Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Debunks Maps Atlantis Myth

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the carry-on-speculating dept.

Google 82

prxi writes "Recently speculation spread that Atlantis may have been located on Google Ocean. Now Google has posted a blog entry, written by two oceanographers, explaining what exactly caused the strange markings off the coast of Africa. The authors also note that we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of our own oceans, and go into detail on what would be required to obtain a fine-grained map of the ocean floor. Apparently it's only 200 ship years of work, or around the cost of a modern stadium, give or take."

cancel ×

82 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

0 comments? on a 5th thread on slashdot homepage?? (3, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980279)

No big loss, Atlantis was becoming one boring and predictable tv show

Re:0 comments? on a 5th thread on slashdot homepag (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980323)

haha. no, wait, that's not funny. it's not even serious.
fail!

Re:0 comments? on a 5th thread on slashdot homepag (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980331)

Why, I see a comment right ^^^ here... absent any redeeming value such as it is, not as 1000th post much less first.

Fail!

The reason.. (3, Informative)

anilg (961244) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980419)

Reason for those lines: Ship tracks due to the way oceanographic equipment work.

Re:The reason.. (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980483)

Besides there is a more interesting bit off the coast of North Carolina at 3416'24.68"N 76 2'10.39"W, in much shallower water.

Re:The reason.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980537)

3416 degrees north? yes, the water there is quite shallow.

Re:The reason.. (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980987)

Shhh! It's like a safe combination... you go north past 0' nine times and then stop at 176'24.68".

Re:The reason.. (3, Interesting)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981423)

I noticed that same area when the day this story broke. What was so interesting that someone bothered to go searching?

I also wonder about these mini-seamounts [google.com] off the coast of Nags Head - are they wrecks, or actual features?

Also, what's with the blurring here [google.com] ? It's probably where data was stitched, but it might be intentional blurring of the wreck of the Monitor [noaa.gov] . I like a good conspiracy theory.

Re:The reason.. (2, Informative)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981565)

PS - The Monitor Marine Sanctuary is in the blurred area. It "...consists of a vertical water column in the Atlantic ocean one mile in diameter extending from the surface to the seabed, the center of which is at 35 00' 23" north latitude and 75 24' 32 west longitude." [From this Federal Regulation [noaa.gov] ].

Re:The reason.. (1)

Paranatural (661514) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983769)

Only an idiot would just blur the image to hide something like a wreck. Someone who honestly wanted to hide it would just use another nondescript seabed image, there's millions of acres of the stuff that all basically looks the same. A little photochopping to make the general color and done of the image basically match those around it and editing the edges so it more or less matches up with the images that boarder it and no one's the wiser.

Re:The reason.. (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26984109)

Agreed, but it wouldn't be as good a conspiracy theory without it!

I wish that blur wasn't there - there seems to be a continental shelf mudslide under the blurred part, and that is one of the more active regions wrt currents and shifting sandbars. They don't call it "The Graveyard of the Atlantic" for nothing.

I didn't see the Diamond Shoals Light [noaa.gov] on the map. Too bad; I've caught a bunch of tuna, blues, and mackerel around that thing, and fallen to sleep watching it's blink, blink out my bedroom window.

It seems that there's a buoy [noaa.gov] in the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary.

A sunken city that hasn't been debunked (1)

GPS Pilot (3683) | more than 5 years ago | (#26985599)

So this one has been explained away by Google, but the sunken city found near Cuba has never been explained. In fact, since National Geographic reported on it in 2002 [nationalgeographic.com] , everything has been all hush-hush -- promises of follow-up exploration, but no hard information to be found.

If you're curious about this, perform further searches using the following keywords: sonar, Zelitsky, Weinzweig, "Advanced Digital Communications".

