velvetfinger

i have a friend who is trying to convince me that the city of atlantis existed. apparently he's read a book that has "scientifically" proven it to be, and that the advanced people of atlantis spread to separate parts of the globe, ie some went to egypt, which is how the ancient egyptian civilisation began and that atlantian technology was used to build the pyramids etc. i was wondering, as i've never really read up on it myself (i've always believed it to be a myth), what is the basis of the story of atlantis? is it a complete myth? can anyone suggest a good link?

one of the problems with the egyptian pyramids is that the stones used in their construction are just so damn big. me, i think that all was required was a lot of human muscle, a lot of human ingenuity and a lot of pulleys and ropes. i don't need a supernatural explanation for the pyramids. again, can anyone suggest a good link re: how (or the theory as to how) the pyramids were made?

echidna

This was just the first one I came up with, but unfortunately it doesn’t list a more ingenious device which I read about a couple of years ago.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramids.htm
http://touregypt.net/construction/
http://touregypt.net/construction/construc.htm

Basically by attaching 4 strong wooden frames each in the shape of an arc onto the sides of each massive block, the block profile could be changed from square into a circle and the entire block could be rolled up the ramp. Ingenious & much easier than the classic image of thousands of “slaves” (now considered to be paid workers) dragging each block up on rollers. Also good evidence that we aren’t necessarily as clever as we think we are.

Maybe someone can find a diagram.

Overgrowngoblin

Plato described Atlantis in two of his dialogues, the Timaeus and Critias, placing it "west of the straits which you call the pillars of Hercules", i.e. in the Atlantic Ocean.

Lobstrosity

1) There is no reason why the technology needed to build Egyptian pyramids had to originate in Atlantis. Why couldn't it have been developed in Egypt? All you need are manpower and levers.

2) One of the supposed "arguments" I've heard for the existence of Atlantis is the fact that separate cultures in different parts of the world constructed pyramids (most prominently the Maya and the Egyptians). What seems to be neglected, however, is the fact that the Mayan pyramids do differ significantly from Egyptian pyramids, constructed in different ways to serve different purposes. The only real similarity is that the base starts out wide and then the walls slope inward as the structure rises. This is easily explained by the fact that both cultures were forced to use stone in their construction as steel was not available and wood was not strong enough or durable enough for the construction of enormous monuments. The only way to reach the sky with stone is to build a pyramid-shaped structure, where you have enough blocks on a given level to support the massive weight of all the blocks above. If you naively try to make a simple tower, the base blocks will be crushed by the weight of the tower itself. Modern skyscrapers are only possible because of their steel skeletons. Without this, reaching such heights is only possible with a pyramid. As such, is it surprising that separate cultures constrained to use the same building materials and subject to the same laws of physics would build similar structures in an effort to reach towards their gods in the mysterious, mystical heavens?

echidna

Along with a diagram, this site describes the method I mentioned before ...

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/pyramids.htm

Azathoth

As for Atlantis,one theory,and the one that seems like it makes the most sense,is that it was actually the island of Thera,and the culture there,that was destroyed.

The idea is that the Pillars of Hercules we know,may not have been the Pillars he was referring to.

The mode of destruction fits the general Atlantis legend,and it was a fairly impressive civilization for the area.

Numerous New Agers reject this,though,as it puts Atlantis back into the realm of the mundane.It also isn't nearly as profitable as being able to produce numerous books on the subject of a fantastic ancient civilization.

You'll find some of them defend the concept of Atlantis being some kind of superculture with near religious fervour.

Here's a site that talks about the Thera archaeological work.

http://www.culture.gr/2/21/211/21121a/e211ua08.html

And here's an illustrated timeline of the disaster.

Arken

I've always found it funny how pro-Atlantis folks seem to ignore the fact that conveniently this 'lost civilization' happens to embody everything Plato happens to be discussing in the Republic just by chance.

I guess it's kind of like the bible... Atlantis is true because Plato says it's true.

keyser_soze

I generally liken all new agers, ufo nuts, and the religious into one group. They all want to ignore logic, reason, and common sense in order to maintain belief in some sense of "otherness" that seems to be some critical need to their psyche's. I would suggest the thread on religion as a symptom of mental illness, an idea that I have been a proponent of for a long time(I like to egostroke myself and think that I am the first person I know who made this deduction due to my work with the mentally ill when I was a social worker..all the symptoms of illness are exhibited by the extreme bun wearing, eye glazed, rabid fundamentalists...).

Corwin

Thera's a possibility, Crete is another. 'Some island nobody's ever heard of' is yet a third, and 'complete figment of Plato's fertile imagination' is a fourth.

Considering the source, I'd have to say the fourth is the most likely. (Plato was known to totally make up entire civilizations to make a point.)

Rhaedas

I'm sceptical of Atlantis' existence as well, mainly because of the lack of evidence. The best explanation I've ever seen was Otto Muck's hypothesis - a google search can give you a lot more info on his many connections that lead to his idea.

In very brief summary an asteroid hit the North American east coast area of the Atlantic roughly 10,000 years ago, causing the Atlantic volcanic ridge to shift. Atlantis was where the Azores are now, but higher due to the continental shelf being held up by a magma bubble. The impact released that bubble, causing the destruction and dropping of the Atlantis island into the sea that is fabled. The loss of the island had climate effects to northern Europe, as well as to other signs Muck uses as proof, such as eels odd migration across the Atlantic.

The biggest blow that I can see to discount his explanation is that we haven't found any evidence whatsoever around the Azores, which were supposed to be the mountainous northern part of the Atlantis island. I don't know if this is because no one will touch Atlantis theories because of their new age enigma, or if actual searches have been made, and turned up nothing.

The idea was a convincing one to me, however no matter how good an idea is, the data determines the validity. Without some evidence of a civilization where Muck placed it, it's just as much of a hypothetical scenario as Plato's account. At least he never tried to stick aliens, mind powers, or crystals into his theory.