

http://nacc.upc.es/tierra/img/grace-geoid-europe.png

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2H19xdvrP0w/TFcMP4YOgrI/AAAAAAAAEFU/S7WD2qoqlmg/s475/Atlantis.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-GoNm4zCu86E/TGLBo3nje2I/AAAAAAAAEMw/xCdi84DSc8Y/s546/grace-geoid-europe.png

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-C4ieiLoP1ks/TGLBo8Ee5JI/AAAAAAAAEM0/eBv5gs1UWcc/s497/EGM08_Geoid_thumb.gif

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-QLzKFAz4qjs/TFcThw6NozI/AAAAAAAAEFo/JdAksYlxR8E/s795/ATLANTIS+one.jpg

I believe that a large meteoric impact occurred in the Indian ocean with consequences having reached the whole planet, and afterwards, evidences of this event were almost entirely erased by means of water invasion and debris turmoil as well as strong earthquakes that formed a new “unrecognizable” geomorphology. The gravitational anomaly patent in the Indian ocean (actually the largest negative anomaly in the world) is perhaps the only “proof” of a large impact.

Mythology, on the other hand is not a proof of anything, although Plato’s references to a mysterious “Phaeton” and tremendous earthquakes, which ultimately led to the demise of Atlantis, should be seriously considered, absence of evidence is definitely not evidence of absence:

There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

The “information” we get from the “Phaeton” (son of Helios) myth (whether by Plato, Ovid, Philostratus, Diodorus Siculus, Apollonius Rhodius, Euripides, Aeschylus, etc) is probably indicating a sizable impact with our planet. The fact that this myth is mentioned not only by Plato, but by various other known personalities of ancient Greece, could be indicating that there might be a shred of truth in the whole story? How could Plato describe a gigantic impact and its consequences just for the sake of storytelling nearly half a century BC?

Ovid, in Metamorphoses possibly made the most vivid description of this strange myth, IMO:

And Phaethon, flames ravaging his auburn hair, falls headlong down, a streaming trail of light, as sometimes through the cloudless vault of night a star, though never falling, seems to fall. Eridanus receives him, far from home, in his wide waters half a world away. And bathes his burning face. The Naides Hesperiae bury his smouldering body in a tomb and on a stone engrave this epitaph : `Here Phaethon lies, his father’s charioteer; great was his fall, yet did he greatly dare.’ His father, sick with grief, had hidden his face, shrouded in misery, an, if the tale is true, one day went by without the Sun. The flaming fires gave light--some gain at least in that disaster. Clymene, distraught with sorrow, said whatever could be said in woes so terrible and beat her breast, and roamed the world to find his lifeless limbs and then his bones, and found his bones at last buried beside a foreign river-bank. And, prostrate there, she drenched in tears his name carved in the marble and hugged it to her breast. His sister’s too, the three Heliades, wept sad tears, their futile tribute to the dead, and long lay prostrate on their brother’s tomb, bruising their breasts and calling day and night Phaethon who never more would hear their moans. Four times the waxing crescent of the moon had filled her orb, in their wonted way, wailing was now their wont, they made lament [and were transformed into amber-crying poplar-trees; and his friend Kyknos was transformed into a swan] . . .

Sol [Helios] meanwhile, dishevelled, his bright sheen subdued as in the gloom of an eclipse, loathing himself, loathing the light, the day, gives way to grief, and, grief rising to rage, denies his duty to the world. `Enough’, he cries, `Since time began my lot has brought no rest, no respite. I resent this toil, unending toil, unhonoured drudgery. Let someone else take out my chariot that bears my sunbeams, or, if no one will, and all the gods confess they can’t, let Jove [Zeus] drive it, and, as he wrestles with the reins, there’ll be a while at least when he won’t wield his bolt to rob a father of his son; and, when he’s tried the fiery-footed team and learnt their strength, he’ll know no one should die for failing to control them expertly.’

Then all the deities surround Sol [Helios] and beg him and beseech him not to shroud the world in darkness. Jupiter [Zeus], indeed, defends his fiery bolt and adds his royal threats. So Sol [Helios] took in hand his maddened team, still terrified, and whipped them savagely, whipped them and cursed them for their guilt that they destroyed his son, their master, that dire day." Ovid, Metamorphoses 1. 750 ff

http://www.theoi.com/Titan/Phaethon.html

http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/rubens_fall_of_phaeton.jpg

Please consider the following passages from the same author:

“And when the reins fall loose upon their backs, the horses swerve away and, unrestrained, gallop through tracts of air unknown and race headlong, out of control, running amok amid the stars fixed in the vault of heaven, hurtling the chariot where no road had run. And now they climb to highest heaven, now plunge sheer in breakneck descent down to the earth. Luna [selene the Moon] with wonder sees her brother’s team running below her own; the scalding clouds steam; the parched fields crack deep, all moisture dried, and every summit flames; the calcined meads lie white; the leaf dies burning with the bough and the dry corn its own destruction feeds. These are but trifles. Mighty cities burn with all their ramparts; realms and nations turn to ashes; mountains with their forests blaze. Athos is burning, Oete is on fire, and Tmolus and proud Taurus Cilix and the crest of Ide, dry whose springs were once so famed, and virgin Helicon and Haemus, still unknown, unhonoured. Aetne burns immense in twofold conflagration; Eryx flames and Othrys and Parnasos’ double peaks; Cynthus and Dindyma and Mycale and Rhodope, losing at last her snows, and Mimas and Cithaeron’s holy hill. Caucasus burns; the frosts of Scythia fail in her need; Pindus and Ossa blaze and, lordlier than both, Olympus flames and the airy Alpes and cloud-capped Appeninus. Then Phaethon saw the world on every side ablaze--heat more that he could bear. He breathed vapours that burned like furnace-blasts, and felt the chariot glow white-hot beneath his feet. Cinders and sparks past bearing shoot and swirl and scorching smoke surrounds him; in the murk, the midnight murk, he knows not where he is or goes; the horses whirl him where they will. The Aethiopes then turned black, so men believe, as heat summoned their blood too near the skin”

Then was Libya’s dusty desert [the Sahara] formed, all water scorched away.

or

“Then the sad Nymphae bewailed their pools and springs; Boeotia mourned her Dirce lost, Argos Amymone, Ephyre Pirene; nor were Flumina (Rivers) safe though fortune’s favour made them broad and deep and their banks far apart; in middle stream from old Peneus rose the drifting steam, from Erymanthus Phegaicus too and swift Ismenos, and Caicus Teuthranius and the Tanais; Maeander playing on his winding way; tawny Lycormas, Xanthus doomed to burn at Troy a second time; Melas Mygdonius, that sable stream; the pride of Eurotas Taenarius. Eurphrates Babylonius burned, Phasis, Hister [Danube] and Ganges were on fire, Orontes burned and racing Thermodon; Alpheus boiled, fire scorched Spercheus’ banks. The gold that Tagus carried in his sands ran molten in the flames, and all the swans that used to charm the Maeonian banks with song huddled in mid Cayster sweltering. The Nilus in terror to the world’s end fled and his head, still hidden; this seven mouths gaped dusty, seven vales without a stream. The same disaster dried the Ismarian rivers, Hebrus and Strymon, dried the lordly flow of the Hesperian waters, Rhodanus [Rhode] and Rhenus [Rhine] and Padus [Po], and Thybris [Tiber], promised empire of the world. Earth everywhere splits deep and light strikes down into Tartara (the Underworld) and fills with fear Rex Infernus (Hell’s monarch) [Haides] and his consort [Persephone]; the wide seas shrink and where ocean lay a wilderness of dry sand spread; new peaks and ranges rise, long covered by the deep, and multiply the scattered islands of the Cyclades. The fishes dive, the dolphins dare no leap their curving course through the familiar air, and lifeless seals float supine on the waves; even Nereus, fathoms down, in his dark caves, with Doris and her daughters, felt the fire. Thrice from the waters Neptunus [Poseidon] raised his arm and frowning face; thrice fled the fiery air.”

http://www.theoi.com/Titan/Phaethon.html

I ask what would you make of this? Is it not true that the gravitational anomaly lies exactly where Ovid, and others attest that in fact an earth impacting event occurred?

