Atlantis

[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 April 10, 2012 by Leonardo

[Mario Dantas]

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]

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.googleusercontent.com/-kk9zMAtXrl4/TB0yIIo8sLI/AAAAAAAADzE/ZRbxa3Tkt1Q/s512/xxx.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-fKJdWNXsz3Y/TB0ODyTJjVI/AAAAAAAADyo/kzcOELhE_84/s512/souhtgr.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-_IyJceW0_VA/TY4bwoGEeNI/AAAAAAAAFM8/H0e_OGP36HU/s512/Atlantis.jpg

The Canary Islands:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ovl9l-89NSA/TF04k2O-AiI/AAAAAAAAEJA/4CvFl9-43M8/s512/Canary%2520islands.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-zzb3ZnCS4Vs/TF0zOnhlTcI/AAAAAAAAEIo/VQIimoTgBPg/s512/Canary%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:

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/classroom/geosphere/animations/pangea-animation.php

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es0806/es0806page01.cfm?chapter_no=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-potsdam.de/grace/results/grav/g002_n05icut2_eigen-grace02s.jpg

http://op.gfz-potsdam.de/grace/results/grav/g002_a05icut2_eigen-grace02s.jpg

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[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...

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.

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

Which makes it meaningless as a REAL theory.

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.

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 April 11, 2012 by Abramelin

[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]

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]

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]

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.

.

[Peter Cox]

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

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

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

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

Thanks

Peter

[Mario Dantas]

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

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

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

Abramelin,

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

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

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[Mario Dantas]

Mario,

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

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

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

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

Leonardo,

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

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

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[Harte]

Cormac mac airt,

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

SNIP

Regards,

Mario Dantas

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

To wit:

The geological development of Greenland spans almost four billion years.

That line is right out of your quote.

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

That's not logic, it's ignorance.

Harte

[Peter Cox]

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

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

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

Thanks..

Peter

[Mario Dantas]

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

To wit:

That line is right out of your quote.

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

That's not logic, it's ignorance.

Harte

Harte,

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

Regards,

Mario Dantas

[Leonardo]

Leonardo,

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

Regards,

Mario Dantas

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

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

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

Edited April 11, 2012 by Leonardo

[questionmark]

Harte,

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

Regards,

Mario Dantas

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

[Harte]

Harte,

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

Regards,

Mario Dantas

How refreshing.

You're quite welcome, even if incorrect.

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

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

I was wondering.

harte

[Sensible Logic]

Leonardo,

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

Regards,

Mario Dantas

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

[M.A.D CapeBretoner]

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

But if you rotate it clockwise you would see the truth that I speak of.

[Harte]

Welcome back MAD.

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

Harte

[Abramelin]

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

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

(Procopius lived in the 6th century AD)

History of the Wars by Procopius

Book III: The Vandalic War (pt. 1)

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

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Wars/Book_III

Chalcedon is today a district in Instanbul

The Euxine Sea is the Black Sea.

The Phasis River is a river in western Georgia.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soulier,_E.;_Andriveau-Goujon,_J._Anciens_Empires_Jusqua_Alexandre._1838_(BJ).jpg

++

Edited to correct link to image.

.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Abramelin

[Leonardo]

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

[Abramelin]

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

Thanks Leonardo.

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