Atlantis Online
November 19, 2018, 08:38:53 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Remains of ancient civilisation discovered on the bottom of a lake
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071227/94372640.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Geology of Atlantis

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Geology of Atlantis  (Read 1041 times)
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2010, 01:23:23 am »

Lonestar said:
Quote
A large meteor could have created waves hundreds of kilometers high.


As a kilometer is roughly 5/8ths of a mile, using the figure of 200 as a minimum for his "hundreds of kilometers high" would produce a wave of 5/8 X 200 = 125 miles high. That is 660,000 feet which is better known as Outer Space. Can't happen.  Not only the ocean's waters would be in outer space, the whole planet would be atomized.

Lonestar, I believe you are speculating when you say:

"Approximately 36 million years ago, the Africa plate could no longer push against the area of boundary damage. The mountains created there had poked above the ocean surface, creating an island. With an immovable barrier at the new Atlantis, but with continued subduction farther east, the only result would be one of rotation -- deflected around the impediment."

"Atlantis had its effects on the geology of Earth, and also on its climate. But there are also clues that the children of Atlantis -- its refugees -- may have been matriarchal (ruled by women). From this we may have gotten the myths of the Amazons and the patterns of many cultures across Eurasia and North America. These, however, are the subject of another article."

Here is a link you might find useful:

High resolution seafloor images in the Gulf of Cadiz, Iberian margin

http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/2007/publication-3676.pdf

If you scroll down to the bottom, there are pictures of the different types of deposits.

Here is a Plate Tectonics map that might prove useful as well:

http://geology.com/plate-tectonics.shtml
« Last Edit: July 25, 2010, 12:14:43 pm by Qoais » Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2010, 02:46:08 am »

Sigh.  I thought I was being fun and intellectual.

Very funny, Qoais. You and me, both! And insult you? Never! Stick my foot in my mouth with blind enthusiasm? Guilty. So, let me say, "Oops," and let's start over again. As always, you make some very good points.

...the fact that Atlantis supposedly existed in a time frame when most of the earth was covered in ice.

Actually, most of the Earth was not covered in ice, at least not during the last Ice Age. Even at Last Glacial Maximum, most of the Earth was ice free. I use a map in the video which shows the extent of summer ice in the North Atlantic, as well as glacier coverage across the Northern Hemisphere. To be sure, large portions of the Earth were covered in ice, but far less than 50%. There was a period that some scientists think Earth was more of a snowball, but that was hundreds of millions of years ago.

I was wondering how big a sinkhole would be needed to sink Atlantis.

There is a large region on Mars, in the Tharsis Highlands, which has suffered from tectonic collapse. Likely the mechanism is different from that which would have destroyed Atlantis (if Atlantis existed [and I will say this only once, here, to keep the discussion from becoming too bloated with the same caveat repeated ad nauseam]). But there is no sinkhole, there. The same surface that used to exist is still there, only much lower in elevation. Again the characterization of a hole opening up and something falling into it is not what I'm talking about. Some areas of continental crust have not always been above sea level. Extensional forces sometimes cause portions to subside below sea level. In West Texas, where I grew up, we would sometimes find petrified sea shells, hundreds of miles from the Gulf of Mexico. A large mountain range such as is described for Atlantis would be subject to gravitational forces. Even today, as the Himalayas are being forced upward, extensional forces driven by gravity are working to flatten them. Those forces are currently losing, of course.

One day, the Great Rift Valley of East Africa will subside to extensional forces and to the greater density of the new basaltic crust. This will form a new sea in several million years.

I've not heard that theory presented before.  That prehistoric Greece was suffering the same time that Atlantis was.

...and then you said...

Right.  So going on the assumption, which a lot of people do, that Plato IS talking about the same event - Atlantis sinking and the warlike men meeting the same fate - these two events are 3000 miles apart.  How would the Egyptians even know that the Athenian men had met such a fate at the same time?  Supposedly Egypt herself, according to your theory, was a thousand years recovering from the same incident, and yet she had a record of these details?

My "theory" that you had never heard of is one that you had mentioned before, and repeated again, calling it "the same event." I'm a bit confused that you did not see that these were talking about the same thing.

Plato says, "At a later time there were earthquakes and floods of extraordinary violence, and in a single dreadful day and night all your fighting men were swallowed up by the earth, and the island of Atlantis was similarly swallowed up by the sea and vanished" (Timaeus, 25, Sir Desmond Lee, translator).

Plato later says, "The Acropolis was different from what it is now. Today it is quite bare of soil which was all washed away in one appalling night of flood, by a combination of earthquakes and the third terrible deluge before that of Deucalion" (Critias, 112, Sir Desmond Lee, translator).

From these two passages, it seems that Plato was talking about two events at two locations which occurred close to the same time or concurrently.

If the flood had killed everyone in Egypt, then I would say that no one would have been around to record such details. Apparently the flood didn't kill everyone. But I'm only going by what Plato wrote in his two dialogs.

Atlantis supposedly existed during the ice age.  How does one sail through the ice?

Believe it or not, there was some ice-free ocean during the entire, most recent Ice Age, at least if we can believe our scientists. ;-)

Again, did Atlantis exist? Heck if I know. I kinda think so, but I have no proof. A few years ago, we didn't have proof of manmade buildings that far back. But then a German archaeologist in Turkey uncovered Gobekli Tepe, now dated at about 9500 BC.

Some skeptics make a big point of Atlantis being impossible because we have no proof of its existence. They would add that there is no evidence of civilized man existing that far back. Enter Gobekli Tepe. Arguing the impossibility of something based on a lack of evidence is a logical fallacy — an argument to ignorance. The status of the Atlantis story remains in limbo. Yet, I find it exciting that we have proof that a world-shaking event occurred right when Plato said Atlantis was swallowed by the sea.

======================

If you have not yet seen the video, "Why the Philippines will Not be the Next Atlantis," I hope you'll take a look and give me your feedback. http://www.ancientsuns.com/fwd/mia/atlantis.php.
Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2010, 08:21:09 pm »

Okee Dokee Lonestar, let me try to clarify a few things.  I'll start with Atlantis sinking and all the "warlike men" meeting the same fate.

The two options were - either the Athenians were in Atlantis when it went down - or - they weren't!! Cheesy

So - we're going with - they weren't.  Because Plato says the Atlanteans were on the attack.  Therefore, the Athenians who didn't exist yet, were doing the defending. 

The point I was trying to make, was that if the war like men were taken down with the same event that sunk Atlantis, they had to be IN Atlantis, since there is no record, geologic or otherwise, that a cataclysmic event happened 11,500 years ago, that could have sunk Atlantis, and then caused such drastic effects in Athens, over 3000 miles away, that the war like men met the same fate. 

So, IF this is true, and the Athenians who didn't exist yet, sunk into the earth, then perhaps they were caught in a mud slide or storm afterwards, because as I've mentioned, there is no evidence of a tsunami/tidal wave destruction recorded within the Strait of Gibraltar, nor on the islands within the Med., nor along the coasts of the Med. countries, or on the shores of what is now Greece itself. 

Such a major event leaves it's signature.  There isn't one for this type of event in that area.  There is a lot of seismic activity, for sure, but not an impact event causing a major tsunami.  There IS evidence for an impact event in the Indian Ocean, however, it would not cause a large island in the Atlantic outside of Gibraltar to sink, nor would it effect Greece.

Gotta go cook supper.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2010, 09:40:10 pm by Qoais » Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2010, 11:26:24 pm »

Quote
A large meteor could have created waves hundreds of kilometers high.

As a kilometer is roughly 5/8ths of a mile, using the figure of 200 as a minimum for his "hundreds of kilometers high" would produce a wave of 5/8 X 200 = 125 miles high. That is 660,000 feet which is better known as Outer Space. Can't happen.  Not only the ocean's waters would be in outer space, the whole planet would be atomized.

Good math, as far as it goes, but I think your physics is a bit off. I'm no expert on impact ejecta, but just one look at the lunar crater rays will show that ejecta can be thrown many times the diameter of the original crater, which is itself much smaller than the original meteor. The spokes of the Tycho ray system are up to 1500 km long, while the crater itself is only 85 km in diameter.

The Arizona meteor crater is 1.2 km in diameter, and the impactor was thought to have been only 50 meters across, making the crater about 24 times the diameter of the original meteor.

If the Tycho impactor was similarly proportioned, then it would have been about 3.5 km in diameter. The Chicxulub Crater impactor (the one that killed the dinosaurs) was thought to have been about 10 km in diameter. It did not vaporize the Earth, and it likely left an ejecta blanket, a large portion of which was water, spread out many hundreds of kilometers from the impact site. This would have arced up and out before falling back to Earth. A jet of water several hundred meters thick, ejected into outer space would suffer only minimal evaporation from the vacuum of space before falling back to Earth.

Lonestar, I believe you are speculating when you say:

"Approximately 36 million years ago, the Africa plate could no longer push against the area of boundary damage. The mountains created there had poked above the ocean surface, creating an island. With an immovable barrier at the new Atlantis, but with continued subduction farther east, the only result would be one of rotation -- deflected around the impediment."

Speculating? I'd prefer to say hypothesizing, and this is based on over a year of research in the geological literature. This is based on the geologist proposed movement of the Africa plate after the Pangaea split, and on the current plate boundary conditions and current Euler pole location. Other forces could have caused current conditions, but that the subject of additional speculating (er, I mean hypothesizing).

Thanks for the links. I have much better plate-tectonic maps, but the seafloor maps at the Gulf of Cadiz are awesome. A wonderful addition to my library.

I want to make it clear, Qoais, that your input is greatly appreciated, especially your spirit of intellectual fun. Even my fertile imagination doesn't think of everything. Not by a long shot.
Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2010, 01:36:25 am »

Quote
but just one look at the lunar crater rays will show that ejecta can be thrown many times the diameter of the original crater,


This would be expected on the moon because there is no gravity to force the ejecta back to ground.

The whole point was, that if something hit the earth causing a wave of water to end up in outer space, that something would also be large enough to destroy the planet. The force necessary to cause the water to raise that high, well, there wouldn't be an earth for  the water to fall back onto.  Look how much energy it takes just to launch a rocket and get it away from the earth's gravity.  Something that would be so powerful as to launch water into outer space, wouldn't leave a whole lot behind, never mind the water evaporating!! 

Current plate boundary conditions show that the plates are all moving apart except for the Pacific plate and the Australian and N. American Plates.  There is no indication that the African plate is "swinging" - in other words, as you've explained, the top is going one way while the bottom is going the opposite direction. 

I'm glad you found the links useful. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 06, 2010, 03:25:34 am »

I've been chatting with a geneticist because I'd read an article by Dr. Greg Little and wanted to check a few facts.  Here are snippets from our conversation:

Quote
There is NO evidence that the Basque are related to the Native North Americans, particularly since those Native North American tribes would have been X2a or X2g and (very few) Basques would have been (at best) either X1 or a sub-clade thereof.

Based on the "snippets" you submitted, I don't think too highly of your geneticist. His wording is a touch sloppy, prejudiced and his facts are not quite right. For instance, his "no evidence" Basques and Native Americans are related is wrong in the larger perspective. We are all related as humans (Homo sapiens). Though I'm no expert, it seems clear from everything I've read on genetics and mtDNA haplogroup X that this group is indeed a group of related individuals.

In one article, "Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X," by M. Reidla, et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180497/), Basques are shown to be far more X2 than X1. So, where did your geneticist get his facts?

Quote
Percentages:
Basques
X1 = 0 [.0–2.0]
X2 = 1.4 [.4–4.8]

The fact that geneticists give the sub-clades "coalescence estimates" strongly implies a relationship. In my slightly educated opinion, the geneticist you talked with is being less than fully educated in his discussion. Or could it be he has a difficult time with clarity? Certainly his facts seem to be off.

Here are snippets from our conversation:

Quote
Your "dates of separation" are called "coalescence estimates", when two haplogroups or sub-clades can be estimated to have split from each other. There is, however, no evidence that the parent haplogroup X ever split to form sub-clades responsible for both Atlantis (since it doesn't exist) or the northern Native Americans which were X2a/X2g.

Here your geneticist again says "no evidence" as if that proves something. At best, his argument is a logical fallacy (argument to ignorance). He betrays his prejudice by saying "Atlantis (since it doesn't exist)." Of course Atlantis does not exist. If it did exist, it subsided long ago. (See the sloppiness of his wording, using present tense with regard to Atlantis.) He says nothing here about no evidence that the parent haplogroup X ever split to form sub-clades responsible for both the Basques and Northern Native Americans. I suppose he had made that point earlier, but his facts were wrong.

Here are snippets from our conversation:

Quote
Haplogroup X, as such, DID NOT get to America. The sub-clade X2a however has been here since circa 12,800 BC.

I don't know what he's saying here. The fact that X2a is a sub-clade of haplogroup X seems to indicate to me that haplogroup X did indeed get to America. It didn't suddenly materialize out of thin air.

From the same article quoted earlier, M. Reidla, et al, let us know,

Quote
"Moreover, Native American haplogroup X mtDNAs form a clade distinct from that of West Eurasians and with coalescence time estimates varying widely depending on both the method of estimation and the number of assumed founders. Thus, the coalescence times ranged from 12,000–17,000 YBP to 23,000–36,000 YBP, times that are consistent with both a pre- and a postglacial population diffusion (Brown et al. 1998)."

This seems to indicate a clear relationship, contrary to what your geneticist says so emphatically.

Or have I missed something in what you presented earlier?
Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 06, 2010, 05:37:09 am »

This would be expected on the moon because there is no gravity to force the ejecta back to ground.

Sorry Qoais, completely wrong. The Moon indeed has gravity. If it had no gravity, we would not have a Moon. If it had no gravity, we would not have rays on the Moon and far fewer meteor craters. The Moon's surface gravity is approximately one-sixth that of the Earth, not zero.

All other things being equal, if radius of the ejecta blanket has a linear proportionality with the surface gravity (quite possibly non-linear), then the same Tycho meteor hitting Earth would have had "rays" extending 250 kilometers outward. But other things would affect the amount of dispersion — the explosive quality of water vapor and far lower boiling point than that of rock, the variable nature of impactor speed, atmospheric effects (compressibility and rebound), to name a few.

The whole point was, that if something hit the earth causing a wave of water to end up in outer space, that something would also be large enough to destroy the planet.

I understood that to have been your point, and this is wrong. Consider for a moment the diameter of the Earth (nearly 13,000 kilometers) and the thickness of the atmosphere (100 km, or Kármán line, is often considered the edge of "outer space"). The atmospheric thickness is less than 1% of the diameter of Earth. Splashing outside of the 100 km boundary is relatively nothing compared to the 13,000 km diameter of Earth. You would need a far, far greater impactor to destroy Earth completely. The mathematics of impact and ejecta are beyond my abilities, but a simple analogy might help. Throw a rock at any puddle. A nice, 80 pound rock thrown downward from over your head as hard as you can, could create a splash that might go over your head. But how much of the ground underneath is "destroyed?"

Your rocket analogy is a bit off, too, because with most rocket launches, they are attempting to reach orbital velocity. Ejecta which would fall only 250 km from the site of impact would be traveling far, far slower than orbital velocity. Could a meteor impact knock bits of Earth into orbit? You bet they could, if traveling fast enough, but that would not destroy the Earth, unless the chunk was big enough. A glancing blow of a building-sized asteroid, hitting the continental surface of Earth at say 30 km per second might do it. Orbital velocity would require only about 7-8 km/second. The shape of such an orbit might bring the ejecta back into the atmosphere, though, ending their journey because of atmospheric friction.

Current plate boundary conditions show that the plates are all moving apart except for the Pacific plate and the Australian and N. American Plates.

If by "moving apart" you mean "divergence" (the geological term), then you are wrong. Plate convergence is occurring all over the planet with almost every plate. It would have to. If all plates (and I know you said only most plates) were experiencing only divergence at every boundary, then the Earth would be gradually getting bigger — an impossibility. For instance, there is convergence along most of the Mediterranean (Africa-Eurasia boundary). If you had seen my video, you would've seen shots of geological maps showing convergence between the Philippine Sea plate and the Sunda plate. The India plate is also converging on the Eurasia plate, giving rise to the Himalayas.

See the map at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tectonic_plates_boundaries_detailed-en.svg. This shows convergent boundaries in lavender and blue (the blue are convergent with the added quality of one plate sliding underneath the other).

There is no indication that the African plate is "swinging" - in other words, as you've explained, the top is going one way while the bottom is going the opposite direction.

