belovelife Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Is that figure based on the Golden Mean of the Fibonacci Series? ;) Mandelbrot Fractals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 well in conclution: if after an ice age, as the ice melted, and covered the planet, then would the additional weight potentially cause the flooded area to sink?end 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Amusing, after my position being rated as "Nonsense" how then in just as few Earth hours it elicited posts like a surge of tsunami in here, what "nonsense" indeed :lol: And it ain't even done yet as there would be more coming. anyway, obvious factors require the same rigor & continuity as those not so obvious. i was surprised you made the errs and in the context of this thread they bear on rockety's claims so i qualified them. for the most part, yes these changes move too slowly to merit historical notice/record in oral legends, however in the case of seamounts and plate margin volcanic islands, islands can & do disappear beneath the waves in relatively short periods that humans can & do notice. the disappearence however is not due to sinking, but ersoion and/or explosive eruption. Indeed, as for these next images for evidence 2 taken in Biri island, Samar, Philippines, such scenes of terrible beauty definitely does not fit in with the concept that the land formations in the area may have been gracefully sculpted, nor clumsily eroded for a million years. From the looks of it, it seemed instead so sudden, terribly sudden: and how about this breathtaking beauty of a volcanic crater lake, taken in the summit of Mt. Pinatubo, Zambales, Philippines after its eruption: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 perhaps there's some browser problem. :shrug: perhaps we've angered a spirit? :P here are current screen-shots of your post 62 and my 63. see that your 62 now has added "and oceanic plates"? that wasn't there when i quoted it. no doubt this exchange will become legend. Perhaps you are correct. But your complaint was not about continental plate and oceanic plate subduction. It was about oceanic-oceanic subduction (or "seafloor-seafloor" subduction as you call it), which had already been expressed in #57 and strangely enough quoted in your complaint post #61. Of course, I have no way of knowing if you edited my quote in post 63. :P In sum, back on the topic, Rocket's strange claim has been debunked, unless as you pointed out Turtle, erosion was responsible for the vanishing of Mu. But it's going to be quite difficult justifying how an entire continent could erode away in such a short time span, or even during any length of geological time. Anyway, it appears as if he/she is off to greener pastures where Mu can once again be heard echoing in the distance. EDIT> My bad, he/she's back, and on to the erosion band wagon now. That should be fun to debunk. ;) CC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Amusing, after my position being rated as "Nonsense" how then in just as few Earth hours it elicited posts like a surge of tsunami in here, what "nonsense" indeed :lol: And it ain't even done yet as there would be more coming. that is a very nice geologic data set do you know the scale of years, it would be nice to represent this with the geologic scale of evolution of the planet especially when the ice ages are in relation to the layers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 what i also intend to say is that this particular sample may have sunk, and raised, and sunk again, then raised far above levels seen before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(lost_continent)The existence of Mu was disputed already in Le Plongeon's time. Today, scientists universally dismiss the concept of Mu (and of other lost continents like Lemuria) as physically impossible, since a continent can neither sink nor be destroyed in the short period of time required by this premise.[3][4] Mu is today considered to be a fictional place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuria_(continent)however, the concept of Lemuria has been rendered obsolete by modern theories of plate tectonics. Although sunken continents do exist – like Zealandia in the Pacific and the Kerguelen Plateau in the Indian Ocean – there is no known geological formation under the Indian or Pacific Oceans that corresponds to the hypothetical Lemuria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealandia_(continent)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerguelen_Plateau this is confusing, since its impossible, but possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 thanks for your correction. now you are half-right inasmuch as there is also seafloor-seafloor subduction; i.e. subduction does not always take place at continental margins. Island arc formed by oceanic-oceanic subductionsource yes, well as i found, & pointed out earlier here, these ideas/names "mu" & "lemuria" are pure inventions, not of geologists, but of 19th century "theosophists". supposedly just don't cut the mustard. :naughty: Theosophy @ wiki You seem to rely your faith so much on Wiki. The ancient knowledge of MU had been known by Indian and Tibetan sages long before. I'm getting suspicious what Science guys here really mean when they say "Nonsense," could it be in macrocosmic relation as to how quantum particles behave in Uncertainty when subjected to their scrutiny? :hihi: So what do folks here expect next, some exhilirating performance of Quantum Leap? if it weren't so sad it would be funny that rockety relies on the data and conclusions of the very scientists that he then demeans. Turtley, it is dutifully requested of you to recall in detail the words I previously elicited and to take in consideration the situation that was dragged to my position, as words such as "nonsense, absurd" or even unwarranted accusations had been hurled upon my lair to which however, I will assuredly defend. It is then my prerogative to abide by the laws of Physics that states: "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." and in obedience to order will therefore cause such donors to generously be given a dose of their own medicine, and for a chance to eat one's own words, bon appetit It may also be noted also the misrepresentation of your basis to mention such, for to recall what I had mentioned is not referrence to Science itself, but to the “limits of Science” and/or “Science as tool.” If in any case however that it be further unabated, then there may require some clarification as to the appropriate term used relative to the issue that should justify any form of generalization. As the term scientist is associated with Science, it is therefore a more aligned view that my gesture of contempt be specfically referred instead not with the term scientist but more with a limitist and/or toolist , if such words exists that is, so with such case consider the concern to be of lesser relevance. rockety=theosophy≠science While it seems bemusing for Turtley to assign some alternative to my otherwise precious username, I will however deem it appropriate that my position be fairly represented, for by then perhaps I may amusingly concede to such. The statement above though,seems fairly lacking in substance as far as my rockety standard is concerned and should be appropriately edited to meet my exquisite rockety approval. That statement therefore should be refined and be read more inquisitively as: rockety=Divinity≠limits of Science B) to further amplify such signature rockety may as well narrate my other rockety philosophy for virtual documentary purposes: rockety="I do not know everything, so I cannot say I know nothing." And to recall my theory many years ago in this same website, I may also include it in the roster of rockety wisdom:rockety="Consciousness is gravity's source." I'm curious though, after my rockety wisdom were posted in some science thread it did seem observable that some scientists began discussing about Consciousness, and things were never the same again. :wave: Even the statement "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out" suddenly became a trend. Could it be that my rockety had actually triggered such leap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 In sum, back on the topic, Rocket's strange claim has been debunked, unless as you pointed out Turtle, erosion was responsible for the vanishing of Mu. But it's going to be quite difficult justifying how an entire continent could erode away in such a short time span, or even during any length of geological time. Anyway, it appears as if he/she is off to greener pastures where Mu can once again be heard echoing in the distance. Ya sure? Considering some actual photographs that could easily debunk it, seems your insistence on erosion wouldn't hold water at all. By the way, last time I peeked it's a "he," So in this boxing ring of wits be assured I may have some punching skills to defend my position (namedrops Manny Pacquiao too ) EDIT> My bad, he/she's back, and on to the erosion band wagon now. That should be fun to debunk. ;) Gah. The glaring awesomeness of those pics that otherwise debunks your cart and you still insist on the rickety bandwagon, seems you've probably been glaring all along on that gal instead. Hmm..that well delineated portion between the Marianas & Philippine Trenches seem to be echoing the voices of the ancients after all, it clearly manifested a difference in timeline, just as the ancients had narrated that the gradual sinking of the Lemurian continent occurred in a long span of time intervals. It is also intriguing to note that the areas that manifested the blue timeline were also along the referred lost continents of MU and Atlantis. that is a very nice geologic data set do you know the scale of years, it would be nice to represent this with the geologic scale of evolution of the planet especially when the ice ages are in relation to the layers, Biri Island, Northern Samar is located at the mid-right portion of the map: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Rocket art, you have been presented evidence that absolutely refutes what you are claiming. The genetic evidence and the geological evidence. You must show these to be false before anything else you show makes any sense. It doesn't matter how many legends you dig up, how many myths you quote unless you can refute both of those "bits" of real science your idea is bunk. You cannot argue anything until you can explain how the scientific evidence is false. No amount of wailing how unfair it is will help, either refute the evidence against your idea or stop asserting your idea, it's that simple... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 I will officially call my personal research as "Ric Vil Hori's Cibolan Theory" :) approximate locations of places and images mentioned in the article: (map courtesy of http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/atlantida_mu/esp_lemuria_3.htm) It had been said that Plato's Atlantis was inadvertently referred to the presently named "Atlantic" Ocean because earlier historians were not yet aware that beyond the Atlantic Ocean was still the American continent, and beyond it was the present day Pacific Ocean where the ancient continent of MU turned out to be originally located. However it was also said that the final sinking of the Lemurian (MU) Continent occurred 22,600 years, or 10,700 years before the ultimate sinking of Atlantis, said to be in contemporary with the biblical Flood. The Lemurians were actually a much older race and MU a much older continent than Atlantis, and the Atlanteans their later cousin race. This is just silly, it's easy to refute both by geological evidence and the fact that it's easily demonstrable that Australia has not been connected to any other land mass since the evolution of humans, in fact the lack of placental mammals and the dominance of marsupials proves that no such land connection existed for many millions of years, quite possibly since before the extinction of the dinosaurs... BTW rocket art, thanks for the neg rep, you find I am thoroughly unimpressed by neg rep... feel free to give me as much as you like and I will continue to brow beat you with reality until you have a concussion... And by the way if such a continent ever existed it would raise sea levels to the point that little or no other land mass would protrude above the oceans of the world... You have a nice little mythos going on, I used to be into that stuff when i was a teenager but I realized what a crock of horse feathers it was and went on, i suggest you do so... Refute the evidence against your idea, pilling up more and more myths and legends will not ever be enough to refute real facts and will never amount to anything but a mole hill... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Hmm..that well delineated portion between the Marianas & Philippine Trenches seem to be echoing the voices of the ancients after all, No, actually it just echos your own delusion... it clearly manifested a difference in timeline, just as the ancients had narrated that the gradual sinking of the Lemurian continent occurred in a long span of time intervals. It is also intriguing to note that the areas that manifested the blue timeline were also along the referred lost continents of MU and Atlantis. Again, no it doesn't, geological evidence does not support the idea of a sunken continent, anywhere, much less where you are asserting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(lost_continent)The existence of Mu was disputed already in Le Plongeon's time. Today, scientists universally dismiss the concept of Mu (and of other lost continents like Lemuria) as physically impossible, since a continent can neither sink nor be destroyed in the short period of time required by this premise.[3][4] Mu is today considered to be a fictional place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuria_(continent)however, the concept of Lemuria has been rendered obsolete by modern theories of plate tectonics. Although sunken continents do exist – like Zealandia in the Pacific and the Kerguelen Plateau in the Indian Ocean – there is no known geological formation under the Indian or Pacific Oceans that corresponds to the hypothetical Lemuria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealandia_(continent)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerguelen_Plateau this is confusing, since its impossible, but possible? It seems not to surprise me, but if in any case some of them were right then it actually reconfirms instead what I had been suspecting all along. However, if we are to follow the myths of our Human ancestors, we may as well transcend our paradigms beyond our Planet, and this time into outer space. I had observed that the creation mythology of the nearby Samal Tribe, an Indigenous People that lived in an island of similar name just a few minutes ferry ride from mainland Davao, actually had a similar creation mythology with that of the ancient Sumerians. It speaks of a god battling with a dragon, in which the former had succeeded in tearing the latter in two. With it the god formed one part as the "heavens" and the other as "Earth." Zechariah Sitchin may have the modern translation of it. He assigned the god as Nibiru and Tiamat as our original Planet prior to its demise. The resulting clash virtually caused the debris to form the "heavens" i.e. the Asteroid Belt that now scatters around its original orbit, and the other chunk veering away until it forms our Earth. The narrative is vividly illustrated as such: However, I strongly believe that Planets at a macrocosmic level behaves similarly with a blob of water in zero gravity environment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE1IiI6DXE8&feature=related Planet Tiamat may have behaved similarly as a blob of water stricken in outer space. However, to recall my rockety philosophy: rockety = "Consciousness is gravity's source." the debris along the Asteroid Belt had been stifled out of the Planet's (my rockety term) "Consciousness Core" and thus it ceased to remold and since then disintegrated to form the belt, spanning its original orbit. The larger chunk of debris however, still retained the (rockety: term) "Planetary Consciousness Core," and as it veered, away "without form," it finally settled along the more ideal, present orbit, and similarly as a blob of water, with the Planet's Consciousness still retained in its core, gravity works in miraculous fashion and the Planet remolds into spherical form, and now we call our Mother Planet, Earth. Could it be then, that a fraction of the legendary lost continent that seemed elusive for scientists to discover, may had actually left its fragments in the Asteroid Belt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Turtley, it is dutifully requested of you to recall in detail the words I previously elicited and to take in consideration the situation that was dragged to my position, as words such as "nonsense, absurd" or even unwarranted accusations had been hurled upon my lair to which however, I will assuredly defend. It is then my prerogative to abide by the laws of Physics that states: ... The boundaries of one’s universe may not be outside the individual, but within him/her. – rocket indeed you are a legend in your own mind. good luck with all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Rocket art, you have been presented evidence that absolutely refutes what you are claiming. The genetic evidence and the geological evidence. You must show these to be false before anything else you show makes any sense. It doesn't matter how many legends you dig up, how many myths you quote unless you can refute both of those "bits" of real science your idea is bunk. You cannot argue anything until you can explain how the scientific evidence is false. No amount of wailing how unfair it is will help, either refute the evidence against your idea or stop asserting your idea, it's that simple... Here's a simple advice: backread Obviously you haven't done that much otherwise you should have noticed by now that as far as the evidence 1 issue was concerned, it is no longer the issue on genetic because mrJones had inadvertently misconstrued my mentioning of "All Tribes in the World" as "all humans" instead. As far as the issue of "Tribe" is concerned my position is vindicated of the appropriate era designated to it. And how weird at claiming to absolutely refuting the ongoing geological discussion when my position that the Philippines was a product of Subduction was actually solidified and vindicated in the process, simply because of your extreme attempt to refute due to the measly reason of neg rep? This is just silly, it's easy to refute both by geological evidence and the fact that it's easily demonstrable that Australia has not been connected to any other land mass since the evolution of humans, in fact the lack of placental mammals and the dominance of marsupials proves that no such land connection existed for many millions of years, quite possibly since before the extinction of the dinosaurs... Again, an advice to backread. You should have recalled by then that the previous discussion on the illustration that portrayed such huge landmass was already understood that it was primarily for illustration purposes. However, I had been contemplating that such land mass that may have manifested millions of years ago had actually been in contemporary with the primordial Pangaea manifesting an equally huge landmass, and neither did Scientific findings managed to fit into Pangaea the possible existence of the legendary continent MU (with possible exclusion of Australia). Hmm... seems it's getting to open up with more boxes of questions instead, which will least likely elicit your wish to further "absolutely" refute my statement :P BTW rocket art, thanks for the neg rep, you find I am thoroughly unimpressed by neg rep... feel free to give me as much as you like and I will continue to brow beat you with reality until you have a concussion... Uh. (pokes) How absolutely myopic, reminds me of those medieval monks instead No, actually it just echos your own delusion... Again, no it doesn't, geological evidence does not support the idea of a sunken continent, anywhere, much less where you are asserting... amusing what a neg rep can do (as if they're the only ones reserved the right to monopolize clicking it haha) better me flaunts me red muleta more visibly, me feels like El Matador now. Rapido! Rapido! :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocket art Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 The boundaries of one’s universe may not be outside the individual, but within him/her. – rocket indeed you are a legend in your own mind. good luck with all that. in honor of your christening I shall rephrase it being one of my rockety wisdom: rockety: The boundaries of one’s universe may not be outside the individual, but within him/her. I hope you have transcended your paradigms beyond the confines of the Mother Planet by now, as the discussion here is now reeling towards the path of such. and if in the event you have deciphered the boundaries of the whole Universe itself, perhaps we can order a shot of glassful Neutrino at the quantum mechanics Bar and discuss about Pure Energy :smilingsun: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 in honor of your christening I shall rephrase it being one of my rockety wisdom: rockety: The boundaries of one’s universe may not be outside the individual, but within him/her. I hope you have transcended your paradigms from the confines of the Solar System by now, as the discussion here is now reeling towards the path of such. and if in the event you have deciphered the boundaries of the whole Universe itself, perhaps we can order a shot of glassful Neutrino at the quantum mechanics Bar and discuss about Pure Energy :smilingsun: if anything you are saying even had the semblance of reality I would be on your side but you are doing nothing but fantasizing, nothing you say has any more evidence behind it than the creationist crazies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts