How would Re-Discovering Atlantis Change our World?

[Xander67]

What is Plato was telling the truth?
Please Note:
If you say Atlantis is a myth, that is your right, but please do not derail the thread from the topic to dissuade those that believe.


If Atlantis then:"?" :whatgives:

The re discovery of Atlantis would put many theories and unfounded Mythologies to rest once and for all. We will be able to work with technology and energy beyond our imagination.

Would things be better? Worse?

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I think a great deal would depend upon where it was found. If found to have been in the MED itself and such then it would cause the re-write of much history. Possibly the recovery of some lost forms of technology or a better understanding of pre-history technology.

Yet if found out in the Atlantic as Plato indicates that would cause a major upheavel in almost all sciences. Not only would there be potential leaps in technology but the very histories of many nations around the Atlantic basin would be re-written. Possibly the entire notion of expansion and discovery would prove to be wrong as we know it.

edited to add

To some extent I think the location would also play a major factor with regards to it being a plus or minus to civilization. The technology or such if found in the med within the waters of a current state I believe would cause much bickering and jockeying for possession and usage. If in international waters then still a lot of jockying for position but no one nation could lay claim to it.

I think the ramifications upon established religions would suffer greatly though.

So as I indicated above I think the location of discovery would be the more important than the actual discovery and any clues or technology it might contain.

[Infinite Grey]

Probably wouldn't change much - I doubt it would be much like the legends if an island was found.

[Xander67]

Probably wouldn't change much - I doubt it would be much like the legends if an island was found.

There are a great deal of Fantasy fairy tales about it, so I agree. So then it just depends on what it actually is that we find when and if we find it.

[Agaliha]

There was a time when people thought Troy was just a myth, but it's been found in Turkey. I haven't read up on the archaeological finds from the city to know how much matches the myth, but still we know there was a city called Troy. I think if Atlantis was found, it'd be similar. Nothing earth shattering or mind blowing to most people in the world. Though people in the archaeological, mythological and historical field (and those that have interest in Atlantis) would probably be eager to jump in and comb through everything. I don't think anything like UFOs, advanced technology (like some tales state, technology even more advanced than ours right now) or anything bizarre will be there. If anything it might halt all those myths about Atlantis that are out there...you know, the people that claim they are channeling Zzorfg, an advanced alien that lived in Atlantis that escaped on a stargate sort of thing....or maybe not. I have a feeling they'll just ignore any of those findings...

[Avanti]

That's hard to answer because we don't really know what will be found at "Atlantis". I doubt we can take Plato's word literally, and keep in mind, what was "advanced technology" to them, probably wouldn't be as awesome to us.

I think the biggest re-write to human history will come from the dating of the site if it is discovered. If it pre-dates the earliest civilisation as we know it, by ALOT, then it might send shockwaves. If evidence is found that relate to a completely different race of people from known ancient races, then yeah it'll be quite fascinating. Although i'm not sure if that last one is possible.

I've been following the theories which claim that the sphinx and pyramid building technology may have been inherited from a civilisation predating that of ancient Egypt. If "Atlantis" is found with documents supporting this theory, then it'll be mindblowing to many.

[Cassie]

I think it would be good for humanity if something was discovered which challenged everyone's beliefs and preconceptions.

[Infinite Grey]

I think it would be good for humanity if something was discovered which challenged everyone's beliefs and preconceptions.

That actually happens fairly often... but how many people actually pay attention to scientific developments beyond what the news media deems story worthy?

[Agaliha]

That actually happens fairly often... but how many people actually pay attention to scientific developments beyond what the news media deems story worthy?

That is true.


And as far as Atlantis goes, I think if anything was found (in the it was just an average city of it's time sort of way), those that are die-hard believers in some alien super civilization or something similar are just going to discount the findings in favor of their beliefs/faith.

[Cassie]

That actually happens fairly often... but how many people actually pay attention to scientific developments beyond what the news media deems story worthy?
True but I am kind of delving into the mists of fantasy a bit and trying to imagine what would happen if they did discover something which cast doubt our fundamental history. If Atalantis did exist and possesed technology or scientific knowledge far ahead of parallel civilisations of the time; or if there was undisputable evidence of interaction with extra-terrestrials etc...
I just think we are too comfortable thinking we know virtually everything about our past and I wonder how people (including the news media) would deal with something so extraordinary. For one thing, many of the disputes that exist between different religious beliefs might become redundant... Or might be intensified.

I just think it might be healthy for humanity to be forced to re-evalute some of the fundamentals we sort of take for granted.

[Infinite Grey]

True but I am kind of delving into the mists of fantasy a bit and trying to imagine what would happen if they did discover something which cast doubt our fundamental history. If Atalantis did exist and possesed technology or scientific knowledge far ahead of parallel civilisations of the time; or if there was undisputable evidence of interaction with extra-terrestrials etc...
I just think we are too comfortable thinking we know virtually everything about our past and I wonder how people (including the news media) would deal with something so extraordinary. For one thing, many of the disputes that exist between different religious beliefs might become redundant... Or might be intensified.

I just think it might be healthy for humanity to be forced to re-evalute some of the fundamentals we sort of take for granted.

Actually I've never heard a scientist nor historian claim to know everything about the past... or even close to everything. Those that feel that way are again, too lazy to be involved with the world of academia - finding Atlantis and a fully functioning spaceship next to an effigy of Marvin the Martian would do little to change the majority of people in this way.

[Cassie]

I think I agree with this...

Actually I've never heard a scientist nor historian claim to know everything about the past... or even close to everything. Those that feel that way are again, too lazy to be involved with the world of academia -
But this I am not so sure about...

finding Atlantis and a fully functioning spaceship next to an effigy of Marvin the Martian would do little to change the majority of people in this way.
I think that for a lot of non academics science has become a religion in the sense that people like yourself would hate. I think that people question science even less than most people question the tennants of their religious beliefs. They leave it up to the scientists to discover and explain everything while they go about their daily lives without questioning anything at all.
The optimistic part of me likes to think that a headline grabbing visit from Marvin the Martian would shake people out of their complaceny and help them to re-discover the awe and wonder that the scientific journey has to offer. (As opposed to just accepting everything they are told with the kind of blind faith we generally associate with fundamentalist religions).

