If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Active Mind)   Plato's original mention of Atlantis, translated   (activemind.com) divider line 52
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3220 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jul 2001 at 1:00 PM (13 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2001-07-02 01:13:38 PM  
silly . . .
 
2001-07-02 01:31:30 PM  
for some reason i thought mention of atlantis was made in the republic as well.

on another note, what was the last thing socrates said before he died? (sorry, its not often one gets to make socrates jokes)
 
2001-07-02 01:43:45 PM  
"I drank what?"
 
2001-07-02 02:05:39 PM  
"I drank what? Fark!"
 
2001-07-02 02:06:55 PM  
The island is sinking! The island is sinking!
 
2001-07-02 02:12:56 PM  
consider that Atlantis might have been where the present-day Mediterranean (sp) Sea is now located. That entire area was land 9,000 years ago becaus the Ice Age had not yet ended. Once the Atlantic Ocean crashed, through, whatever was there is now under a lot of water. Hence, a flood myth. Also, consider the island of Thera that was blown apart around 1500 BC. Just a couple of ideas.
 
2001-07-02 02:37:23 PM  
That and fairly common decimal misplacement when going from Greek to Roman numeric systems... So instead of it being 9000 years it could very well have been 900... which happens to coincide with the island of Thera, mentioned by Bugster. I have also heard that the translation of the part that talks of its size (I think it says something to the effect of "the size of Ethiopia and Asia") should actually be interpreted as a location, not a size... which also, incidently, points quite easily at the island of Thera as well.

Of course, don't ever point things like that out to hardcore new-age Atlantis freaks... they'll grab their crystals and start meditating to the aliens that will come and abduct you for spreading intelligent conjecture instead of wild myths about missing "continents"...
 
2001-07-02 02:39:16 PM  
Oh, the countless hours I spent with Indy and the Fate of Atlantis...sigh
I remeber I carried around Plato's notes or excerpts or something.
 
2001-07-02 02:44:52 PM  
Here's a link about the Isle of Santorini being a possible Atlantis as well.

http://www.geo.aau.dk/palstrat/tom/santorini_homepage/atlantis.htm

Sorry for the text, but I have absolutely no ph34rful 1337 sk1lz.
 
2001-07-02 02:47:03 PM  
Bugster and Demonsthenes, yea, yea, yea, we watch the Discovery Channel too.
 
2001-07-02 02:53:02 PM  
Translated! What, no original greek?
 
2001-07-02 02:53:24 PM  
I saw that stuff on the History channel... but since both channels share programming, I'm not surprised.
 
2001-07-02 03:02:58 PM  
Kraf: I love that game, I have to play it again some time...
 
2001-07-02 03:04:43 PM  
This is fark-worthy because...?
 
2001-07-02 03:06:04 PM  
Yea, kinda sucks sometimes.. The History Channel = The Learning Channel = The Discovery Channel. They seem to recycle the material as much as they can.

On the brighter side, a new Junkyard Wars season begins next week as well as a new BattleBots!
(I'll not mention the special edition of Junkyard Wars that will air on July 4th at 9:00 eastern time because we Yanks will all be celebrating "Brits lose a colony day")
 
2001-07-02 03:13:14 PM  
LOL, "Brits lose a colony day"... I like the sound of that.
 
2001-07-02 04:05:20 PM  
Well I don't see any reason why Atlatis couldn't have existed... I mean, the crystal power source and aliens and crap is probably hogwash (Hehe, I like that word), but an advanced civilization that was ruined by natural disaster is very likely. The only reason that Atlantis is any different than Pompeii is that we've found Pompeii.
 
2001-07-02 04:06:40 PM  
the discovery channel? I assume that you're talking about television. Actually 1 read about it in a book. Don't ask the title because I think it was something stupid like, "Atlantis Dsicovered" or some sappy title that that. It was written by the guy doing the excavations on the island.

FYI: If you put the caldera back onto what is left of the island, it would look very similar to what Plato described. And I know about the decimal place.
 
2001-07-02 04:10:29 PM  
I think they also lost Cananda around this time too and dont forget to celebrate the annual convention of People of Color
 
2001-07-02 04:14:27 PM  
i'm pretty sure, chikipa, that the only difference between pompeii and atlantis is that we didn't have a bunch of cockamamy expectations for pompeii. thus, when we found it, we found it. i'd bet we've found atlantis, too. there's so many theories as to which old city was atlantis, one of them's got to be right, eh?
 
2001-07-02 04:48:30 PM  
"The Sky is Falling: The Seach for Atlantis"
by Rose and Rand Flem-Ath

Another interesting Atlantis theory: Atlantis was on Antarctica. You have to believe the HAB theory (which I do) to believe this.
 
2001-07-02 05:03:23 PM  
I went and saw the Disney movie this afternoon just so that I could comment with more authority on this thread. It is all so much more clear now. I have no further questions about Atlantis.
 
2001-07-02 05:12:45 PM  
HAB theory? What is it?"

Oh, "Fingerprints of the Gods". Interesting story about crustal movement during the last ice age that would have made the north coast of Antartica tropical. How else do you account for the trees stumps that they've foudn there? Also, if true, watch out. It's about to happen again. End of the decade. Course, i'll be dead by then.
 
2001-07-02 05:13:20 PM  
Get all of your facts from Disney. They have a way of presenting real history in a fun and easy to watch format.
 
2001-07-02 05:22:19 PM  
rather than from Mel Gibson. he just makes it up as he goes along.
 
2001-07-02 05:29:44 PM  
That's pretty much what I meant, Meat. And Cyberpunk, Whats the HAB theory? Lastly, don't you mean millenium, Bugster?
 
2001-07-02 05:33:46 PM  
nope, decade. If you listen to geologists, that is. They say that there is no reason why the earth's crust couldn't displace by as much as 30 degrees. If true, it would also account for quick-frozen woolly mammoths in Siberia, killed while eating.
 
Rei
2001-07-02 05:46:59 PM  
The HAB Theory

You know, I'm not sure which is more reasonable, that or the Flat Earth Society ;)

Seriously, Cyberpunk, lets just neglect for now the huge geological contradictions that we encounter with this theory. Lets just look at its physics.

Do you know why we all don't fly off the face of the earth? Its because the cyntrifugal force on the earth is insignificant compared to its gravitational force. This theory is talking about a lopsided force enough to nullify the gyroscopic rotation of a rotating body the size of the earth, causing it to rotate on a horizontal axis temporarily - and then magically start spinning again! (play around with a gyroscope - notice the amout of force you have to extert to rotate it, and then notice how, after you exert that force, it pull in your hands to try and rotate along a different axis). Its not only an impossible concept, its silly - you're going against basic, easily demonstratable physics ;)

The example given, a spinning ball which is made lopsided by adding a drop of liquid metal onto it, is silly. First off, it'd only occur if ice only collected on only one pole. Secondly, in the absence of such gravity, even that example wouldn't cataclysmicly fall (especially with the low centrifugal force/gravity ratio we have), but would oscilate at regular intervals. Next, we encounter the problem that the earth is slightly *wider* around at the equator than the poles, due to the slight effect of long-term centrifugal force. Next, ice doesn't continually accumulate at the poles, because ice calves when the pressure becomes too great. Do I need to keep going? Do I even need to start on geological evidence? Or is the fact that a toy you can buy at the dollar store can demonstrate this in 15 seconds enough?

-= rei =-
 
2001-07-02 06:05:45 PM  
the earth isn't spherical. it's already lopsided even before you add the weight of ice at the poles. Add the amount of water that you are piling up in rservoirs all over the face of the planet and you get a seriously out of balance system.

i guess my answer is that the toy story isn't enough evidence, but then that just another disney movie.
 
2001-07-02 06:13:55 PM  
oh, and a gyroscope doesn't have multiple layers laying on top of one another and they are physically connected at the poles. the only thing that a gyroscooe has with the planet earth is that both spin. but differently. the earth's crust lays on top of, basically, jelly. any system that is built that way, can change and change abruptly. for example, the poles have reversed AT LEAST 170 times in the past 200 million years. Could that be why Egyptians always referred to SOUTH as UP?
 
2001-07-02 06:15:32 PM  
Naysayer! Thou hast not changed me mind!
 
2001-07-02 06:20:07 PM  
Bugster - Also look at metal deposits and certain iron ores as they "grow" out of the mid-atlantic ridge and various pacific ridges. As they develop and cool they point towards the poles. And they alternate north and south along their "history". (Trying to be as layman's terms as possible here.)

Going to have to agree with Bugster, too. The Earth is FAR more complicated than a gyroscope. A better analogy would be taking a volleyball and wrapping it in several layers of wet sheets - each made of a different material. Wrap one layer in cotton, one later in silk, one later in wool etc. etc. etc. and then spin the whole contraption just like the earth. Pretty wobbly and unstable, right? Right. Now, while the damn thing is spinning, begin adding mounds of pulp (wet paper) very slowly to each "pole" on the volleyball and see what happens.
 
2001-07-02 07:45:47 PM  
Bugster C'mon, bug! The Egyptians didn't use magnetic compasses! Upper Egypt was called that because it was UP the river!

Dude. Where's my car?
 
2001-07-02 07:47:07 PM  
I did think it was damn funny how the evil Disney Company totally totally plagarized their Atlantis movie- I saw it on Newgrounds. Check it out!!! (I'm sure most of y'all have seen this, or maybe it was on Fark recently)
 
2001-07-02 08:08:15 PM  
I guess the fact that the magnetic north shifts around is due to the axis around which earth spins moving too, isn't it then???
 
2001-07-02 08:31:58 PM  
Well, I was about to type up a big long essay about how the HAB theory makes no sense, but in actuality it does.
 
2001-07-02 09:06:38 PM  
hey, i know about upriver and down river and I still say, that if you read tomb hieroglyphics, south was the area that they pointed to they were trying to read the north star.

fossils show that the poles were reversed sometime within the past 10,000 years. If Atlantis exited (and I say IF), it would have existed within this period.
 
2001-07-02 09:33:40 PM  
There is a very cool book about the archaeological dig on the island of Thera called Unearthing Atlantis by Charles Pelligrino. It shows all kinds of parallels between Plato and how the island was before it blew up.
 
2001-07-02 09:58:01 PM  
how is north automatically up? that's just an arbitrary assignation by cartographers. have any of you ever heard of occam's razor?
 
2001-07-02 11:17:14 PM  

During the middle ages, maps were farking awful. The crudest resembled nothing more than a cross; one point on Jurusalem, yadda yadda.



Anyway, because some middle ages religious mumbo jumbo, North is up because God is on the top part of the cross.



Or something like that. :)

 
Rei
2001-07-02 11:33:50 PM  
Oy, you people are crazy ;)

Bugster:
I stated that *the earth is* lopsided. It's lopsided towards the equator, though. That's stabilizing. Even if the earth was horribly unbalanced towards the poles, though, it wouldn't flip sideways (which would involve having to cancel out all rotational energy), and then start spinning again (which would involve having to additionally apply the energy again). It is a physical impossibility. And, sorry, "layers" is a cheap excuse for "I have no scientific explanation of how rotational energy could just switch axes". It can't.

Next, the *magnetic poles* have reversed. The earth's magnetic field is not due to magnetic rocks - it is generated due to complex interactions that are known as "dynamo theory". It is incredibly difficult mathematics that have to do with mantle flows. The earth's magnetic poles switch based on the state of the mantle; this is clearly represented in simulations.

Listen, if you don't know science, you don't just make it up, and just say "it could happen!" : P

Cyberpunk: If you wrapped a volleyball like that, and then spun it like a gyroscope, it'd act just the same, even if the layers slipped. Gyroscopic action (centrifugal force) - the very force which could "lopside your world" - is independant of layers, but of the overall rotational force. Each layer, even rotating independantly, provides a force that has to be resisted. The reason a gyroscope resists rotation is because you have to cancel out its energy. It doesn't matter how many layers there are - if you transfer it to another layer, that layer will just have more energy that needs to be cancelled. Again, people, this is basic physics here!!!!

Again, cyberpunk, you too missed the fact that the earth is wider at the equator. That ice sheets, even the massive antarctic ice sheet, calve at the same rate they are deposited, etc. That ice caps are constantly being recycled . That the mere fact of cancelling out the rotational energy, *then* having it re-establish itself, is preposterous. Here, here's a simple thing you can do - take a ball, any kind of ball. Wrap it in sheets or whatever you want. Put a mark on the top rotational axis and one on the bottom rotational axis. Make it as lopsided as you want. Throw it up in the air while spinning on those marks and watch it. Its rotational axis will *always* remain on those marks until it touches down. It will wobble slightly back and forth from eccentricities near the ball's equator (the ones with the most rotational force - lopsidedness near the poles doesn't affect a thing because it has no centrifugal force there) (our earth *doesn't* wobble much because its widest point is the equator - mars, on the other hand, has a slight mars-yearly wobble due to the near complete evaporation of its ice caps and less equatorial eccentricity, and a fairly significant wobble on the scale of 10s of thousands of years when the climate causes a major climactic shift).

I have trouble believing that two people here have this little of an understanding of physics. :P

Next, geology. Quiz: when was the last ice age?
Answer: According to ground samples and ice cores, it started building up around 120,000 years ago. The peak extent was at 18,000 years ago. Well, how old are our oldest ice core samples? 420,000 clearly delimited year-lines. How clear are these year lines? You can get pollen counts from each individual one ;) Growth cycles are clearly delimited through pollen counts, temperature effects on crystalization, etc. What are the results? 3 ice ages in regular, sinusoudal, smooth temperature and plant-life curves. Any evidence of melting? None whatsoever.

Think about animal life for a minute. 120,000 years is almost no time on an evolutionary timeline. I mean, that's about the length of time between homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalis. It is a blink of an eye. No animals could even have begun to survive such an event like that, let alone ice flying through the sky and across the ground at thousands of miles an hour (we'll just ignore that for now ;) ).

Why on earth do you believe such a preposterous notion? Physically impossible, and evidence doesn't even begin to support it. Trust me, palentologists would have *long* ago established this as the reigning theory if there was even the tiniest bit of evidence to support it, let alone the *physics* to support it.

This person makes your typical creationist argument.

1. Come up with a theory.
2. Find as many things as you can (usually a few hundred) which could possibly be explained by this theory. Ignore more plausible reasons for them. Claim them as "evidence" that your theory is correct. Claim the "evidence" is overwhelming. Ignore the 99.999999999% of documented scientific evidence to date that complicates or completely contradicts your theory.
3. Publish.
4. Spend your time attacking science for trivial, easily explained details instead of defending your theory which has more holes than a cow infested with prions ;)

Trust me, I've watched creationists do it a hundred times, with everything from the flood to evidence for the apocalypse. The number of people who believe it is scary. Even their theories contradict each other. The real problem is that they only take evidence that fits their theory, instead of putting all evidence in. Seriously, if mainstream science did that, we'd not only have a unified theory, but 2,000 unified theories ;) It is only due to the fact that science looks at *every last case* that it can make real conclusions that can be used for prediction, invention, etc. It also confounds physicicsts working on a unified theory, of course ;) Throwing out data is the worst possible sin in scientific research. Not only does it make your data inaccurate, but it leaves the burden up to everyone else to present *all* of the 99.99999999% of the evidence, which, of course, the believers of the pseudo-theory won't even look at. Listen, you can't just be forced to present every last piece of evidence that has ever been researched, almost all of which contradicts a silly theory some unknowledgable person published... :P

Please... next time I'm going to have to start doing caloric computations and setting up force equations here, and I dont even want to have to get into that ;)

-= rei =-
 
Rei
2001-07-02 11:45:05 PM  
Here, Bugster, here's some actual, documented data, instead of your oversimplified claim "Polaris wasn't in the north". Here's why:

THUBAN. Fourth magnitude (though just barely) Thuban is one of the fainter stars that carries a proper name, almost certainly because of its immense historical role as
a result of its position in the northern sky. Its importance is further highlighted in that it is the Alpha star of Draco (the Dragon) even though it not close to being the
brightest of this long and rambling constellation, easily exceeded in visibility by Gamma, Beta, and even Eta Draconis. Among the most famed stars of the sky is Polaris,
the north star, its prominence the result of its position close to the north celestial pole, the star showing the way north to within about half a degree. It was not always so,
however. The Earth's rotational axis undergoes a slow, 26,000 year wobble around the perpendicular to its orbit around the Sun. As a result, the position of the sky's
rotational pole, around which all the stars seem to go, constantly changes. Around the time of the Greek poet Homer, Kochab in Ursa Minor was a (rather poor) pole
star. Among the best ever, however, was our Thuban, which was almost exactly at the pole in 2700 BC. It remained better than Kochab up to around 1900 BC, and was
therefore the pole star during the time of the ancient Egyptian civilizations. Even though the star is in the Dragon's tail, its name confusingly derives from an Arabic
phrase meaning "the Serpent's head," having been borrowed from the name for another star. Thuban is among a fairly rare class of hot giant stars, its temperature of
9500 Kelvin near that of Vega. It is, however, over twice as luminous as Vega (and 265 times more luminous than the Sun), its fourth magnitude status the result of its
rather large distance of 310 light years. Its relative brightness tells us that the star, unlike Vega, has ceased hydrogen fusion in its core and has begun to die. Thuban has
an faint unseen companion in an orbit with a 51 day period and, unlike many stars of its class, has no particular abundance anomalies. It is in fact somewhat poor in
metals as compared with the Sun.

Polaris was just slightly off from the north :P

Oh, and one more thing. Fossils don't show the change of earth's magnetic poles. Oceanic sediment deposits do. While fossils get depositted also, they're worthless in determining magnetic alignment. Perhaps you're confusing this with coral clocks? No, you probably just read something somewhere which you had no clue where it came from, and assumed it was true ;) The reality is, you get "stripes" in various places, for example, the mid-atlantic ridges, from metalic elements aligning with the magnetic fields. When the poles reversed, they reversed to the exact same location - the north pole was exactly where the north pole was, and the north pole exactly where the south pole was - not some 90 degree "wobble flip". There's no evidence out there of anything close to that with respect to magnetic fields (and, even if the earth *had* flipped 90 degrees, that wouldn't change the magnetic fields 90 degrees, dynamo theory isn't that simple).

-= rei =-
 
Rei
2001-07-02 11:46:04 PM  
(correction: the north pole was exactly where the south pole was, and the south pole was exactly where the north pole was). (typo).

-= rei =-
 
2001-07-02 11:53:28 PM  
Thanks Rei. Now tell me why Jesus wants babies to be drowned in bathtubs?!?!
 
2001-07-02 11:55:00 PM  
Very, very persausive speech there, Rei. You're probably right on that one, too. The magnetic poles switching for some podd reason or another is much more plausible than the earth flipping itself around.
 
2001-07-03 12:11:22 AM  
so basically, rei, you are saying that the earth's crust could NOT have moved as Charles Hapgood, a teacher in NH, theorized? Yes, I know fossils aren't magnetized, but that nautilus shells are. Magnetized? Nope, that's not what I mean. Their shells change the way they spiral.

Also, you must believe that the continentals plates can move around but that the underlying material cannot. If I were to simply *BELIEVE* everything you say, and be *DAZZLED* by your science, then no further theories of anything need be presented. Fifty years ago, continental displacement, or the fact the the plates move around, wasn't at all the fact that we seem to think it is today. Call me a naysayer, but I think you're full of FARK.
 
Rei
2001-07-03 12:15:15 AM  
Learn to read before responding, baka :P

"Next, the *magnetic poles* have reversed. The earth's magnetic field is not due to magnetic rocks - it is generated due to complex interactions that are known as "dynamo theory". It is incredibly difficult mathematics that have to do with mantle flows. The earth's magnetic poles switch based on the state of the mantle; this is clearly represented in simulations."

It has *nothing* to do with the rocks on the earth, it is a mantle-flow issue. Ok, fine, I'll see if I can dig up a primer on dynamo theory.... (as if anyone who's even supporting that "theory" at all has even graduated college, let alone with any physics background) : P

Here's one
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v32n4/aas197/213.htm

Lets see if I can find one that's more down to your level...
Ok, I'll paste this in (sorry for the length, everyone!!

"The standard theory for the generation of stellar and planetary magnetic fields is "dynamo theory", also known by the formidable sounding title "magnetohydrodynamics" (MHD). MHD theory is built around the fact that a flowing charge-neutral, but electrically conductive fluid, will generate magnetic fields. MHD is the theoretical description of how that happens. MHD is highly technical, and not readily amenable to easy, popular level explications. All I can do in this forum is provide a qualitative description of the history of the theory, and references for those who are more interested in quantitative and technical information.
Standard theory holds that fluid circulation in the earth's fluid outer core is the source of the earth's internal magnetic field. This idea is generalized to all of the planets and the sun; the lack of such circulating fluids is accepted as the reason why Mars & Venus do not have main magnetic fields, nor do any of the smaller bodies in the solar system (asteroid magnetic fields are "remnant fields" frozen into surface magnetic minerals, and cometary fields are built out of the magnetic field entrained in the solar wind)."

If anyone here who supports the HAB theory thinks they're compitent to discuss dynamo theory, please stand up. (Oh, and Bugster - you've already proven that you're not)

-= rei =-

P.S. - Jesus wants babies to be drowned in bathtubs because he has the patent on a lot of showering mechanisms, and wants to show that bathtubs are dangerous. Sort of like the deal with Edison and Tesla ;)
 
2001-07-03 12:15:27 AM  
Oh, rei, I NEVER said that the earth flipped 90 degrees. I said that the crust slipped by 30 degrees. And will do it again.

PS: Einstein agreed with Hapgood.
 
Rei
2001-07-03 12:22:51 AM  
Corrections

1. That first link wasn't the link I meant to post, I'm not sure what happened to it. Well, you can find a lot of good papers just by going to google.com and searching for dynamo theory, I don't feel like looking for it again.

2. The line:
"(as if anyone who's even supporting that "theory" at all has even graduated college, let alone with any physics background)"

should be read as:

"(as if anyone who's even supporting that [HAB] "theory" at all has even graduated college, let alone with any physics background)"

-= rei =-

P.S. - sorry for all the posts! :)
 
2001-07-03 12:25:11 AM  
magnetohydrodynamics? and we started by talking about ATLANTIS? Are you sure that you've not bothered to crush an ant with an anvil here? You want alink that will help your mental health?

Here's one:
www.fark.com

Have a nice night...
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report