The age of the Antarctic Ice Cap questioned

[Van Gorp]

I'm not going to argue whether or not the image /looks/ like Antarctica or not.

Okay, if you don't want to talk about it we will leave that out.

For others interested: this site has some good thoughts on it, both pro as contra.

http://www.atlantismaps.com/chapter_2.html

But glad to exchange some other idea's on it with you.

It certainly, demonstrably lacks many of the distinguishing characteristics of the actual geography, most obviously the Antartic Peninsula.

There you are, so you are arguing about it?

No problem, but i must admit I receive some mixed signals here. :-)

but I can only assume you're too invested in your theory to discuss it rationally. So sure, if you want to ignore the fact it doesn't look like the real thing, and if you want to ignore the historical realities of Renaissance cartography because I guess you know history and period culture better -- if you want to throw away the rational bases for an argument and be left looking like poor Mario.

What is my theory? I'm still searching for one, but first i try to walk a path and see what gives.

Maybe you could help me outlining my theory, because it seems you better know then myself.

The historical realities of renaissance cartography i don't want to ignore, do I?

The mentionning of an assumed theoretical and later on much searched terra incognita ended in the labelling of Australia as the end point.

Alas, years later we finally did find the terra incognita.

How irronic: based on a theory that seemed to have no reality (theoritical counterweight what now is being looked at as nonsense) there has been mentionning for long time an unknown continent to discover, theory to be abandoned and at the end seem to be existing at the spot.

Your rational mind don't get a smile by this all? It makes me laugh.

Teh alienz or teh mysterious super-smart pre-culture /had/ to have had their hands/extraterrestrial digits of manipulation/basset-y paws all over this.

Sure you don't have a kind fixation? you lost all your rational arguments to come with the above which doesn't have any relation with my posts?

[jaylemurph]

My post may have been written with more irony that is apparent.

Except the thing about basset-y paws. I stand by that.

--Jaylemurph

[+DieChecker]

Note how it's directly south of South America, with just a small strait in between. It's Tierra del Fuego, discovered by Magellan in 1520, who passed along the northern edge during his voyage. All he could confirm was that there was land of an unknown extent south of where he sailed. It wasn't fully explored until a century later.

It's about 400 miles across from one to the other.

[+DieChecker]

I like how Mario's Depth graphic references a "vulcano". (post 123)

Edited May 19, 2014 by DieChecker

[DingoLingo]

I can sum up this thread with one statement

Edited May 19, 2014 by DingoLingo

[stereologist]

Stereologist,

This should be an impact/accretion situation...

It's not. If an impactor of that size hit the Earth, then the entire Earth would have been melted. Yet another failure.

[stereologist]

I am humbled by your "savoir faire", and yes i will look into it (confident that more proof will arise).

Thanks for your concern, really!

Yes, i should do more, much more, but there simply isn't time enough.

M

So you plan to continue being ignorant of even the most basic concepts in geology? Until you learn even the most basic issues you will continue to make blatant errors.

[stereologist]

There i agree, not all is a conspiracy.

I'm not stating we are talking about a conspiracy, or some mythical ancient civilisation: at least that's not my personal thought.

I just wonder the possibilty that modern science should possible overlook what is in plain sight if you look it this way:

Instead of a theoritical construct of terra Australis, the continent displayed in these kind of maps could have been known from a certain point in those days, though in the beginning of exploring. Like many 'rediscoveries' it is possible we just overlook the fact that Antarctica was known before 19th discovery, and with less ice and it is not merely the result of a theoritical thought.

Concerning Australia: as we call it today was said to be discovered in European perspective by Willem Janszoon in 1606, so after the drawing of the map. This could explain the missing of Australia on the map.

Many of the maps included a notion of balancing in which the known northern lands were balanced by southern lands to be found by explorers. These not known, but supposed lands appear on maps and are simply imaginary.

[stereologist]

Stereologist,

I am picking up your comments...

How do you explain that in many Pangaea projections there is a gap between northeastern America and northwest Africa? i am simply asking this...

Maine is right near NewFoundLand region, at the end of the older blue ribbon, near the coast, but i ask what about the rest of the north Atlantic margins?

Why do the north Atlantic margins have an older age, and where a continental gap exist?

M

First off, there is a great deal of land between Maine and Newfoundland. The land includes New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the Gaspe region of Quebec. There is also all of the continental shelf over to Newfoundland. Get your geography right for starters.

So your first question is, "why is there a gap?" You've already been told the answer to this. Please read the thread and learn.

Your next question is too poorly stated to respond to. You ask, "what about the rest of the north Atlantic margins?" There is no coherent question there. Please clarify your question.

Finally, you ask "Why do the north Atlantic margins have an older age, and where a continental gap exist?" The answer is the same as the first question you asked. Please read the thread and learn. The answers for Q1 and Q3 have already been posted and more than once by one or more posters and it was not me.

[stereologist]

There is a smaller radius fit! And i intend to prove it to you...

My experiment goes beyond Wegener's mere continental drift and/or later plate tectonics or even expanding earth theories...

The reason why they were wrong is that it was not conceived yet, that the earth is a elastic/plastic object, subject to expansions, if accretion conditions are met.

During the "heavy bombardment" phase, the earth increased its mass, why not recently? You might say that there is no evidence of it, but not that it is impossible.

Planets can logically "expand" considerably in certain accretion events.

PS: I never stated that i am an expert nor anything. I simply am trying to follow what seems to be a logical thinking by Plato: Was there ever a large island near Gibraltar? When? Could the timing be wrong?

You suggest an experiment, but that is not correct. You have no experiment. What you have is nothing more than a guess and a bad guess at that. Your guess is that the Earth is an "a elastic/plastic object, subject to expansions, if accretion conditions are met." What you seem to be unable to understand is that in a sense may be true, but that is well known by all geologists. An accretion event is a catastrophic event if the accretion involves something on the scale of a noticeable change in the size of the Earth. Even if the accretion object is much smaller than that it becomes an extinction event such as what killed off many of the dinosaurs. The impactor for that event did not change the size of the Earth by much. It destroyed much of life on Earth.

You suggest that "Planets can logically "expand" considerably in certain accretion events." That is false unless you allow for complete or large scale melting of the objects in question. You must allow for the possibility of the complete extinction of life on the planet.

What we do know from examining the surface of the Moon is that accretion from space has added a few centimeters to the size of the Moon over billions of years.

You are definitely not an expert. In fact, you recently stated you had no time to even explore the basic issues. Your guesswork is rather poor as well.

As far as there being an island near Gibraltar remember than islands are land formation with water around them. Mountains don't suddenly disappear. They don't rise and fall. Neither do mountains surrounded by water. If there was an island there, then bathymetric readings would find it. Even islands that have dropped below sea level due to thermal contraction of the plates are still detectable. Add this to what you don't want to bother learning: guyots.

[stereologist]

Riaan,

Please let me again apologize...

I think many of your ideas maybe correct, e.g. the impact crater you propose in the Scotia plate is definitely the sign of a continuing "collision", but, imo, not the place for the stronger impact, further ahead in the IOGL region:

Just to finalize my line of thought: the impacting outer body could have collided with various places, while encircling the earth (before impacting the said Indian region).

Tectonic reconstructions seem to be the exact replica of an expanding earth, although within wrong planetary dimensions. Notice how at pretty much the same time, Drake passage is perturbed and India (Ninety-east ridge trail) and Greenland start to move upwards. Notice how from that moment on there are so many hotspots, seamounts, islands, etc, appearing to pop up and move in an expanding like motion.

Drake passage was surely "excavated" by a near collision that ended in an impact event at the Indian region:

The breakage of an ancient landmass, no doubt...

M

Your idea of a large impactor shows that you need to learn about kinetic energy, i.e. basic physics. Here people are concerned about the impact of objects in the range of 100m across causing widespread destruction and those objects would cause no noticeable change int he size of the Earth. You should also learn why your supposed impactor would not circle the Earth.

You should also get your head around different projections to learn why this makes no sense: "appearing to pop up and move in an expanding like motion." There is no suggestion by any of the images of expansion. All of the images show a static Earth size being projected. The "expanding" comment is simply based on your misunderstanding of projections.

Your Drake passage remark simply reveals your lack of understanding of the geology involved and images that employ exaggerated vertical scales. Do you understand that the horizontal axis is in fact, not a straight line on the Earth?

[Van Gorp]

Many of the maps included a notion of balancing in which the known northern lands were balanced by southern lands to be found by explorers. These not known, but supposed lands appear on maps and are simply imaginary.

Yes, i can agree.

That's what Jaylemurph also made clear to me.

I'm not going to try to argue around the fact that it were unknown (theorised) lands, it was stated like that. But I do have some questions about the origin of the general theory and statements on this particular map.

It started way back with the Ptolemy maps right? By the 'rediscovery' of ptolemy's work and translation to Latin in early 15th ce, together with printing press the mentionning of terra incognita became frequent (though before that wasn't always the case). Why placed ptolemy a land there, was this really because it was his theory of the counterweight or is this only a modern interpretation? Second thought is that mostly is stated that the unknown land (from times of Ptolemy) is yet to be discovered, on the map of Oronteus it is said that the land is recently discovered but not fully known (explored). That is imo a remarkable statement, the unkwown land is recently discovered? What a nerve, he must have known that questions will be asked then no? For sure, if it was about the land geographers were fantasizing since ages.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Van Gorp

[stereologist]

Yes, i can agree.

That's what Jaylemurph also made clear to me.

I'm not going to try to argue around the fact that it were unknown (theorised) lands, it was stated like that. But I do have some questions about the origin of the general theory and statements on this particular map.

It started way back with the Ptolemy maps right? By the 'rediscovery' of ptolemy's work and translation to Latin in early 15th ce, together with printing press the mentionning of terra incognita became frequent (though before that wasn't always the case). Why placed ptolemy a land there, was this really because it was his theory of the counterweight or is this only a modern interpretation? Second thought is that mostly is stated that the unknown land (from times of Ptolemy) is yet to be discovered, on the map of Oronteus it is said that the land is recently discovered but not fully known (explored). That is imo a remarkable statement, the unkwown land is recently discovered? What a nerve, he must have known that questions will be asked then no? For sure, if it was about the land geographers were fantasizing since ages.

Doesn't Oronteus make many mistakes in his maps? Or does this statement imply the recent discovery of some place other than Antarctica? Most people believe he is referring to the Drake Passage which had been recently discovered.

[Van Gorp]

Doesn't Oronteus make many mistakes in his maps?

Compared to? I would rather say his maps showed a level of accuracy to be followed only later on.

Good summary of Hapgood hypothesis can be found here:

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198001/piri.reis.and.the.hapgood.hypotheses.htm

Interesting in some afterwords of the article is the mentionning of the Portugese:

One possible explanation appeared in a longer inscription on a map by Cornelius de Judaeis dated 1593. It says that a promontory of this land was "discovered by the Portuguese, but they did not explore the interior. This reference to the Portuguese is interesting, for Finé inscribes a portion of the Antarctic continent, "Regio Brasilis", "the region of Brazil" - which might imply Portuguese discovery.

...

Another possibility is that the Portuguese—who occupied Timor, only 285 miles away - may have mapped the northern coast of Australia; it does resemble the far coast of Antarctica. Because of the intense rivalry with Spain, such a map not only could have been kept secret, but most likely would have been. If Finé had a copy of that map his map of Antarctica could have been a composite: of rumored Portuguese sightings of the coast below South America and the secret Portuguese map of the Australian coast. If Finé did combine them, it would account for the otherwise inexplicable - and incorrect—sizeof Finé's Antarctica. This theory would also account for its resemblance to modern maps—there is at least some resemblance between the northern coast of Australia and the opposite coast of Finé's Antarctica - and explain the, inscriptions referring to the Portuguese.

[Everdred]

Compared to? I would rather say his maps showed a level of accuracy to be followed only later on.

Good summary of Hapgood hypothesis can be found here:

http://www.saudiaram....hypotheses.htm

Interesting in some afterwords of the article is the mentionning of the Portugese:

One possible explanation appeared in a longer inscription on a map by Cornelius de Judaeis dated 1593. It says that a promontory of this land was "discovered by the Portuguese, but they did not explore the interior. This reference to the Portuguese is interesting, for Finé inscribes a portion of the Antarctic continent, "Regio Brasilis", "the region of Brazil" - which might imply Portuguese discovery.

...

Another possibility is that the Portuguese—who occupied Timor, only 285 miles away - may have mapped the northern coast of Australia; it does resemble the far coast of Antarctica. Because of the intense rivalry with Spain, such a map not only could have been kept secret, but most likely would have been. If Finé had a copy of that map his map of Antarctica could have been a composite: of rumored Portuguese sightings of the coast below South America and the secret Portuguese map of the Australian coast. If Finé did combine them, it would account for the otherwise inexplicable - and incorrect—sizeof Finé's Antarctica. This theory would also account for its resemblance to modern maps—there is at least some resemblance between the northern coast of Australia and the opposite coast of Finé's Antarctica - and explain the, inscriptions referring to the Portuguese.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but MAGELLAN. He was the Portuguese discoverer of Tierra del Fuego.

[stereologist]

Compared to? I would rather say his maps showed a level of accuracy to be followed only later on.

Good summary of Hapgood hypothesis can be found here:

http://www.saudiaram....hypotheses.htm

Interesting in some afterwords of the article is the mentionning of the Portugese:

One possible explanation appeared in a longer inscription on a map by Cornelius de Judaeis dated 1593. It says that a promontory of this land was "discovered by the Portuguese, but they did not explore the interior. This reference to the Portuguese is interesting, for Finé inscribes a portion of the Antarctic continent, "Regio Brasilis", "the region of Brazil" - which might imply Portuguese discovery.

...

Another possibility is that the Portuguese—who occupied Timor, only 285 miles away - may have mapped the northern coast of Australia; it does resemble the far coast of Antarctica. Because of the intense rivalry with Spain, such a map not only could have been kept secret, but most likely would have been. If Finé had a copy of that map his map of Antarctica could have been a composite: of rumored Portuguese sightings of the coast below South America and the secret Portuguese map of the Australian coast. If Finé did combine them, it would account for the otherwise inexplicable - and incorrect—sizeof Finé's Antarctica. This theory would also account for its resemblance to modern maps—there is at least some resemblance between the northern coast of Australia and the opposite coast of Finé's Antarctica - and explain the, inscriptions referring to the Portuguese.

He has China by the Gulf of Mexico because he combined North America with Asia as a single continent. That's a pretty big mistake.

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

You are relying on Hapgood who made some big mistakes by relying on old maps. Hapgood's notion of ECDs is simply not possible.

But more on the map in question:

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=979

Terra Australis is 230% the size of Antarctica

That's a pretty big mistake.

[Van Gorp]

He has China by the Gulf of Mexico because he combined North America with Asia as a single continent. That's a pretty big mistake.

http://en.wikipedia....ronteus_Finaeus

You are relying on Hapgood who made some big mistakes by relying on old maps. Hapgood's notion of ECDs is simply not possible.

But more on the map in question:

http://www.badarchae...om/?page_id=979

That's a pretty big mistake.

A read a lot of "big mistakes" and impossibilities in your reply, combining with Oronce Finé's map.

That's one perception you can choose, another one to choose is that he set the standard for centuries to come.

In your view we should dismiss all old maps? Because he wasn't the only one mentionning Asia and America as one continent, that's how far the knowledge went of most Europeans that time. It's no secret the maps evolved with the more knowledge gained on the continents. For me that's no reason to dismiss the map as incredible. Along all the maps of that age you can't deny this one is of remarkable accuracy.

[Everdred]

A read a lot of "big mistakes" and impossibilities in your reply, combining with Oronce Finé's map.

That's one perception you can choose, another one to choose is that he set the standard for centuries to come.

In your view we should dismiss all old maps? Because he wasn't the only one mentionning Asia and America as one continent, that's how far the knowledge went of most Europeans that time. It's no secret the maps evolved with the more knowledge gained on the continents. For me that's no reason to dismiss the map as incredible. Along all the maps of that age you can't deny this one is of remarkable accuracy.

Consider why those errors exist on Fine's map. He does his best to represent what he knows based on various expeditions made by European explorers and then he utilizes guesswork to fill in other portions. He knows of the eastern North American coastline because explorers had already documented significant portions of it. He knows South America is separate from Asia because much of Southern Asia was explored, and because Magellan rounded South America and had to sail across a vast ocean before he started hitting islands. He doesn't know that Asia and North America are unconnected because nobody had sailed up the coastline of North America. So he fills in the blanks--the unknown area between what he knows of East Asia and North America is drawn in as land rather than an ocean. The area south of the Pacific islands visited by Magellan's expedition becomes water rather than Australia. The land south of the Strait of Magellan became a vast expanse of land rather than a (relatively) small group of islands.

That is, wherever he doesn't have actual information to work from, he guesses, and his guesses result in very significant deviations from reality. As you acknowledge, he was a good cartographer when he had information on which to base his maps. If Antarctica were at all known in his time, his Terra Australis would actually have had a passing resemblance to it.

[stereologist]

A read a lot of "big mistakes" and impossibilities in your reply, combining with Oronce Finé's map.

That's one perception you can choose, another one to choose is that he set the standard for centuries to come.

In your view we should dismiss all old maps? Because he wasn't the only one mentionning Asia and America as one continent, that's how far the knowledge went of most Europeans that time. It's no secret the maps evolved with the more knowledge gained on the continents. For me that's no reason to dismiss the map as incredible. Along all the maps of that age you can't deny this one is of remarkable accuracy.

So you are saying that the maps show what people thought was correct and that makes it so?

On the one hand we have a map showing China is in the Gulf of Mexico and that is acceptable as being just something people thought was correct for the day.

On the other hand you have an imaginary blob down south without being all ice covered and that must be acceptable as well?

So you want to write off one error as just a common mistake of that time period, but the other error is not a common mistake of that time period?

Everdred has by far better explained what I wanted to state.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

A read a lot of "big mistakes" and impossibilities in your reply, combining with Oronce Finé's map.

That's one perception you can choose, another one to choose is that he set the standard for centuries to come.

In your view we should dismiss all old maps? Because he wasn't the only one mentionning Asia and America as one continent, that's how far the knowledge went of most Europeans that time. It's no secret the maps evolved with the more knowledge gained on the continents. For me that's no reason to dismiss the map as incredible. Along all the maps of that age you can't deny this one is of remarkable accuracy.

It shows what has allready been explored with a fair degree of accuracy, the rest is mostly fictional.

Such as no Australia, Antarctica much too big, Asia and North America linked, India twice (or a Malayan peninsular that is bigger than India !), even northern Europe is wrong.

I really don't understand how you can't get that it was based on a guess, using what we now know is a wrong hyphothesis (Terra Australis).

Yet you continue to say it is remarkable accurate - WHY ?

[Van Gorp]

I really don't understand how you can't get that it was based on a guess, using what we now know is a wrong hyphothesis (Terra Australis).

Don't bother too much :-)

Maybe one of the things is the irony of the whole story.

Using what we now label as a wrong hypothesis, there is depicted for ages a continent that is regarded as pure fantasy but at the end is effectively lying on the spot.

Can you give more information on where Ptolemy elaborated on this hypothesis for his terra incognita as counterweight?

That theory is a classic of how finding reality by ficton.

[cormac mac airt]

Don't bother too much :-)

Maybe one of the things is the irony of the whole story.

Using what we now label as a wrong hypothesis, there is depicted for ages a continent that is regarded as pure fantasy but at the end is effectively lying on the spot.

Can you give more information on where Ptolemy elaborated on this hypothesis for his terra incognita as counterweight?

That theory is a classic of how finding reality by ficton.

A better question IMO would be "Can you show in Claudius Ptolemy's Geographia any geographical feature that can be remotely misconstrued as Australia?" From what I've come across his world map appears to effectively enclose the Indian Ocean by the extension of land from Africa to somewhere in or around Southeast Asia.

http://bmn-renaissance.nancy.fr/items/show/1236

cormac

[Van Gorp]

About possible older maps and Antarctica.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread670742/pg1

[Everdred]

About possible older maps and Antarctica.

http://www.abovetops...hread670742/pg1

More silliness. The author starts by acknowledging that he's dealing with a Terra Australis based off of Magellan's discovery of Tierra del Fuego, and then with no explanation completely ignores that reality for the rest of his discussion. He brings up a Schoner 1524 map as the basis for most of his discussion, but I can't find a single mention of such a thing outside of this fellow's multiple postings of this idea on various sites. Other sources have a 1523 map (whose southern territory looks nothing like what the purported 1524 map shows) and there is mention of a 1527 map (of which I can find no image). His later 1533 map, however, shows almost exactly what the purported 1524 map shows. The problem here, though, is that Schoner's Terra Australis looks just like Fine's 1531 Terra Australis, right down to sharing the same inscription, "Terra Australis recenter inventa sed nondum plene cognita." Another problem is that the two islands the author identifies as Siple and Carney islands are much further away from Terra Australis on the 1533 map than the purported 1524 map.

As such, I'm convinced the 1524 map is fictitious, and that we should heed the words of Fine and Schoner, that the Terra Australis they depict is "not yet fully known," an open admission that they aren't working from an actual map of this Terra Australis.

[Van Gorp]

Another good summary if and how the region was depicted in different maps:

http://www.antarctic-circle.org/tooley.htm