[Philosophia]

I think that for a lot of non academics science has become a religion in the sense that people like yourself would hate. I think that people question science even less than most people question the tennants of their religious beliefs. They leave it up to the scientists to discover and explain everything while they go about their daily lives without questioning anything at all.
The optimistic part of me likes to think that a headline grabbing visit from Marvin the Martian would shake people out of their complaceny and help them to re-discover the awe and wonder that the scientific journey has to offer. (As opposed to just accepting everything they are told with the kind of blind faith we generally associate with fundamentalist religions).

I kinda disagree with that. From my experience, I have to say that the majority either disagree with science or are inherently distrustful of it. They don't see the progress being made but they have trouble with science disrupting or disproving their religious beliefs. Even on here, I've seen it occur and I think it's a much more popular position than the others are.

[Infinite Grey]

But this I am not so sure about...

I think that for a lot of non academics science has become a religion in the sense that people like yourself would hate. I think that people question science even less than most people question the tennants of their religious beliefs. They leave it up to the scientists to discover and explain everything while they go about their daily lives without questioning anything at all.
The optimistic part of me likes to think that a headline grabbing visit from Marvin the Martian would shake people out of their complaceny and help them to re-discover the awe and wonder that the scientific journey has to offer. (As opposed to just accepting everything they are told with the kind of blind faith we generally associate with fundamentalist religions).


As much as I would indeed hate people revering science as a religion, I would prefer it to the trend that I see now-a-days. Gone are the days when I scientist could go on tv and with an air of authority inform the unquestioning masses... it's for the best in my opinion. But what we see now is more towards poorly educated arm chair scientists, basing their conclusions on political or religious ideals - cherry picking the words of real scientists (examples of this is rampant on MW). The other most common is the complacent, those whom are willing to let others do their thinking for them... it wouldn't be so bad if those people were the scientists - but nay, it is the politicians, the journalists and the religious leaders that have the influence. You could say it is simply different degrees of the same stupid.

Perhaps they would get a little excited over an uncovered statue of Marvin the Martian... but it would fade unfortunately. In order to keep up a pro-scientific attitude, the masses have to have an understanding of what science is - without this foundation complacency returns.

As I grow older and see what the common masses are descending into, the more of a technocratic elitist I become - :nuhuh:

[Falling Star]

I truly believe that the truth of Atlantis is encoded within our DNA.
When man has evolved to the level that he is ready to re-experience Atlantis,it will be rediscovered!
I do not believe that Atlantis was a myth, i believe that it was a way of being, a truth that was lost because of mans need for power.
I have studied Plato, and Socrates....the great philosophers a little,....the truth is within, waiting to be discovered, at the right time, Atlantis will be returned!
All is cellular memory, all is being awoken now!
Science and spirituality will meet in the middle, and all answers will be found.:bow:

[Infinite Grey]

I truly believe that the truth of Atlantis is encoded within our DNA.
When man has evolved to the level that he is ready to re-experience Atlantis,it will be rediscovered!
I do not believe that Atlantis was a myth, i believe that it was a way of being, a truth that was lost because of mans need for power.
I have studied Plato, and Socrates....the great philosophers a little,....the truth is within, waiting to be discovered, at the right time, Atlantis will be returned!
All is cellular memory, all is being awoken now!
Science and spirituality will meet in the middle, and all answers will be found.:bow:


:foh:

[Xander67]

That actually happens fairly often... but how many people actually pay attention to scientific developments beyond what the news media deems story worthy?


I truly believe that the truth of Atlantis is encoded within our DNA.
When man has evolved to the level that he is ready to re-experience Atlantis,it will be rediscovered!
I do not believe that Atlantis was a myth, i believe that it was a way of being, a truth that was lost because of mans need for power.
I have studied Plato, and Socrates....the great philosophers a little,....the truth is within, waiting to be discovered, at the right time, Atlantis will be returned!
All is cellular memory, all is being awoken now!
Science and spirituality will meet in the middle, and all answers will be found.:bow:


:foh:

Yeah, She went there, Science and Religion working together for the first time in history, Unhindered, Unstoppable by government or the Ruleing Elite who have kept us from finding answers for millenia.

I think the problem with much of the new technology that is going mainstream is that the actual source of "How we came to a knowlege of this..." is extremely controversial.

Ancient Civilizations have provided evidence for people to question what we currently are being spoon fed by the church as defined within the bounds of established customs, and beliefs.

New Discoveries in science and technology are not subject to the suppressive tactics that have kept us under the thumb of dogma and propiganda.

A PHD is no Greater than an Arm Chair Scientist. What they do with that knowlege, and how they contribute to humanity are what count in getting your thesis into textbooks.

The Problem with the internet is that we are able to become better educated than we were before. Experience yields more knowledge than any belief. (theory)

We have had theories which have been beaten to death using the same tried and failed methods "accepted by scientific and religious leaders" for generations. This is why those theories have remained a theory for so long.

We have accepted certain theories to be just theories for too long. Now that evidence exists it is being taken straight to the people bypassing the Editing dept of the Vatican, and The Aristocratic asswipes who would prevent that knowlege from being revealed.

Living by the status quo, is stagnation, and where the people do not grow intelectually, they stagnate, thus where a society stagnates it no longer thrives.

Genetics is now being given a huge wake up call. People can learn more about DNA and how it works than is being taught in school.

What we considered to be Junk DNA has been proven by Science to be of value and not junk.

[Infinite Grey]

Yeah, She went there, Science and Religion working together for the first time in history, Unhindered, Unstoppable by government or the Ruleing Elite who have kept us from finding answers for millenia.

I smell a conspiracy theory here. Who are these supposed Ruling Elite?



I think the problem with much of the new technology that is going mainstream is that the actual source of "How we came to a knowlege of this..." is extremely controversial.

Yes and no. It's more about those that stand to win and those that stand to lose - which sounds odd considering I just scoffed at the idea of a ruling elite. It is not a conspiracy of puppet masters, but far more simple... those that have money, power and influence at a given time wish to keep it. It is both fortunate and unfortunate that they are too short sighted to maintain such control ad infinitum or even a relatively long time. It is fortunate in that no one group maintains control very long and we have the ability to progress - it is unfortunate that no sane long term planning is sustainable.

Now while the source of discovery can be controversial, even unethical - it is usually what is discovered and how it will influence the given balance of power that is more controversial. But as history has shown, truth will out! It is inevitable that (true) scientific discovery will enter the mainstream and crap doomed to obscurity eventually.



Ancient Civilizations have provided evidence for people to question what we currently are being spoon fed by the church as defined within the bounds of established customs, and beliefs.

That for the most part has been taken care of. We know that the bible is not a very reliable set of history texts and in serious academia it is not viewed as such. This is where my elitism shines through, as alot of these debates have concluded and the standard has been established... it is the common riff raff that are lagging behind in this sense.


New Discoveries in science and technology are not subject to the suppressive tactics that have kept us under the thumb of dogma and propiganda.

Not to the same degree... but the reason why they are not anymore is the inevitable nature of science and knowledge... it will be heard, and when done correctly, can not be denied (the process that is).



A PHD is no Greater than an Arm Chair Scientist. What they do with that knowlege, and how they contribute to humanity are what count in getting your thesis into textbooks.

Oh there is a great level of authority granted to the PHD over the Arm Chair Scientist, for good reason too. An Arm Chair Scientist may conduct their research in their spare time, on week end and after work... but a PHD devotes their lives to such endeavors. This is why assholes like Kent Hovind are desperate to have their diploma mill produced PHDs taken seriously.

While great innovations can and have emerged from the amateur scientist, their knowledge base is comparably stunted and are not on the same academia level as a PHD. It is not a comment on their intelligence or capabilities... more towards their dedication (so to speak).



The Problem with the internet is that we are able to become better educated than we were before. Experience yields more knowledge than any belief. (theory)

Again yes and no. Yes the internet grants us an unprecedented level of information, more than our predecessors could accumulate in a life time in fact. But it is a maze of inadequacies as well - as a personal estimate would say 95% of all information obtained from the internet is either too simplified, altered, incomplete or just plain A grade bullshit. There is an art to finding reputable and correct information within an unregulated medium like the internet and most people are not very good at it. A classic example is people's idea of why and how the Holocaust came about... it is interesting to watch that disaster bear its fruit.


We have had theories which have been beaten to death using the same tried and failed methods "accepted by scientific and religious leaders" for generations. This is why those theories have remained a theory for so long.

I'm actually confused by this statement... would you care to elaborate? What is a scientific leader for one thing and how do they even compare to a religious leader in so much as to be used in the same sentence like you have. What are the tried and failed methods? And what do you think a theory is (as the last sentence's meaning depends on what you think a scientific theory is... if you get right, then the sentence is mismatched to the previous sentences... if you think it mean with I think you think it means then... well you're in trouble)



We have accepted certain theories to be just theories for too long.

Just theories. Are you mixing and match the common usage of the word theory and a scientific theory? Or do you hold them as synonymous. In which case, my points regarding the apathy of the common people and the hacks that have no clue is being illustrated here.

A Scientific Theory remains a Scientific Theory unless it is proven wrong and replaced by a superior Scientific Theory. There is nothing higher as you are implying with the "certain theories to be just theories".


Now that evidence exists it is being taken straight to the people bypassing the Editing dept of the Vatican, and The Aristocratic asswipes who would prevent that knowlege from being revealed.

Errr no. While the Vatican has enormous political power in the world, it does not possess anywhere near enough influence nor resources to filter and sensor scientific research and discovery. The Aristocrats are a dieing social class... this is emphasis by the fact that Royals and Nobles are increasingly marrying into the lower class bracket - their fate was sealed during the height of the Enlightenment.


Living by the status quo, is stagnation, and where the people do not grow intelectually, they stagnate, thus where a society stagnates it no longer thrives.

I agree.


Genetics is now being given a huge wake up call. People can learn more about DNA and how it works than is being taught in school.

Err that's a matter of the the text book struggling to keep up with the discoveries - that's a simple case of logistics and time-frames... no conspiracy there.


What we considered to be Junk DNA has been proven by Science to be of value and not junk.


Kind of. It has been shown that some Junk DNA isn't actually as redundant as once thought; when a scientist talks about Junk DNA to the public or high school biology classes it is often simpler and even necessary to use general but not quite accurate terms and descriptions. This is simply because in order to understand what Junk DNA as it really is requires a foundation of knowledge far greater than the average high school student.

This isn't so uncommon - think back to your math classes in primary school - you get taught that Circles are Circles, triangles are triangles. Then in university 101 level math you find out that circles are actually triangles. In primary school you learn that mummy and daddy did something called sex and about 9 months of growing in mummy's tummy you were born in the hospital. The details of adult relationships, intercourse, human gestation/embryonic development and birth are beyond a child's understanding. This method of simplifying things does not magically stop - knowledge gains complexity the further up the hierarchy you go. Like the child who only needs to know the broad details of where babies come from and that circles are circles - people do not often get the full details simply because it would go over their heads. This isn't to say by any means that this information is not accessible, as it is available to everyone - you do not need a secret decoder ring.

[Xander67]

I smell a conspiracy theory here. Who are these supposed Ruling Elite?



How one person views an event may differ from how it is interpreted by another.

Conspiracy Theory? Perhaps, or Perhaps not. It is your choice to believe something as theory or fact. History will tell many versions of the story, it is up to you to chose which one you believe. But having lived through it gives you a perspective from your own experience.

[green aventurine]

I truly believe that the truth of Atlantis is encoded within our DNA.
When man has evolved to the level that he is ready to re-experience Atlantis,it will be rediscovered!
I do not believe that Atlantis was a myth, i believe that it was a way of being, a truth that was lost because of mans need for power.
I have studied Plato, and Socrates....the great philosophers a little,....the truth is within, waiting to be discovered, at the right time, Atlantis will be returned!
All is cellular memory, all is being awoken now!
Science and spirituality will meet in the middle, and all answers will be found.:bow:

I think that's an interesting way of looking at things. If I followed you correctly, I'm guessing for you the advanced technology they might find in Atlantis wouldn't necessarily be a machine but perhaps something like a manual containing a set of scientific techniques (e.g. psycho-spiritual such as visualisations/meditations etc) for fulfilling human evolutionary potential?

[Infinite Grey]

How one person views an event may differ from how it is interpreted by another.

Conspiracy Theory? Perhaps, or Perhaps not. It is your choice to believe something as theory or fact. History will tell many versions of the story, it is up to you to chose which one you believe. But having lived through it gives you a perspective from your own experience.

Are you referring to the common usage of the word theory, as used in Conspiracy Theory... or are you referring to the scientific usage of the word?

[Xander67]

I was trying to answer it in the context you used it by implying my use of the words "ruleing elite" hinted at conspiracy theory.

[Xander67]

I think that's an interesting way of looking at things. If I followed you correctly, I'm guessing for you the advanced technology they might find in Atlantis wouldn't necessarily be a machine but perhaps something like a manual containing a set of scientific techniques (e.g. psycho-spiritual such as visualisations/meditations etc) for fulfilling human evolutionary potential?

Our own evolution will go on as scheduled regardless of any external attempts at fullfilling or hindering.

In other words, Whatever there is to be found there, I do not think it will be of any consequence one way or another concerning our own personal evolution.

Whatever is there to be found may perhaps have a transformational effect on mankind in that it may be something new and therefore serve to expand our knowledge concerning what we can do.

It will give us answers concerning issues of their history, and maybe give practical information to help understand more about the technology they used.

[green aventurine]

Whatever is there to be found may perhaps have a transformational effect on mankind in that it may be something new and therefore serve to expand our knowledge concerning what we can do.

That's really what I was asking. I thought her perspective was interesting because the first thing that sprang to my mind from reading the inital post would be technology in terms of machinery and was interested in what the lady thought we might find. Perhaps it wasn't that clear. I didn't view it as a manual on affecting future human evolution but more as fulfilling our current evolutionary potential as human beings.

[Tiberias]

Science and Religion working together for the first time in history

For the record, science and religion have been working together for anywhere from 300 to 1000 years, depending on how strictly you define scientific inquiry. Longer if you include Greek philosophers (which I would not). I think Aquinas, Magnus, Scotus, and Bacon (both of them, for that matter) would all be very confused by your statement.

[Xander67]

ahh,

maybe they knew something that the ancient Egyptians knew? Maybe we will finally learn how the Ancient Mayans and the other Ancient Peoples were able to lift 200 ton rocks so high in the air with such precision?

would be nice to find that one out considering our current mechanical capabilities wouldn't even come close to anything like that...

:rotfl: COPPER , they used copper tools to cut the rocks and then floated them downstream on wooden logs

I love how Archaeology tries to explain it..

[Tiberias]

I love how Archaeology tries to explain it..

You've clearly never been involved in experimental archaeology. Exactly how much academic archaeology have you actually read?

[Xander67]

For the record, science and religion have been working together for anywhere from 300 to 1000 years, depending on how strictly you define scientific inquiry. Longer if you include Greek philosophers (which I would not). I think Aquinas, Magnus, Scotus, and Bacon (both of them, for that matter) would all be very confused by your statement.

Science and the Church worked together so long as the government would allow it to. Bacon knew what I meant, or would have known rather lol

[Xander67]

You've clearly never been involved in experimental archaeology. Exactly how much academic archaeology have you actually read?

Experimental Archaeology? no,

Academic Archaeology? I read Enough to know that where something is not known they make up a bullshit story to avoid admiting they are human and just don't know..

Why not say "we are still searching"?

some of the explanations they give just defy common sense and scientific reasoning.

[Tiberias]

What do you mean by "government"?

[green aventurine]

Science and the Church worked together so long as the government would allow it to. Bacon knew what I meant, or would have known rather lol

I'd have to agree with this, at least in someone like Galileo's case:

"Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric) view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle), and the controversy engendered by Galileo's presentation of heliocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism) as proven fact resulted in the Catholic Church's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church) prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#cite_note-contrary_to_scripture-6) Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Roman Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Inquisition)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

[Tiberias]

And why do we remember Galileo so vividly today? The exception proves the rule.

[green aventurine]

And why do we remember Galileo so vividly today? The exception proves the rule.

Here's someone else who had problems with the church. Perhaps you'd like to provide us with some supporting links or quotes for your side of the argument?

"Fearing the condemnation of the church, however, Descartes was rightly cautious about publicly expressing the full measure of his radical views."

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4b.htm

[Xander67]

Pyramid construction is a continuously debated topic. There are no existing records of building plans or discussions of construction methods, so no one knows exactly what happened. Of course, archaeologists and engineers have plenty of ideas -- some sound far-fetched and others seem more reasonable. We'll use the Giza pyramids as an example because we have the most information on them.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/pyramid.htm/printable

this is an honest statement. It shows man is willing to admit he doesn't know something.



© Photographer: Pomortzeff | Agency: Dreamstime
The Bent Pyramid at Dahshur, Egypt
Transporting building materials
Again, no one knows how laborers were able to get the 2.5-ton stone blocks from the quarries to the building site. Wheels wouldn't have been useful on the desert sand and gravel, so they most likely dragged the blocks with wooden sleds and ropes. Some think that workers used quarter-circle wooden sleds that fit around a rectangular block. They attached the sleds to the block, and a crew of about eight men rolled them along the ground, much like rolling a keg of beer. Others say the laborers used wooden rollers.
For long-distance transport, the blocks were loaded on barges and transported down the Nile. Workers dug canals to get the barges nearer to the site.

From the same site,
ok, 8 men dragging a 2.5 ton stone across the desert? on a sled? or rolling logs ?? yeah ok...
My 10 year old Niece is smart enough to know this is bullshit.

at least they are able to say that no one knows for certian.

[green aventurine]

Here's another:

"Another Copernican, Giordano Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno), had been prosecuted in Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome) by the same Cardinal Bellarmine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellarmine) and on 17 February 1600, burned at the stake as a heretic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heretic) primarily for his theologic views and not necessarily his scientific ones."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

although you might not want to count him.

[Xander67]

What do you mean by "government"?

Those who governed the people. Controlled aspects of their daily lives, and decided what was acceptable and what was to be condemed.

For example, many free thinkers including Bacon himself had run ins with the law concerning some of their writings, drawings, teachings etc..

Davinci had most of his work confiscated and locked away in a basement ..

Look at the knowledge that exists in the Library underneath the vatican, it belongs to the people, yet they still refuse to let us have access to it. WHY? what are they afraid of?

[Xander67]

And why do we remember Galileo so vividly today? The exception proves the rule.

Because there were people who believed in what he was doing. People were not simply satisfied with what the Church run state told them or allowed to be taught. They began to ask questions, they wanted to advance, they wanted to invent.

Some of the work that was not seized was kept safe thankfully, or others were witness to it.

[Falling Star]

The truth is within, we mut awaken and remember it!
we are ancient souls, many of us a part of Atlantean times!
(I am coming from a very highly evolved spiritual viewpoint)
I truly admire all you scientific minds!:bow:

[green aventurine]

Because there were people who believed in what he was doing. People were not simply satisfied with what the Church run state told them or allowed to be taught. They began to ask questions, they wanted to advance, they wanted to invent.

Some of the work that was not seized was kept safe thankfully, or others were witness to it.

I'm not a historian but I'd say this was a more plausible explanation especially since Galileo doesn't seem to be an exception.

Thanks for the link on pyramids, btw. My knowledge of archaeology is also very weak.

[green aventurine]

The truth is within, we mut awaken and remember it!
we are ancient souls, many of us a part of Atlantean times!
(I am coming from a very highly evolved spiritual viewpoint)
I truly admire all you scientific minds!

Thanks for your reply. I think I understood what you're getting at. I'm guessing when you say "(remember) it" you mean an ability (eg being able to ride a bike) rather than knowing that something is so and so (eg Paris is the capital of France)? Perhaps that people in Atlantean times had more evolved abilities (rather than superior knowledge that something was so and so) which we've currently forgotten that we are capable of (if we've reincarnated from that far back) and that we should start using these again for a better society?

(This is for anybody, really) Is there a standard myth about Atlantis that everyone accepts on this thread? I'm not very familiar with the myth. Are we just talking about whatever Plato wrote in his dialogues or does it include more modern interpretations/developments?

[Infinite Grey]

The truth is within, we mut awaken and remember it!
we are ancient souls, many of us a part of Atlantean times!
(I am coming from a very highly evolved spiritual viewpoint)
I truly admire all you scientific minds!:bow:

What truth within?

[green aventurine]

(This is for anybody, really) Is there a standard myth about Atlantis that everyone accepts on this thread? I'm not very familiar with the myth. Are we just talking about whatever Plato wrote in his dialogues or does it include more modern interpretations/developments?

It just occurred to me from reading the initial post again on this thread, that some people might have taken offence to the word ‘myth’ that I used or that it was an inappropriate question for the thread. Apologies, if that was the case.

This is nearer to what I meant using this word:

"In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods". Therefore, scholars may speak of "religious mythology" without meaning to insult religion. For instance, a scholar may call Abrahamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic) scriptures "myths" without meaning to insult Judaism, Christianity or Islam."

rather than this:

2a. "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief" (1849)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

I don't particularly have a problem with Atlantis existing although I'd need to do some more reading on the subject to say for definite.

[Xander67]

I do not think anyone was offended by your useing the word Myth, There are ledgends, tales, Stories, mythologies about Atlantis,

I do think some of the Myths were created to be more educational for the spirit, where the intelect fails.

[green aventurine]

I do not think anyone was offended by your useing the word Myth, There are ledgends, tales, Stories, mythologies about Atlantis,

I do think some of the Myths were created to be more educational for the spirit, where the intelect fails.

That's cool. I don't normally use forums and it's a little difficult for me to gauge sometimes how it comes across without tone of voice and body language etc

[Falling Star]

i am not as scientific as you guys,(great admiration for your intelligence).
To me Atlantis represents a way of "being"
We would have lived in harmony,radiating love and light, respectful of each other, it would have been paradise!
The downfall of that culture was caused by a fews misuse of power!
I believe that we are approaching a critical mass in mans evolution,he must learn the error of his ways, so to speak!
many have incarnated from that golden time of atlantis, the truth will be revealed.....all truly is within!!:bow:
this is my analogy of the situation..i think.haha

[Falling Star]

to answer the question, by "truth within" i mean that we are eternal souls, we are eternal beings,(time travellers)?
Some of us may have been part of the time of atlantis, therefore our truth is within waiting to be awoken.
Therefore to my way of thinking, ATLANTIS WAS A TRUTH, and not a myth.
but... that is just where i am coming from,...and who am i.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

..
To me Atlantis represents a way of "being"
We would have lived in harmony,radiating love and light, respectful of each other, it would have been paradise!
The downfall of that culture was caused by a fews misuse of power!


Not trying to be an arse here but why is it that anytime one looks to the past there is this notion of living in harmony, love and light? In essence a paradise.

In all probability that is unrealistic as a social attainment. No one will ever reach a point where there is no issue of desire and want not preventing the notion of harmony and love and white light. As long as two humans live in releative closeness one will always find a reason to desire of or take from the other.

Certain people will always posses items that another does not have or can not use. The very human desire to possess them will create strife in the society. By shere design there will be those that think differently than the norm.

Everytime I hear someone speak of this I think of the movie Logan's Run and the notion of a perfect society and just what it actually means.

We are animals, though slightly more evolved than our lessor occupants of this planet. Yet regardless of the society being looked at there is strife and conflict. Some arising from within the social grouping some from interaction with things outside of it, but strife and conflict never the less.

Perfect hamony and love, it's a nice notion to think about but hardly realistic, nor obtainable I think. Though I admit up front your description makes me think of the Disney movie Atlantis and the presented demise and reason why.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I once read a article that stated that should Robin Hood and his Merry Men not have existed man would have created the person to give voice and body to his unhappiness with the times and conditions under which one lived. Even to the point of taking a single action or person and glorifying them to a state of grandieur.

I wonder in some small measure if Atlantis is not the same. We (collectively) desire and long for this period where everything was so advanced that it presented the hope for something better than what we lived with or under. It was the golden age that we once had (sort of like Camelot) and that we just might once again achieve if we could learn from it. It being the notion of what ever fault it was that the society possesed to cause its demise and downfall.

In many ways a place that has held many names in many guises, Camelot, Shang Gra La in there ability to inspire dreams and hopes. To paint a picture of some long lost place that once existed that we long for to make our would a better place to be in, a place that once existed Once upon a time.....

In that light it is a place within each of us for it is an idea or ideal. It is something that we have enlivened to the point that it holds all those things for us (a collective us).

As such an ideal I wonder would it really change anything should we actually discover this fable Island kingdom that sank beneath the waves in a single night.

As I stated earlier I think the location of discovery would be of more importance than the actual discovery should it occur. However, I think that the "Atlantis" of our myths and beliefs shall never be found, for to find it would mean we would have to give up the magical place and all it means to us. That I think is a thing we are not willing to do as a people.

[Falling Star]

with the greatest amount of respect,( and i do mean respect)!
With that mindset, atlantis, as an ideal, would be lost forever!
the world is changing,.....man is looking for the magic,...it will be found!
of course it sounds like a fairytale, but to those that believe, it was a truth, hey, what do i know! haha:boing:

[green aventurine]

i am not as scientific as you guys,(great admiration for your intelligence).
To me Atlantis represents a way of "being"
We would have lived in harmony,radiating love and light, respectful of each other, it would have been paradise!
The downfall of that culture was caused by a fews misuse of power!
I believe that we are approaching a critical mass in mans evolution,he must learn the error of his ways, so to speak!
many have incarnated from that golden time of atlantis, the truth will be revealed.....all truly is within!!
this is my analogy of the situation..i think.haha


to answer the question, by "truth within" i mean that we are eternal souls, we are eternal beings,(time travellers)?
Some of us may have been part of the time of atlantis, therefore our truth is within waiting to be awoken.
Therefore to my way of thinking, ATLANTIS WAS A TRUTH, and not a myth.
but... that is just where i am coming from,...and who am i.

Thanks for taking the time to answer all of that. I think I understood where you're coming from now.

[Tiberias]

Xander67


Academic Archaeology? I read Enough to know that where something is not known they make up a bullshit story to avoid admiting they are human and just don't know..

Why not say "we are still searching"?

What are you reading, exactly? As somebody who goes through at least half a dozen peer-reviewed articles from places like Norwegian Archaeology Review and Acta Archaeologica a day and has for years of study now, I've got to say that I know plenty of archaeologists who fail to come to conclusions, bullshit or not.:P

green aventurine


Here's someone else who had problems with the church. Perhaps you'd like to provide us with some supporting links or quotes for your side of the argument?

"Fearing the condemnation of the church, however, Descartes was rightly cautious about publicly expressing the full measure of his radical views."

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4b.htm

That's kind of a throwaway, unsourced line, though. Descartes was also known as a staunch defender of the Church.


Here's another:

"Another Copernican, Giordano Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno), had been prosecuted in Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome) by the same Cardinal Bellarmine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellarmine) and on 17 February 1600, burned at the stake as a heretic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heretic) primarily for his theologic views and not necessarily his scientific ones."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

although you might not want to count him.

I wouldn't, no, for obvious reasons.

Look, Galileo was persecuted, sure (although he did sort of ask for the harsher punishment when he violated an explicit agreement with the Pope). But other than a few instances of that sort, mostly in the face of the Reformation, things were quite different. The proto-science of scholasticism was a monastic phenomenon. The mathematical and biological advancements made in the Medieval Islamic world were often treated as shedding light on the glory of Allah's creation, etc.

[Jolixte]

From the same site,
ok, 8 men dragging a 2.5 ton stone across the desert? on a sled? or rolling logs ?? yeah ok...
My 10 year old Niece is smart enough to know this is bullshit.

at least they are able to say that no one knows for certian.

But the thing is... you can do it. It's fairly basic physics actually. You just have to reduce the coefficients of static and kinetic friction between the block and the ground. I'm going to see if I can find some numbers so I can show you what I mean. It's how one man can pull the engine of a train.

Lots of things sound like bullshit that aren't.

[Jolixte]

I have some approximate numbers, and please feel free to check my math.

If the coefficient of kinetic friction between the block and the wood (probably with some water or similar as an added lubricant) is around .2 (which is fairly realistic) and the block weighs 2.5 tons (or 2,500kg I'm assuming metric tons, but if it is tons (US) the number would be about 500kg less)... then the force pulling on it would be ~612.5N for each of the eight men if they were pulling it. As a comparison, one man pulling me on a rubber mat over concrete would be pulling with ~627.2N, so I'd say it is doable.

(PS. I am assuming a constant speed)

[aluokaloo]

things would probably change as much as they would with any other great historical find

[green aventurine]

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/k.htm#keme

http://www.philosophypages.com/faq.htm#who


Garth Kemerling is the guy who wrote the Descartes article. He hasn't provided a source for that statement which is fair enough but given who he is, I'd say it would require more than this in response to negate it….

“Descartes was also known as a staunch defender of the Church.”

….as, to be fair, this is also a throwaway, unsourced line, as you define it.

####################################

With respect to Bruno:



“Some important documents about the trial are lost, but others have been preserved, among them a summary of the proceedings that was rediscovered in 1940.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#cite_note-10) The numerous charges against Bruno, based on some of his books as well as on witness accounts, included blasphemy, immoral conduct, and heresy in matters of dogmatic theology, and involved some of the basic doctrines of his philosophy and cosmology. Luigi Firpo lists them as follows:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#cite_note-11)

Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic) Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity), about Christ's divinity and Incarnation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation).
Holding erroneous opinions about Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ).
Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation) and Mass.
Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
Believing in metempsychosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metempsychosis) and in the transmigration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmigration_of_the_soul) of the human soul into brutes.
Dealing in magics and divination.
Denying the Virginity of Mary.
[…]
Bruno also affirmed that the universe was homogeneous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Homogeneity), made up everywhere of the four elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_elements) (water, earth, fire, and air), rather than having the stars be composed of a separate quintessence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)). Essentially, the same physical laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law) would operate everywhere, although the use of that term is anachronistic. Space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space) and time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time) were both conceived as infinite. There was no room in his stable and permanent universe for the Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) notions of divine creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth) and Last Judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgement).
Under this model, the Sun was simply one more star, and the stars all suns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun), each with its own planets. Bruno saw a solar system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system) of a sun/star with planets as the fundamental unit of the universe. According to Bruno, infinite God necessarily created an infinite universe, formed of an infinite number of solar systems, separated by vast regions full of Aether, because empty space could not exist.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)

I found this quite interesting. I think in those days, I get the impression it would be especially hard to separate things like (experimental) science, cosmology, Christian religion/theology etc when you were doing scientific enquiry. It seems to me, at least some of his theolgical ‘crimes’/views are a consequence of and based on his scientific enquiries such as getting rid of (Christian) divine creation and the last judgement, for example. We'll never know for definite, although I don't find it obvious to discount him, personally.

########################################

Originally Posted by Tiberias
For the record, science and religion have been working together for anywhere from 300 to 1000 years, depending on how strictly you define scientific inquiry. Longer if you include Greek philosophers (which I would not). I think Aquinas, Magnus, Scotus, and Bacon (both of them, for that matter) would all be very confused by your statement.

(xander’s reply) Science and the Church worked together so long as the government would allow it to. Bacon knew what I meant, or would have known rather lol

It seems to me that the essence of this particular disagreement is about whether people doing scientific enquiry (however broadly you want to define that) could pursue this and research/write/publish material contrary to what the church believed with impunity when it was in power or whether there were limits to what they could do without being punished in some way. It doesn't seem to me this disagreement is about whether or not people were actually in the employment of the church and monasteries and other religions etc to do scientific enquiry or whether or not some of these people weren’t harassed if they didn’t commit heresy with their work, unless I’ve missed something – these aren’t something I have a problem with personally, anyway.

If it's your assertion that people researching/writing/publishing scientific enquiries could do this with impunity even if it was contrary to the church's belief when it was in power, then perhaps you'd like to find us a quote or a link to an article supporting this? Perhaps there were instances where, for example, Aquinas, Magnus, Scotus and Bacon produced some material etc that was in complete violation of the church's basic beliefs with impunity which you could find us a link for?

Also it would be helpful if you could provide us with an exact definition of what you mean by scientific enquiry.

thanks

[green aventurine]

I have some approximate numbers, and please feel free to check my math.

If the coefficient of kinetic friction between the block and the wood (probably with some water or similar as an added lubricant) is around .2 (which is fairly realistic) and the block weighs 2.5 tons (or 2,500kg I'm assuming metric tons, but if it is tons (US) the number would be about 500kg less)... then the force pulling on it would be ~612.5N for each of the eight men if they were pulling it. As a comparison, one man pulling me on a rubber mat over concrete would be pulling with ~627.2N, so I'd say it is doable.

(PS. I am assuming a constant speed)

thank you for taking the time to do this. I'm going to have a look at it tomorrow when I'm less tired.

[green aventurine]

ahh,

maybe they knew something that the ancient Egyptians knew? Maybe we will finally learn how the Ancient Mayans and the other Ancient Peoples were able to lift 200 ton rocks so high in the air with such precision?

would be nice to find that one out considering our current mechanical capabilities wouldn't even come close to anything like that...

:rotfl: COPPER , they used copper tools to cut the rocks and then floated them downstream on wooden logs

I love how Archaeology tries to explain it..

Yeah. Getting back to Atlantis etc, I wouldn't have a problem necessarily with them finding advanced technology. After all, the first steam engine was invented during the first century AD and then abandoned for a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria

I think to make a big impact within science though, you would need to find things like: artefacts which are impossible to make given current understanding of science/technology; a material which has an unknown element in it not corresponding to the periodic table or has contradictory properties (e.g. something as strong/tough/(dense?) as steel but floats on water as a solid block) - if these are logically possible; a manual of techniques, like a Reiki manual, but enhancing abilities of, say, levitation (by thought/will) rather than healing, producing strong empirical evidence.

As for societies, I don't personally know whether Utopias possible or not, but I would say there's definitely room for improvement from what we have today. They might have had advanced systems of psychology and/or energetic healing, for example.

[Xander67]

But the thing is... you can do it. It's fairly basic physics actually. You just have to reduce the coefficients of static and kinetic friction between the block and the ground. I'm going to see if I can find some numbers so I can show you what I mean. It's how one man can pull the engine of a train.

Lots of things sound like bullshit that aren't.

Does your theory take into account the sandy desert surface? as in the sands of the Desert in Egypt which they would be pulling this engine?

It is a great postulate though, and I am open to it.. thank you for taking the time to look into this. :)

[green aventurine]

Yeah, I agree. I think this is interesting.

What would you (Jolixte) say was the maximum angle realistically that the model could cope with on a slope (going both upwards and downwards) on a smooth and perfectly straight concrete surface?

Thanks

[Jolixte]

Does your theory take into account the sandy desert surface? as in the sands of the Desert in Egypt which they would be pulling this engine?

It is a great postulate though, and I am open to it.. thank you for taking the time to look into this. :)
The way I got the coef. was by assuming they used wood underneath the block and then I adjusted it a little to take into account more roughness (caused by whatever, sand, bumpy wood, etc) in between the surfaces. It's by no means a perfect approximation, but I'd have to test it experimentally to get that.



Yeah, I agree. I think this is interesting.

What would you (Jolixte) say was the maximum angle realistically that the model could cope with on a slope (going both upwards and downwards) on a smooth and perfectly straight concrete surface?

Thanks
I have to go to work soon, but I can probably tell you by tonight sometime.

[green aventurine]

I have to go to work soon, but I can probably tell you by tonight sometime.

yes, the practicalities of life. It would be great if we could get paid for sitting around all day having discussions on mysticwicks :)

It's a credit to the clarity of your explanation that I can actually follow it. I haven't studied physics since I was 16.

I had one other initial question when you have a chance. I haven't quite got clear in my mind exactly what your stone is travelling on. Is it loose wooden rollers which people have to keep picking up from behind (once the stone block has been pulled forward a bit) and bringing round to the front or is it some kind of rigid frame linking wooden rollers which still make contact with both the stone block and the ground - or perhaps the latter wouldn't work? If it didn't, maybe some kind of rigid flat wooden platform supporting the stone with wooden rollers somehow as wheels? Or (re-reading Xander's link) was it just dragging it on a wooden sled, in which case, it wouldn't make much sense to work out how it travels on concrete, I suppose.

Thanks

[Xander67]

and also bear in mind the wooden sled idea was a theory and not an actual attempt at explaining how they transported the blocks.

As Tiberias mentioned above in page 6 Archaeology does not claim to give facts about this, only theories, allbeit stupid ones, but theory non the less lol..

[Xander67]

yes, the practicalities of life. It would be great if we could get paid for sitting around all day having discussions on mysticwicks :)


you don't get paid? :eek:

lol

[green aventurine]

and also bear in mind the wooden sled idea was a theory and not an actual attempt at explaining how they transported the blocks.

As Tiberias mentioned above in page 6 Archaeology does not claim to give facts about this, only theories, allbeit stupid ones, but theory non the less lol..

Yeah, I personally would say that I think it's one thing to try using this theory for getting the blocks onto the pyramid once they're there, but it's another thing to use it for transporting the blocks a long distance from the quarry (which is what we're talking about), especially if they weren't able to lay smooth, perfectly straight tracks/ramps etc along the desert floor all the way from the quarry. The latter seems a lot less plausible to me but I'm still trying to wrap my feeble mind round this article as archaeology/engineering isn't my strong point to put it mildly :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

"One of the major problems faced by the early pyramid builders was the need to move huge quantities of rock. The Twelfth Dynasty tomb of Djehutihotep has an illustration of a 172 men pulling an alabaster statue of him on a sledge. The statue is estimated to weigh 60 tonnes and Denys Stocks has estimated that 45 workers would be required to start moving a 16,300 kg lubricated block, or eight workers to move a 2,750 kg block.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques#cite_note-0) .....

..... Experiments done by the Obayashi Corporation, with concrete blocks 0.8 m square by 1.6 m long and weighing 2.5 tons, showed how 18 men could drag the block over a 1-in-4 incline ramp, at a rate of 18 meters per minute. Vitruvius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvius) in De architectura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_architectura)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques#cite_note-2) described a similar method for moving irregular weights. While it is unknown if the Egyptians used this method, the experiments show it could have worked using stones of this size. While Egyptologists maintain this, and indeed the pyramids were mostly made of 2.5 ton blocks, there were the 15+ ton and several 70-ton blocks that they do not mention."

[Xander67]

and even then they don't take into account that the desert sand is not as firm as your local beach lol

and also, floating a 2.5 ton stone on a wooden barge? that would take one HUGE barge just to support it.

[green aventurine]

and even then they don't take into account that the desert sand is not as firm as your local beach lol.

Yeah, that was going to be my backup/plan B objection lol I suspect, going by some of the figures that there wouldn't have been enough people available at any one time, even if there had been a perfectly straight, smooth route with a hard surface from the quarry to the Pyramid because of the slopes/inclines.



But when Harvard archaeologist Mark Lehner led an expedition to uncover clues about the people who built the pyramids, he found no evidence of housing for such a large population. Instead, his group discovered housing and food storage places for small gangs of workers. It appears that at any one time about 2,000 workers were on site, divided into two large divisions and smaller groups of about 200 men.


http://science.howstuffworks.com/pyramid.htm/printable



and also, floating a 2.5 ton stone on a wooden barge? that would take one HUGE barge just to support it


Yes. As a layman I'm not sure but I would say 300 of those stones a day (on average) by barge seems a little hard to believe.


For long-distance transport, the blocks were loaded on barges and transported down the Nile. Workers dug canals to get the barges nearer to the site. Egyptologists estimate that workers placed­ about 300 stones a day during pyramid construction.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/pyramid.htm/printable

[Allytria]

I've been following the theories which claim that the sphinx and pyramid building technology may have been inherited from a civilisation predating that of ancient Egypt. If "Atlantis" is found with documents supporting this theory, then it'll be mindblowing to many.

Zigurats. Ancient Sumerian Temples that were similiar to the step style Mayan and Aztec Pyramids. Sorry though, I cannot remember the Sumerian name for them.

[Glowy]

Great thread X-Man. Leave it to me to come to the party 8 months late.

When I was very young, I was fascinated by dolphins. I read what I could on them, somehow I convinced myself that dolphins were the ancestors of the Atlantians. How intelligent they were etc.
I think it would be amazing if Atlantis could be proven to really have existed.

[C. Iulia Regilia]

I think the best it could do is shed light on history. These people potentially lived 50,000 years before recorded history, thus lengthening history by that long of a period. It might also explain the "golden age" myths of many civilizations.

Hopefully they wouldn't have tech significantly more advanced than ours, because we would probably use the tech to make weapons. We're good at blowing stuff up.

[ninurta2008]

Clearly Atlantis is a myth of a once great civilization, and like most myths, like the Iliad, it is usually based on some underlying truth. Whether it be history or philosophy. I honestly think that Atlantis was based on a real place, as it was taught as to be one. Alexander the Great searched for it even.

In my opinion, it isn't beyond the straight of Gibralter (if thats the pillars of Heracles), but in the world of the ancient Greeks. Maybe not more advanced than Athens and Sparta, but more advanced that the greeks were at the time of the Atlantaeans, making them seem greater than they were.

But was there any civilization of that sort? And could a city/land just fall into the sea? Turns out, it did. Whether or not its Atlantis is debateable, but what happened at Thera sounds alot like it to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption

The minoans were no strangers to the greeks as we know. They were also one of the most advanced civilizations of their day, and a powerful Thalassocracy. Though no I didn't get it from wikipedia, but a travel book for Santorini (and named santorini), and its real. I will look up more info shortly. but the discovery of atlantis seems to have changed nothing.

Turns out, Alexander may have been closer to Atlantis than he thought.:toofless: