Atlantis Online
July 22, 2019, 01:59:13 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Underwater caves off Yucatan yield three old skeletons—remains date to 11,000 B.C.
http://www.edgarcayce.org/am/11,000b.c.yucata.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 4149 times)
Mario Dantas
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1376


WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 02, 2009, 06:16:29 pm »

Dear Adam, and Horus,

An excellent work, thanks for sharing!

Quote
Suffice it to say that Keith believed that the essence of his proposed global model “is that oceanic crust is a principal reservoir and that selective recycling of its components is a counter to weathering and riverine [sediment] transport from continent to ocean, and a key process in the self-regulating Earth system” (p. 282). He has little to say about the forces that drove the Mesozoic mantle surge, other than to say that there is a strong possibility that it may have been triggered by a cluster of meteorite impacts in the western equatorial Pacific. These impacts may have reactivated lower mantle, during a surge-promoted change from layered to whole-mantle convection. Deep “roll-margin” mantle recycling associated with the proposed impact-triggered change from layered to whole-mantle convection, and resultant mantle surge is deduced to have formed a range of mixtures that apparently constituted a source of Cretaceous basaltic magma and oceanic crust.

Science is looking at things partially... there should be a reason for things in the Atlantic to happen the way they did. Since they got stuck with the mantle flow justification, no great advance was made because it was  not the flow of the mantle that sank Atlantis nor is it the reason for Plate Tectonics to occur.

Since there was life on Earth, there were no greater planetary revolution, than the Atlantis proposed sinking. Forget about Dinosaurs extinction or ancient meteors, the same event we search and cherish as the real cradle of Mankind was the most utterly transforming Tectonic procedure since Pangea breakup... it changed the face of the world and the only way to know this is to equate globally what happened. A change can be no longer a change but an entirely new entity, as in the case of Atlantis sink, which became a transfigured byproduct of the literal Tectonic chaos when such profound transformation ceased. It became invisible for too many reasons to be noticed...

Everywhere in the Planet witnessed these changes in Continental Geo-positioning and the hardening of the young Oceanic crust as Ice cooled things down. The 140m Sea level rise could have been a worse remedy than the disease, if the hole crust was to be completely submerged by water... The whole Planetary equilibrium was restored and not only Nature started imitating the previous equilibrium that existed with the previous animal and plants livestok that survived, adapting to new conditions and so on, but also completing or fulfilling the crust integrity, leaving the signals of the Pacific ring of fire as witness of a faulty wiped out crust? A clear Continental dislocation in the Atlantic MAR? or a Severe breach of the Black  and Aegean Seas? As someone once told me, like sugar in a tupperware...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Sea_map.png

Quote
Strabo (7.3.6) thinks that the Black Sea was called "inhospitable" before Greek colonization because it was difficult to navigate, and because its shores were inhabited by savage tribes. The name was changed to "hospitable" after the Milesians had colonized southern shoreline, the Pontus, making it part of Greek civilization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea

As a matter of fact all Seas must have become inhospitable when Atlantis sank, the healing took time and certainly brought much misery to those living beings caught in the turmoil...


Can Lands Sink and Rise?


not with the size of Atlantis...

but was there, at the time, any larger island than the Island of Atlantis? Is there, at present, any sufficiently large Island in the Atlantic Ocean? Is there any other larger island in the world or even close to it? Is it presently sunk under water? not salt water... or are its neighbor islands (if any) also large? perhaps the largest in the world? Are they close enough?

regards,
Mario Dantas
Report Spam   Logged

Adam Hawthorne
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4250



« Reply #46 on: September 17, 2009, 12:04:02 am »

Hi Mario,

I haven't seen any evidence that a large island, such as a continent, can sink and rise in the timeframe Plato suggests, however history provides many examples of volcanic islands doing such a thing.  Perhaps Plato was referring to the capital city?
Report Spam   Logged
Mario Dantas
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1376


WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 17, 2009, 12:06:55 pm »


Dear Adam,

I hope you live to see it...

regards,
Mario Dantas
Report Spam   Logged

Carolyn Silver
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4611



« Reply #48 on: September 27, 2009, 04:45:17 am »

Check this article out by Carl Martin (Lonestar):

Atlantis - Was it Geologically Possible?

http://www.eslteachersboard.com/cgi-bin/stories/index.pl?read=760
Report Spam   Logged
vze39mpt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 93



« Reply #49 on: December 14, 2009, 08:39:24 pm »

this object is 110 feet below the ocean in the Bahamas





Report Spam   Logged
vze39mpt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 93



« Reply #50 on: December 17, 2009, 01:50:38 pm »



Thanks for sharing with us. That is, indeed, fascinating. It appears to be a reverse chevron-style mustache. Very interesting.


Carry on.



The American Mustache Institute
(877) STACHE-1

Online: http://AmericanMustacheInstitute.org
Twitter: http://twitter.com/MustacheTalk
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/AmericanMustacheInstitute

Reply from the AMI  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Geminden
Full Member
***
Posts: 18



« Reply #51 on: January 02, 2010, 10:50:26 pm »

vze39mpt, how does this have anything to do with a continent sinking?
Report Spam   Logged
vze39mpt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 93



« Reply #52 on: January 04, 2010, 11:28:40 pm »

I just thought that if this is what it look like and it is 110 feet below the sea. And it could be an indication that there was a large civilization stretching across, through or throughout the "Atlantic Ocean" area. Then either the "land" would have had to drop or "sink" or the water to have risen.
Sink holes, quakes, fault lines are they not in some ways showing us that the "ground" can fall?
when the earths inner core erupts isn't that moltent material replaced back in the core and if so where is it coming from? recycled? maybe?
isn't the cooler suface material heavier therefore "sinks"?
"I am but a humble student"
I am here to learn, share and ask


Report Spam   Logged
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #53 on: September 09, 2010, 11:00:49 pm »

Atlantis never sank and the Egyptian Neith priest identified by Plutarch as Sonchis of Sais never said it did.

What he actually said is that the Pelasgians of Athens "sank into the earth" whereas Atlantis "disappeared in the depths of the sea."

"But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, ~600 B.C.
Report Spam   Logged
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 10, 2010, 03:25:54 am »

Atlantis never sank and the Egyptian Neith priest identified by Plutarch as Sonchis of Sais never said it did.

What he actually said is that the Pelasgians of Athens "sank into the earth" whereas Atlantis "disappeared in the depths of the sea."

"But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, ~600 B.C.

I don't understand your logic on this, Ostanes. If anything disappeared in the depths of the sea, I would consider it to have "sunk." That seems to be compatible with the definition of sinking.

Atlantis, if it existed, was not a continent, but uplifted oceanic plate (likely from convergent compression -- two tectonic plates colliding). Atlantis may have become weakened from plate rotation (Africa rotating around the Atlantis region with respect to the Eurasia plate), and was likely sucked down to compensate for the massive, post-Ice Age uplift (glacial isostatic rebound, or adjustment) of North America and Northern Europe.

Check out my short Mission: Atlantis video on the geology of Plato's lost island. And then check out the articles on the geology of Atlantis, including diagrams, maps and source references. If Atlantis, existed, this may well be how it was formed and later destroyed.

Rod Martin, Jr.
Mission: Atlantis
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
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #55 on: September 10, 2010, 11:16:14 am »

I don't understand your logic on this, Ostanes.

If anything disappeared in the depths of the sea, I would consider it to have "sunk." That seems to be compatible with the definition of sinking.
Disappeared and sunk are two different words and have two different meanings.

If Plato had wanted to say sunk instead of disappeared surely he could have.

However, he did not do so.

Quote
Atlantis, if it existed, was not a continent, but uplifted oceanic plate (likely from convergent compression -- two tectonic plates colliding).
Tectonic plates are imaginary and do not exist in physical reality, and, if they did exist, it would be impossible for them to collide since there is no mechanism for them to do so.

In actual fact the mantle is cold and it's rigidity increases with depth, because otherwise seismic wave velocity wouldn't increase with depth.
Report Spam   Logged
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 10, 2010, 11:07:06 pm »

I don't understand your logic on this, Ostanes.

If anything disappeared in the depths of the sea, I would consider it to have "sunk." That seems to be compatible with the definition of sinking.

Disappeared and sunk are two different words and have two different meanings.

If Plato had wanted to say sunk instead of disappeared surely he could have.

However, he did not do so.

I can't believe I have to explain this. You may have a very valid point, but I don't see it. Your explanation is either missing some thought process which is completely obvious to you (but erroneously undisclosed), or else you are missing what seems perfectly obvious to me. I'll play nice and let you know my thoughts so they are no longer hidden. I hope you'll do the same.

Yes, Ostanes. "disappeared" and "sunk" mean two different things, but they also have meanings that can overlap. Anything which sinks does not necessarily disappear, but it might disappear if the substance into which the object sinks is opaque enough. A deep sea is effectively opaque because of that depth, so if you toss a bright, shiny coin overboard in the middle of the Atlantic, that coin effectively will have disappeared. The same thing with an island that subsides (read: sinks). Such an incredible, sinking island will have disappeared if the depth is greater than several hundred meters.

Now, let's be clear. The words you're quoting include more than merely "disappeared." What does "disappeared in the depths of the sea" mean? Let's take it apart, piece-by-piece.