I don't know where you got the "swinging" plate idea. I have only referred to plate "rotation." A map online by Peter Bird (UCLA) shows the Euler poles (poles of plate rotation) for all of the major plates. You can find professor Bird's map at, http://peterbird.name/publications/2003_PB2002/2003_PB2002.htm.
Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #22 on: August 06, 2010, 09:16:36 am »

The "pivoting" came from what I interpreted as the plate not being able to continue because of the new Atlantis (as you called it) being in the way, so therefore, the top became fixed and the bottom was still moving.   Smiley  Geology is not my best subject, for sure and  although I do have a friend who is one, I get a headache listening to him explain why you are wrong Grin Grin Grin

Sorry, I didn't mean that the moon had NO gravity.  That was just a generalization, meaning that because of lesser gravity, ejecta would travel farther before it landed.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2010, 05:22:42 am »

Geology is not my best subject, for sure and although I do have a friend who is one, I get a headache listening to him explain why you are wrong.

It's interesting to hear of a geologist disproving plate tectonics, subduction, convergent compression, Euler poles, and other staples of geological discussion, or were you merely "generalizing" again?



Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2010, 10:14:57 am »

He wasn't disproving the subjects Lonestar.  I've sent you a private message.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2010, 01:36:37 am »

He wasn't disproving the subjects Lonestar.  I've sent you a private message.

Thanks Qoais, for the private communication, but because I'm only after truth, I prefer the public forum, especially after the public claim that the ideas presented have been "explained to be wrong." I'm hungry for constructive criticism. Any good ideas aired in the public forum may help others to brainstorm the possibilities. Your so-called "expert" did largely neither (explain it to be wrong nor offer much that was constructive).

Ad hominem generalities were too prevalent (a bad sign in any debate). Many of their statements lacked clarity to the point of obfuscation (for example, "it" and "this" undefined and unclear from context). The "expert" included unsupported claims of "red herrings," never showing how the salient points I had made were diversions from the significant. In fact, such claims and ad hominem by your "expert" are, in themselves, "red herrings," distracting from the meat of my hypothesis, rather than addressing the points of argument with counter-arguments.

Your "expert" made a claim about my knowledge of geological terms — a claim which was ludicrously false — just because I didn't use the more technical term "isostatic rebound" in my video. For one, it is a broad public video, not a professional journal article. And everything I've read in my decade-long research points to "isostatic adjustment" being the preferred term, not "isostatic rebound," because there are two directions of adjustment — not simply "up" (rebound), but also "down" (subsidence).

Personal attacks (ad hominem), plus lack of substance do nothing to "explain" and tend to give a bad impression of the "expert." That is regrettable. I would have enjoyed a substantial, meaty debate. I have developed and rejected numerous hypotheses on this subject. I wouldn't mind rejecting this new hypothesis, if I could find the data to prove it wrong. The "expert" failed completely on this.

The "expert" falsely characterized the Atlantis impediment to subduction as a "point" source. At roughly 13% of the total Africa-Eurasia plate boundary of 50-60 Mya, I consider such blockage to have been significant, especially when the remainder of the boundary was strongly convergent. If the "expert" wants to theorize that 13% is not significant blockage, that's their unproven hypothesis — far from proven fact.

When a so-called "professional" resorts to ad hominem attacks and sloppy, unclear arguments, I consider it a tragedy.

On my Mission: Atlantis website, I grade the skeptics on their arguments against Atlantis. Many of them get failing grades for lack of substance. The rest of them get barely passing grades. All of them lost significant points for ad hominem, non sequitur, arguments to ignorance, and other logical fallacies. I would have to give this "expert" an "F" for the same reasons. If they would like to try again, without the spicy attitude, and with point-for-point analysis, I would enjoy the discussion and the learning experience. I would sincerely like to give someone an "A" in their arguments against Atlantis. That could be a learning experience for us all.

Come on, people. Let's snap out of this ego funk, and find Atlantis or prove it wrong!
Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
Daedalus
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1146



« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2010, 06:24:55 pm »

I liked your page on grading the skeptics, Ron, most of whom, of course, have all the wrong facts, don't offer anything substantial, and tend to parrot talking points from other "experts."  Qoais tends to give their opinions a great deal of weight, of course, because she is a non-believer herself and also tends to be a bit of a killjoy.
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2010, 11:39:47 am »

 Cheesy  Well, I've never been called a killjoy before!  How unique.

My reasoning for the non-existence of Atlantis, comes from researching what science teaches us, in a number of different fields.  If I don't know a subject or understand it in depth, I turn to those who do know these subjects and trust that their knowledge is correct.  Repeating myself as it seems necessary to do to get a point across, I have posted the knowledge I have gleaned from researching the different timelines for the technologies that have developed over the centuries and when those technologies were invented. 

