h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I had Atlantis down as somewhere around Crete and Santorini, at least thats what they say in Knossos! Or was it out past the Scilly Isles?

Is another suggestion not Stromboli? If I'm right that is the island off Italy that blew up ages ago. It has left a huge crater wall and not much else.

What about the theory that Atlantis still exists, but under a different name? One theory is that Britain was Atlantis to mainland Europeans, who viewed the mist-shrouded island home to wild natives bearing tin and iron as almost a myth.

Other theories I've heard are the Faroe Islands, or even Iceland.

The volcanic island of Thera blew itself to bits in ancient times, and is the most popular choice for Atlantis by conservative archaeologists and historians.

Others put it in the middle of the Atlantic, near the Antilles (see the connection?).

Merlin

Does anyone know where I could find any web sites about atlantis?

Courtney

This post has been removed.

Personally, I find it incredibly hard to believe that Atlantis - in the Atlantic at the time of/before Plato - travelled all the way down to Antartica. Yeah, why Atlantis and not every other island in the Atlantic scooting around like mopeds?

Okay, so you're telling me that Atlantis is .... The Antarctic?!!
Maybe (and that should be in little letters but I can't find a midget keyboard in this dusty office nowhere), but correct me ... Didn't it sink?
That was the point wasn't it?
It sunk and it didn't grow cold and uninhabitable?
I agree with the point that it was speculated to be Santorini, but then the Greeks will claim most things as a part of their ever-expanding ancient mythology.
Santorini around the time of Plato had a big old fat mumma of an exploding volcano that leapt up out of the water and brought up the island as we now know it. ( okay that's raising not sinking, BUT...) The waves formed by a whole load of red hot rocks plunging up from the depths caused mammoth waves that rippled as far as Crete and wiped off most of their pre-Minoan civilization. (Minoan as in Minotaur, Dedalus, and all those labyrinth shenanigans.
Now, the common theory amongst the greeks as I recall (and this is all swept from the scum bubbling ontop of my mind), was that a smaller island called Atlantis was wiped out by this Tsunami, totalling one of the finest civilizations ever known to man.
Good.
But.
Sorry - I'm not finished ranting yet.
It wasn't in the atlantic was it?
So .... Here's an interesting game for all you guys and girls.
Take one map of the world, cut out the water and throw that away. Next move the two continents together, (catch old England on that continental drift) and see if there are any conspicuous holes missing in the original mono-continental design, if so, voila! - Atlantis.
AND wasn't there a really good band a few years ago called the men from Atlantis?
Or maybe I just dreamt that...

Thanks Pheroneous

Mike why does that surprise you the continent's are moving all the time. It may be incredible slow but they do The North Pole in 1980 moved about 2 inches but in 1990 it moved about 4 inches which means it is picking up speed.

The article says that "There is also a theory that suggests the North and South Poles have switched places during the history of the planet".

Are you sure this isn't talking about the *magnetic* North and South poles? They move quite a bit, and have indeed switched places many times in Earth's history. However, the axis poles (i.e. the points of least rotational speed) don't (as far as I know) go quite that crazy.

It is theoretically possible for the Earth to flip over on its axis. However, the Moon provides a great stabilising influence, and I've never heard a theory that such a flip has happened at any time even remotely within mankind's history.

Regards, jd

Courtney: it surprises me that Atlantis should move from the Atlantic to Antartica, but all the other islands should stay comparitively stock still.

Besides, what does it mean for the North and South poles to switch places physically? That could only be in relation to the other planets, the sun, or the moon. The evidence would be entirely based on climate changes and they would be catastrophic. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by saying the poles are moving. Maybe Antarctica is moving through continental drift, but the position of the pole itself is related to the spinning of the Earth, not some marked spot on some continent.

On another note, the way I understand it, the belief that Atlantis was in the Atlantic Ocean was based on the statement that it was beyond the "Pillars of Hercules." And I thought there was some question as to where that referred to.

Just my thoughts,
Scottworthy

If we subscribe to the theory that continents are moving towards the equator, wouldn't that mean,in as much time as has passed, the world's largest mountain ranges would run primarily east-west and be centered on the equator?

*splish splash*
Atlantis does exist.
I just came back from there.
*glub glub*
AquaMarina the Mermaid

I too have to rant somewhat. Cannot miss out after all....

The magnetic poles have switched a number of times as pointed out earlier. The axis about which the earth rotates has not moved much at all.

Antartica was at one point connected to Australia and other present day continets in lump of mass known as gondwana; where all sorts of living creatures romed happily untill they froze to death and turned into fossils. Not exactly a happy ending but neither was Atlantis.

The north pole is NOT a continent, nor is it land even. It's just a lot of ice.


So there, ranting done!

This, of course, explains why the North Pole moves - it floats. Nansen came up with a theory that if you allowed a boat to be frozen in Arctic pack ice, it would eventually float over the North Pole. He even had a boat, the Fram, built to prove it. The only way to know where the North Pole is, is to go there with GPS equipment. Sticking a post in the ice and saying, 'This is the North Pole' won't work as the ice will have drifted by the time you get back next year. All the figures prove is that the rate of drift is getting faster.

Also, the coast of Antarctica is several miles further out to sea than it was. 'Mummified' seals that are hundreds, if not thousands, of years old have been found a long way inland.

And the fossil evidence of life on Antarctica is conflicting. Many paleontologists believe that it was a cold, icy place while the dinosaurs still walked the earth.

Antarctica as Atlantis? I don't think so - if such a place ever existed. Archaeological evidence suggests not.

The mummified seals you describe are typically found in a valley (whose name I forget) which is the dryest place on earth. If you're a seal, and are unlucky enough to venture into this place and not get back out, then you dry out rather then decompose.

As to the fossil remains. The great concern regarding oil exploration in antarctica (a focul point for the treaty) would suggest that there is oil there. Now where there is oil, there once were plants, lots of plants, over many, many years. And, if you follow this train of logic, where there were plants, there may be fossils of plants and of animals that ate those plants, and of animals that ate the animals that ate the plants......

Seals do not venture inland. They like coastal areas. The 'Dry Valleys' of Antarctica are 50 miles inland, and also 2000 feet above sea level, so it's ridiculous to suggest that the seals got there by accident. Some of the seals have been carbon-14 dated as being thousands of years old. This means that they died on the coast. Seals, as far as I know, don't crop up in tropical regions, although they are common in temperate ones (e.g., around the British Isles). However, in order to have been 'mummified' the way they are, the area *must* have been freezing when they died.

Nobody is denying that there was plant life in the Antarctic. The Antarctic has drifted a lot over the millennia, and at one time was tropical. But that was millions of years ago. There had to be plants for the dinosaurs to eat, and carnivorous dinosaurs to eat the herbivorous dinosaurs, and put it all together and you have oil. And no proof of Atlantis.

You obviously know much, much more about seals and anarctica than I, CD. The mere suggestion of a flaw in your logic would be a crime against nature itself! I submit to your vast intelect.

I know something about seals because I live in the UK. I've been up to the Orkney Islands (an island group North of Scotland) and seen them at close quarters, but we also have them further South than that. I know about the 'mummification' thing because of various books I've read on the Arctic, including 'Frozen In Time' by John Geiger and Owen Beattie. The bit about the Dry Valleys comes from a book called 'Poles Apart' by Galen Rowell. It's a fascinating 'coffee-table' book, full of pictures comparing the Arctic with the Antarctic. There's a picture of one of the 'mummified' seals in there - it looks pretty grotesque.

Oh, and I've never considered that I have a 'vast intellect' (although Richard tells me I underestimate myself, and it's reckoned my IQ probably approaches genius levels). I just read a lot, watch a lot of factual TV and have a very retentive memory. And I don't like ludicrous theories which, IMHO, placing Atlantis at the Antarctic is. And anything that mentions Graham Hancock immediately makes me suspicious. IMHO, the man's a crackpot.