PDA

View Full Version : Re: Shape of the Earth

Robert Ehrlich
June 22nd 03, 05:48 PM
well fellas there is the difference between relief and elevation.
Relief is a local measure of how high an object is from some local
base. If we choose that local base in the case of Everest to be the
abyssal plain of the Indian Ocean then Everest is "higher" than Mauna
Loa. If we chose the local base to be the base camp of the Everest
climbers as a local base and the abyssal plain of the Pacific for Mauna
Loa then Mauna Loa is "higher". Mauna Loa is supported by the buouyancy
of the water column Eversest is not. We commonly use mean seal level as
a global datum. Measured from that datum the Earth is essentially a
sphere. The proportion of volume involved in local deviations from the
sphere is infinitesimal. In that frame, Everest and Mauna Loa are just
"noise' except to people our size. I wonder what an orange "looks" like
to an amoeba?

Odysseus wrote:

>Painius wrote:
>
>
>>? Odysseus, it's the sea floor where the mountains sit... it's the
>>part of the plateau on which Everest sits... why would you think
>>it might be anywhere else? Why is all this so hard for everyone
>>to see?
>>
>>
>>
>What are the exact elevations of said sea floor and plateau? Where do
>all along, yet you seem to keep pointing at the "sea floor" and the
>"plateau" as if mountains were plonked on to -- or pop up out of --
>an otherwise featureless surface.
>
>
>
>>I wish i could find Asimov's treatment of this. It's around here
>>somewhere but i cannot find it. He explained it so much better
>>than i can.
>>
>>You remove the water. The mountains rise up from a flat surface.
>>
>>For Kea and Loa this flat surface is the ocean floor. For Everest
>>this flat surface is the plateau. When you measure Everest from
>>the surface of the plateau to its summit, then measure the volcanos
>>from the ocean floor where they sit up to their summits, you find
>>that the volcanos are nearly two times as tall as Everest.
>>
>>
>>
>Are you claiming that the Pacific floor and the Tibetan plateau,
>other than having the odd mountain here and there, are perfectly
>flat? Try looking at a map that shows relief with some semblance of
>realism, rather than an sketch-map that depicts mountains as
>upside-down Vs -- really, I can't see where else you'd get such a
>picture of the earth's topography.
>
>
>>I'm outta here.
>>
>>
>>
>Since you're apparently unable to answer my repeated requests (and
>Brett's) for some kind of quantitative rationale for your claim (and
>Bert's -- hey, almost an anagram!), and since nobody has been
>convinced by your hand-waving at the "sea floor" and the "plateau" as
>if they were flat as griddles, I agree that you have few other options.
>
>--Odysseus
>
>

Brett Aubrey
June 22nd 03, 07:51 PM
RE:
"Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message fellas there is the difference between relief and elevation. Relief is a local measure of how high an object is from some local base. If we choose that local base in the case of Everest to be the abyssal plain of the Indian Ocean then Everest is "higher" than Mauna Loa. If we chose the local base to be the base camp of the Everest climbers as a local base and the abyssal plain of the Pacific for Mauna Loa then Mauna Loa is "higher".

BA:
Yes. Using multiple arbitrary points and measurements, you can choose anything to be higher, but if you say from 'Everest base camp to the summit', then it's not "Everest", it's an arbitrary portion of Everest. And if you choose 'Hillary Step to the summit', it's still not "Everest". And if you choose the abysmal plain, from where are you measuring? If it is a point (and a single low elevation is VERY likely to be a point), where is this point? If it's a deep point somewhere in the East Pacific Basin of Hawaii, then you are measuring just one slope, just as if you measure Everest from some point in the East Indian ocean, or Aconcagua from the Richard Deep, or Guam from the Challenger Deep. And if it's a deep point somewhere in the East Pacific Basin of Hawaii, then to "buzz-saw" it off (Paine's analogy), you get some 85% (likely more) of the earth's surface, including Everest, with only a few small "holes" where the deeper trenches and basins exist (... that dawg don't hunt!).

As stated, Maua Loa is only higher if you choose unequal and arbitrary points. And the way it looks thus far, since no one has yet to come up with a geographic location for a Mauna Loa base, this point can only arbitrarily measure one slope, which can be handily "bested" by choosing any of an infinity of arbirary points for Everest in the Mid-Indian Basin. Regards, Brett.

<snip>

Brett Aubrey
June 22nd 03, 08:44 PM
"Painius" > wrote:
<snip>

As you can see by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, saying "abysmal plain" says
very littly quantatatively about depth. Hence our continued requests for a
location for your point. Especially when there's a range from ~10,000
~20,000 ft., are generally adjancent to a continent and are most rare in the
Pacific, making your claim even more incredulous (at max. depth of this
definition, *not* adjacent to a continent, plus in the Pacific, where
abyssmal plains are rare.)

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=379759

Abyssmal Plain:

Flat seafloor area at a depth of 10,000-20,000 ft (3,000-6,000 m), generally

The larger plains are hundreds of miles wide and thousands of miles long.
The plains are largest and most common in the Atlantic Ocean, less common in
the Indian Ocean, and even rarer in the Pacific Ocean, where they occur
mainly as small, flat floors of marginal seas or as long, narrow bottoms of
trenches. They are thought to be the upper surfaces of land-derived sediment
that accumulates in abyssal depressions.

Regards, Brett.

Odysseus
June 22nd 03, 11:28 PM
> Brett Aubrey wrote:
>
> RE:
> "Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message
> fellas there is the
> difference between relief and elevation. Relief is a local measure
> of how high an object is from some local base. If we choose that
> local base in the case of Everest to be the abyssal plain of the
> Indian Ocean then Everest is "higher" than Mauna Loa. If we chose
> the local base to be the base camp of the Everest climbers as a
> local base and the abyssal plain of the Pacific for Mauna Loa then
> Mauna Loa is "higher".
>
> BA:
[snip]
>
> As stated, Maua Loa is only higher if you choose unequal and
> arbitrary points. And the way it looks thus far, since no one has
> yet to come up with a geographic location for a Mauna Loa base,
> this point can only arbitrarily measure one slope, which can be
> handily "bested" by choosing any of an infinity of arbirary points
> for Everest in the Mid-Indian Basin. Regards, Brett.
>
Well, I think Robert has put his finger on it in mentioning "relief".
One could define a mountain's "base" as a contour where the slope,
averaged over a given minimum distance, falls below a certain value
as one moves away from the region of the peak. But since it's been
Herb and Painius that are making the "tallest" claim, I don't think
it's up to us to do their work for them by continuing to propose
criteria that they might avail themselves of in order to make their
assertions meaningful, i.e. possible to evaluate quantitatively.

(BTW, guys, please refrain from posting in HTML.)

--Odysseus

Brett Aubrey
June 23rd 03, 01:21 AM
"Odysseus" > wrote:
> > Brett Aubrey wrote:
> > RE:
> > "Robert Ehrlich" > wrote: well fellas there is
> > the difference between relief and elevation. Relief is a local measure
> > of how high an object is from some local base. If we choose that
> > local base in the case of Everest to be the abyssal plain of the
> > Indian Ocean then Everest is "higher" than Mauna Loa. If we
> > chose the local base to be the base camp of the Everest climbers
> > as a local base and the abyssal plain of the Pacific for Mauna Loa
> > then Mauna Loa is "higher".
> >
> > BA:
> [snip]
> > As stated, Maua Loa is only higher if you choose unequal and
> > arbitrary points. And the way it looks thus far, since no one has
> > yet to come up with a geographic location for a Mauna Loa base,
> > this point can only arbitrarily measure one slope, which can be
> > handily "bested" by choosing any of an infinity of arbirary points
> > for Everest in the Mid-Indian Basin. Regards, Brett.
> >
> Well, I think Robert has put his finger on it in mentioning "relief".
> One could define a mountain's "base" as a contour where the slope,
> averaged over a given minimum distance, falls below a certain value
> as one moves away from the region of the peak. But since it's been
> Herb and Painius that are making the "tallest" claim, I don't think
> it's up to us to do their work for them by continuing to propose
> criteria that they might avail themselves of in order to make their
> assertions meaningful, i.e. possible to evaluate quantitatively.
> (BTW, guys, please refrain from posting in HTML.)
> --Odysseus

1. While I understand both Robert and your point, it still comes down to an
arbitrary, non-standard and not-yet-defined position, and the chance of any
peak in the Hawaiian chain besting all the taller peaks (by standard
definitions) in the Himalayas, Andes, Russia, European Alps and elsewhere by
any fair definition is extraordinarily tenuous at best. And for any new
definition like this, one would have to start from scratch and do all peaks
by the same, or as similar as possible, definition.
2. I wouldn't care if they can take anything said by me or anyone else and
make their assertions meaningful, as long as there is some fairness and
sense in the position. Using, say, a point in the Mariana Trench for one
peak and a glacier or plain for another just doesn't cut it. Nor does
saying some "flat" part of the Pacific cut it (unless the flat part
surrounds the entire peak and little or nothing else, which clearly does not
happen for the Maunas).
3.; Interestingly, Robert's criteria would cut the Maunas down to fairly
insignificant bumps (Nubbin Loa and Nubbin Kea?), for in the case of both
peaks, the contour rises from the saddle between them to the other peak.
Even if they wanted to use the whole island with the twin Maunas as part of
a newly defined "Mt. Hawaii", it would only go down a few thousand feet
until rising up to to Maui, the rest of the chain and many other undersea
areas.

I'd think they might want to avoid the use of "relief"... OTOH, their
responses continue to surprise and amaze... Best regards, Brett.

P.S. Let me know if this was HTML, please.

BenignVanilla
June 23rd 03, 06:06 PM
"Painius" > wrote in message
...
> "Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message...
> a...
> >
> > . . . can you answer a question asked several times and to my
> > knowledge never answered... from where is the base being measured?
TIA.
> > Regards, Brett.
>
> One more time, Brett... this question was answered *several*
> times including in Bert's original post.

I disagree. It has not.

> His reference was to remove all the water including the glacial
> ice around Everest. So... if you then take a giant buzz saw and
> remove Everest from the plateau on which it sits, then enlist the
> aid of our hero, Superman, to fly the mountain over to the dry
> Pacific basin, and gently place it down on the sea floor near the
> volcanos, then Loa and Kea would dwarf Everest... each of
> them being nearly twice as "tall" as the mountain (and quite a bit
> "fatter" as well).

Why cut everest down at the plain? This is exactly the problem with this
discussion. There is NO singular measurement point, which invalidates the
whole argument.

> There is no need for all this defensive behavior. Nobody ever
> challenged Everest's place as the world's highest mountain above
> sea level. All that was said was that if you remove all the water
> from view, Everest is not the tallest mountain... which is true!
>
> Mount Everest remains to this day the most challenging of
> climbing feats. It is indeed the highest cemetery in the world!

For more reasons then it's height.

BV.

Telnet Pirate
June 23rd 03, 07:22 PM
Brett,

Check these atlases I get to use, they are a little more updated than
yours.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/2minrelief.html

This is a 2 mimute resolution dataset that combine bathymetry and
topography.

Now click on the 45 degree block that contains the Hawaiian islands.

This should enlarge the view for you.

Note that The Big Island of Hawaii (both ML and MK and the other peaks)
has a portion of itself as blue.

If each pixel is then 2 minutes, one can determine that all slopes of ML
are within 1 degree of its peak. (34.5 pixels to be exact)

Now do the same for ME, now this might be a little harder, since ME is not
as easy to pick out of the Himalayan range. Here is a hint 28.0 N, 86.9
E. But if I had to help you find ME and you could find ML by yourself
does not that say something...

Now since you sarcastically pushed aside my comment of using ESRI to help
your spatial analysis as a plug. Then maybe you would like to use another
But I see another plug comment coming.

Now take the same circle of 34.5 pixels which was the same measurement to
ML's base. Note this is skewed since we are measuring ME to ML, if can
provide the same level of spatial analysis with ML to ME, I would
entertain that.

I just want reiterate that the number has been state 34.5 pixels of 2
minutes each pixel for a number that is approx. 1 Degree.

You measure every point of within 1 degree of ME an every point of within
1 degree of ML and you will find that subtracting the mean value from the
peak you get a greater overall displacement for ML.

That said the areal extent of ML is also larger than ME, this is even
more convincing to me that ME is JUST AN UPLIFTED ROCK when compared to
ML.

For more sources bathymetry and topograhpy check out,
http://www.marinegis.com/dataen.html

__o
_ \<_
(_)/(_)

G=EMC^2 Glazier
June 23rd 03, 08:06 PM
Hi Brett Take away earth water throw a rock off Everest,and throw the
same size rock off Loa and tell me what rock came to a stop first????
We all know the answer Bert

Brett Aubrey
June 23rd 03, 11:56 PM
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" > wrote...
> Hi Brett Take away earth water throw a rock off Everest,
> and throw the same size rock off Loa and tell me what
> rock came to a stop first???? We all know the answer Bert.

Mininally, it depends on which way you throw it. Now theoretically, if
you're very, very careful and very, very lucky, it might possibly go down
the single slope to a deep point in the East Pacific Basin or the Hawaiian
trough. In that extremely unlikely case, we still don't know the answer
because you've still not given us the location of your deep point, which may
or may not be in the Hawaiin Trough. Is your point 200 feet offshore, 800
miles off shore, or in the Mariana Trench some 4,000 miles away? And this
scenario addresses only single-slope length and is of use only for boulder
trundling*, as opposed to mountain tallness or height.

You're still not being honest with yourself, Bert... until you know the
location, you simply can NOT know the answer (unless, of course, you're
being trollish and simply not telling us this location). And if the
location's 200 feet off shore, again, all you've got is (maybe, depending on
several factors), a single hypothetical longer slope than one on Everest.

But in reality, we both know the rock won't even reach the beach. And if
you throw this rock in another direction and it manages to go to another
level point, it can end up a relatively pitiful 4,000-6,000 feet down (very
rough estimate, since I have no good Hawaiian maps) in the Kea - Loa saddle.
Give up the hypothetical, I'd say, and start being honest with yourself.

More importantly, even if it did roll to your deep point, a rock thrown off
any of hundreds of Andes summits will be rolling looooonnnng after yours has
stopped at your arbitrary deep point, since there the difference between
summits and arbitrary deep points in the Atacama Trench is up to 49,295
feet, dwarfing your slope (i.e. this is a fair comparison - a deep point in
a trough or basin vs. a deep point in a trench). And you still have the
rest of the world to figure out - with this new definition you're
introducing, you can't simply take Everest and Mauna Kea and ignore all
other mountain slopes. And most of the world won't care much about the
longest slope, anyway.

Mauna X is not the highest, by any but the most parochial, constricted, and
arbitrary definitions, and likely not even then, as I'm coming to realise
with each new scenario you come up with. Deal with it. And please come
back with data relevant to others' figures please or your own past arguments
(like location and depth), instead of constantly raising new and yet more
flawed analogies. Also, have a look at TelNetPirate's 12:22 post today...
it might give you a better chance at some valid scenario (I'm still looking
at it).

