Atlantis Online
October 14, 2019, 12:47:43 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Towering Ancient Tsunami Devastated the Mediterranean
http://www.livescience.com/environment/061130_ancient_tsunami.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Can a Continent Sink?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Can a Continent Sink?  (Read 4215 times)
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 17, 2010, 12:16:48 am »

Now, Ostanes, please tell me how something can disappear in the depths of the sea without sinking.
Very easily.

"Depths of the sea" is a Homeric expression from the Odyssey.

E.g. the island of Ogygia [Atlantis] "knows the depths of every sea."

Does that mean Ogygia sank?  Obviously not or else Odysseus wouldn't have been able to cry on the shore.

If I say the sentence "Odysseus disappeared in the depths of the sea" does that mean he sank to the bottom of the sea floor?  No.

It simply means he disappeared at sea.

Ostanes, you seem to be making some interesting points, but also you're not being very logical on others. Okay, I grant that one definition of the English "depth" might refer to horizontal distance. That could support your argument if the original text was in English. The fact remains, however, that the English is a translation. The translator likely chose the best words (as commonly understood) for the language they were translating. "Depth" as horizontal distance is not the most common usage. I would bet that if you were to take a survey, you'd find most people think of depth in terms of vertical distance when referring to the sea. I think translators would choose this language accordingly.

Now for the illogical. Frequently, you seem to compare apples to oranges. "Disappear in the depths of the sea" has a far different context than "knows the depths of every sea." Both, to me, seem to use "depth" as a vertical distance not horizontal.

Knowing the depth of a sea, to me means that one knows how deep (depth) the sea is at a particular location (like at its deepest part). Knowing the depths of all seas, to me means having a good nautical chart to navigate around shallows and dangerous reefs.

Just because someone on an island (Ogygia) knew the depths of all seas does not change the idea that disappearing in the depths of a sea means "sinking" or "submersion." You can't ignore the words "disappear in" and "knows" and "of every" which differ between the two phrases. The two phrases are not equivalent, so to treat them as such is entirely illogical.

If I were translating from another language and wanted to mean "disappeared at sea," I might use "disappeared across the sea," but never "disappeared in the depths of the sea." Such a translation would be entirely misleading in meaning. If we were not talking about the sea, but say "the wilderness," then "disappeared in the depths of the wilderness" would be perfectly okay in meaning horizontal distance, but this is a more poetic treatment than literal. Horizontal depth of the wilderness is more acceptable only because one does not typically think of vertical depth in the wilderness in this context.

Quote
Very interesting point. Certainly the consensus amongst scientists is that tectonic plates exist.
That proves they are wrong.  Whenever there is scientific consensus on something it is wrong.

Now, this reaches a new level of illogicalness.

If your statement were true, then if everyone suddenly agreed with Ostanes, Ostanes would be suddenly wrong. My dear Ostanes, if your logic can't do better than that, I will likely not be replying to any more of your postings. I don't have time to educate those unwilling to learn. Yet, perhaps someone can benefit from the discussion.

Quote
They measure their movements with GPS.
And then they adjust the measurements to fit their models. 

In actual fact, the Earth is growing.

"Adjust the measurements?" You're talking of scientific misconduct. That's unethical. Do all scientists do this? If we believe you, they must. But somehow I sincerely doubt it.

"The preliminary results from NASA indicate that the chord distance from Europe to North America is increasing by 1.50.5 cm per year, North America to Hawaii is increasing by 41 cm per year, Hawaii to South America by 53, and South America to Australia by 63 .... These results support Earth expansion, but not the plate tectonics theory, which is denied by the radius increase implicit in the data." -- S. Warren Carey, geologist, 1988

"The relative motion of Hawaii and Arequipa [Peru] is 803 mm/yr...." -- D.E. Smith, geophysicist, et al., 1990

I don't know about D.E. Smith, but S. Warren Carey seems to have fallen into disfavor amongst fellow geologists. But what if all geologists suddenly believed as Carey did? By your logic, above, Carey would suddenly be wrong. That would be, after all, a consensus.

What Carey seems to leave out are the areas (across subduction zones and convergent boundaries) where the distances are decreasing. Duh! Earth is not growing, at least by every set of data I've ever seen.

And I think your quote of D.E. Smith is interesting. If I'm not mistaken, the 803 mm/yr is in approach! In other words, shrinking. Why? There is a subduction zone between the Pacific plate and the South America plate all along the Andes. In fact, that's why the Andes are there. Subduction tends to produce volcanoes, as in the subduction of the Philippine Sea plate underneath the Sunda plate, creating the Philippines archipelago, where I currently live.

Quote
And we have so many volcanoes which spew hot (not "cold") magma.
Wrong.  Magma never gets spewed out, lava does.  And hot lava comes from the crust not the mantle.

Definition "magma":
2. Geology The molten rock material under the earth's crust, from which igneous rock is formed by cooling.
[from the American Heritage dictionary]

The igneous rock which is on the surface of Earth was at one time "lava," or "molten rock."

Quote
Yet, scientists could be wrong.
They almost always are.

Really? If that were true, then most of the technology of our wonderful civilization would never have worked. I think technology does work, otherwise we would not be having this conversation over the internet, using electricity, TCP/IP data packets, and computers.

Good luck, Ostanes.
 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] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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