"Disappeared" can mean several things. If something grows invisible (becomes completely transparent), like Harry Potter and the "cloak of invisibility," then it will have disappeared. It can also mean that something has moved out of the line of sight, or moved behind something else. In the case of something sinking into the ocean, the object will be "behind" or "underneath" many hundreds of meters of water and suspended particulates. Disappeared can also mean that something has achieved temporal discontinuity — ceased to have persistence in the time stream of physical reality. Can you think of any others?

"Depths" means a location which is down. That's funny. "Sinking" is also about the "down" direction — going to a location which is down, as in moving "down" into a liquid, or moving "down" into a solid when that solid becomes temporarily "liquid" (as in earthquake liquefaction) or has a temporary gap or chasm.

"Sea" means a large body of water, typically saline, as with the ocean, the Mediterranean, or Black Sea.

Okay, let's put these together: "disappearing" into the "depths" of the "sea" means to me, going down (sinking) into a liquid (water) to a point where the great depths effectively block one's ability to see that which has "disappeared."

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

Quote
Atlantis, if it existed, was not a continent, but uplifted oceanic plate (likely from convergent compression -- two tectonic plates colliding).

Tectonic plates are imaginary and do not exist in physical reality, and, if they did exist, it would be impossible for them to collide since there is no mechanism for them to do so.

In actual fact the mantle is cold and it's rigidity increases with depth, because otherwise seismic wave velocity wouldn't increase with depth.

Very interesting point. Certainly the consensus amongst scientists is that tectonic plates exist. They measure their movements with GPS. There are movements along fault lines and along the putative plate boundaries which tend to imply semi-rigid body movement against those distinct boundaries. From this we get earthquakes (also a movement). We have the compression of Earth's crust forming mountains. I can't imagine how such mountains would suddenly spring up (defying gravity) without some movement of the Earth to force them upward. And we have so many volcanoes which spew hot (not "cold") magma.

Yet, scientists could be wrong. Your point about seismic wave velocity is interesting, and I'll look into it. Why do you say seismic wave velocity would increase? Would it increase with depth if it gets hotter with depth? Does sound travel faster in a hot solid than in a cold one? Is that what you're saying?

Somehow that seems counterintuitive to me. And some things in nature are counterintuitive. But it seems to me, with my limited understanding, that heat causes things to expand and I've always understood that sound (vibrational waves) travel faster in denser objects. Heat, because of expansion, makes objects less dense. Perhaps velocity is not directly related to density? What are your thoughts on these points?
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
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1370


« Reply #57 on: September 11, 2010, 01:51:13 pm »

Hi Carl,

I can't believe you have to explain this, either.  Why can't we cut Plato some slack for literary license?  Why do we want to treat him like a German scientist instead of a philosopher and raconteur?  If we add a dose of context to Plato's tale, we are a lot more likely to arrive at the truth.
Report Spam   Logged
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #58 on: September 11, 2010, 02:22:14 pm »

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.

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.

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

In actual fact, the Earth is growing.

"The preliminary results from NASA indicate that the chord distance from Europe to North America is increasing by 1.5±0.5 cm per year, North America to Hawaii is increasing by 4±1 cm per year, Hawaii to South America by 5±3, and South America to Australia by 6±3 .... 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 80±3 mm/yr...." -- D.E. Smith, geophysicist, et al., 1990

Quote
There are movements along fault lines and along the putative plate boundaries which tend to imply semi-rigid body movement against those distinct boundaries. From this we get earthquakes (also a movement). We have the compression of Earth's crust forming mountains. I can't imagine how such mountains would suddenly spring up (defying gravity) without some movement of the Earth to force them upward.
Upward is the key word.  The Earth is growing.

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.

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

Quote
Your point about seismic wave velocity is interesting, and I'll look into it. Why do you say seismic wave velocity would increase? Would it increase with depth if it gets hotter with depth? Does sound travel faster in a hot solid than in a cold one? Is that what you're saying?

Somehow that seems counterintuitive to me. And some things in nature are counterintuitive. But it seems to me, with my limited understanding, that heat causes things to expand and I've always understood that sound (vibrational waves) travel faster in denser objects. Heat, because of expansion, makes objects less dense. Perhaps velocity is not directly related to density? What are your thoughts on these points?
Waves travel faster through cold solids than they do through hot fluids.

"...no matter what the temperature of the outer core is, and most likely it is quite high, the mantle is cold, and its rigidity increases with depth, because otherwise seismic wave velocity cannot increase with depth, for example for P waves from 6-7 km/sec in the surface layers to about 14 km/sec at the mantle-core boundary." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist, October 2008
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 02:23:02 pm by Ostanes » Report Spam   Logged
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #59 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 1.5±0.5 cm per year, North America to Hawaii is increasing by 4±1 cm per year, Hawaii to South America by 5±3, and South America to Australia by 6±3 .... 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 80±3 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 80±3 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 | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy