The idea that the ancients were not aware of the existence of the relatively advanced civilisation of Atlantis is beyond belief - mine anyway . Homer was proven correct about Troy and is so about Atlantis. There was a wonderfully detailed TV presentation by a lady scientist who enthused that Thera could have been this mystic isle. Clever though the idea is I cannot credit it. To accept it means that people as close as Malta, Italy and Libya would have no artifact relating to trade with such a close neighbour, no legends about them. Unlikely. Legend claims that the isle was situated ‘near’ the Gibraltar region, probably in the Atlantic. We are here looking at events of fourteen thousand years ago when the Earth experienced many catastrophe’s. The disappearance of an Atlantic island could, in the company of other catastrophic events pass relatively unnoticed and their sudden disappearance become the stuff of legend. This could hardly be if Thera was their home. The Med would have been like Oxford Street with Selfridges at its middle. Its sudden disappearance would have far reaching affects on trade and political attitudes. Such a community would have hosted a powerful fleet and probably, a strong, well equipped military force as well. The threat of piracy or foreign aggression would surely force them to use these security measures. So, if Thera was the place its absence would have would have been a big influence. But if Atlantis was in the Atlantic it would be 2-3000 miles away. This makes a huge difference, especially in those distant days, does it not? So until a comprehensive undersea exploration can prove otherwise, the Atlantic is odds on.
I have long believed in the idea that the Earth is constantly expanding. This expansion would readily account for the tremendous forces necessary to cause continents to split apart and then ‘leg it’ for thousands of miles, concurrently with the formation of relatively new sea floor (200 million years). Aside from anything else, the simple fact of a significant increase in the circumference in only a dozen years or so. What does this amount to after 4500 billion years (accepting that the levels of accretion may vary). However much or little can never be established, increase there is! There are several complex attempts to explain the far more significant actual expansion itself. Accretion itself can never move continents! None of these are satisfactory - hard evidence, beyond one indisputable fact - is not yet available. The one fact (well, two!) is that the continents have shifted and the sea floor is new. If you are a mathematician - you may worry about the way this could be theoretically explained - I’m not. The important thing is that it has happened -in nature maths may allow us a measure of probability but that is all. I think we just don’t have the physics right. Assuming current beliefs, the twisting force applied to an Earth rotating at around 1000 mph, moving on a molten core, must play a significant part. This would have a powerful West to East ‘drag’ effect. On the basis that the core revolves both faster and slower than the mantle some stress differences would seem inevitable. Assuming there were original fractures at continental boundaries giving them some separation, these fractures would constitute weaknesses in the original structures. Obviously not only is this the most probable site of any split but must also be where the mid-ocean trenches first appeared. This would seem self evident. I affirm that no matter what the maths might suggest, this movement happened and the process, whatever that may have been, must have conformed to the laws of physics. Our failure to find this explanation is due to a misinterpretation of elements of physics that has allowed frankly silly ideas to dominate current cosmological theory.
This brings me to the evident increase in the gravity of the Earth and the disappearance of the Dinosaurs 60 million years ago. It is apparent that these animals were huge. It is also apparent that they could move much as do modern creatures. Their weight was also immense. In today’s gravity they could not stand, barely move. They did, so again - forget the arithmetic – gravity then must have been less than now. As gravity was less then it is almost certain that the Earth was also rather smaller than it is today. I find it hard to understand why some people dispute these, plain as day facts. There is no other solution to these problems – they have happened! Acceptance of these facts will demand a newer, more realistic approach to physics that will result in the abandonment of fantasy that is responsible for our failure to advance our knowledge. I favour the philosophy that claims that if it can happen, it will and if it cannot – it won’t! This approach must include a re-examination of the claims made in relation to Redshift and ‘the Expanding Universe’. Hubble suggested (but never claimed to have proved ) that Redshift could be a measure of the speed of light. It is impossible, because of the distances involved to prove that this is the case – therefore it is an assumption. Hubble himself later expressed his doubts about this and I would be grateful if someone could find the reference to this – I have lost it. A part of what Hubble did say is from his lecture about this. I quote:
“We can now formulate the law of nebular distribution on the assumption that the nebulae are not rapidly receding. The energy-corrections corresponding to red-shifts at the limits of the various surveys exactly compensate for the apparent thinning out in the World Picture. Numbers of nebulae are strictly proportional to the volumes of space they occupy. If the universe is not rapidly expanding, the observable region is thoroughly homogeneous out as far as accurate surveys have been extended. This important conclusion is derived by comparing simple counts of nebulae with measured luminosities, corrected by energy-factors which must be applied to such measures regardless of cosmological theory. The uniform distribution is a plausible and welcome result. Homogeneity within our sample seems so plausible, in fact, that it has often been adopted as a preliminary assumption. The apparent distribution indicated by the crude observations is then described as a true, uniform distribution plus apparent departures from uniformity. The apparent departures can be expressed as corrections to the measured luminosities of nebulae at the limits of the various surveys, and these corrections, in turn, can be compared with the red-shifts at the same limits.”
So – Hoyle was right and an expanding Universe and the Big Bang, etc, etc, are bunk!
Adding to the proof of the establishment misinterpretation of Redshift, I refer to the well known observations of the late Alton Harp. Speculative theories, unsupported by theory, let alone evidence, bring only discredit to conventional thinking cosmologists and scientists alike.