I am not being skeptical just for fun here.  I have honestly set down what I've found regarding known information as to when ships were developed, when civilizations developed in certain areas, when trained armies were initiated, when horses were domesticated and when they were used for riding after being used as dray animals, when the wheel was invented, and more importantly the hub, so the wheel could turn on an axle.  All of the research shows that these things that supposedly made up Atlantis, were not developed in the timeline for the existence of Atlantis. 


As far as I know, some scientists believe that the Mid Atlantic ridge was once above water and has subsided. I also seem to remember, but of course could be wrong, that this was hundreds of thousands of years ago.  As far as there being a large inhabitable island in the Atlantic, I take the word of geologists who tell me that from the core samples taken, there is no evidence that such a land mass existed.  Do I have the numbers and locations of each core sample?  No.  It was just a general discussion on what has been found.  Anyone can google something like Atlantic Core Samples, or Deep Sea Core Samples, etc., to find out just what has been discovered so far.   

Lonestar, you are studying things on your own and coming to your own conclusions.  You said "my expert" made a claim about your knowledge of geological terms, a claim which was ludicrously false.  The thing is, a professional does use the proper terminology and when someone doesn't, it sends up a flag saying that person is NOT a professional.  You may very well be familiar with geological terms, however, when a professional reads your hypothesis or listens to your video, he realizes immediately that you are not one, by your use of, or lack of use of, technological terms.  Therefore, if you are not a professional, you are considered "fringe".  I guess you would have to prove your hypothesis to change that categorization. 

However, even if you were correct in your ideas - Even if there was an impact event of the magnitude you describe where water could be ejected into outer space without destroying the earth - even if the tectonic plates got stuck at a certain point - this does not prove the existence of Atlantis.  You say you are grading people on their arguments against Atlantis and you've given everyone so far a poor mark.  All you are doing is grading them on their writing abilities.  They all write an essay and you grade their work.  Are you a frustrated teacher or something?  Perhaps this is your way of mocking everyone else??

So grade my answer to the existence of Atlantis, and why it didn't.

All crap aside, and never mind if I've used capital letters in the correct place or used the proper syntax.  Just based on what I've said regarding the things I've searched out:

Quote
I am not being skeptical just for fun here.  I have honestly set down what I've found regarding known information as to when ships were developed, when civilizations developed in certain areas, when trained armies were initiated, when horses were domesticated and when they were used for riding after being used as dray animals, when the wheel was invented, and more importantly the hub, so the wheel could turn on an axle.  All of the research shows that these things that supposedly made up Atlantis, were not developed in the timeline for the existence of Atlantis. 

what grade do I get?  I'm not ridiculing anyone, I'm not calling anyone down, I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just stating the reasons why Atlantis couldn't have existed as Plato tells it, in the timeline he gives it, based on science. 

If I am wrong in my interpretation of the scientific facts, I do apologize. Please correct me where I'm wrong.




Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2010, 10:18:20 am »

Cheesy  Well, I've never been called a killjoy before!  How unique.

My reasoning for the non-existence of Atlantis, comes from researching what science teaches us, in a number of different fields.  If I don't know a subject or understand it in depth, I turn to those who do know these subjects and trust that their knowledge is correct.  Repeating myself as it seems necessary to do to get a point across, I have posted the knowledge I have gleaned from researching the different timelines for the technologies that have developed over the centuries and when those technologies were invented. 

Qoais, I wouldn't call you a "killjoy" as Daedalus did, but I don't know you that well. Most of our conversations and private communications have been rewarding to me.

I applaud the approach and the attitude. Basing your view of Atlantis on what is known in science is commendable, though your conclusions at times are far less than quality stuff, in my opinion.

Scientists can be wrong, so I tend to ignore blanket judgments from so-called "experts," and prefer to look at hard data. There is a clear-cut prejudice against Atlantis in the scientific field, similar to the infamous "Clovis first" dogma that held sway for so many years in North American anthropology. On another forum, one PhD historian pointed out that he couldn't get a friend and professional archaeologist to join him in investigating potential archaeological sites off of the island of Bimini, near Florida. The archaeologist was afraid he wouldn't be able to get funding after being associated with the "A" word. Yes, "Atlantis" is the new blasphemy in the modern "religion" of science.