Best regards, Brett.

See SF Forrester's "Boulder Trundling" in Ken Wilson's "Games Climbers
Play - A collection of Mountaineering Writing" c1978, Sierra Books, for an
enlightening essay on this hallowed sport.

David Knisely
June 24th 03, 05:48 AM
Bert posted:

> Take away earth water throw a rock off Everest,and throw the
> same size rock off Loa and tell me what rock came to a stop first????
> We all know the answer Bert

Yup, those of us who know those Hawaiian volcanoes well know the answer:
it will stop first when thrown from the top of Mauna Loa. The slopes of
the volcano are so gentle that probably most people would have a lot of
trouble getting one to go even 100 yards before it came to rest a little
ways down the slope. The slopes of Everest are a lot steeper, so the
same-size rock would probably go a lot farther down the slopes unless it
got stuck in some ice on the way down.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
**********************************************

Odysseus
June 24th 03, 08:18 AM
Brett Aubrey wrote:
>
> 1. While I understand both Robert and your point, it still comes down to an
> arbitrary, non-standard and not-yet-defined position, and the chance of any
> peak in the Hawaiian chain besting all the taller peaks (by standard
> definitions) in the Himalayas, Andes, Russia, European Alps and elsewhere by
> any fair definition is extraordinarily tenuous at best. And for any new
> definition like this, one would have to start from scratch and do all peaks
> by the same, or as similar as possible, definition.

Exactly. IIRC fairly on I made some remark to the effect that
"hotspot" shield volcanoes and peaks arising from continental
collisions are like the proverbial "apples and oranges" to start
with; I think David K. did as well.

[snip]
>
> P.S. Let me know if this was HTML, please.

Clean as a whistle, AFAICT.

--Odysseus

G=EMC^2 Glazier
June 24th 03, 12:47 PM
Brett There has to be a point where Everest starts its
measurement(base) and goes to 29,300 feet.(peak) That holds true for Loa
as well. They both must have a base,and I agree not all bases
are the same. That to me is the job of surveyors. Brett if you
think I'm "trolling"you Be a nice fish and don't read my posts.
Bert

Brett Aubrey
June 24th 03, 11:57 PM
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" > wrote...
> Brett There has to be a point where Everest starts its
> measurement(base) and goes to 29,300 feet.(peak) That holds true
> for Loa as well. They both must have a base,and I agree not all bases
> are the same. That to me is the job of surveyors. Brett if you
> think I'm "trolling"you Be a nice fish and don't read my posts.
> Bert

ABSOLUTELY, there is. It's well known, been mentioned here several times,
is VERY standard and easy to remember. It's called "sea level". Oh, no,
I've learned a fair amount from this discourse - for instance Dave's point
that a rock won't go far at all from the relatively flat Mauna Loa summit.
Points discrediting your claim continue to crop up. But don't take this out
on me. I'm just trying to point out flaws in your claim, because I thought
you'd want to know where you're in error. I always want people to help me
like this... otherwise one starts looking kinda foolish and posts end up
looking like this one on sci.physics:

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
> I think [snip]
No, you don't; not in real time, not in retrospect. -- Uncle Al

Best regards, Brett.

P.S. Correction, to your post, though, but only for a standard measurement.
The measurement *you've* documented would be from yet another arbitrary
point, this time from some 265 feet underwater (You REEEEEEAAALY like these
arbitrary underwater points, don't you?) Now having been that deep on many
occaision, I'd suggest that there's nothing special about it and that you're
complicating things yet again by choosing this point... Why 265 ft down?

Painius
June 25th 03, 01:00 PM
"Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message...
a...
>
> "Painius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm sorry, i guess it's too complicated for me. I don't know why...
> > if i can envision Bert's statement of removing all the water from
> > our planet, why can't i accept the datum based on envisioning an
> > imaginary sea level on Mars? For some reason i keep going back
> > to the surface of the terrain on which the mountain sits. Then it's
> > much easier for me to accept the comparison that the Martian
> > mountains dwarf even the largest mountains on Earth.
>
> Then do the same for Earth's mountains... Everest still is highest, tallest
> and most lofty.

And most majestic... Everest is certainly the mountain to climb
if one is a mountain climber.

As Bert stated, and as i have repeatedly claimed in support of
the "meaningfulness" of his statement, Mount Everest is NOT
the tallest mountain on Earth.

Just for you, Brett, and for Odysseus, David and BV and all
others who are unable to accept this fact based upon my
unsatisfying views and descriptions of the matter, i have dug
and dug and i have found the article by Isaac Asimov in which
he makes the same case. And just for you i shall transfer
excerpts from the article to this post.

Friendly Word of Warning, though, just as you have not been
able to find agreement with Bert and me on this, you may also
find yourself in the same predicament with Asimov. If this does
turn out to be the case, then you shall just have to die and go to
Writer's Heaven and discuss the matter with the great author
himself.

From "Up and Down the Earth" by Isaac Asimov...

HEIGHT
REGION MOUNTAIN FEET MILES METERS
Asia Everest 29,141 5.52 8,886
Hawaii Mauna Kea 13,784 2.61 4,200
Hawaii Mauna Loa 13,680 2.59 4,171

(Note from Paine... several other mountains are also listed in tables
in this article. Only those i've mentioned are included in this small
excerpt. Asimov continues... )

All the heights I have given for the mountains, so far, are "above
sea level."

However, let's improve the fun by qualifying matters.

After all, the height of a mountain depends a good deal upon the
height of its base. The Himalayan mountain peaks are by far the
most majestic in the world; there is no disputing that. Nevertheless,
it is also true that they sit upon the Tibetan plateau, which is the
highest in the world. The Tibetan "lowlands" are nowhere lower
than some 12,000 feet above sea level.

If we subtract 12,000 feet from Mount Everest's height, we can
say that its peak is only 17,000 feet above the land mass upon
which it rests.

This is not exactly contemptible, but by this new standard (base to
top, instead of sea level to top) are there any mountains that are
higher than Mount Everest? Yes, indeed, there are , and the new
champion is not in the Himalayas, or in Asia, or on any continent.

This stands to reason after all. Suppose you had a mountain on a
relatively small island. That island may *be* the mountain, and the
mountain wouldn't look impressive because it was standing with its
base in the ocean depth and with the ocean lapping who knows
how many feet up its slopes.

This is exactly the case for a particular island. That island is Hawaii--
the largest single unit of the Hawaiian Islands. The island of Hawaii,
with an area of 4,021 square miles (about twice the size of Delaware)
is actually a huge mountain rising out of the Pacific. It comes to four
peaks, of which the two highest are Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa.

The mountain that makes up Hawaii is a volcano actually, but most of
it is extinct. Mauna Loa alone remains active. It, all by itself, is the
largest single mountain in the world in terms of cubic content of rock,
so you can imagine how large the whole mountain above and below
sea level must be.

The central crater pit of Mauna Loa is sometimes active but has not
actually erupted in historical times. Instead, the lava flow comes from
openings on the sides. The largest of these is Kilauea, which is on the
eastern side of Mauna Loa, some 4,088 feet (0.77 miles, or 1,246
meters) above sea level, Kilauea is the largest active crater in the
world and is more than two miles in diameter.

As though these distinctions are not enough, this tremendous four-
peaked mount we call Hawaii becomes totally astounding if viewed as
a whole. If one plumbs the ocean depths, one finds that Hawaii stands
on a land base that is over 18,000 feet below sea level.

If the oceans were removed from Earth's surface (only temporarily,
please), then no single mountain on Earth could possibly compare with
the breathtaking towering majesty of Hawaii. It would be by far the
tallest mountain on Earth, counting from base to peak. Its height on
that basis would be 32,036 feet (6.08 miles or 9,767 meters). It is the
only mountain on Earth that extends more than six miles from base to
tip.
----------- end of excerpts -------------

This essay, one of many hundreds of non-fiction works by Asimov,
was printed in the February, 1966 issue of _The Magazine of Fantasy
and Science Fiction_. I have a reprint in one of Asimov's collections
entitled _From Earth to Heaven_.

The entire essay and book is a tremendously fabulous read if you can
come by a copy.

And as i said before, Brett et al., if you have any more nit-picking,
argumentative cases to make, you shall just have to die and go to
Writer's Heaven and argue with Asimov. Would you be missed?
Why of COURSE you would. (Everybody likes a good scrap now
and then, eh?)

Now, i'm *really* outta here!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Freedom! free to see
All the stars, all the cosmos
For what it really is--
It is Free!

Paine Ellsworth

David Knisely
June 25th 03, 09:53 PM
Painius wrote:

(apparently quoting Asimov).

> If we subtract 12,000 feet from Mount Everest's height, we can
> say that its peak is only 17,000 feet above the land mass upon
> which it rests.

If we subtract the 16,400 feet from the "height", of Mauna Kea as
measured from the plains of the ocean floor surrounding the "island" of
Hawaii (ie:, the landmass on which Mauna Kea sits), we can say that its
peak is only 13,784 feet above the land mass on which it rests. It
might be a somewhat more convincing argument if only one big volcano
with steep conical sides of nearly constant slope (base to summit) sat
on the floor of the ocean and its monolithic peak stuck up out of the
water. That isn't the case however, as can be seen when looking at a
profile of the entire island from sea floor to summit. Mauna Kea is
only one of several volcanoes which sit on the island of Hawaii, so we
have to measure things from a reference point like the edge of the
Hawaiian plateau's rim (near sea level) and not from the sea floor
surrounding the plateau. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
**********************************************

G=EMC^2 Glazier
June 25th 03, 11:55 PM
Hi David Stop me if I'm wrong. When Everest was surveying India did he
start at ground level going thousands of miles to come to MT, Everest
Say just 4 feet up from ground level. The surface of the earth
is man's best reference plane(yes) I was always talking about the solid
earth's surface where all mountains have there base. I was always
measuring from there base up to the peak as their measurement Why do
you keep mentioning water level to the peak when you know that was not
the way my post had in mind. I was bringing out a different point of
reference,and you know it. You jumped without a moment thought. Like I
told you don't think it would only make you nervous. Bert

Brett Aubrey
June 26th 03, 06:07 AM
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" > wrote...
> Hi David Stop me if I'm wrong.

Which time, or is this question not meant in retrospect?

> When Everest was surveying India did he start at ground
> level going thousands of miles to come to MT, Everest
> Say just 4 feet up from ground level.

Please elaborate... Especially this arbitrary ang insignificant 4 feet...
(IIRC, Everest probably would have used triangulation from a point of
"known" altitude (ASL), rather like those who first surveyed Hawaii.
Several locations of several "know" altitudes would have been used. "Known"
in quotes because they probably were not 100% accurate at the time.) Note
that this would be much easier with the Maunas, for (hopefully) obvious
reasons. Point?

> The surface of the earth is man's best reference plane(yes)

Yes? Ahhhh, maybe not. Please define "surface of the earth", which *varies
dramatically*, except for the relative constant watery surface at sea level.
(Gee, maybe that's why it gets used so much, huh?).

> I was always talking about the solid earth's surface where all mountains
> have there base. I was always measuring from there base up to the peak
> as their measurement

Which base? Why do always assume there a (i.e. 1, one, une, uno) base?
Split the visual view from the summit by degrees and one has 360 different
altitudes - which of these do you consider the "base". This is *not* a cone
on a table we're discussing. In the case on Mauna Kea, the col between it
and Mauna Loa would be the first significant upswing, so should we use that?

> you keep mentioning water level to the peak when you know that was not
> the way my post had in mind. I was bringing out a different point of
> reference, and you know it. You jumped without a moment thought.

Gee, d'ja think that might be because:
- it's the standard way to define mountains, maybe?
- without a common reference, it's meaningless?
- all *you* are doing is measuring a slope?
- lots of slopes ate longer than any Mauna slope, anyways?
- ...

> Like I told you don't think it would only make you nervous. Bert

Say what? Regards, Brett.

Brett Aubrey
June 26th 03, 06:48 AM
"Painius" > wrote...
> "Brett Aubrey" > wrote ...
> > "Painius" > wrote...
> > > I'm sorry, i guess it's too complicated for me. I don't know why...
> > > if i can envision Bert's statement of removing all the water from
> > > our planet, why can't i accept the datum based on envisioning an
> > > imaginary sea level on Mars? For some reason i keep going back
> > > to the surface of the terrain on which the mountain sits. Then it's
> > > much easier for me to accept the comparison that the Martian
> > > mountains dwarf even the largest mountains on Earth.

Iy really isn't all that complicated... just get over the false view that
there's some sort of flat table below all the peaks. Or if you can't come
to terms with that concept, abandon the Maunas anyway, cause many or most of
the Andes mountains easily beat them (probably lots of others too).

> > Then do the same for Earth's mountains... Everest still is highest,
> > tallest and most lofty.
> And most majestic... Everest is certainly the mountain to climb
> if one is a mountain climber. As Bert stated, and as i have
> repeatedly claimed in support of the "meaningfulness" of his
> statement, Mount Everest is NOT the tallest mountain on Earth.

Hence our kind suggestions pointing out your errors. (You're welcome.)

> Just for you, Brett, and for Odysseus, David and BV and all
> others who are unable to accept this fact based upon my
> unsatisfying views and descriptions of the matter, i have dug
> and dug and i have found the article by Isaac Asimov in which
> he makes the same case. And just for you i shall transfer
> excerpts from the article to this post.
> Friendly Word of Warning, though, just as you have not been
> able to find agreement with Bert and me on this, you may also
> find yourself in the same predicament with Asimov. If this does
> turn out to be the case, then you shall just have to die and go to
> Writer's Heaven and discuss the matter with the great author
> himself.

Ahhhh! The famous surveyor and geologist, Dwayne Asimov! Well, if I'd know
that HE stated this, then... But in case you mean Isaac, why, oh why would
you bring him into the picture. Is it that he's best known as a *fiction*
writer? Yes, this sounds like a piece of fiction allright. (Pffft!) Is it
because he lived in Hawaii for any place longer than NYC (still not long,
for he wasn't well travelled). Yes, this certainly crushes any argument
about parochiality (Ha!). Geez, Painus, WHAT ARE you thinking?

> From "Up and Down the Earth" by Isaac Asimov...
> HEIGHT
> REGION MOUNTAIN FEET MILES METERS
> Asia Everest 29,141 5.52 8,886
> Hawaii Mauna Kea 13,784 2.61 4,200
> Hawaii Mauna Loa 13,680 2.59 4,171 (So??)
> (Note from Paine... several other mountains are also listed in tables
> in this article. Only those i've mentioned are included in this small
> excerpt. Asimov continues... )
> All the heights I have given for the mountains, so far, are "above
> sea level." However, let's improve the fun by qualifying matters.
> After all, the height of a mountain depends a good deal upon the
> height of its base. The Himalayan mountain peaks are by far the
> most majestic in the world; there is no disputing that. Nevertheless,
> it is also true that they sit upon the Tibetan plateau, which is the
> highest in the world. The Tibetan "lowlands" are nowhere lower
> than some 12,000 feet above sea level.

Ahhh, so we jump once more, this time from the Ganges plain to the Tibetan
"lowlands". Wow! Just how many bases are you going to argue here?
(Sigh...)

> If we subtract 12,000 feet from Mount Everest's height, we can
> say that its peak is only 17,000 feet above the land mass upon
> which it rests.

Sorry, but how about the Ganges plain? Or Sea Level? Or the low point in
the mid-Indian Basin?

> This is not exactly contemptible, but by this new standard (base to
> top, instead of sea level to top) are there any mountains that are
> higher than Mount Everest? Yes, indeed, there are , and the new
> champion is not in the Himalayas, or in Asia,

But by this definition, likely the Andes (lots to choose from).

<snip more of the same arbitrary stuff from the fiction writer.
> ----------- end of excerpts -------------
> This essay, one of many hundreds of non-fiction works by Asimov,
> was printed in the February, 1966 issue of _The Magazine of
> Fantasy and Science Fiction_. I have a reprint in one of
> Asimov's collections entitled _From Earth to Heaven_.

Geez, LOOK at the title, will ya?... "The Magazine of * Fantasy and Science
Fiction *". You've been had, "Painus", or maybe Asimov was the parochial
source I thought might well be behind this - What d'ja think?. I wonder if
he did any work for Hawaii Tourism, or whatever. (Could be, come to think
of it.)

> The entire essay and book is a tremendously fabulous read
> if you can come by a copy.

On my way out the door, right now... I just love sc-fi!

> And as i said before, Brett et al., if you have any more nit-picking,
> argumentative cases to make, you shall just have to die and go to
> Writer's Heaven and argue with Asimov. Would you be missed?
> Why of COURSE you would. (Everybody likes a good scrap now
> and then, eh?) Now, i'm *really* outta here!

"Writer's Heaven?" LOL. As implied, a fiction writer from a fiction
magazine just doesn't quite make it in the real world, but at least I have a
better understanding of your ideas, such as they are. BTW, Welles'
fictional account of the Martian invasion, while reported as a real story,
wasn't true either, "Painus", just in case you've always wondered. Best
regards, Brett.

Brett Aubrey
June 26th 03, 07:14 AM
"Odysseus" > wrote...
> Painius wrote:
> > Just for you, Brett, and for Odysseus, David and BV and all
> > others <snip>
> Beside these remarks above, I have no argument with the substance of
> Asimov's message here; my quibbles are, as you say, "nit-picking".
> But you seem not to have noticed that the quotation in no way
> supports your claim that *Mauna Loa* (or Kea) is the "tallest
> mountain"; in fact Asimov is saying that "four-peaked" *Hawai'i* is.
> This accords with my earlier suggestion that absent water the whole
> island could be treated as a mountain for the purpose of identifying
> its "base", and someone else's pointing out that the Hawai'ian
> archipelago is just a series of peaks on a single enormous ridge or
_sierra_.
> >
> > Now, i'm *really* outta here!
> Indeed. ;)
> --Odysseus

ARRRRGGGGHH! Painus... Herb... Tell us it ain't so! Tell us you haven't
been arguing this obviously strange and flawed myth of yours largely based
on Asimov's fiction when Asimov himself never even suggested this! (Not
that Asomov is an expert, but really, Painus and Herb... did you add 1+1 and
come up with 3?) No! It can't be! Geez, this means Uncle Al was right!

Thanks, Odysseus, for picking up what I missed, there. Best regards, Brett.

BenignVanilla
June 26th 03, 03:48 PM
"Painius" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> Just for you, Brett, and for Odysseus, David and BV and all
> others who are unable to accept this fact based upon my
> unsatisfying views and descriptions of the matter, i have dug
> and dug and i have found the article by Isaac Asimov in which
> he makes the same case. And just for you i shall transfer
> excerpts from the article to this post.
<snip>

Great post. Interesting argument. Good research. The point still stands
however, that this thread is moot, because all the measurements, including
Axiom's do not use a common reference point for measurement. I still

BV.

Greg Neill
June 26th 03, 06:41 PM
"Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message
a...
>
> "Writer's Heaven?" LOL. As implied, a fiction writer from a fiction
> magazine just doesn't quite make it in the real world, but at least I have
a
> better understanding of your ideas, such as they are. BTW, Welles'
> fictional account of the Martian invasion, while reported as a real story,
> wasn't true either, "Painus", just in case you've always wondered. Best
> regards, Brett.

Asimov was a superb explicator of science for public consumption.
He held a doctorate in Biochemistry, and his science writings
outpaced his science fiction by a wide margin.

Brett Aubrey
June 26th 03, 09:52 PM
"Greg Neill" > wrote...
> "Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message
> a...
> > "Writer's Heaven?" LOL. As implied, a fiction writer from a
> > fiction magazine just doesn't quite make it in the real world,
> > but at least I have a better understanding of your ideas, such
> > as they are. BTW, Welles' fictional account of the Martian
> > invasion, while reported as a real story, wasn't true either,
> > "Painus", just in case you've always wondered. Best regards, Brett.
> Asimov was a superb explicator of science for public consumption.
> He held a doctorate in Biochemistry, and his science writings
> outpaced his science fiction by a wide margin.

Agreed, but absolutely and totally irrelevant to this thread, AFAIC. Or do
you have a point? Best regards, Brett.

Brett Aubrey
June 27th 03, 06:34 AM
"Telnet Pirate" > wrote...
> Brett, Check these atlases I get to use, they are a little
> more updated than yours.
>
> http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/2minrelief.html
>
> This is a 2 mimute resolution dataset that combine bathymetry
> and topography. Now click on the 45 degree block that contains
> the Hawaiian islands. This should enlarge the view for you.

Kewl! Interesting stuff, Telnet! I note that you can enlarge once again
from the view you mention above.

> Note that The Big Island of Hawaii (both ML and MK and the
> other peaks) has a portion of itself as blue.

Problem here... I see the blue all around it, but am unclear on your
"portion".

> If each pixel is then 2 minutes, one can determine that all slopes of ML
> are within 1 degree of its peak. (34.5 pixels to be exact)

Degrees of Lat? or degrees of Long?
- We don't have depth indicated here.
- Anything NW is certainly not deep.
- Anything towards the other peak in peanuts.
- You seem to be arbitrarily (yet again), deciding that this means
something... What?

> Now do the same for ME, now this might be a little harder,
> since ME is not as easy to pick out of the Himalayan range.
> Here is a hint 28.0 N, 86.9 E. But if I had to help you find
> ME and you could find ML by yourself does not that say something...

You're right... I found I could *not* find ME.

> Now since you sarcastically pushed aside my comment of using ESRI
> use another software, Mapinfo, Erdas Imagine, Idrisi, ENVI. This

> Now take the same circle of 34.5 pixels which was the same
> measurement to ML's base. Note this is skewed since we
> are measuring ME to ML, if can provide the same level of
> spatial analysis with ML to ME, I would entertain that.

Unclear on your use of "skewed", in this instance. But regardless, you are
taking arbitrary slope(s) and comparing them to other arbitrary slope(s),
are you not? If not, I'm misunderstanding you.

> I just want reiterate that the number has been state 34.5 pixels of 2
> minutes each pixel for a number that is approx. 1 Degree. You measure
> every point of within 1 degree of ME an every point of within 1
> degree of ML and you will find that subtracting the mean value from the
> peak you get a greater overall displacement for ML.

I think I can see that even without finding Everest, but:
- Your 1 degree itself is arbitrary.
- We weren't discussing displacement, but height.

> That said the areal extent of ML is also larger than ME, this is even
> more convincing to me that ME is JUST AN UPLIFTED ROCK
> when compared to ML.

And... (?) (I.e. I won't disagree - one's volcanic and one's not, one's
bulky and less steep than the other, etc... but what's this got to do with
this thread?) BTW, it's certainly a fun tool. I assume somewhere there's
much higher resolution versions... can we get at those? While me atlases
may be updated, even they have better apparent resolution than these.

> For more sources bathymetry and topograhpy check out,
> http://www.marinegis.com/dataen.html
> __o
> _ \<_
> (_)/(_)

Lots in this link... can not find relevant data thus far, but have not had
too much time to spend. Thanks! And TIA. Regards, Brett

Greg Neill
June 27th 03, 02:18 PM
"Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message
a...
> "Greg Neill" > wrote...
> > "Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message
> > a...
> > > "Writer's Heaven?" LOL. As implied, a fiction writer from a
> > > fiction magazine just doesn't quite make it in the real world,
> > > but at least I have a better understanding of your ideas, such
> > > as they are. BTW, Welles' fictional account of the Martian
> > > invasion, while reported as a real story, wasn't true either,
> > > "Painus", just in case you've always wondered. Best regards, Brett.
> > Asimov was a superb explicator of science for public consumption.
> > He held a doctorate in Biochemistry, and his science writings
> > outpaced his science fiction by a wide margin.
>
> Agreed, but absolutely and totally irrelevant to this thread, AFAIC. Or
do
> you have a point? Best regards, Brett.

The point was, an offhand dismissal of Asimov as a reasonable
source of practical information might not be warranted.

Brett Aubrey
June 27th 03, 04:26 PM
"Greg Neill" > wrote...
> "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > "Greg Neill" > wrote...
> > > "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > > > "Writer's Heaven?" LOL. As implied, a fiction writer from a
> > > > fiction magazine just doesn't quite make it in the real world,
> > > > but at least I have a better understanding of your ideas, such
> > > > as they are. BTW, Welles' fictional account of the Martian
> > > > invasion, while reported as a real story, wasn't true either,
> > > > "Painus", just in case you've always wondered. Best regards, Brett.
> > > Asimov was a superb explicator of science for public consumption.
> > > He held a doctorate in Biochemistry, and his science writings
> > > outpaced his science fiction by a wide margin.
> > Agreed, but absolutely and totally irrelevant to this thread, AFAIC.
> > Or do you have a point? Best regards, Brett.
>
> The point was, an offhand dismissal of Asimov as a reasonable
> source of practical information might not be warranted.

1. It seems Asimov never claimed what "Painus" and the "G=" guy stated was
claimed.
2. Even if he had, the argument was grossly flawed (but read Point 1.)
3. ... (Naw, there's no point in reiterating yet again (but read Point
1...)

irrelevant" in a dictionary.
Best regards, Brett.

P.S. "G=" seems to have developed a trend for this line of argument, though
t'is the first time I've thread-shared with him, methinks, and based on
writing styles, arguments, etc., I've started to wonder whether he and
"Painus" are related (same person? - I think it'd be difficult to find 2 of
'em like this)). On the positive side of this, they're doing well from
Dyson's perspective... "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" --
Freeman Dyson
P.P.S. Note to self... "When you argue with a fool, chances are he is doing
just the same" -- Unknown (sigh)

Greg Neill
June 27th 03, 06:41 PM
"Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message
a...
> "Greg Neill" > wrote...

> >
> > The point was, an offhand dismissal of Asimov as a reasonable
> > source of practical information might not be warranted.
>

"Geez, LOOK at the title, will ya?... "The Magazine of * Fantasy
and Science Fiction *". You've been had, "Painus", or maybe
Asimov was the parochial source I thought might well be behind
this - What d'ja think?. I wonder if he did any work for Hawaii
Tourism, or whatever. (Could be, come to think of it.)"

I'd call that offhand, and that was my point.

Brett Aubrey
June 27th 03, 08:20 PM
"Greg Neill" > wrote...
> "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > "Greg Neill" > wrote...
> > > The point was, an offhand dismissal of Asimov as a reasonable
> > > source of practical information might not be warranted.
> >
>
> "Geez, LOOK at the title, will ya?... "The Magazine of * Fantasy
> and Science Fiction *". You've been had, "Painus", or maybe
> Asimov was the parochial source I thought might well be behind
> this - What d'ja think?. I wonder if he did any work for Hawaii
> Tourism, or whatever. (Could be, come to think of it.)"
>
> I'd call that offhand, and that was my point.

Geez, READ the thread, will ya? Asimov simply did NOT say what was claimed
(tallest mountain in the world). And no matter who might claim this,
including if Asimov ever did this in a "Magazine of *Fantasy and Science
Fiction*" (does the title say anything to you, Greg?), are being either
Orson-Welles-ian fictional, arbitrary, parochial, or simply haven't done

Greg Neill
June 27th 03, 09:27 PM
"Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message
a...
> "Greg Neill" > wrote...
> > "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > > "Greg Neill" > wrote...
> > > > The point was, an offhand dismissal of Asimov as a reasonable
> > > > source of practical information might not be warranted.
> > >
> >
> > "Geez, LOOK at the title, will ya?... "The Magazine of * Fantasy
> > and Science Fiction *". You've been had, "Painus", or maybe
> > Asimov was the parochial source I thought might well be behind
> > this - What d'ja think?. I wonder if he did any work for Hawaii
> > Tourism, or whatever. (Could be, come to think of it.)"
> >
> > I'd call that offhand, and that was my point.
>
> Geez, READ the thread, will ya? Asimov simply did NOT say what was
claimed
> (tallest mountain in the world). And no matter who might claim this,
> including if Asimov ever did this in a "Magazine of *Fantasy and Science
> Fiction*" (does the title say anything to you, Greg?), are being either
> Orson-Welles-ian fictional, arbitrary, parochial, or simply haven't done

The claimed contents of the quote in question are not germane
to my point (even if they are misquoted or altered in some way),
nor (I hate to say it) is the main topic of the thread itself.
It's the utter dismissal of Asimov as a source of information
because he has written science fiction, or that a science essay
of his happened to appear in a certain venue that I am taking
issue with. But I have tried to make this plain already.

I have read a good deal of Asimov's science and science fiction
works. They are quite separate bodies of work that stand on
there own, despite the sort of conflation your are attempting
to provide in order to score points in your debate with the
Painius fixture.

I have also read the odd issue of the Magazine of Fantasy and
Science Fiction, and I applaud it for its editorial policies;
Asimov was given a monthly space in the magazine which he could
do with whatever he wanted. He chose to do essays of all sorts
on a wide range of topics, from number theory to social
commentary. These essays were then collected and published
under separate covers according to topic. I think it did
the sci-fi aficionados good to get a monthly dose of proper
scientific thought.

Brett Aubrey
June 27th 03, 10:40 PM
"Greg Neill" > wrote...
> "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > "Greg Neill" > wrote...
> > > "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > > > "Greg Neill" > wrote...
> > > > > The point was, an offhand dismissal of Asimov as a reasonable
> > > > > source of practical information might not be warranted.
> > > "Geez, LOOK at the title, will ya?... "The Magazine of * Fantasy
> > > and Science Fiction *". You've been had, "Painus", or maybe
> > > Asimov was the parochial source I thought might well be behind
> > > this - What d'ja think?. I wonder if he did any work for Hawaii
> > > Tourism, or whatever. (Could be, come to think of it.)"
> > > I'd call that offhand, and that was my point.
> > Geez, READ the thread, will ya? Asimov simply did NOT say
> > what was claimed (tallest mountain in the world). And no matter
> > who might claim this, including if Asimov ever did this in a "Magazine
> > of *Fantasy and Science Fiction*" (does the title say anything to you,
> > Greg?), are being either Orson-Welles-ian fictional, arbitrary,
parochial,
> > or simply haven't done their homework. Again, read the thread.
> > Best regards, Brett.
>
> The claimed contents of the quote in question are not germane
> to my point (even if they are misquoted or altered in some way),
> nor (I hate to say it) is the main topic of the thread itself.
> It's the utter dismissal of Asimov as a source of information
> because he has written science fiction, or that a science essay
> of his happened to appear in a certain venue that I am taking
> issue with. But I have tried to make this plain already.