Eridanus receives him, far from home, in his wide waters half a world away. And bathes his burning face.

The Naides Hesperiae bury his smouldering body in a tomb and on a stone engrave this epitaph : `Here Phaethon lies, his father’s charioteer; great was his fall, yet did he greatly dare.’ His father, sick with grief, had hidden his face, shrouded in misery, an, if the tale is true, one day went by without the Sun.

I wonder also why Plato tells us that Zeus is to call the other gods together:

“Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things. And when he had called them together, he spake as follows-* The rest of the Dialogue of Critias has been lost.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.html

Zeus, according to Ovid, also gathers the gods but additionally, strikes Phaeton with a thunderbolt:

“But Pater Omnipotens (the Almighty Father) [Zeus], calling the gods and him who gave the chariot to attest creation doomed were now his aid not given, mounted the highest citadel of heaven, whence he was wont to veil the lands with clouds and roll his thunders and his lightnings hurl. But then no clouds had he the lands to veil, nor rain to send from heaven to soothe their pain. He thundered; and poising high his bolt to blast, struck Phaethon from the chariot and from life, and fire extinguished fire and flame quenched flame. The horses in wild panic leapt apart, burst from the traces and flung off the yoke, there lies the reins, the sundered axle there, here the spokes dangle from a shattered wheel, and far and wide the signs of wreckage fly. And Phaethon, flames ravaging his auburn hair, falls headlong down, a streaming trail of light, as sometimes through the cloudless vault of night a star, though never falling, seems to fall. Eridanus receives him, far from home, in his wide waters half a world away. And bathes his burning face.”

I am awfully sorry for the length of this post. My goal should be to show others an idea and discuss it, genuinely...

Very likely, something took place there (in the Indian ocean). NinetyEastRidge and the “rapid” move of the Indian subcontinent have a same direction...

image023.jpg

India-Motion-Tracking-Points.png

topoindischsv6.jpg

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had done a while ago a somewhat long text, in which i explain why i believe Greenland might have moved "instantaneously" northwards.

"Instantaneously" is a matter of interpretation, as geologically it means something much different from what it means in regards to anatomically modern humans (us).

It is my belief that there is scientific evidence of an ancient impact on earth.

There've been many impacts in the past. I'm waiting for you to show evidence of one that's relevant to the timeframe and location of Plato's Atlantis c.9600 BC.

"This looks similar to that" doesn't mean much unless you can show they're actually connected, both geologically and temporally. So far you haven't.

...absence of evidence is definitely not evidence of absence...

But it is the only evidence that exists and therefore the only evidence that matters.

Timaeus doesn't say impacts, it says the story is about "a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth". You're trying to make more of it than what it says.

Comparative mythology is not a science. It's what one does when they're bored and have no facts.

Whatever initiated India's move northward millions of years ago has no relevance to the timeframe of Homo sapiens or Atlantis.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

absence of evidence is definitely not evidence of absence:

Absence of evidence neither validates nor supports any hypothesis or belief. Further, willful ignorance of facts, combined with absence of evidence, insures the failure of any hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... absence of evidence is definitely not evidence of absence...

Of course it is. Are you claiming that the concept of "evidence of absence" cannot possibly have any validity? If not, then what, exactly, would constitute evidence of absence?

If so, then please lay out your logical process for arriving at such a loony idea as there not possibly existing any evidence of absence of anything. After all, if absence is impossible to prove, we are really in a tight spot.

As a teacher, I take roll every day. What justification do I have for marking a student absent, if not the absence of evidence for his presence?

Absence of evidence is the only possible evidence for the absence of a thing. Your quote of Sagan (yes, that's who you were quoting) ignores the very real fact that he was being sarcastic when he said that.

Playing word games is evidence of a weak argument. However, in your case, since you have no actual argument here (only a "let's pretend" scenario,) I suppose that's okay.

Harte

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DieChecker,

You must make an effort and leave humans time frame out of this equation. When you say "humans coming out of Africa and replacing the neanderthals in Europe", seems like they (Neanderthals) weren't humans...

"As a thought experiment, I totally agree that Greenland fits up against Africa/Europe at the Straights of Gibralter, and that it could be described in a manner that corrisponds with the description of Atlantis. Yet... I also must say that Greenland could not be Atlantis because there are many more marks in the negatives column, then in the positives column. Many, many more reasons/facts."

Well, i intend to demonstrate that there is a great coincidence of facts and when you put them under a different "light"and "perspective", you can predict geologic events that happened in different chronological periods in the north Atlantic region. My theory can explain why is there sand in the Sahara, or an Atlas range, in front of Gibraltar.

But i disagree with what you said:

"Science does not need to be flawed or wrong in order to be have data and knowledge Added to it"

of course it does have to have flaws, since nobody is perfect, right?...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have to wait for "proper geologic evidence" to poke holes in Plato's story. The following facts pretty much sink it as a valid historical place/event.

  • The Egyptians have no accounts of Atlantis
  • The Greeks (Save Plato) have no accounts of Atlantis including a war with Atlantis
  • None of the countries supposedly conquered by Atlantis have any accounts detailing it.
  • None of the cultural artifacts of Atlantis can be found though cultural artifacts of those countries supposedly occupied by Atlantis can be
  • Events described by Plato, such as the mud shoals, are not documented by any sea faring nation that existed at the time.
  • etc...

Likewise, your hypothesis about Greenland being Atlantis can be refuted.

  • There is no evidence anywhere in the world to support humans existing millions of years before the accepted time frame.
  • There is no evidence to support Greenland's move from west of Africa/Europe to it's current location in a short time frame.
  • A large object striking the Earth that could affect the movement of the tectonic plates would, when you look at where it would have to be to get Greenland to move in the right direction, have caused the African plate to move East, not North East as it is presently moving with the result that Africa would not be in it's current position but farther East.
  • There is no accounting anywhere in Africa or Europe of such an object striking the Earth in that vicinity which would exist if such an impact had occurred.
  • Greenland does not in any way match any of the tale of Atlantis as told by Plato.
  • Most of the reasons I used for refuting Plato's account as historical can also be used in refuting your hypothesis.

The reason know one knows how far back Atlantis existed is the same reason no one can find Santa's workshop.

You're right, you don't have to show anything though that puts you in the same category as Plato. Telling an interesting story with no substance.

Quaentum,

Plato's Critias says the following:

and there they implanted brave children of the soil, and put into their minds the order of government; their names are preserved, but their actions have disappeared by reason of the destruction of those who received the tradition, and the lapse of ages. For when there were any survivors, as I have already said, they were men who dwelt in the mountains; and they were ignorant of the art of writing, and had heard only the names of the chiefs of the land, but very little about their actions. The names they were willing enough to give to their children; but the virtues and the laws of their predecessors, they knew only by obscure traditions; and as they themselves and their children lacked for many generations the necessaries of life, they directed their attention to the supply of their wants, and of them they conversed, to the neglect of events that had happened in times long past; for mythology and the enquiry into antiquity are first introduced into cities when they begin to have leisure, and when they see that the necessaries of life have already been provided, but not before. And this is reason why the names of the ancients have been preserved to us and not their actions. This I infer because Solon said that the priests in their narrative of that war mentioned most of the names which are recorded prior to the time of Theseus, such as Cecrops, and Erechtheus, and Erichthonius, and Erysichthon, and the names of the women in like manner. Moreover, since military pursuits were then common to men and women, the men of those days in accordance with the custom of the time set up a figure and image of the goddess in full armour, to be a testimony that all animals which associate together, male as well as female, may, if they please, practise in common the virtue which belongs to them without distinction of sex. <a name="142">

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.html

Even though nothing seems to demonstrate the veracity of Plato's Atlantis, it is something in which i personally believe. The intelligent "poking holes" in Plato's tale made by you, simply attest, probably, the dimension of the phenomena.

Regarding Greenland not being Atlantis, the impact did not occur neither in Europe or Africa, but where the largest negative anomaly in the world is located, in all geoid maps without exception, that is near the Indian subcontinent:

geoid.GIF

http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/gi/geoengine/phys_geod/geoid.GIF

When you say:

"A large object striking the Earth that could affect the movement of the tectonic plates would, when you look at where it would have to be to get Greenland to move in the right direction, have caused the African plate to move East, not North East as it is presently moving with the result that Africa would not be in it's current position but farther East."

world_rivers3.png

I think it is not that easy... there could have been many possible trajectories and as many possible ancient earth rotation patterns, at the supposed time of impact, to jump to conclusions that easily. Meaning that we could not know that quickly how it could have actually happened.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't get to "re-engineer" the facts, they speak quite well for themselves and what they show is that your "thought exercise" never happened.

I expect you to use the facts that exist and explain how your exercise could have happened based on same, not make up your own facts.

cormac

Cormac,

I am not making up facts, as you put it. Nevertheless, I will try to show every bit of information related to this specific subject. I know that it could not be enough, but it is what i have got...

Actually, where to begin? According to Plato, Atlantis was an island that was situated where Greenland existed, millions of years ago, exactly. This could be considered a coincidence, but the fact is that, in the ambit of this experiment, there are much more available geologic data "corroborating" the existence of an island in front of Gibraltar:

Atlantis.gif

What did provoke the end of the last ice age? Is it not the Quaternary a very short period? The Pleistocene/Holocene frontier is really not even visible in some geologic timescale:

17c279d04ac17ea83066b1af4659f334.png

d26ccddaf1bbe4aff55b6289e536d7fb.png

263385ce973a359c46b4469487d99145.png

"The Holocene, or "Recent" (the latest epoch) is too short to be shown clearly on this timeline to the right of the Pleistocene (P) epoch. Q stands for the Quaternary period."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

Information regarding the Pleistocene and Holocene (curiously 11.500 ya...)

800px-Geological_Time_Scale.png

I find it funny how one can ignore what actually took place on earth, 10.000 years ago and "pretend" to actually know events that took place billions/millions years ago...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cormac,

I am not making up facts, as you put it. Nevertheless, I will try to show every bit of information related to this specific subject. I know that it could not be enough, but it is what i have got...

Actually, where to begin? According to Plato, Atlantis was an island that was situated where Greenland existed, millions of years ago, exactly. This could be considered a coincidence, but the fact is that, in the ambit of this experiment, there are much more available geologic data "corroborating" the existence of an island in front of Gibraltar:

Atlantis.gif

What did provoke the end of the last ice age? Is it not the Quaternary a very short period? The Pleistocene/Holocene frontier is really not even visible in some geologic timescale:

17c279d04ac17ea83066b1af4659f334.png

d26ccddaf1bbe4aff55b6289e536d7fb.png

263385ce973a359c46b4469487d99145.png

"The Holocene, or "Recent" (the latest epoch) is too short to be shown clearly on this timeline to the right of the Pleistocene (P) epoch. Q stands for the Quaternary period."

http://en.wikipedia....ogic_time_scale

Information regarding the Pleistocene and Holocene (curiously 11.500 ya...)

800px-Geological_Time_Scale.png

I find it funny how one can ignore what actually took place on earth, 10.000 years ago and "pretend" to actually know events that took place billions/millions years ago...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

That's your first fabrication, as Plato says that Atlantis is located outside the Pillars of Hercules, IN FRONT OF said pillars in c.9600 BC. He never makes any claim connection Atlantis with Greenland. Also, Athanasius Kircher's map isn't evidence that Atlantis existed.

This could be considered a coincidence, but the fact is that, in the ambit of this experiment, there are much more available geologic data "corroborating" the existence of an island in front of Gibraltar:

Really there's not, as core samples drilled throughout the North Atlantic don't support the claim of a place, such as Plato's Atlantis, having existed at any point in the ancient past.

I find it funny how one can ignore what actually took place on earth, 10.000 years ago and "pretend" to actually know events that took place billions/millions years ago...

I do too, so why don't you stop doing it.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Instantaneously" is a matter of interpretation, as geologically it means something much different from what it means in regards to anatomically modern humans (us).

There've been many impacts in the past. I'm waiting for you to show evidence of one that's relevant to the timeframe and location of Plato's Atlantis c.9600 BC.

"This looks similar to that" doesn't mean much unless you can show they're actually connected, both geologically and temporally. So far you haven't.

Timaeus doesn't say impacts, it says the story is about "a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth". You're trying to make more of it than what it says.

Comparative mythology is not a science. It's what one does when they're bored and have no facts.

Whatever initiated India's move northward millions of years ago has no relevance to the timeframe of Homo sapiens or Atlantis.

cormac

I mentioned "instantaneously", as that is what was referred to by Plato (e.g.in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth...). This hypothetic event is not to be tested, in my experiment, under the "canonic" chronological timescale. Geochronology cannot be taken into account!

Regarding Timaeus not having said this or that (btw you are correct), what i can tell you is that they (Timaeus and Critias) were together when Socrates first demands whether someone knew of a similar story as the one proposed in the Republic dialog. Timaeus dialog only makes mention to Atlantis in one single paragraph. It is one single story told by the two dialogs and every bit of information is supposed to be one and the same.

Regarding the Indian geological movement (millions of years) being or not in any way related to the human timeframe, or Atlantis (as you put it), is, again, not to be taken into consideration, in this experiment.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mario,

You will have to show us proof of some sort of geological process that explains how a huge island the size of Greenland was able to plow through the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and then end up near the Arctic without changing shape.

You have never even considered to deal with that little problem, right?

You just post tomes of text and lots of pics, and by that hope all of us will be swamped enough to forget about asking you for details.

Nah, that won't work.

Explain the geological process of how Greenland could end up where it is now.

No asteroid impact could be an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned "instantaneously", as that is what was referred to by Plato (e.g.in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth...). This hypothetic event is not to be tested, in my experiment, under the "canonic" chronological timescale. Geochronology cannot be taken into account!

Regarding Timaeus not having said this or that (btw you are correct), what i can tell you is that they (Timaeus and Critias) were together when Socrates first demands whether someone knew of a similar story as the one proposed in the Republic dialog. Timaeus dialog only makes mention to Atlantis in one single paragraph. It is one single story told by the two dialogs and every bit of information is supposed to be one and the same.

Regarding the Indian geological movement (millions of years) being or not in any way related to the human timeframe, or Atlantis (as you put it), is, again, not to be taken into consideration, in this experiment.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Your ignoring the geochronology of the North Atlantic and any relationship to humans is irrelevant to the facts. Which means you're still playing "lets pretend".

You're constrained by the story as it is written, not by what you want it to say.

Yours is not an experiment, it's a writing of fiction pretending to be reality.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absence of evidence neither validates nor supports any hypothesis or belief. Further, willful ignorance of facts, combined with absence of evidence, insures the failure of any hypothesis.

Quaentum,

All i wanted to say was that you cannot deny categorically that an event did not take place, just because there are no evidences, yet...

Of course it is. Are you claiming that the concept of "evidence of absence" cannot possibly have any validity? If not, then what, exactly, would constitute evidence of absence?

If so, then please lay out your logical process for arriving at such a loony idea as there not possibly existing any evidence of absence of anything. After all, if absence is impossible to prove, we are really in a tight spot.

As a teacher, I take roll every day. What justification do I have for marking a student absent, if not the absence of evidence for his presence?

Absence of evidence is the only possible evidence for the absence of a thing. Your quote of Sagan (yes, that's who you were quoting) ignores the very real fact that he was being sarcastic when he said that.

Playing word games is evidence of a weak argument. However, in your case, since you have no actual argument here (only a "let's pretend" scenario,) I suppose that's okay.

Harte

Harte,

Touche!

I noticed you also mentioned my using the famous phrase:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

You are equivocated since i did not even know Hawkings had first said it. I actually do not know who said first, although wikipedia claims Martin Rees, a cosmologist, to actually have made it:

"Carl Sagan criticized such "impatience with ambiguity" using cosmologist Martin Rees' maxim, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Nevertheless, you are correct that our every day lives, and ultimately science, depends on such "judgments", that is that absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. But before Columbus found America, people would vehemently deny the existence of another continent (America), since there was no evidence that it might have existed, until its discovery later on...

I am not playing any "word games". On the contrary, i believe words must be uttered meaningfully, in order to avoid any confusions in the future. English is not my mother tongue, and therefore, if i sound "un-normal" to you is because of this.

PS: Regarding the absence of evidence of the presence of a student in a classroom, i could argue that under the principle of Parsimony (lex parsimoniae) :

"Occam's razor is the law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected"

The simpler hypothesis are usually chosen but can be, at times, wrong. The student could be present in the classroom e.g. hidden inside a closet, and therefore, out of the teacher's sight. The "closet" hypothesis would not be the simpler existing answer and, consequently, would be discarded, although it would represent the true student attendance, in that classroom.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deleted

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quaentum,

All i wanted to say was that you cannot deny categorically that an event did not take place, just because there are no evidences, yet...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

It is not the lack of any evidence to support your hypothesis that is as important as what we do know about the Earth and it's geography, archeology and paleontology that allows us to deny your hypothesis as plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i intend to demonstrate that there is a great coincidence of facts and when you put them under a different "light"and "perspective", you can predict geologic events that happened in different chronological periods in the north Atlantic region. My theory can explain why is there sand in the Sahara, or an Atlas range, in front of Gibraltar.

There is sand in the Sahara due to desertification.

You can demonstrate your facts all day long, and I agree with some of your assumptions and conclusions... But only by completely ignoring glaring, totally undenighable facts, such as the timeline of human activitys and the known geology of Greenland.

The Jedi say everything is a matter of perspective... So they can feel better about openly lying to people.

But i disagree with what you said:

"Science does not need to be flawed or wrong in order to be have data and knowledge Added to it"

of course it does have to have flaws, since nobody is perfect, right?...

But the requirement of science being wrong to move forward is not true. Regardless of science is wrong on many subjects.... All subjects can be moved forward by new data and observations. All science can be built up upon regardless of it anything is actually wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Indian geological movement (millions of years) being or not in any way related to the human timeframe, or Atlantis (as you put it), is, again, not to be taken into consideration, in this experiment.

I think your comparison with the Indian sub-continent is a faulty one since there is clear evidence off shore of how, when and where India was moving. Something we have not seen in the Atlantic other then within the already shown hundreds of millions of years timeline for the geology of Greenland.

Even if you could show the movement of India was relational to Greenland, you'd still have to show that humans were around and formed societies and a tool using culture.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mario, the only one who ever had a sane theory about how Atlantis could have existed, how it was formed, and how it was destroyed, was Rod Martin (he started a thread here, years ago):

>> http://www.missionatlantis.com/vidstills/atlantis-vidstills-05.php'>http://www.missionatlantis.com/vidstills/atlantis-vidstills-05.php

http://www.missionatlantis.com/

Not that his theory makes Atlantis any more real, just that he used commonly accepted geological processes to support his theory.

Now you try that for your Greenland theory.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I clicked Santori on his poll/map. It is remarkable how many think it was a real island off the shore of spain.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mario, I understand it must be frustrating to be under assault like this, but try to see this from our perspective.

What is the purpose of a "thought experiment" that flatly ignores so much basic science, as well as history? What do you hope to arrive at with a scenario that cannot be regarded as realistic to begin with? You're asking us to set aside all that is known in the fields of geology, plate tectonics, archaeology, history and the like—but we cannot set them aside because they are what frame any such hypothesis.

This is how it's bound to continue. You're asking too much of everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is like saying to locate Atlantis on the Moon, while ignoring the fact there was no space travel, and that there is not even liquid water on the Moon. Sure, superficial details line up, and it is interesting to discuss, but when the agreement on the few details is done, the reality is that Greenland is NOT Atlantis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mario,

You will have to show us proof of some sort of geological process that explains how a huge island the size of Greenland was able to plow through the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and then end up near the Arctic without changing shape.

You have never even considered to deal with that little problem, right?

You just post tomes of text and lots of pics, and by that hope all of us will be swamped enough to forget about asking you for details.

Nah, that won't work.

Explain the geological process of how Greenland could end up where it is now.

No asteroid impact could be an explanation.

Abramelin,

My interpretation of the results of the experiment is that, in the eventuality of an ancient impact, there had to have been a crust liquefaction of sorts, which would permit said continental movement.

200km/h is the average speed it would take Greenland to move from Gibraltar to where it is now located in 24h:

"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."

Mid-ocean_ridge_topography.gif

I find mid ocean ridges to be a good example as of how the crust could quickly melt and become a buoyant enough medium, to allow the continental "plough" you mentioned.

"Following the discovery of the world-wide extent of the mid-ocean ridge in the 1950s, geologists faced a new task: explaining how such an enormous geological structure could have formed. In the 1960s, geologists discovered and began to propose mechanisms for sea floor spreading. Plate tectonics was a suitable explanation for sea floor spreading, and the acceptance of plate tectonics by the majority of geologists resulted in a major paradigm shift in geological thinking."

http://en.wikipedia....Mid-ocean_ridge

Greenland must have suffered from the move northwards upon molten lava, but nevertheless, somehow, maintained its shape, as happens with the hull of any ship:

calculation-software-for-boat-hull-design-35576-427653.jpg

Upper mantle material is very fluid, thus continental crust, theoretically, could move upon it, for as long as a force is applied. Are you aware of how thin is our crust, compared to the surface of the planet? In the north Atlantic there are sea floor regions being just 7 km thick. Crustal liquefaction can occur at the time of an impact.

“No asteroid impact could be an explanation.”

Why do you say that an impact cannot be an explanation? Please, can you elaborate?

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cormac,

“Your ignoring the geochronology of the North Atlantic and any relationship to humans is irrelevant to the facts.”

But that can be, nevertheless, very relevant to my experiment.

“You're constrained by the story as it is written, not by what you want it to say.”

I absolutely agree that the story by Plato must be taken “as is” and not be modified to fit everybody’s needs. But you are unjustly accusing me of altering Plato’s story to my necessity, but that cannot be true. One of my main concerns regarding Atlantis is the absolute correspondence (more than in any theory) between Plato’s account and today’s geologic reality.

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quaentum,

“It is not the lack of any evidence to support your hypothesis that is as important as what we do know about the Earth and it's geography, archeology and paleontology that allows us to deny your hypothesis as plausible.”

Yes, but even if none of what i have presented, so far, is of any “plausibility” whatsoever to the argument, i ask whether you aren’t being somewhat prejudice in a way, since i have not showed the remaining information and you speak of lack of any evidence.

I cannot think of a simple way to explain it... but if i am allowed to remain here, will express my views on Plato’s tale, although that can take some time. I am writing you, knowing that important folks here have already spoken negatively about my “experiment”, or how lunatic such idea can be. I really feel like i am being banned or something. Nevertheless, my idea was to promote conversations on what i have been investigating. Yes maybe i am wrong, it has to be always considered...

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die Checker,

You said:

“There is sand in the Sahara due to desertification.”

Correct, but isn’t the Sahara desert’s evolution highly contested among scholars and, therefore, unknown until now? I propose something very close to a “desertification”, a massive spread of benthic sand and dust. Moreover, we know that the Sahara and Arabian peninsula (the whole middle east and even Russia) are very rich in fossil fuel. I ask, is it not strangely coincidental with Plato’s account, that very close Gibraltar there lies an immense region full of fossils, which forcibly had to have been buried suddenly?

“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.”

http://classics.mit....to/critias.html

You also said:

“You can demonstrate your facts all day long, and I agree with some of your assumptions and conclusions... But only by completely ignoring glaring, totally undenighable facts, such as the timeline of human activitys and the known geology of Greenland.

The Jedi say everything is a matter of perspective... So they can feel better about openly lying to people.”

It is only an experiment and i am not lying about anything!

Regards,

Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.