But hey, I love science. I've studied geology for a decade. I've been an avid amateur astronomer for more than half a century, and made a profession of computer science, garnering a bachelors degree, summa cum laude.

I'm skeptical, too. I'm skeptical about Atlantis (both pro and con). I'm also skeptical about what scientists tell me, unless I can see the data upon which they base their conclusions.

There was one supposed "scientist" who seemed to write the book on the infamous "Bimini road" (a Mr. Shinn). From what I've read, it seems he may have only had a bachelors degree (and not in geology) when he wrote his first few articles on the subject. Only after decades of writing geology articles did he finally get an honorary PhD from an institution in Southern Florida. And it appears that his first two articles do not agree with each other. The first, in an obscure publication for which it seems impossible to gain a copy, seems to imply that the "road" could have been artificial because the beachrock stones don't all tilt toward open sea. His second article hides this fact, and draws an unfounded conclusion. Other scientists point to him as the "expert," but has Mr. Shinn been unethical in his quest for fame and glory?

I am not being skeptical just for fun here.  I have honestly set down what I've found regarding known information as to when ships were developed, when civilizations developed in certain areas, when trained armies were initiated, when horses were domesticated and when they were used for riding after being used as dray animals, when the wheel was invented, and more importantly the hub, so the wheel could turn on an axle.  All of the research shows that these things that supposedly made up Atlantis, were not developed in the timeline for the existence of Atlantis. 

The problem with your approach, here, is that these are the dates we know. The fact that these dates come long after Plato's date for Atlantis do not disprove Atlantis. Scientists are forever digging up new material, and could possibly find far earlier dates for each of these things. Your reasoning is flawed by the "argument to ignorance" fallacy. Just because we don't have earlier evidence does not disprove Atlantis. Such evidence may yet be found, or such evidence may have been destroyed. And of course, Atlantis may be a complete fiction. Recently, anthropologists found evidence of early man on a Mediterranean island dated at about 130,000 BC. What this implies is that man had boats that long ago. This startling discovery was written up in the NY Times. Several months ago, we didn't know this. Next month, will we discover 15,000 year old telecommunications devices and 18,000 year old anti-gravity serpent-shaped aircraft (dragons)? There's a great big unknown out there. A lack of evidence proves nothing except that we have not yet found evidence. The possibilities (pro and con) still exist.

As far as I know, some scientists believe that the Mid Atlantic ridge was once above water and has subsided. I also seem to remember, but of course could be wrong, that this was hundreds of thousands of years ago.  As far as there being a large inhabitable island in the Atlantic, I take the word of geologists who tell me that from the core samples taken, there is no evidence that such a land mass existed.  Do I have the numbers and locations of each core sample?  No.  It was just a general discussion on what has been found.  Anyone can google something like Atlantic Core Samples, or Deep Sea Core Samples, etc., to find out just what has been discovered so far.   

One part of the Mid-Atlantic ridge is currently above water. It's called Iceland! In the 1948-49 Woods Hole expedition to the MAR, Dr. Ewing discovered subaerial phenomena and beach-like terraces. I don't know where on the MAR these were discovered. But apparently these could have been above water as recently as 12,000 years ago. A 1959 review of this expedition left out all of the controversial stuff — the potentially "Atlantis" stuff. There are many reasons why such information could have been avoided — a lack of room in the article, professional prejudice (against Atlantis), and others. As with the "Clovis first" problem, scientists can be coerced into "not looking" for evidence in support of Atlantis.

The actual data on core samples (locations, contents at each layer, etc.) would be invaluable in such a discussion — far more valuable than much of the stuff I've read here.

continued on next…
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 10:36:52 am by LoneStar77 » Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2010, 10:31:29 am »

Continued…

Lonestar, you are studying things on your own and coming to your own conclusions.  You said "my expert" made a claim about your knowledge of geological terms, a claim which was ludicrously false.  The thing is, a professional does use the proper terminology and when someone doesn't, it sends up a flag saying that person is NOT a professional.  You may very well be familiar with geological terms, however, when a professional reads your hypothesis or listens to your video, he realizes immediately that you are not one, by your use of, or lack of use of, technological terms.  Therefore, if you are not a professional, you are considered "fringe".  I guess you would have to prove your hypothesis to change that categorization. 

Ludicrously false? Hmmm, coming from you, I can only laugh. For instance, your definition and his for "red herring" is pretty loopy. Calling my discussion of the Philippines in my video a "red herring" is ludicrous because it is not "a distraction from what is significant" (the definition of "red herring"), but is in fact the significance (the meat) of the video. The Philippines are an archipelago of islands in what would otherwise be empty ocean. Why? Because the Philippines were formed in a similar fashion to how Atlantis was formed (if it existed). The point of any comparison is to show how things are similar and how they differ. And that is why the Philippines were included. Calling its inclusion to be a "red herring" was ironically a red herring in itself — a distraction from the significance of whether Atlantis could have geologically existed.

Your "expert" friend commented about the terms used in the video not being the terms professionals use. That was also a red herring. Why? Because the video was never intended to be a professional treatise on the subject, but a broad public tool to get an idea across. If your "expert" had cared to check, my online article has plenty of more technical terms and plenty of sources of scientific data. His use of "rebound," calls into question his own professional understanding. My PDF article on the "Geology of Atlantis" points out that "rebound" is a misnomer because there is much more going on than merely "rebounding." The growing consensus is that the preferred term includes "adjustment" rather than rebound. But in a video to laypeople, "rebound" is easier to understand. Qoais, you and your "expert," are judging my understanding based on a false premise — that my video is a scientific treatise, which it was never intended to be. Shame, shame!

However, even if you were correct in your ideas - Even if there was an impact event of the magnitude you describe where water could be ejected into outer space without destroying the earth - even if the tectonic plates got stuck at a certain point - this does not prove the existence of Atlantis.  You say you are grading people on their arguments against Atlantis and you've given everyone so far a poor mark.  All you are doing is grading them on their writing abilities.  They all write an essay and you grade their work.  Are you a frustrated teacher or something?  Perhaps this is your way of mocking everyone else??

There have been numerous illustrations of the K-T event of 65 Mya (when the dinosaurs were destroyed). Some of those illustrations (likely all following what scientists told the artists) show water from the ocean being splashed several hundred kilometers into space. Shooting someone with a bullet could splash blood several meters from the point of impact, but it would not explode the person.

You say these things don't prove Atlantis. I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, in case you've missed it, I'll repeat my opinion again: I believe Atlantis could have been a complete fiction. Got it? We simply do not have enough proof either way.

Yes, I've given poor marks, because their arguments against Atlantis were atrocious. Grading them on their writing abilities? No, Qoais. Your logic is slipping, again. Or perhaps you did not read carefully enough the "Grading Methodology." I was grading them on their arguments, which like many of yours and those of your "expert," were full of holes and logical fallacies.

Qoais, it sounds as though you're taking all this too personally. "Frustrated teacher?" No. A "way of mocking everyone else?" No. If you had read more carefully, you would have seen the open invitation to come up with something better in the way of an argument against Atlantis. I still welcome it. The only frustration on my part is the lame excuse some people have for "logic." I merely gave points where it was due, and subtracted points where it was needed.

So grade my answer to the existence of Atlantis, and why it didn't.

All crap aside, and never mind if I've used capital letters in the correct place or used the proper syntax.  Just based on what I've said regarding the things I've searched out:

what grade do I get?  I'm not ridiculing anyone, I'm not calling anyone down, I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just stating the reasons why Atlantis couldn't have existed as Plato tells it, in the timeline he gives it, based on science. 

If I am wrong in my interpretation of the scientific facts, I do apologize. Please correct me where I'm wrong.

Personally, I think your arguments against Atlantis are far better than those of all the skeptical websites I've graded so far, combined! Yet, I'd still give you a C-minus. Why? Too many logical fallacies. You're jumping to too many erroneous conclusions, like thinking that the earliest known dates of various inventions prove anything with regard to Atlantis.

Capital letters? Come on, Qoais! Capitalization and spelling had no part in the grading. Any other errors of form had minor impact on the grading, but only those things that affected the overall argument. Even bad grammar was not included in the grading.

If you could give me the URL's of websites that have the raw data of deep ocean cores in the Northeast Atlantic, especially along the Africa-Eurasia tectonic plate boundary and north of the boundary within say 500 kilometers, I'd give you at least an A-minus, even if the remainder of your argument was full of logical fallacies. See, I'm happy to give good grades for good work.  Wink
Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy