New Zealand - The Tip of A Hidden Continent

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom.G
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of Zealandia, a submerged continent that includes New Zealand, and its potential connection to the myth of Atlantis. Participants explore geological findings, historical references, and the implications of these ideas within the context of scientific inquiry and archaeological interpretation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference a Washington Post article discussing Zealandia as a hidden continent, questioning its relation to the myth of Atlantis.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about linking Zealandia to Atlantis, suggesting that the myth is fictional and derived from Plato's works.
  • Another participant mentions a documentary related to geodesic circles and expresses interest in its content, indicating a belief that the team involved is on the right track.
  • Concerns are raised about the hype surrounding archaeological claims related to Atlantis, with one participant suggesting that the emphasis on Atlantis may detract from legitimate scientific inquiry.
  • There is a discussion about the need for a clearer distinction between hypothesis testing and sensationalism in archaeology, particularly regarding claims of Atlantis.
  • A participant humorously notes that their reference to Atlantis was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, acknowledging the contentious nature of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some supporting the geological findings related to Zealandia while others dispute the connection to Atlantis. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing interpretations and skepticism about the validity of linking the two concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential for misunderstanding and misrepresentation in discussions about Atlantis, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of scientific evidence versus sensational claims. There are also references to the historical context of the Atlantis myth and its literary origins.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in geological studies, the intersection of mythology and science, and debates surrounding archaeological interpretations may find this discussion relevant.

Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn
Last edited:
Spent the last hour looking through the last 3 pages of threads
cant find what I was looking for ( I may have missed it ) it's possible it came up within another thread
so had nothing to do with the thread title ... I know it was discussed sometime in the last 12 monthsDave
 
Then how could Plato have written about this land thousands of years ago if it was so far away, in New Zealand?
I have watched the documentary on youtube about something like the Geodesic Circles seen from space in Spain. Can't find the link.
 
@ISamson - specifically what documentary? I need to see what is going on. PF supports science debate, as you know.

@Tom.G Plus, Santorini (Thera) may be a better choice for Atlantis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption - follow the links for better citations.
I'm sure you do get that Atlantis is fictional and the name derives from Plato's works Timaeus and Critias - which needs no citation. The issue with Atlantis is that PF does not support debate on Plato's works let alone fictional cities/island/continents. And the associated nonsense out there.

http://theconversation.com/explorers-probe-hidden-continent-of-zealandia-83406 - these guys are currently drilling cores and analyzing data. The non-technical article mentions that Zealandia subsided about 80 million years ago, a tad before Plato, early apes, and even the entire primate tree.
FYI: https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/earlyprimates/early_2.htm

The 'great circle' post caused me to place a 'red great circle' around this thread. The geology part is fine - the rest probably not.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn, fresh_42 and ISamson
jim mcnamara said:
specifically what documentary? I need to see what is going on. PF supports science debate, as you know.



I was very impressed by it!
I believe that the team is on the right track...:smile:
 
IMO, some aspects of Archeology as a real science need a tune up in the concept of hypothesis test versus hype - which comes first? Most of the obsessive Atlantis hunters and the guys in the video are no exception, but the guys in the video do appear to have have valid reasons for excavation. The Atlantis assertion part is more than a bit off the wall.

I think stuff like 'Atlantis' in that video gets overly emphasized, maybe so more people will watch. Or donate money. It is precisely like I described - hype before a decent set of tests of a hypothesis. And unless they find inscriptions at the site with a its 'local' name at least vaguely reminiscent of 'Atlantis' excavations still will not prove the true identity/origin of the site in the video. BTW: atlantis in greek derives from Ἀτλαντὶς νῆσος (in English) 'island of atlas' where Poseidon dwells. Note the word island.

Please do not let this thread diverge any further from real science, or it is going down. And yeah, the video is interesting. Marginal science. Other mentors may decide to shut this thread down because of the edgy-ness.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ISamson and fresh_42
Tom.G said:
Who says there is no Atlantis?
Well, it was meant to be rather tongue-in-cheek.
Sorry to start such a storm.

Tom
 
  • #10
I think this thread deserves a long rest. Closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ISamson

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K