Re:The reason.. (1)

theguyfromsaturn (802938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26989075)

Those little mounds look very much like the byproduct of the interpolation algorithm. When your data is spaced out, and the ground surface very variable, there is no smooth transition between the data points. Interpolation algorithms will then tend to show little "islands", or "hollows" at the points of known elevations which tend toward some sort of average value of the neighboring points as you go away from them. It's a typical artifact of such algorithms.

Re:The reason.. (2, Insightful)

tpz (1137081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983025)

I've heard this stated many times in many places since this subject came up a few days back, but have yet to spot anyone ask the obvious follow-up question I'm going to ask you in case you might know the answer:

All tinfoil-hat crap aside, why does this little patch of the ocean have so damn many ship tracks relative to any other random location? What of interest is (or is at least thought to be) down there in that area?

I'm honestly curious.

Re:The reason.. (2, Informative)

anilg (961244) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983509)

Its not a single patch.. there are hundreds, maybe thousands of such patches, only all the eyes watching GMaps found a few of these.

The one off Africa got a lot of publicity due to the "Atlantis" hype.. the interest in the particular area is simply the internet word of mouth effect.

Re:The reason.. (1)

tpz (1137081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26984765)

Oh, I'm certain there are many. I was just curious about the potential interest in that location (or any other garnering such in-depth investigation, for that matter.) Sunken treasure, vast natural resources, veritable swarms of nubile mermaids, that sort of thing. ;)

Re:0 comments? on a 5th thread on slashdot homepag (1)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980681)

Seriously, all the comments are really low numbers today? Is it a national hol in the USA or something? There are only a few dozen comments for each article and usually there are a couple of hundred by this time of day.

Re:0 comments? on a 5th thread on slashdot homepag (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26981345)

We just had our brains sucked out by a certain speech last night. The resonating theme was to "LOOK AT THE SHINEY", and "If you hope enough, you might just forget what's going on."

We all called in today, because we are now dumber for being subjected to such blatant rhetorical nonsense.

Re:0 comments? on a 5th thread on slashdot homepag (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981133)

Becoming? On the other hand, I looked at the webpage for what Tapping is doing now and decided not to watch it. SG-1 was one of my favorite things on TV. To be fair, I watched it on DVD, as dog intended.

Recent speculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980305)

proves once again that a lot of homo sapiens sapiens are blathering idiots.

Re:Recent speculation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980675)

proves once again that a lot of homo sapiens sapiens are blathering idiots.

including the homo sapien sapien (and that's a big assumption) who wrote that comment.

I bet some one will say... (3, Insightful)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980337)

ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY!!!111! or something like that :)

Obviously fake... (2, Funny)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980375)

Atlantis was laid out on a circular pattern [geocities.com] , not a square/rectangular one. Duh! ;)

Re:Obviously fake... (1)

kvezach (1199717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980431)

Yeah, and in the middle there's a machine that can turn you into a god... if you can get around Plato's tenfold error!

Re:Obviously fake... (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980523)

Clearly we need to go excavate those fire-crystals [answers.com] .

Blech, I'd forgotten just how nutty those people are. *washes brain*

Re:Obviously fake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26986635)

You are right. I know Atlantis. I grew up in Atlantis. Atlantis is my home town. This sir, is no Atlantis.

- Namor

Data (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980381)

From FTA:

We do our best to predict what the sea floor looks like based on what we can measure much more easily: the water surface. Above large underwater mountains (seamounts), the surface of the ocean is actually higher than in surrounding areas. These seamounts actually increase gravity in the area, which attracts more water and causes sea level to be slightly higher. The changes in water height are measurable using radar on satellites.

That is the most interesting thing I have read through Slashdot in a really long while.

Re:Data (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26984275)

Completely preposterous. I might buy that the surface is slightly higher, but only because of ocean currents being deflected upwards by the seamounts. But there's no way the presence of a mountain "increases gravity in the area" enough to actually see the water level rise.

Re:Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26984721)

Completely preposterous. I might buy that the surface is slightly higher, but only because of ocean currents being deflected upwards by the seamounts. But there's no way the presence of a mountain "increases gravity in the area" enough to actually see the water level rise.

What makes you think it's visible to the eye? TFA says "The changes in water height are measurable using radar on satellites."

I'm personally wondering how they can distinguish seamounts from gyres; probably size.

Re:Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26990049)

Completely preposterous. I might buy that the surface is slightly higher, but only because of ocean currents being deflected upwards by the seamounts. But there's no way the presence of a mountain "increases gravity in the area" enough to actually see the water level rise.

Have You Done The Math?

If you haven't, you might do well to avoid making pronouncements like "Completely preposterous". Gravitational attraction isn't as uniform as many people imagine it to be. For example, consider this from the wikipedia article about lunar mascons (mass concentrations):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mascon [wikipedia.org]

The lunar mascons alter the local gravity in certain regions sufficiently that low and uncorrected satellite orbits around the Moon are unstable on a timescale of months or years. This acts to distort successive orbits, causing the satellite to ultimately impact the surface.

And that's not even discussion of mountains, just localized density variations in the lunar crust.

No numbers are given, either. You're probably assuming they are describing a gross effect when they might well be measuring something really tiny and nonobvious, such as two or three millimeters increase in the average height of the water, a figure which would have to be filtered from very noisy data.

One man's ridiculous is another man's carefully gathered subtle signal.

well (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980387)

the first thing that tipped me off was that atlantis probably wasn't 10,000 square miles in size.

Re:well (2, Insightful)

StoatBringer (552938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981605)

Not that it was FICTIONAL!!!?

Re:well (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983099)

There are several theories that Plano actually based his whole Atlantis thing on facts, which were distorted by word-of-mouth before getting to him (and also after). I don't know how many of you have actually read Timaeus and Critias (I did).

For those who haven't had those works, or most of Plato's works, lemme first state that Plato was a wacko. Completely crazy. As in "eating mushrooms for breakfast" crazy. And an attention hog. It is very much like him to get some historical facts and distort them.

...would cost nearly two billion dollars. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980413)

...That may seem like a lot of money,...

No, it doesn't. Pocket money.

Now, if you were talking trillions...

Re:...would cost nearly two billion dollars. (1)

careysub (976506) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983343)

You'd think the U.S. Navy would have some interest in having a good map of the ocean floor, and they certainly have the resources to do it.

A mapping project taking 10 years would cost $200 million a year, out of an annual budget of $130 billion. Heck, build a dedicated fleet of mapping ships with a service life of 25 years to do the job right (you'd only need 8) and drive the annual cost down to $80 million. It only has to be done once.

u got it backwards;-) (1)

airdrummer (547536) | more than 5 years ago | (#26984307)

the navy does indeed have greaty interest in o.f. maps, and a greater one in keeping those they do have secret;-}

So ... (2, Funny)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980639)

If we spent 40 stadiums worth of money we could have it done in 5 years? What is the exact stadium price to oceanographic research conversion?

Re:So ... (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980811)

Wait, what???

The price for 200 ship-years is independent of the time you actually take to scan every ocean.
With 40 ships, you'll need 5 years.
With 200 ships, you'll need 1 year.

But you'll still end up paying the price of *one* stadium, whichever solution you use.

Re:So ... (2, Informative)

Cormacus (976625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981373)

But you'll still end up paying the price of *one* stadium, whichever solution you use.

Thats assuming that the ships and the scanning equipment already exists and may be employed (rented/hired) at a constant cost/time. If you have to invest in the equipment, then the overall cost goes up as a product of the number of ships you use.

If I were to put this in terms of a car analogy . . .

Re:So ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26981803)

I disagree: I don't think we can just deploy 200 ships where there had been a handful at the drop of a hat: it would be more expensive. If it were an elastic market, maybe it would be the same, but I doubt that.

OTOH, that is assuming you have dedicated ships, which seems daft. Instead, we should outfit ships that would be headed out anyway with the bathymetry junk. You'd get quantity over quality, but that is Google's modus operandi, no?

Re:So ... (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26985909)

OTOH, that is assuming you have dedicated ships, which seems daft. Instead, we should outfit ships that would be headed out anyway with the bathymetry junk. You'd get quantity over quality, but that is Google's modus operandi, no?

I think you'd get repeated looks at narrow bands of heavily-trafficked seas and little to no view of the rest.

Re:So ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980835)

One luxury box per sonar

Re:So ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26981229)

Well, Lucas Oil in Indianapolis cost about $700 million US. The new stadium in New York is projected at $1.2 billion US.


In other words, New York and Indy could have provided the desired maps of our oceans with the taxpayer money they are pissing away.

Re:So ... (0, Troll)

errxn (108621) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982477)

In other words, New York and Indy could have provided the desired maps of our oceans with the taxpayer money they are pissing away.

Congratulations, you bit on the Google troll. It's the one thing I just can't stand about Google...they have to politicize everything, however subtly.

Re:So ... (2, Funny)

Sviergn (1233088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981601)

If we spent 40 stadiums worth of money we could have it done in 5 years?

Clearly you have not read that critical technical project planning text, "The Mythical Stadium-Ocean"...

Re:So ... (1)

teko_teko (653164) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983837)

From TFA:

So, what if we really wanted to find Atlantis? We probably couldn't do it with satellites — man-made structures simply aren't big enough to be measured that way. But we could map the whole ocean using ships. A published U.S. Navy study [navy.mil] found that it would take about 200 ship-years, meaning we'd need one ship for 200 years, or 10 ships for 20 years, or 100 ships for two years. It costs about $25,000 per day to operate a ship with the right mapping capability, so 200 ship-years would cost nearly two billion dollars. That may seem like a lot of money, but it's not that far off from the price tag of, say, a new sports stadium.

Re:So ... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26984381)

We probably couldn't do it with satellites â" man-made structures simply aren't big enough to be measured that way

Really.

[Ground Sample Distance] for Intelligence/Military purposes, such as the National Reconnaissance Office programs, may have a resolution of less than a centimeter [wikipedia.org] with the potential for real-time (live) imaging.

Do you know any cities that are less than a centimeter across?

Re:So ... (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 5 years ago | (#26984061)

And what unit of stadium? Football, baseball, soccer...

Even larger "Atlantis" (2, Interesting)

saigon_from_europe (741782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980737)

Start Google Earth, go to the ocean west of the Ireland, and you will see even larger "Atlantis".

Wait, people actually believed Atlantis was real? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26980741)

Oh wait, the internet is involved....

Obligatory... (1)

KermitJunior (674269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980753)

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Cost? (4, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980827)

Apparently it's only 200 ship years of work...

How much more does it cost if some of the ships have to fend off pirates?

Re:Cost? (1)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981453)

If you're in international waters, the cost of a Small Tactical Nuclear Device.

Re:Cost? (1)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 5 years ago | (#26985293)

Don't worry. All they need to do is hire media sentry.

Re:Cost? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 5 years ago | (#26990309)

About 5 man Yarrrrs.

unmodified images (1)

itamihn (1213328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980849)

And luckily, Google can't modify the images that captures in order to hide secret facilities, UFOs, and ancient civilizations.

Earth's Oceans Vs. Mars Surface (2, Interesting)

killmenow (184444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980863)

I doubt we'll ever have (publicly available) highly detailed ocean maps like we have of Mars. The reason: there are no nuclear submarines on the surface of Mars.

Re:Earth's Oceans Vs. Mars Surface (1)

eightball (88525) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981329)

Also, Mars isn't covered in a Barbara Walters filter.

Re:Earth's Oceans Vs. Mars Surface (2, Informative)

Dragoness Eclectic (244826) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981403)

It's far more complicated than that. Some of our ocean floor data is obtained through classified channels, and thus can't be published; even more of it is obtained via treaties and agreements that make the data "unclassified, restricted to DOD only", which means it still can't be published on Google.

Re:Earth's Oceans Vs. Mars Surface (1)

Sviergn (1233088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26998121)

So then what's the deal with that submarine, the Googlielmo, cruising around the deep blue seas snapping geolocated photos for something called "Google Maps - Ocean Floor View"?

Re:Earth's Oceans Vs. Mars Surface (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26981805)

I doubt we'll ever have (publicly available) highly detailed ocean maps like we have of Mars. The reason: there are no nuclear submarines on the surface of Mars.

So how come, the last time I was on the ocean floor, I noticed this submarine, the Googlielmo, that was cruising around, snapping geolocated photos intended for use in Google Maps' "ocean floor view"?

Re:Earth's Oceans Vs. Mars Surface (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27007401)

I see your point, but I doubt highly detailed ocean floor maps would exist without nuclear subs. It's a hard problem. The money spent mapping Mars is very tiny compared to the money spent on nuclear subs. Detailed maps of Mars are also a very new thing. Sadly, NASA budgets for MRO are being cut as we speak.
I know many people who wish someone would send a nuclear sub under the Antarctica ice shelves and do some mapping. There's no strategic value, so they could release the data, but since there's no strategic value, they'll never collect it.
The article talks about the cost of mapping the entire ocean. The price tag is so high, it's obvious no one will fund it. It's as expensive as a major sports stadium!

Yeah I saw that episode (2, Funny)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#26980999)

This is the finale, where they end up landing Atlantis on earth....right?
Oh wait, you were talking about the REAL Atlantis, I thought it never existed.

Re:Yeah I saw that episode (1)

deroby (568773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981295)

AFAIK submarines tend to move around. What use would a 'virtual push-pin in the middle of the ocean' labeled 'submarine' have anyway ? You think that if you walk around NY-City, all the people you saw on Google-street-view will still be there ?

Anyway, if -by sheer coincidence- a sub would be located, it would show up as a 'spike' in the map and probably get discarded as an error or anomaly.
Also, these sounding exercises likely make ONE HELL OF A NOISE from the point of view of a stealthy submarine, I'm sure the latter will have no problem at all in avoiding the first.

Re:Yeah I saw that episode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26981505)

I believe he meant wrecked subs. Also, there is the minor issue of the ocean floor changing over short periods of time due to ocean currents.

Re:Yeah I saw that episode (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#26985865)

way off............wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off!

Re:Yeah I saw that episode (1)

deroby (568773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26995421)

I'm kind of confused here too, afaik I replied to some comment about there being no chance at all of ever getting a seabed-map because there are 'top secret' subs around...

Somehow I either pressed the wrong 'Reply to this' button, or the Slashdot database got messed up !?!
Actually, due to the reply (http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139773&cid=26981505) I got on my comment, I'm thinking it's the latter... Slashdot going berserk ?? It's the end of the world !

Re:Yeah I saw that episode (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#27004285)

I believe you, this is slashdot after all!

Only 2 billion dollars? (1)

Erore (8382) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981219)

Sounds like a project for the economic stimulus package to me. 100 ships, crews of 30 or so, that's employment for 3000 persons for 2 years.

Re:Only 2 billion dollars? (2, Interesting)

Sjefsmurf (1414991) | more than 5 years ago | (#26981745)

Problem is... there arent really that many ships out there with proper equipment for this type of work (multi beam echo sounders and and sonarts for quality mapping of the ocean floor) and if someone went out there to rent 100 ships for 2 years, there would be a significant shortage of surveying vessels for everybody.

Prices would head towards infinity and beyond faster than the US gov could print money to pay with.

On the positive side, you would need a lot of additional people. You would need quality positioning data for places which do not have it today (basically, differential GPS reference stations) and you would need satcom to collect the data in real time so the ships did not need to stop surveying to offload data and did not get too far away from the survey area before the data had been through proper quality control.

That is, you also need staff to work around the clock processing the massive amounts of data you would get.

You will also need equipment specialized for shallow waters where ships normally cannot go without high risk (corals reefs for instance). Probably smaller boats that can be operated from a larger mother ship or helicopters.

The article simplifies this a lot. The real cost of mapping the entire ocean floor without gaps would most certainly be much higher than 2 billion usd.

Not to mention that many countries would never let a foreign power go into their territorial waters and do detailed charting of the seafloor. Both for military reasons and because things like exact positions of wrecks are often classified because they do not want crazy divers all over the place looting.

On the other side... I am willing to bet that both US Navy and Russian Navy are sitting on a bunch of highly classified charts of significant chunks of the ocean floor for use on their subs.

Re:Only 2 billion dollars? (1)

careysub (976506) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983443)

On the other side... I am willing to bet that both US Navy and Russian Navy are sitting on a bunch of highly classified charts of significant chunks of the ocean floor for use on their subs.

You're absolutely right of course, they have detailed charts created using submarine differential gravitimeter data (submarines never turn on a sonar on patrol). But the data is generally only for submarine patrol areas and, as you say, highly classified and thus unavailable for most uses including most U.S. Navy uses. A separate public data set would still be highly valuable to many people.

If it wasn't for those damn sports fans.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26982089)

Out of all the things I really don't give a damn about, I'd much rather have a detailed map of any part of the ocean floor than a sports stadium.

MTV was all over that (1)

Fznsmiles (1377061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982409)

There goes Real World Atlantis.

Re:MTV was all over that (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983167)

Do we have to? putting that show on the bottom of the ocean still doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

awww (1)

AmherstburgVision (1486659) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982489)

They were talking about this on the radio this morning, making it sound like Atlantis was found and totally confirmed. I like the idea of mapping the ocean floor. I doubt they could really do it for a reasonable price though.... and why bother, Google's probably already mapping it :)

Santorini (2, Interesting)

spiedrazer (555388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26982987)

Many readers may already know this, but Atlantis has most likely already been found, as near as we humans will probably ever be able to tell anyway.

If there was an actual place and society that inspired the fictional tale of morals and corruption spun by Plato, it was most likely the Minoan civlization on Santorini and Crete from around 1600 BC. It was an advanced (for the time) civilization wiped out (or at least dispersed forever) by the cataclismic eruption of the caldera that formed the ring structured island. This link has oner of the better discussions of the issue without all the hyperbol and passion that many 'seekers' often display.

http://www.decadevolcano.net/santorini/atlantis.htm

Cheaper than that? (1)

RegularFry (137639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983327)

How big and expensive does an echo sounder have to be? Would it be feasible to fit them to medium/small slocum gliders and just let them random-walk their way around the ocean, beaming back (or storing) GPS and depth data?

So where are the Mars maps? (1)

Hooda Thunkett (1486731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983409)

So if Mars is better mapped than the Terran oceans, where is Google Mars?

Re:So where are the Mars maps? (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26983587)

So if Mars is better mapped than the Terran oceans, where is Google Mars?

Here [google.com]

Atlantis is Antartica, duh (1)

gig (78408) | more than 5 years ago | (#26984939)

When I was a kid I was taught in school that Antartica is all ice. Basically, a continental iceberg. When we looked under there with sonar we discovered a lost continent submerged under a thousand feet of (frozen) water. When we mapped the coastline as it would be if you removed the ice, we found that same coastline on ancient maps.

What more do you need? How many lost continents do we have to find?

Re:Atlantis is Antartica, duh (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26995939)

I used to work with somebody who was mapping the ground under the Antarctic ice cap with radar. The idea is you mount the radar on a sled pointing straight down and tow it along the surface. Then you take your data back to the lab and use interferometry to deduce the shape of the surface.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>