You assume far, far too much, and the claimed comments were most germane to
*my* point. To take a comment or two out of a tediously long thread where
Asimov was quoted as saying X when I was disputing X for myriad reasons is
unjustified - my myriad reasons were part and parcel of my overall argument.
science fiction, or that a science essay of his happened to appear in a
certain venue", I'll point out the obvious once more:
- Is it that he's best known as a *fiction* writer? Yes, this sounds like a
piece of fiction allright. (Pffft!)
- Is it because he lived in Hawaii for any place longer than NYC (still not
long, for he wasn't well travelled).

This is a request to confirm if these attributes even remotely qualify
anyone to make the statements attributed to him. So tell me, Greg, d'ya
figure that all *fiction* writers who've lived in Hawaii for any place
longer than one other qualifies that person to make this assessment of an
"Hawiian" world's tallest mountain (especially when the arguments are
clearly flawed). Frankly, I see no special qualifications of such a person
to such a task, and I see potentail pitfalls, as already stated, re
Wellesianism and parochiality (if such words exist).

> I have read a good deal of Asimov's science and science fiction
> works. They are quite separate bodies of work that stand on
> there own, despite the sort of conflation your are attempting
> to provide in order to score points in your debate with the
> Painius fixture.

No issue with your main points, and please specify said conflation so I can
comment - but there's hardly a "debate" - the fixtures simply ignore any
argument and come back like they didn't read (understand?) the points (not
just posts from *me*, BTW).

> I have also read the odd issue of the Magazine of Fantasy and
> Science Fiction, and I applaud it for its editorial policies;
> Asimov was given a monthly space in the magazine which he could
> do with whatever he wanted. He chose to do essays of all sorts
> on a wide range of topics, from number theory to social
> commentary. These essays were then collected and published
> under separate covers according to topic. I think it did
> the sci-fi aficionados good to get a monthly dose of proper
> scientific thought.

Good for you. Can I assume this is OT? (I'm sure you'll let me know if you
felt this was part of any discussion, above.) Best. - Brett.

Odysseus
June 28th 03, 03:30 AM
Painius wrote:
>
> ? Odysseus, it's the sea floor where the mountains sit... it's the
> part of the plateau on which Everest sits... why would you think
> it might be anywhere else? Why is all this so hard for everyone
> to see?
>
> I wish i could find Asimov's treatment of this. It's around here
> somewhere but i cannot find it. He explained it so much better
> than i can.
>
> You remove the water. The mountains rise up from a flat surface.
>
Here's your misconception in a nutshell, which I've brought up
several times (as has Brett) but which you continue to talk past.
There are very few extensive "flat surfaces" on earth, and they're
particularly rare near mountains. Why is this so hard for you to see? ;)

> For Kea and Loa this flat surface is the ocean floor. For Everest
> this flat surface is the plateau. When you measure Everest from
> the surface of the plateau to its summit, then measure the volcanos
> from the ocean floor where they sit up to their summits, you find
> that the volcanos are nearly two times as tall as Everest.
>
Look at a map, for crying out loud! How can you call the Tibetan
plateau, containing as it does some of the most rugged terrain on
earth, a "flat surface"? And while there are a couple of 'flattish'
basins in the Pacific floor near the Hawai'ian islands they're more
or less shaped like shallow bowls (hence the term "basin"), the
nearly 6000-metre soundings indicated on a typical map being just
their deepest points.

What's needed to define a measure of mountains' heights -- other than
by their elevations above a standard, universal reference datum -- is
a specification including such parameters as the maximum slope, or
amount of relief, for a location or contour at a mountain's foot to
be considered "flat" enough to use as a "base", a minimum area or
radial extent for such a "flat" area (I think we can agree that a
narrow ledge halfway up a cliff would be an unreasonable choice of
"base" no matter how smooth and level it may be), and/or the maximum
radius or distance from a peak in which the "base" may be located.

> I'm outta here.
>
You're certainly not getting any nearer ...

--Odysseus

Odysseus
June 28th 03, 03:43 AM
Brett Aubrey wrote:
>
> P.S. "G=" seems to have developed a trend for this line of argument, though
> t'is the first time I've thread-shared with him, methinks, and based on
> writing styles, arguments, etc., I've started to wonder whether he and
> "Painus" are related (same person? - I think it'd be difficult to find 2 of
> 'em like this)). On the positive side of this, they're doing well from
> Dyson's perspective... "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" --
> Freeman Dyson

Half a mo', here: no matter how opaque to argument Painius has been
on this topic, he writes in coherent and grammatical prose that
usually shows evidence of his having takes a minute or two to marshal
his thoughts before posting, and the focus of his replies is
generally responsive to others' remarks. Unfortunately I don't think
the same can be said of most of Herb's contributions ...

--Odysseus

Brett Aubrey
June 28th 03, 07:38 AM
"Greg Neill" > wrote...
> "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > "Greg Neill" > wrote...
> > > The claimed contents of the quote in question are not germane
> > > to my point (even if they are misquoted or altered in some way),
> > > nor (I hate to say it) is the main topic of the thread itself.
> > > It's the utter dismissal of Asimov as a source of information
> > > because he has written science fiction, or that a science essay
> > > of his happened to appear in a certain venue that I am taking
> > > issue with. But I have tried to make this plain already.
> > You assume far, far too much, and the claimed comments were most germane
to
> > *my* point. To take a comment or two out of a tediously long thread
where
> > Asimov was quoted as saying X when I was disputing X for myriad reasons
is
> > unjustified - my myriad reasons were part and parcel of my overall
argument.
> > And rather than your misleading "utter dismissal" because "has written
> > science fiction, or that a science essay of his happened to appear in a
> > certain venue", I'll point out the obvious once more:
> > - Is it that he's best known as a *fiction* writer? Yes, this sounds
like a
> > piece of fiction allright. (Pffft!)
> > - Is it because he lived in Hawaii for any place longer than NYC (still
not
> > long, for he wasn't well travelled).
> Again, you are trying to intermix different arguments, and persist
> in denigrating Asimov for absurd reasons. What's your problem?

Non-sequitor. I cannot persist in doing something I was not doing in the
first place. What's your problem? I'm not yet aware of what you consider
to be denigration, much less the (absurd) reasons. Please tell me. My
questions were to Painus as he seems fixated on Asimov's comments as opposed
to say, the Guiness World Records, obvious flawes in his arguments, etc.,
though now that it seems he even misunderstood/misquoted Asimov, it's more

> Why can't you just put aside your duel with Painius for just a moment
> and deal with the minor point at hand? I called you on a point of
> order, namely dismissing a well known science writer because of the
> venue that an article of his may have appeared in, and because he's
> written for more than one genre. That's it. That's the point.

That may be your point, but your interpretation is wide of the mark. I'm
not going to bother responding to what appears to be your incorrect
assumption (I say X, you say you heard Y... that's your issue, not mine).

> Nothing to do with mountain heights, extents of planes, or
> depths of lowlands, continental shelves, or ocean trenches.
> Now it seems that you don't like...

Part and parcel. It seems? Gee, wrong again. As I said, you assume too

> Perhaps astronomers are in no position to write on the topic of
> astronomy because they don't live in space?

Do you think? Seems a tad off to me...

> > This is a request to confirm if these attributes even remotely qualify
> > anyone to make the statements attributed to him. So tell me, Greg, d'ya
> > figure that all *fiction* writers who've lived in Hawaii for any place
> > longer than one other qualifies that person to make this assessment of
an
> > "Hawiian" world's tallest mountain (especially when the arguments are
> > clearly flawed). Frankly, I see no special qualifications of such a
> > person to such a task, and I see potentail pitfalls, as already stated,
> > re Wellesianism and parochiality (if such words exist).
> Still going back to the mountains, eh? Still insisting that
> someone living in NYC is incapable of knowing anything
> beyond his doorstep. Do you really think that qualifications
> are tied to location?

As stated, part and parcel of my point, and your point is based on an
answering questions, huh? I'll try once again:
So tell me, Greg, d'ya figure that all *fiction* writers who've lived in
Hawaii for any place longer than one other qualifies that person to make
this assessment of an "Hawiian" world's tallest mountain, especially when
the arguments (attributed to him) are clearly flawed? An answer would be
appreciated.

> > > I have read a good deal of Asimov's science and science fiction
> > > works. They are quite separate bodies of work that stand on
> > > there own, despite the sort of conflation your are attempting
> > > to provide in order to score points in your debate with the
> > > Painius fixture.
> > No issue with your main points, and please specify said conflation so I
can
> > comment - but there's hardly a "debate" - the fixtures simply ignore any
> > argument and come back like they didn't read (understand?) the points
(not
> > just posts from *me*, BTW).
> You conflate venue with credentials, and in more than one
> sense: A science writer whose science essay appears in a
> non-science magazine, and a science writer who happened
> to not travel extensively; You seem to somehow feel that
> these characteristics exclude competence, and merely scoff
> without explanation. I have a feeling it is because you're
> trying to take the easy way out of dealing with the
> information presented -- by simply declaring it specious.

Sigh. These were questions to Painus to determine why he felt Asimov was
particularly suitable for this topic, as I certainly did not know Asimov to
have any special credentials for the topic at hand. No scoff. And I'm
*very comfortable* with the way I dealt with the "information presented",
thanks very much. I note you've had no comments on the way I did so - does
this mean you agree with me? TIA.

> > > I have also read the odd issue of the Magazine of Fantasy and
> > > Science Fiction, and I applaud it for its editorial policies;
> > > Asimov was given a monthly space in the magazine which he could
> > > do with whatever he wanted. He chose to do essays of all sorts
> > > on a wide range of topics, from number theory to social
> > > commentary. These essays were then collected and published
> > > under separate covers according to topic. I think it did
> > > the sci-fi aficionados good to get a monthly dose of proper
> > > scientific thought.
> > Good for you. Can I assume this is OT? (I'm sure you'll let me know
> > if you felt this was part of any discussion, above.) Best. - Brett.
> Hey, I called you on your sleazy debating tactic and you
> decided to pursue it. Now you're blowing the OT whistle?
> Hmph.

issue of this magazine and Asimov's monthly space has to do with thread
contents. (I'm sure you'll let me know if you felt this was part of any
discussion, above, but please be a tad more specific this time. TIA.) Best
regards, Brett.

Brett Aubrey
June 28th 03, 07:53 AM
"Odysseus" > wrote:
> Brett Aubrey wrote:
> > P.S. "G=" seems to have developed a trend for this line of argument,
though
> > t'is the first time I've thread-shared with him, methinks, and based on
> > writing styles, arguments, etc., I've started to wonder whether he and
> > "Painus" are related (same person? - I think it'd be difficult to find 2
of
> > 'em like this)). On the positive side of this, they're doing well from
> > Dyson's perspective... "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" --
> > Freeman Dyson
> Half a mo', here: no matter how opaque to argument Painius has been
> on this topic, he writes in coherent and grammatical prose that
> usually shows evidence of his having takes a minute or two to marshal
> his thoughts before posting, and the focus of his replies is
> generally responsive to others' remarks. Unfortunately I don't think
> the same can be said of most of Herb's contributions ...
> --Odysseus

Well, I could be wrong, but the way I remember it, Painus did not in any way
respond to most of the points I raised, including:
- Where is their "base" for the Maunas?
- his argument measures a single slope.
- the Pacific around Hawaii is NOT a tabletop.
- using the Indian Basin for Everest is analogous to an unknown deep point
for ML.
- the area connected to his summit includes ~85% or more of the planet.
- the Everest base changed at leasting in their argument... Why?
- the Andes are analogous to his argument, and "taller" than Hawaii.
- he misinterpreted Asimov at any rate.

Them's a summary of my reasons... Comments? Best regards, Brett.,

Greg Neill
June 28th 03, 02:28 PM
"Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message
a...
> "Greg Neill" > wrote...

> > Again, you are trying to intermix different arguments, and persist
> > in denigrating Asimov for absurd reasons. What's your problem?
>
> Non-sequitor. I cannot persist in doing something I was not doing in the
> first place. What's your problem? I'm not yet aware of what you consider
> to be denigration, much less the (absurd) reasons. Please tell me.

Allow me to refresh your apparently failing memory with a

'Geez, LOOK at the title, will ya?... "The Magazine of * Fantasy
and Science Fiction *". You've been had, "Painus", or maybe Asimov
was the parochial source I thought might well be behind this - What
d'ja think?. I wonder if he did any work for Hawaii Tourism, or
whatever. (Could be, come to think of it.)'

and

'"Writer's Heaven?" LOL. As implied, a fiction writer from a fiction
magazine just doesn't quite make it in the real world, but at least
I have a better understanding of your ideas, such as they are.'

> My
> questions were to Painus as he seems fixated on Asimov's comments as opposed
> to say, the Guiness World Records, obvious flawes in his arguments, etc.,
> though now that it seems he even misunderstood/misquoted Asimov, it's more
>
> > Why can't you just put aside your duel with Painius for just a moment
> > and deal with the minor point at hand? I called you on a point of
> > order, namely dismissing a well known science writer because of the
> > venue that an article of his may have appeared in, and because he's
> > written for more than one genre. That's it. That's the point.
>
> That may be your point, but your interpretation is wide of the mark.

How so?

> I'm
> not going to bother responding to what appears to be your incorrect
> assumption (I say X, you say you heard Y... that's your issue, not mine).

You should at least clear up the matter of what you intended
as the thrust of your quoted remarks above. If it was not an
attempt to discredit a source (Asimov) by implying incompetence,
then what was it?

>
> > Nothing to do with mountain heights, extents of planes, or
> > depths of lowlands, continental shelves, or ocean trenches.
> > Now it seems that you don't like...
>
> Part and parcel. It seems? Gee, wrong again. As I said, you assume too

What does this mean? You've cut my paragraph in two, then
commented on the last half taken out of context. Play nice.

>
> > Perhaps astronomers are in no position to write on the topic of
> > astronomy because they don't live in space?
>
> Do you think? Seems a tad off to me...

Indeed. So why do you insist that a NYC based scholar can't

> > Still going back to the mountains, eh? Still insisting that
> > someone living in NYC is incapable of knowing anything
> > beyond his doorstep. Do you really think that qualifications
> > are tied to location?
>
> As stated, part and parcel of my point, and your point is based on an
> answering questions, huh? I'll try once again:
> So tell me, Greg, d'ya figure that all *fiction* writers who've lived in
> Hawaii for any place longer than one other qualifies that person to make
> this assessment of an "Hawiian" world's tallest mountain, especially when
> the arguments (attributed to him) are clearly flawed? An answer would be
> appreciated.

I'll answer when you can produce a question that can be parsed as
an english sentence.

> > You conflate venue with credentials, and in more than one
> > sense: A science writer whose science essay appears in a
> > non-science magazine, and a science writer who happened
> > to not travel extensively; You seem to somehow feel that
> > these characteristics exclude competence, and merely scoff
> > without explanation. I have a feeling it is because you're
> > trying to take the easy way out of dealing with the
> > information presented -- by simply declaring it specious.
>
> Sigh. These were questions to Painus to determine why he felt Asimov was
> particularly suitable for this topic, as I certainly did not know Asimov to
> have any special credentials for the topic at hand. No scoff. And I'm
> *very comfortable* with the way I dealt with the "information presented",
> thanks very much. I note you've had no comments on the way I did so - does
> this mean you agree with me? TIA.

I beg to differ. Your inuendoes concerning Asimov's credentials
you wrote the comments, so you shouldn't have to.

By the way, what special credentials must one have in order
to write on the topic of mountain heights? Apparently, according
to you, a minimum set consists of:

1. Not living in NYC
2. Travelling regularly
3. Never having written science fiction

>
> > > > I have also read the odd issue of the Magazine of Fantasy and
> > > > Science Fiction, and I applaud it for its editorial policies;
> > > > Asimov was given a monthly space in the magazine which he could
> > > > do with whatever he wanted. He chose to do essays of all sorts
> > > > on a wide range of topics, from number theory to social
> > > > commentary. These essays were then collected and published
> > > > under separate covers according to topic. I think it did
> > > > the sci-fi aficionados good to get a monthly dose of proper
> > > > scientific thought.
> > > Good for you. Can I assume this is OT? (I'm sure you'll let me know
> > > if you felt this was part of any discussion, above.) Best. - Brett.
> > Hey, I called you on your sleazy debating tactic and you
> > decided to pursue it. Now you're blowing the OT whistle?
> > Hmph.
>
> issue of this magazine and Asimov's monthly space has to do with thread
> contents. (I'm sure you'll let me know if you felt this was part of any
> discussion, above, but please be a tad more specific this time. TIA.) Best
> regards, Brett.

Simple. You took a poster to task for his source of information
which happened to be the magazine and author in question, rather than
sticking to debating the facts. I merely presented my first-hand
experience with said author and magazine. This seems a fair usage
of the thread, as it was you who called first into question their
pedegree while attempting to score points off another poster.

Odysseus
June 28th 03, 08:24 PM
Brett Aubrey wrote:
>
> Well, I could be wrong, but the way I remember it, Painus did not in any way
> respond to most of the points I raised, including:
> - Where is their "base" for the Maunas?
> - his argument measures a single slope.
> - the Pacific around Hawaii is NOT a tabletop.
> - using the Indian Basin for Everest is analogous to an unknown deep point
> for ML.
> - the area connected to his summit includes ~85% or more of the planet.
> - the Everest base changed at leasting in their argument... Why?
> - the Andes are analogous to his argument, and "taller" than Hawaii.
> - he misinterpreted Asimov at any rate.
>
> Them's a summary of my reasons... Comments? Best regards, Brett.,

That's a good summary of the weaknesses in his claim that he's mostly
failed to address, but I don't see any support there for the notion
that his and Herb's postings are similar enough to make one infer
that they're the same person. As I'm sure you can tell from my last
few postings, I don't consider Painius's responses adequate either --
but at least he hasn't attempted to divert the discussion with "iffy"
irrelevancies or personal attacks.

--Odysseus

G=EMC^2 Glazier
June 28th 03, 09:28 PM
Hi Odysseus Mountains come up from the earth's crust. That is what
Asminov was talking about,and I used it when I started this post "Shape
of the Earth." Painius found the book that Asminov wrote(I could not
think of its title.) Asminov used the earth's crust as a
reference,(just another way of seeing things) and you are using from
earth's water level and up. Painius and I took away the water,as Asminov
did. Like I posted going with the earth bulge and using the earth center
as a measuring reference any mountain range along the equator would be
the furthest. On Mars,Mercury,moon,and Pluto
you could not use water level as a reference frame for their mountains.
You would have to find a reference frame that fits. I'll just throw
this in read Michners book "Hawaii" Just the first 30 pages,and you will
remember it for the rest of your life. Bert PS Asminov moved to
NY,but live in Newton Ma, at the same time I did.

Painius
June 29th 03, 03:52 AM
"BenignVanilla" wrote in message...
...
>
> "Painius" > wrote in message...
> ...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Just for you, Brett, and for Odysseus, David and BV and all
> > others who are unable to accept this fact based upon my
> > unsatisfying views and descriptions of the matter, i have dug
> > and dug and i have found the article by Isaac Asimov in which
> > he makes the same case. And just for you i shall transfer
> > excerpts from the article to this post.
> >
> > <snip>
>
> Great post. Interesting argument. Good research. The point still stands
> however, that this thread is moot, because all the measurements, including
> Axiom's do not use a common reference point for measurement. I still
>
> BV.

Thanks, BV! and i decided to change the thread title because...
1) i'd rather not post to the old thread again, and
2) there appears to have been some thread drift, so a new topic
name is appropriate.

Since i hold the widely held belief that general UseNet topics are
always "on-topic" in all UseNet newsgroups, allow me to make
two small points...

"Godwin's Law?" It means that a thread is dead as a result
of the mention of certain "bad guys" from WWII. You may
still be correct, however it's hard to be certain until someone
(without malice aforethought) invokes Godwin's law...

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

B) Odysseus, i can understand why Brett might see a connection
with Bert and myself. Having two identities is probably more
common than some may think. And Bert and i do have some
things in common, such as we both live in Central Fla., and
we both keep octopi as pets! (Just kidding... i wouldn't
*have* an octopus as a pet... no effin' way.)

And just going by stark differences is tricky, this due to the
fact that if one wants to go by two different names, one
would do everything possible to make them stand out as
being as different as they can be, ain't it so?

painfully obvious that Brett is still just trying to get my goat.
While i am sometimes known by other handles in other
newsgroups, here in alt.astronomy and sci.astro i am known
only as Paine and Painius. I do not go by any other name.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Asimov! where have you gone?
Your written word goes on and on,
All becomes so clear to see
In Asimov's Astronomy!

Paine Ellsworth

Brett Aubrey
June 29th 03, 01:14 PM
"Painius" > wrote...
> "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > "Painius" > wrote...
> > >
> > > It's painfully obvious that Brett is still just trying to get my goat.
> >
> > You have a goat? Best regards, Brett.
>
> Yes, Brett, i still have a goat. You still wanna get it?

Never have, thank you very much. Best. Brett.

BenignVanilla
June 30th 03, 03:21 PM
"Painius" > wrote in message
...
> "Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message...
> a...
> >
> > "Painius" > wrotet...
> > >
> > > It's painfully obvious that Brett is still just trying to get my goat.
> >
> > You have a goat? Best regards, Brett.
>
> Yes, Brett, i still have a goat. You still wanna get it?

Yeah...but how tall is it? :)

BV.

Painius
June 30th 03, 04:07 PM
"Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message...
a...
>
> "Painius" > wrote...
>
> > "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> >
> > > "Painius" > wrote...
> > > >
> > > > It's painfully obvious that Brett is still just trying to get my goat.
> > >
> > > You have a goat? Best regards, Brett.
> >
> > Yes, Brett, i still have a goat. You still wanna get it?
>
> Never have, thank you very much. Best. Brett.

Okay then, i shall go on the assumption that you are instead a
very curious person, someone who is much too overly inquisitive
(as i said before... you remind me of me).

Let's find that nit bush of yours and see if we can improve the
taste of those you picked. While we're looking, allow me to give
a little attention to Odysseus' concerns. And David, i have not
idea as soon as possible.

he was being very general in regard to the height of the mountains
from "base" to peak. I think this is why he used the lowest altitude
of the Tibetan plateau, 12,000 feet above sea level, as the base
altitude of Mount Everest. We only need remember that from his
viewpoint this was a "fun" exercise in "qualifying matters."

Same goes for Mauna Loa... it's harder to picture because there's
all that ocean water in the way, but in a very *general* manner
using an *average* flatness of the sea floor, Asimov went about
trying to help us imagine what the Hawaiian volcano would look
like if the ocean water were removed. Frankly, when i first read
the essay, i didn't imagine it correctly. In my mind i saw Mauna
Loa with steeper slopes similar to Everest. It wasn't until later
when i began to study Olympus Mons that i took a closer look at
Mauna Loa (forgive me... the "series of peaks on a single enormous
ridge or _sierra_") and noted the similar very gentle slope from the
sea floor to the ocean's surface.

And yes, you are correct about my mis-remembering the part where
Asimov spoke of the whole of Hawaii (not just Mauna Loa or
Mauna Kea) as being taller than all other mountains of Earth. I'm
going to take the liberty of capitalizing a word or two in his final
paragraph...
------------------------------------------
If the oceans were removed from Earth's surface (only temporarily,
please), then NO single mountain on Earth could possibly compare with
the breathtaking towering majesty of Hawaii. It would be by far the
*T*A*L*L*E*S*T* mountain on Earth, counting from base to peak.
Its height on that basis would be 32,036 feet (6.08 miles or 9,767
meters). It is the ONLY mountain on Earth that extends more than six
miles from base to tip.
------------------------------------------
island of Hawaii as a base for the four peaks. When we realize that
the whole island rests upon a mound that is roughly the same shape as
Olympus Mons (but quite a bit smaller), then it may be easier to see
what Asimov was attempting to describe.

And now Brett...

> Well, I could be wrong, but the way I remember it, Painus did not in any way
> respond to most of the points I raised, including:
> - Where is their "base" for the Maunas?

As has been implied once by Bert, mentioned more than once by
myself, and supported by Asimov, the base for the Maunas is the sea
floor. Now before everybody gets antsy again about the sea floor not
being perfectly flat and the inability to say just where sea floor ends and
Maunas begin, and so forth, please try to see this in a very general way
just as Asimov intended. Visualize an *average* "sea floor" depth
surrounding the Hawaiian volcano. No need to worry about a dip here
and there. Asimov is saying that since the Maunas rise about 14,000
feet above sea level, and since the depth of the sea floor around the
volcano averages roughly (yes, very roughly) 18,000 feet, then the
height of Hawaii from its sea-floor-base to its peaks above water is

> - his argument measures a single slope.

Unsure what you mean by this... the measurement is as if you could
drop a line from a peak vertically down through a mountain to its
base. Vertical.

> - the Pacific around Hawaii is NOT a tabletop.

Please see above... the sea floor measurement is a rough
*average* or mean floor level--*AS IF* it were flat like a
tabletop.

> - using the Indian Basin for Everest is analogous to an unknown deep point
> for ML.

And yet the Indian Ocean sea floor is not the base of Mount
Everest as depicted by Asimov. The analogous bases were given
as the average sea floor level around the Hawaiian volcano (which
happens to be *about* 18,000 feet below sea level) and the
minimum height above sea level of the Tibetan plateau (about
12,000 feet above sea level).

> - the area connected to his summit includes ~85% or more of the planet.

This one goes completely over my head <whoosh> !

> - the Everest base changed at leasting in their argument... Why?

Because i couldn't find the essay with Asimov's figures, so i included
both the base level on the plateau and the higher level of the glacier.
This *was* admittedly confusing. I didn't mean to cloud things up
with this.

> - the Andes are analogous to his argument, and "taller" than Hawaii.

I don't have figures, but i find it difficult to accept that Asimov would
have made this kind of a mistake. Would you please repeat the
figures?

> - he misinterpreted Asimov at any rate.

You've said this before, and without explanation. In what way did
i misinterpret Asimov? I agreed with Bert that Everest was not the
tallest mountain in the world. I argued without the benefit of Asimov
that the Hawaiian volcano was the tallest mountain in the world, and
i truly botched the job. Then i offered excerpts from an Asimov
essay that support the fact that the Hawaiian volcano is the tallest
mountain in the world (when measured from base to peak). Are you
referring to my usage of the Maunas rather than including the whole
of Hawaii? If so, then it's due to poor memory on my part rather
than misinterpretation.

Finally, please just keep in mind that this whole thing was meant to
be an interesting exercise of the imagination. Try to have a little fun
with it. Both mountains have majesty. Everest's majestic rise to the
highest point on Earth above sea level has never been in dispute.

But the Himalayan Mountains are easy to see. Even the glacier does
not detract from their awesome majesty. As for the Hawaiian volcano,
it's not easy to mentally remove the water and then to get a realistic
picture in your mind of the majesty of a gentle sloping goliath of a
mountain, a mountain that from base to peak rises more than six miles!

makes me wonder if Asimov was deluged with mail giving similar
arguments in regard to his essay, "Up and Down the Earth." If so,
we can be certain that he handled it a damn sight better than i have.

I'd apologize, but wtf? this is *only* UseNet <g>

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
A smidgeon of fear and a sprinkle of strife
And a whole lotta love till your cold...
Most everyone here wants to live a long life,
Ah! but nobody wants to get old.

Paine Ellsworth

Brett Aubrey
June 30th 03, 08:35 PM
"Painius" > wrote...
> "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > "Painius" > wrote...
> > > "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > > > "Painius" > wrote...
> > > > > It's painfully obvious that Brett is still just trying to get my
goat.
> > > > You have a goat? Best regards, Brett.
> > > Yes, Brett, i still have a goat. You still wanna get it?
> > Never have, thank you very much. Best. Brett.
> Okay then, i shall go on the assumption that you are instead
> a very curious person, someone who is much too overly
> inquisitive (as i said before... you remind me of me).

Inquisitive, yes... "too overly", I think not.

> Let's find that nit bush of yours and see if we can improve the
> taste of those you picked. While we're looking, allow me
> to give a little attention to Odysseus' concerns. And David,
> i have not forgotten you. I shall address your most recent
> "island as base" idea as soon as possible. < snip >

> I think this is why he used the lowest altitude of the Tibetan
> altitude of plateau, 12,000 feet above sea level, as the base
> Mount Everest. We only need remember that from his
> viewpoint this was a "fun" exercise in "qualifying matters."

Now "fun" is different...

> Same goes for Mauna Loa... it's harder to picture because
> there'sall that ocean water in the way, but in a very *general*
> manner using an *average* flatness of the sea floor,

The average depth of the sea floor, IIRC, is some 12,000 feet, as I stated
in an earlier post.

> to help us imagine what the Hawaiian volcano
> would look like if the ocean water were removed.

Ahh, but this is also a main point, IMO. If it's from ~16,000 feet down,
I'm assuming that there's likely only one single slope involved here,
whereas from another single slope (say he Loa/Kea col, it'ss some 4,000 to
6,000 feet (again, a guess).

> the essay, i didn't imagine it correctly. In my mind i saw Mauna
> Loa with steeper slopes similar to Everest. It wasn't until later
> when i began to study Olympus Mons that i took a closer look at
> Mauna Loa (forgive me... the "series of peaks on a single enormous
> ridge or _sierra_") and noted the similar very gentle slope from the
> sea floor to the ocean's surface.
>
> And yes, you are correct about my mis-remembering the part where
> Asimov spoke of the whole of Hawaii (not just Mauna Loa or
> Mauna Kea) as being taller than all other mountains of Earth. I'm
> going to take the liberty of capitalizing a word or two in his final
> paragraph...
> ------------------------------------------
> If the oceans were removed from Earth's surface (only temporarily,
> please), then NO single mountain on Earth could possibly compare with
> the breathtaking towering majesty of Hawaii. It would be by far the
> *T*A*L*L*E*S*T* mountain on Earth, counting from base to peak.
> Its height on that basis would be 32,036 feet (6.08 miles or 9,767
> meters). It is the ONLY mountain on Earth that extends more than six
> miles from base to tip.
> ------------------------------------------
> island of Hawaii as a base for the four peaks. When we realize that
> the whole island rests upon a mound that is roughly the same shape as
> Olympus Mons (but quite a bit smaller), then it may be easier to see
> what Asimov was attempting to describe.
>
> And now Brett...
>
> > Well, I could be wrong, but the way I remember it, Painus did not in any
way
> > respond to most of the points I raised, including:
> > - Where is their "base" for the Maunas?
> As has been implied once by Bert, mentioned more than once by
> myself, and supported by Asimov, the base for the Maunas is the sea
> floor. Now before everybody gets antsy again about the sea floor not
> being perfectly flat and the inability to say just where sea floor ends
and
> Maunas begin, and so forth, please try to see this in a very general way
> just as Asimov intended. Visualize an *average* "sea floor" depth
> surrounding the Hawaiian volcano. No need to worry about a dip
> here and there.

"A dip here or there"? Well the basins, seamounts, ridges and Islands are
hardly trivial, as you well know... On one hand, you trivialize the
topography like this, while OTOH you claim the world's tallest mountain.
Well, OK, but this is even *more* arbitray, it seems to me. Are you
including the rest of the Hawaiin chain in this average? Or the Swordfish
and Pensacola Seamounts? (i.e. if you don't worry about a dip here or
there, why worry about a bump here and there, either... such as the rest of
the chain...) As stated earlier, any claim can be made using the most
arbitrary positions. And using the same argument (an *average* "sea floor"
depth), the Andes still best Hawaii for my equally arbitrary position.

> Asimov is saying that since the Maunas rise about 14,000
> feet above sea level, and since the depth of the sea floor around the
> volcano averages roughly (yes, very roughly) 18,000 feet, then the
> height of Hawaii from its sea-floor-base to its peaks above water is

Again, we keep getting different depths. If Asimov is using 14,000, why are
you using 18,000 feet? And were these depths calculated using anything
other than arbitrary figures? Or do we know? Can we say that your argument
is not the same as Asimov's?

> > - his argument measures a single slope.
> Unsure what you mean by this... the measurement is as if you could
> drop a line from a peak vertically down through a mountain to its
> base. Vertical.

Explained many times before, but I've stated that I had to assume this
"base" was an arbitrary deep point in the Hawaiin Through, the Marianna
Trench or elsewhere (since you were not providing a location for your depth
and my uderstanding is that ocean floors average some 12,000 feet). I'm not
sure whether you simply failed to use the term *average* or I failed to see
it, but I know in at least some (most?) cases, you simply stated things like
"the sea floor" (unqualified by "average").

> > - the Pacific around Hawaii is NOT a tabletop.
> Please see above... the sea floor measurement is
> a rough *average* or mean floor level--*AS IF* it
> were flat like a tabletop.

Again, even with this, how is the avarage being calculated? My
understanding is that the sea floor averages 12,000 feet, and I've never
seen how a calculation is done "around Hawaii" (arbitrary by definition).

> > - using the Indian Basin for Everest is analogous to an
> > unknown deep point for ML.
> And yet the Indian Ocean sea floor is not the base of
> Mount Everest as depicted by Asimov.

Ahhhh. So this "depiction" transforms into fairly definition statements not
mentioning depiction, *in your opinion*, such as:
- Mauna Loa ... is still quite a bit *taller* than Mt. Everest.
- Loa is indeed taller than Everest
- Loa beats Everest hands down
- Loa and Kea would dwarf Everest... each of them being nearly twice as
"tall" as the mountain
- the difference is so great that it doesn't matter how you reference it,
Mauna Loa is much taller than Mt. Everest
- the difference in "tallness" between Loa and Everest is great enough to
preclude the need for precise agreement
- And Loa is so much taller than Everest that it doesn't matter what
reference you use

Well now, this is what I had thought all along. You will obviously disagree
based on past arguments, but "depiction", hardly tranforms to any of the
above statement - *especially* the final three. Thank you for that
clarification. To me, FWIW, you have grossly mis-used the language to come
up with your above statments, again, *especially* the final three - when
your whole thrust is based on one person's "depiction" and your prevoiously
stated "fun".

> The analogous bases were given as the average
> sea floor level around the Hawaiian volcano (which
> happens to be *about* 18,000 feet below sea level)
> and the minimum height above sea level of the Tibetan
> plateau (about12,000 feet above sea level).

Well, that's one of the problems... some people used the Ganges plain, some
the sea level, and only lately the Tibetan plateau. And if you've been
using Asimov's numbers as they apply to the Tibetan plateau while stating
the Ganges plain, that's another issue, for the Ganges Plain is about 200
feet above sea level by my reading. ("Almost twice as high", you say? not
likely, maybe a few hundred arbitrary feet from the Ganges). Again, these
points go to the arbitrary nature of the whole claim.

> > - the area connected to his summit includes ~85% or more of the planet.
> This one goes completely over my head <whoosh> !

Gee, it shouldn't... it's pretty simple, really, but given your difficulty,
let me try a few analogies combining your position on mountain heights and
mine... First, *your* suggestion was:
* "So... if you then take a giant buzz saw and remove Everest
* from the plateau on which it sits, then enlist the aid of our
* hero, Superman, to fly the mountain over to the dry Pacific
* basin, and gently place it down on the sea floor near the volcanos"

ANALOGY 1: So, given that you can picture your own analogy, first do the
"Everest removal" by buzz-saw as you suggested, but place your version of
Everest next to the volcanoes at sea level (let Superman hold it there for a
bit). This lets you look at your version of Everest, next to the island of
Hawaii.
ANALOGY 2: Now do the same in reverse... Take our version of Hawaii and
buxx-saw it off at sea level and hold it next to Everest at whatever you've
decided to use as base. Visualizing either of these should give you an
equivalent measurement of heights, though not one that helps this thread,
yet.
ANALOGY 3: Now, take your "buzz-saw" and remove all land above sea level -
this should be easy to visualize, as it will give a standard view of land
mases throughout the world. Here, if you measure the summits by placing one
land mass against another, you arrive at the standard view of mountain
heights proposed most anywhere, and Everst will stand some 29,035 feet and
the Maunas will be at ~13,000+ feet. This is, of course, the position taken
by me and I think, others, for a fair and standard comparison.

Now note, that in all three of these (above) - given your theoretically
capable buzz-saw and Superman - all are at least possible. that is, these
mountains can be picked up as discrete units and moved to another location
for comparison. But where your analogy falls flat, is that if you try to to
;
YOUR POSITION (My argument): Take the same buzz-saw and start cutting
through your ML "base" at ~17,000 feet. You'll cut under the whole Hawaiian
Chain as one big unit without ever being able to take the Maunas as a
separate and discrete unit to move to Everest to compare, for a start. But
then as you continue cutting in an attempt to pick up a "mountain" for
removal, you'll find yourself, by necessity, cutting off entire and
connected adjacent sea mounts, the Nekker Ridge, Christams Ridge, Pacific
"lands", Oz and NZ and Indonesia and adjacent "lands", the Caroline Island
Rise... all the way to Asia. It's all connected rolling hills, plains and
mountains without the water. And once you get to Asia, anytime you try (as
in your scenario) to move one mountain to another for comparisn, you can't -
move one and you get the rest. You get, as stated before, a unknown but
high percentage of the world, with only the deepest trenches and basins
being missed.

But another way, it's equivalent to simply lowering the sea level by some
~17,000 feet. Now I understand your position is to take differing bases,
but my position (and Odysseus' and B.V.'s, I believe), is that that is
neither fair nor equitable. An using your position, while you "can" remove
Everest and place it beside the volcanos, you can *not* do the reverse (take
the volcanos and place them by Everest) and Everest is now a part of the
same "land" on which stands your volcanos. Surely, this indicates a flaw in
your "buzz-saw and superman" argument that you can see.

> > - the Everest base changed at leasting in their argument... Why?
> Because i couldn't find the essay with Asimov's figures, so i included
> both the base level on the plateau and the higher level of the glacier.
> This *was* admittedly confusing. I didn't mean to cloud things up
> with this.

Well, that expains it for you, but when one is trying to claim the "world's"
tallest, highest, etc., etc., I'd think that there must be at least some
consensus, or it's meaningless. So far, I've seen about 8 figures ranging
from ~13,000 feet to an astounding 56,000+ (not including my somewhat
tongue-in-cheek suggestion of ~4,000-6,000 feet to the Loa/Kea col. In my
view, these differnces largely invalidates the claim in the first place, but
- the difference is so great that it doesn't matter how you reference it,
Mauna Loa is much taller than Mt. Everest
- the difference in "tallness" between Loa and Everest is great enough to
preclude the need for precise agreement
- And Loa is so much taller than Everest that it doesn't matter what
reference you use

fairly ridiculous. Of course some reference is needed to claim a world
record.

> > - the Andes are analogous to his argument, and "taller" than Hawaii.
> I don't have figures, but i find it difficult to accept that Asimov would
> have made this kind of a mistake. Would you please repeat the
> figures?

I will if you wish, but your recent dismissals that:
- his viewpoint was a "fun" exercise as depicted by him

seems to avoid any need to do so. To me, a fun depiction does not
constitute a world record. As a fun depiction, I can easily use the Andes
as besting Everest AND the Maunas and still provide hard, non arbitrary
figures. And as a fun depiction, I can easily use Guam, the Carolines and
innumerable others as well. And even Lord Howe Island with yet other
criteria, and without the need to go below sea-level. As stated, neither
arbitrary figures nor fun depiction constitutes world records, except in
those contexts, and you frequently failed to mention these contexts. You
even obscurred them, IMO, by stating things like "it doesn't matter how you
reference it", "the difference between Loa and Everest is great enough to
*preclude the need for precise agreement*" and "it doesn't matter what
reference you use".

> > - he misinterpreted Asimov at any rate.
> You've said this before, and without explanation.

Some reminders of what I "said" before:
-"ARRRRGGGGHH! Painus... Herb... Tell us it ain't so! Tell us you haven't
been arguing this obviously strange and flawed myth of yours largely based
on Asimov's fiction when Asimov himself never even suggested this! (Not
that Asomov is an expert, but really, Painus and Herb... did you add 1+1
and
come up with 3?) No! It can't be! Geez, this means Uncle Al was right!
- It seems Asimov never claimed what "Painus" and the "G=" guy
stated wasclaimed.
- that it seems he even misunderstood/misquoted Asimov

> In what way did i misinterpret Asimov?
I'm surprized this is coming up now, as this initially came up on June 25 or
earlier. So when you failed to asnswer my requests "Tell us it ain't so!"
or comment on my assumptions above "... it seems... ", "it seemed" that you
agreed with this point. Anyway, the initail point was made that: "But you
seem not to have noticed that the quotation in no way supports your claim
that *Mauna Loa* (or Kea) is the "tallest mountain"; in fact Asimov is
saying that "four-peaked" *Hawai'i* is..." This is the source of my
comment, and no explanation was asked. Plus I realise that you had seen
these posts and had responded to Odysseus .

> I agreed with Bert that Everest was not the tallest mountain
> in the world. I argued without the benefit of Asimov that
> the Hawaiian volcano was the tallest mountain in the world, and
> i truly botched the job. Then i offered excerpts from an Asimov
> essay that support the fact that the Hawaiian volcano is the tallest
> mountain in the world (when measured from base to peak).
> Are you referring to my usage of the Maunas rather than
> including the whole of Hawaii? If so, then it's due to poor
> memory on my part rather than misinterpretation.

Ah. Fair enough. Wished you'd challenged me far earlier on this, as I
would not have removed the "it seems". I'll retract "mis-interpret" and we
can agree on memory issues.

> Finally, please just keep in mind that this whole thing was meant to
> be an interesting exercise of the imagination. Try to have a little fun
> with it. Both mountains have majesty. Everest's majestic rise to the
> highest point on Earth above sea level has never been in dispute.

Hey, I've been having fun AND learning. Why do assume not?

> But the Himalayan Mountains are easy to see. Even the glacier
> does not detract from their awesome majesty.

Geez, I sure hope not. From my view, glacial ice and snow does nothing but
enhance a mountain's majesty. Many a relative short, steep sided, snow and
ice cloaked European Canadian and American peak far surpass, say
Kilimanjaro's majesty, at least in my opinion, even with it rising from a
flat plain and even with it's sun-cupped summit ice. (Why your "even" and
"detract"?)

> As for the Hawaiian volcano, it's not easy to mentally
> picture in your remove the water and then to get a realistic
> mountain, mind of the majesty of a gentle sloping goliath of a
> a mountain that from base to peak rises more than six miles!
> makes me wonder if Asimov was deluged with mail giving similar
> arguments in regard to his essay, "Up and Down the Earth." If so,
> we can be certain that he handled it a damn sight better than i have.

I doubt he did, for his statements did not go even close to the lengths of
yours (no reference needed? - Ha!). Thanks for taking the time out to

> I'd apologize, but wtf? this is *only* UseNet <g>

Ta. Regards, Brett.

Greg Neill
July 1st 03, 04:15 AM
"Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message
a...
> "Greg Neill" > wrote...

>
> I disagree with both your point of view as well as what is clear to you.
> Further, no denigration of any author (Mr. Asimov, in my case) was meant in
> any way, shape or form.

I find it revealing of your character, sir, that every
time you make this plea you fail to recognize your own
me to refresh your memory yet again. You said:

'Geez, LOOK at the title, will ya?... "The Magazine of * Fantasy
and Science Fiction *". You've been had, "Painus", or maybe Asimov
was the parochial source I thought might well be behind this - What
d'ja think?. I wonder if he did any work for Hawaii Tourism, or
whatever. (Could be, come to think of it.)'

and

'"Writer's Heaven?" LOL. As implied, a fiction writer from a fiction
magazine just doesn't quite make it in the real world, but at least
I have a better understanding of your ideas, such as they are.'

> > > > I beg to differ. Your inuendoes concerning Asimov's credentials
> > > > were not questions but statements. Read the thread. Oh, wait,
> > > > you wrote the comments, so you shouldn't have to.
> > > > By the way, what special credentials must one have in order
> > > > to write on the topic of mountain heights? Apparently,
> > > > according to you, a minimum set consists of:
> > > > 1. Not living in NYC
> > > > 2. Travelling regularly
> > > > 3. Never having written science fiction
> > >
> > > So sad you do (really). No. You apparent too much... The point here
> is
> > > that the opposite of those characteristics do not do anything particular
> to
> > > qualify someone. And as I implied, being a reputable surveyor and
> > > geologist - maybe I wasn't specific enough, but I was thinking of
> someone
> > > doing the Everest's kind of work - would. See Guam example, above; get
> back
> > > to me if it fails to satisfy.
> > Again, I find your grammar rather hard to parse. Can you clarify your
> > point above? For example, I cannot tell if you are saying that you
> > are claiming to be a reputable surveyor and geoligist, or whether
> > this is a characteristic that someone else should have in order to
> > be qualified to contribute to the thread. And how do I "apparent too
> > much"?
>
> You statement, once again is wide of the mark. The point here, once again,
> is that the opposite of those characteristics (your 1, 2, and 3, above) do
> not do anything particular to qualify someone with respect to the content of

I never said they did. However, it seemed apparent from your own
statements that you felt that those characteristics that I did
list (not there negations) would exclude someone from the ranks
of eligible candidates.

But again, you have failed utterly to fix your grammar in the
question that you wished me to answer. This is, what, the
third time now that I have asked? I cannot properly respond
to what I cannot interpret. Please try.

>
> > [snip]
> > > > Simple. You took a poster to task for his source of information
> > > > which happened to be the magazine and author in question, rather
> > > > than sticking to debating the facts. I merely presented my first-hand
> > > > experience with said author and magazine. This seems a fair usage
> > > > of the thread, as it was you who called first into question their
> > > > pedegree while attempting to score points off another poster.
> > > Thanks, but wrong again. I requested information on what made this
> author's
> > > misqoted assertions hold validity, in the poster's opinion. I could not
> get
> > > at the "facts", such as the point where the lower measurement was being
> > > taken, despite ~10 requests for this data from myself and (I think, but
> am
> > > not sure), Odysseus and BV. See Guam example, above; get back to me if
> it
> > > fails to satisfy. Best regards, Brett.
> >
> > No, you clearly did not, in my opinion, request information when
> > you denigrated source and venue rather than simply evaluating the
> > content of the message; you made declarative statements calling
> > into question the author and venue. But perhaps it is a case of
> > your writing style confusing this reader again. Could it be
> > perhaps that you were simply attempting to provoke a response
> > by making a blatant attack on the source? At this point I would be
> > willing to accept this explanation.
>
> But I did request information - this is a fact. And no, it most certainly
> could not be that I was making an attack, blatant or otherwise, on either
> the author or the source. I requested information on what made this
> author's apparently misqoted assertions hold validity, in the poster's
> opinion. I could not get at the "facts", such as the point where the lower
> measurement was being taken, despite ~10 requests for this data from myself
> and (I think, but am not sure), Odysseus and BV. At this point I hope you
> will be willing to accept this explanation.
> Best regards, Brett.

Shall I quote your "information requests" again then? Okay,
here they are:

'Geez, LOOK at the title, will ya?... "The Magazine of * Fantasy
and Science Fiction *". You've been had, "Painus", or maybe Asimov
was the parochial source I thought might well be behind this - What
d'ja think?. I wonder if he did any work for Hawaii Tourism, or
whatever. (Could be, come to think of it.)'

and

'"Writer's Heaven?" LOL. As implied, a fiction writer from a fiction
magazine just doesn't quite make it in the real world, but at least
I have a better understanding of your ideas, such as they are.'

Now you will of course be happy to diagram the above paragraphs
and show to us all how they form interrogative sentences to the
effect that information in the form a confirmation of the accuracy
of the quoted material to the author's original intent was being
requested.

Cheers, have a nice day, and Clear Skies, -Greg

Brett Aubrey
July 2nd 03, 10:33 PM
"Greg Neill" > wrote...
> "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > "Greg Neill" > wrote...
> > > "Brett Aubrey" > wrote...
> > > > "Greg Neill" > wrote...
> > > > I disagree with both your point of view as well as what is clear to
you.
> > > > Further, .
> > >
> > > I find it revealing of your character, sir, that every
> > > time you make this plea you fail to recognize your own
> > > me to refresh your memory yet again. You said:
> > >
> > > 'Geez, LOOK at the title, will ya?... "The Magazine of * Fantasy
> > > and Science Fiction *". You've been had, "Painus", or maybe Asimov
> > > was the parochial source I thought might well be behind this - What
> > > d'ja think?. I wonder if he did any work for Hawaii Tourism, or
> > > whatever. (Could be, come to think of it.)'
> > > and
> > > '"Writer's Heaven?" LOL. As implied, a fiction writer from a
fiction
> > > magazine just doesn't quite make it in the real world, but at least
> > > I have a better understanding of your ideas, such as they are.'
> >
> > I'm unclear on your implication of my character... please clarify.
>
> We have, in the above material, an example of what has
> me concerned; A subtle trimming of the quoted material
> to remove (your) contentious statement, followed by an
> claim of innocent confusion as to what all the fuss is

There was no intended removal from its context (above), and the statement as
it was is accurate, to reiterate: "Further, no denigration of any author
(Mr. Asimov, in my case) was meant in any way, shape or form." There was
also no removal from the message itself, as this section of my sentence was
highlighted and dragged down to my first paragraph in an attempt to answer

> Allow me to fill in the blanks. You said:
>
> "I disagree with both your point of view as well as what is
> clear to you. Further, no denigration of any author (Mr.
> Asimov, in my case) was meant in any way, shape or form."
>
> I then provided suitable quotes from you which appear,
> at least to this reader, to show the opposite.
>
> > I believe this is the only time I have stated that "no denigration of
any
> > author (Mr. Asimov, in my case) was meant in any way, shape or form", so
I
> > am unclear what you mean by "every time".
>
> You've been dodging and dancing around this issue, even
> when I specifically spelled out that it was the point
> that was the crux of my position, and the reason for
> taking you to task. Allow me to try one more time: I
> took exception to the manner of your dismissal of the
> author, Asimov, and the venue of an article of his, in
> what appeared to be an attempt to discredit the source
> rather than the message.

There was absolutely no attempt at discrediting source in any way. I have
tried to make that clear before and I trust the preceding sentence does
this. I do not take your comments lightly and any attempt at response was
not meant as dancing around at all. I would be glad to attempt further
explanations of this, but at this point it seems to me that that might be
counter-productive.

I'll also thank you for your views. FWIW, this portion of this thread comes
at a optimum time in my life and has run concurrently with another "wake-up
call" for me and an associated major change in lifestyle - my first real
lifestyle change in well over 5 decades. I have now committed to rolling
issues around your concerns with my aforementioned life-time change.

I'll mention that as I will be unable to either read or respond much within
the next two weeks - though I *may* be able to for some of the next ~24
hours - I will attempt to contact you later in the month or in August via
your e-mail if I do not hear from you in this NewsGroup or if the thread
disappears. Also, I'll note that I have not yet responded to any comments
below due to time constraints, but again, will do so later.

Finally, I apologize to you, Greg, and to anyone else who might have taken
offence to anything in this thread, especially of course, anything related
to Mr. Asimov or The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. Best Regards,
Brett.

> > No plea was intended... it was a statement of fact.
> > My "failure" is unclear to me - in what manner would you think I have
failed
> > to "recognise my own words"?
> > I see no denigration in the speculation of the top paragraph, above, nor
do
> > I in the lower where the context was as someone particularly qualified
to
> > claim a world's tallest mountain - please clarify.
>
> If you truly cannot (or will not) see it in your own words,
> then then this debate is bound to prove fruitless and a
> waste of further time.
>
> > Finally, a fiction magazine is usually known for its fictional content,
> > which was why I suggested he look at the title. And by way of
confirmation
> > from Painus, he tells me that Asimov was viewing this as a "fun"
exercise.
>
> Fun does not always imply fictional. One can have fun with
> statistics without making up the data.
> >
> > > > > > > I beg to differ. Your inuendoes concerning Asimov's
credentials
> > > > > > > were not questions but statements. Read the thread. Oh,
wait,
> > > > > > > you wrote the comments, so you shouldn't have to.
> > > > > > > By the way, what special credentials must one have in order
> > > > > > > to write on the topic of mountain heights? Apparently,
> > > > > > > according to you, a minimum set consists of:
> > > > > > > 1. Not living in NYC
> > > > > > > 2. Travelling regularly
> > > > > > > 3. Never having written science fiction
> > > > > > So sad you do (really). No. You apparent too much... The
point
> > here
> > > > is
> > > > > > that the opposite of those characteristics do not do anything
> > particular
> > > > to
> > > > > > qualify someone. And as I implied, being a reputable surveyor
and
> > > > > > geologist - maybe I wasn't specific enough, but I was thinking
of
> > > > someone
> > > > > > doing the Everest's kind of work - would. See Guam example,
above;
> > get
> > > > back
> > > > > > to me if it fails to satisfy.> > > Again, I find your grammar
rather
> > hard to parse. Can you clarify your
> > > > > point above? For example, I cannot tell if you are saying that
you
> > > > > are claiming to be a reputable surveyor and geoligist, or whether
> > > > > this is a characteristic that someone else should have in order to
> > > > > be qualified to contribute to the thread. And how do I "apparent
too
> > > > > much"?
> > > > You statement, once again is wide of the mark. The point here, once
> > again,
> > > > is that the opposite of those characteristics (your 1, 2, and 3,
above)
> > do
> > > > not do anything particular to qualify someone with respect to the
> > content of
> > > > this thread.
> > > I never said they did. However, it seemed apparent from your own
> > > statements that you felt that those characteristics that I did
> > > list (not there negations) would exclude someone from the ranks
> > > of eligible candidates.
> >
> > The point here - i.e. my point - is that those characteristics obviously
do
> > nothing particular to qualify someone with respect to the content of
this
> > thread, and as stated, I was requesting information from the poster as
to
> > what qualifications the poster felt were germane in my stated questions.
>
> If you say so. In my reading of the paragraph in question I came
> away with a distinct impression of a dismissive, sarcastic tone
> which implied that Asimov was unqualified to present data on
> geographic features because he was not well travelled and because
> he had also written fiction. THe most striking element of the
> paragraph, in my mind, was your inclusion of the exclamation,
> "(Pffft!)" to underline the point. That, I would venture to say,
> in the eye of most critical readers, is a purely dismissive
> gesture.
>
> >
> > > But again, you have failed utterly to fix your grammar in the
> > > question that you wished me to answer. This is, what, the
> > > third time now that I have asked? I cannot properly respond
> > > to what I cannot interpret. Please try.
> >
> > After trying, I gave up. I'll live with your suggestion - perhaps it is
a
> > case of my writing style confusing the reader.
> >
>
> [snip of the same old same old]
>
>
> >
> > Ahhh. The questions to which I was referring are not the above, but the
> > ones I raised about NYC, etc., not seeming to particularly qualify one
to
> > claim a world's highest mountain, so what did? Please see above
regarding
> > these repeated paragraphs.
>
> Well, I can't imagine that there are any specific requirements
> along those lines to disqualify any individual, provided they
> get and keep the facts straight. This is one reason why I took
> exception to your dismissal of Asimov in the manner you chose.
>
> I know, I know, you will now claim that there was no dismissal.
> It is here, therefore, that I think we should part company with
> this threadlet and get on with other things. Agree to disagree,
> in other words. Does this sound reasonable to you?
>
>
>

Painius
July 5th 03, 07:10 AM
"Brett Aubrey" > wrote in message...
a...
>
> "Painius" > wrote...
> > . . .
> > Same goes for Mauna Loa... it's harder to picture because
> > there'sall that ocean water in the way, but in a very *general*
> > manner using an *average* flatness of the sea floor,
>
> The average depth of the sea floor, IIRC, is some 12,000 feet, as I stated
> in an earlier post.

Brett, please show a reference that's at least as plausible as
Asimov with his figure of 18,000 feet average depth.

> > Asimov went about trying
> > to help us imagine what the Hawaiian volcano
> > would look like if the ocean water were removed.
>
> Ahh, but this is also a main point, IMO. If it's from ~16,000 feet down,
> I'm assuming that there's likely only one single slope involved here,
> whereas from another single slope (say he Loa/Kea col, it'ss some 4,000 to
> 6,000 feet (again, a guess).

Again, it's the gentle slope and majestic rise of the entire
Hawaiian volcano from an average sea floor depth of
18,000 feet.

> > And now Brett...
> >
> > > - Where is their "base" for the Maunas?
> >
> > As has been implied once by Bert, mentioned more than once by
> > myself, and supported by Asimov, the base for the Maunas is the sea
> > floor. Now before everybody gets antsy again about the sea floor not
> > being perfectly flat and the inability to say just where sea floor ends
> > and Maunas begin, and so forth, please try to see this in a very general
> > way just as Asimov intended. Visualize an *average* "sea floor" depth
> > surrounding the Hawaiian volcano. No need to worry about a dip
> > here and there.
>
> "A dip here or there"? Well the basins, seamounts, ridges and Islands are
> hardly trivial, as you well know... On one hand, you trivialize the
> topography like this, while OTOH you claim the world's tallest mountain.

If you substitute "average" for "trivialize," then i would be more
inclined to agree with you. Asimov evidently meant for us to
picture an average sea floor depth of 18,000 feet below sea level.
The statement "No need to worry about a dip here and there," was
not meant to trivialize the topography, but only to indicate that an
average figure was being used. Such generalizations are usually
acceptable when the differences involved are much smaller than the
object of praise. "Trivialize" contains negative connotations that
were not intended.

To be specific, when one compares the dips (and bumps) that
surround the Hawaiian volcano to the greater than 6-mile height of
said volcano, using an average sea floor depth would seem to be
acceptable to most people who are just trying to picture the height
of the mountain in their minds.

The Earth is a majestic scene when pictured from the Moon. Yet
Earth's surface has many bumps and dips that are indiscernible from
the Moon with the naked eye. If we could stand on the ocean bed
several miles from Hawaii and see the volcano, Asimov is telling us
that we would be in absolute awe of its mighty and majestic 6-mile
rise into the sky.

> Well, OK, but this is even *more* arbitray, it seems to me. Are you
> including the rest of the Hawaiin chain in this average? Or the Swordfish
> and Pensacola Seamounts? (i.e. if you don't worry about a dip here or
> there, why worry about a bump here and there, either... such as the rest of
> the chain...) As stated earlier, any claim can be made using the most
> arbitrary positions. And using the same argument (an *average* "sea floor"
> depth), the Andes still best Hawaii for my equally arbitrary position.

Asimov only mentioned the volcano that is topped by Hawaii.

Not just *any* claim is being made here. The claim made by
Bert, myself and Asimov is that Everest is not the tallest mountain
on Earth when measured from a specified base level to its peak.
The tallest mountain on Earth measuring from base to peak is
mostly covered by the waters of the Pacific Ocean and is topped
by Hawaii.

As i stated earlier, i don't have figures for the Andes, nor have i
seen any figures that would challenge Asimov's claim.

> > Asimov is saying that since the Maunas rise about 14,000
> > feet above sea level, and since the depth of the sea floor around the
> > volcano averages roughly (yes, very roughly) 18,000 feet, then the
> > height of Hawaii from its sea-floor-base to its peaks above water is
>
> Again, we keep getting different depths. If Asimov is using 14,000, why are
> you using 18,000 feet? And were these depths calculated using anything
> other than arbitrary figures? Or do we know? Can we say that your argument
> is not the same as Asimov's?

I note your correction in another post. Asimov would have
researched the latest soundings (as of 1966) of sea floor depths
around the Hawaiian Islands. Then i imagine that he averaged
them to yield the 18,000 foot figure.

We might also note the greater precision indicated by Asimov.
His table gave a height above sea level for Mauna Kea as ...

13,784 feet or 2.61 miles or 4,200 meters

and from the base to peak of the volcano Asimov gives us the
figures...

32,036 feet or 6.08 miles or 9,767 meters

which leads us to his figures for the average ocean depth at the
base of the volcano to be...

18,252 feet or 3.47 miles or 5,567 meters

Such noted accuracy would seem to indicate that Asimov had
done his homework... as usual.

My previous argument was not precisely the same as Asimov's.
I botched it but good. After i've said this a few more times,
maybe you'll quit rubbing it in? <g>

Sincerely, though, i don't believe that my argument differed all
that significantly from Asimov's in any way.

> > > - his argument measures a single slope.
> >
> > Unsure what you mean by this... the measurement is as if you could
> > drop a line from a peak vertically down through a mountain to its
> > base. Vertical.
>
> Explained many times before, but I've stated that I had to assume this
> "base" was an arbitrary deep point in the Hawaiin Through, the Marianna
> Trench or elsewhere (since you were not providing a location for your depth
> and my uderstanding is that ocean floors average some 12,000 feet). I'm not
> sure whether you simply failed to use the term *average* or I failed to see
> it, but I know in at least some (most?) cases, you simply stated things like
> "the sea floor" (unqualified by "average").

I truly didn't think that anyone would need it to be qualified.
Not too many people, when they think about it, would see any
ocean floor as perfectly flat, would they? Why would you think
that this is what i meant?

> > > - the Pacific around Hawaii is NOT a tabletop.
> >
> > Please see above... the sea floor measurement is
> > a rough *average* or mean floor level--*AS IF* it
> > were flat like a tabletop.
>
> Again, even with this, how is the avarage being calculated? My
> understanding is that the sea floor averages 12,000 feet, and I've never
> seen how a calculation is done "around Hawaii" (arbitrary by definition).

Again, i would like to see your source for this figure. My
source is Isaac Asimov, who was one of the most meticulous
and thorough researchers i've ever read.

> > > - using the Indian Basin for Everest is analogous to an
> > > unknown deep point for ML.
> >
> > And yet the Indian Ocean sea floor is not the base of
> > Mount Everest as depicted by Asimov.
>
> Ahhhh. So this "depiction" transforms into fairly definition statements not
> mentioning depiction, *in your opinion*, such as:
> - Mauna Loa ... is still quite a bit *taller* than Mt. Everest.
> - Loa is indeed taller than Everest
> - Loa beats Everest hands down
> - Loa and Kea would dwarf Everest... each of them being nearly twice as
> "tall" as the mountain
> - the difference is so great that it doesn't matter how you reference it,
> Mauna Loa is much taller than Mt. Everest
> - the difference in "tallness" between Loa and Everest is great enough to
> preclude the need for precise agreement
> - And Loa is so much taller than Everest that it doesn't matter what
> reference you use

Yes, now you seem to be getting it, Brett.

> Well now, this is what I had thought all along. You will obviously disagree
> based on past arguments, but "depiction", hardly tranforms to any of the
> above statement - *especially* the final three.

Oops, i missed the witticism. Okay, why are you getting hung up
on "depiction?" Asimov was painting a picture with words. And
this was necessary because none of us can go to the more than 6-
mile high Hawaiian volcano and actually see it's great height above
the sea floor. This is all i meant by the words "depicted by Asimov."

> To me, FWIW, you have grossly mis-used the language to come
> up with your above statments, again, *especially* the final three - when
> your whole thrust is based on one person's "depiction" and your prevoiously
> stated "fun".

Nope, just quoting Asimov (mycaps)...

If the oceans were removed from Earth's surface (only temporarily,
please), then NO single mountain on Earth could possibly compare with
the breathtaking towering majesty of Hawaii. It would be by far the
*T*A*L*L*E*S*T* mountain on Earth, counting from base to peak.
Its height on that basis would be 32,036 feet (6.08 miles or 9,767
meters). It is the ONLY mountain on Earth that extends more than six
miles from base to tip.

> > The analogous bases were given as the average
> > sea floor level around the Hawaiian volcano (which
> > happens to be *about* 18,000 feet below sea level)
> > and the minimum height above sea level of the Tibetan
> > plateau (about12,000 feet above sea level).
>
> Well, that's one of the problems... some people used the Ganges plain, some
> the sea level, and only lately the Tibetan plateau. And if you've been
> using Asimov's numbers as they apply to the Tibetan plateau while stating
> the Ganges plain, that's another issue, for the Ganges Plain is about 200
> feet above sea level by my reading. ("Almost twice as high", you say? not
> likely, maybe a few hundred arbitrary feet from the Ganges). Again, these
> points go to the arbitrary nature of the whole claim.

Nothing arbitrary about it, Brett. The average sea floor depth
is about 18,000 feet, and the altitude of the Hawaiian mountain
above sea level is roughly 14,000 feet, so said mountain height
is 32,000 feet, or just a bit over 6 miles high from its base on
the sea floor to its peak above the water.

Everest on the other hand stands on a plateau that has a lowest
point of some 12,000 feet above sea level. This means that if
we give Everest the benefit of any doubt, its height above the
plateau can be little more than about 17,000 feet (3 1/4 miles
or 5200 meters).

So it must follow that all my statements were, for all general
intents and purposes, fairly accurate. The Hawaiian volcano is
almost twice as tall as Mt. Everest when measured from base
to peak in the manner described by Asimov.

Can the Andes peaks top this using the same qualification?

> > > - the area connected to his summit includes ~85% or more of the planet.
> > This one goes completely over my head <whoosh> !
>
> Gee, it shouldn't... it's pretty simple, really, but given your difficulty,
> let me try a few analogies combining your position on mountain heights and
> mine... First, *your* suggestion was:
> * "So... if you then take a giant buzz saw and remove Everest
> * from the plateau on which it sits, then enlist the aid of our
> * hero, Superman, to fly the mountain over to the dry Pacific
> * basin, and gently place it down on the sea floor near the volcanos"
>
> ANALOGY 1: So, given that you can picture your own analogy, first do the
> "Everest removal" by buzz-saw as you suggested, but place your version of
> Everest next to the volcanoes at sea level (let Superman hold it there for a
> bit). This lets you look at your version of Everest, next to the island of
> Hawaii.
> ANALOGY 2: Now do the same in reverse... Take our version of Hawaii and
> buxx-saw it off at sea level and hold it next to Everest at whatever you've
> decided to use as base. Visualizing either of these should give you an
> equivalent measurement of heights, though not one that helps this thread,
> yet.
> ANALOGY 3: Now, take your "buzz-saw" and remove all land above sea level -
> this should be easy to visualize, as it will give a standard view of land
> mases throughout the world. Here, if you measure the summits by placing one
> land mass against another, you arrive at the standard view of mountain
> heights proposed most anywhere, and Everst will stand some 29,035 feet and
> the Maunas will be at ~13,000+ feet. This is, of course, the position taken
> by me and I think, others, for a fair and standard comparison.
>
> Now note, that in all three of these (above) - given your theoretically
> capable buzz-saw and Superman - all are at least possible. that is, these
> mountains can be picked up as discrete units and moved to another location
> for comparison. But where your analogy falls flat, is that if you try to to
> ;
> YOUR POSITION (My argument): Take the same buzz-saw and start cutting
> through your ML "base" at ~17,000 feet. You'll cut under the whole Hawaiian
> Chain as one big unit without ever being able to take the Maunas as a
> separate and discrete unit to move to Everest to compare, for a start. But
> then as you continue cutting in an attempt to pick up a "mountain" for
> removal, you'll find yourself, by necessity, cutting off entire and
> connected adjacent sea mounts, the Nekker Ridge, Christams Ridge, Pacific
> "lands", Oz and NZ and Indonesia and adjacent "lands", the Caroline Island
> Rise... all the way to Asia. It's all connected rolling hills, plains and
> mountains without the water. And once you get to Asia, anytime you try (as
> in your scenario) to move one mountain to another for comparisn, you can't -
> move one and you get the rest. You get, as stated before, a unknown but
> high percentage of the world, with only the deepest trenches and basins
> being missed.

Sorry, i don't see it this way. You make it far more complicated
than either I or Asimov had intended. Wassamatta? <g> Superman
turn you down? (i HATE it when he does that!)

> But another way, it's equivalent to simply lowering the sea level by some
> ~17,000 feet. Now I understand your position is to take differing bases,
> but my position (and Odysseus' and B.V.'s, I believe), is that that is
> neither fair nor equitable.

Why? Going back to a similar analogy to David, if my 3 1/2-foot-
tall granddaughter were to dance on a four-foot stage, then her
head would rise nearly 1 1/2 feet above mine. Yet when you
speak about our individual heights, you would use the floor upon
which i stand as my "base," and the floor of the stage as my
granddaughter's "base." This would give you a fair and equitable
comparison of my height to her height. My head would not rise
as high into the sky as hers, but i would still be "taller" than she is.

> An using your position, while you "can" remove
> Everest and place it beside the volcanos, you can *not* do the reverse (take
> the volcanos and place them by Everest) and Everest is now a part of the
> same "land" on which stands your volcanos. Surely, this indicates a flaw in
> your "buzz-saw and superman" argument that you can see.

Perhaps, but i think that i made this argument back when i was
botching the job, back before i had found Asimov's essay. (Have
i said this enough times yet?)

> > > - the Everest base changed at leasting in their argument... Why?
> >
> > Because i couldn't find the essay with Asimov's figures, so i included
> > both the base level on the plateau and the higher level of the glacier.
> > This *was* admittedly confusing. I didn't mean to cloud things up
> > with this.
>
> Well, that expains it for you, but when one is trying to claim the "world's"
> tallest, highest, etc., etc., I'd think that there must be at least some
> consensus, or it's meaningless. So far, I've seen about 8 figures ranging
> from ~13,000 feet to an astounding 56,000+ (not including my somewhat
> tongue-in-cheek suggestion of ~4,000-6,000 feet to the Loa/Kea col. In my
> view, these differnces largely invalidates the claim in the first place, but
>
> - the difference is so great that it doesn't matter how you reference it,
> Mauna Loa is much taller than Mt. Everest
> - the difference in "tallness" between Loa and Everest is great enough to
> preclude the need for precise agreement
> - And Loa is so much taller than Everest that it doesn't matter what
> reference you use
>
> fairly ridiculous. Of course some reference is needed to claim a world
> record.

The reference was given by Asimov, therefore everything that
you quoted above has meaning. I find the fact that i initially
referred to Mauna Loa by itself rather than the "breathtaking
towering majesty of Hawaii" to be a minor point, perhaps even
a red herring if harped upon.

YMMV

AND... none of my statements indicate that NO reference is
needed. As you say, of course some reference is needed to
claim a world record.

> > > - the Andes are analogous to his argument, and "taller" than Hawaii.
> > I don't have figures, but i find it difficult to accept that Asimov would
> > have made this kind of a mistake. Would you please repeat the
> > figures?
>
> I will if you wish, but your recent dismissals that:
> - his viewpoint was a "fun" exercise as depicted by him
>
> seems to avoid any need to do so. To me, a fun depiction does not
> constitute a world record. As a fun depiction, I can easily use the Andes
> as besting Everest AND the Maunas and still provide hard, non arbitrary
> figures.

Then please do by all means. I would be interested to find out
which part of the Andes is more than 6 miles tall from base to
peak.

> And as a fun depiction, I can easily use Guam, the Carolines and
> innumerable others as well.

It appears that you think that "fun depiction" is equivalent to
"imaginary." Now it appears that it's you who are trivializing.
While i agree that we have to use our imagination to "see" the
goliath mountain from base to peak that is Hawaii, this does
not negate its height from base to peak by making it "imaginary"
(as in "ficticious"). Asimov had "fun" with it because he was
attempting to help us see the Hawaiian volcano from a new
and different perspective.

Have you never tried doing this AND having fun with it? Like,
have you ever climbed to the roof to take a long look at the
neighborhood? or flown in an aircraft over the cities and farms
below? or maybe you've asked a friend how you look in a new
set of clothes? or a moustache? Different perspectives are fun,
and they can often be... instructive and awakening.

....and even unsettling!

> And even Lord Howe Island with yet other
> criteria, and without the need to go below sea-level. As stated, neither
> arbitrary figures nor fun depiction constitutes world records, except in
> those contexts, and you frequently failed to mention these contexts. You
> even obscurred them, IMO, by stating things like "it doesn't matter how you
> reference it", "the difference between Loa and Everest is great enough to
> *preclude the need for precise agreement*" and "it doesn't matter what
> reference you use".

Only because the difference is so great! From base to peak the
Hawaiian volcano is nearly twice as tall as Everest. It didn't
matter which of my base references you used for either mountain...
Hawaii is still so much taller than Mount Everest that the difference
was easily seen (by myself anyway, but then, i admittedly truly
botched the description of what i easily understood).

> > Finally, please just keep in mind that this whole thing was meant to
> > be an interesting exercise of the imagination. Try to have a little fun
> > with it. Both mountains have majesty. Everest's majestic rise to the
> > highest point on Earth above sea level has never been in dispute.
>
> Hey, I've been having fun AND learning. Why do assume not?

Good for you! You just sound so... serious <g>

> > But the Himalayan Mountains are easy to see. Even the glacier
> > does not detract from their awesome majesty.
>
> Geez, I sure hope not. From my view, glacial ice and snow does nothing but
> enhance a mountain's majesty. Many a relative short, steep sided, snow and
> ice cloaked European Canadian and American peak far surpass, say
> Kilimanjaro's majesty, at least in my opinion, even with it rising from a
> flat plain and even with it's sun-cupped summit ice. (Why your "even" and
> "detract"?)

I saw Mt. Kilimanjaro while in Kenya back in '75. I was born
in the mountains, yet i was very impressed!

("Even" and "detract" were used to express the fact that the
majesty of Everest is awesome either with glacier or when
"depicted" or imagined without the glacier.)

> > As for the Hawaiian volcano, it's not easy to mentally
> > picture in your remove the water and then to get a realistic
> > mountain, mind of the majesty of a gentle sloping goliath of a
> > a mountain that from base to peak rises more than six miles!
> > makes me wonder if Asimov was deluged with mail giving similar
> > arguments in regard to his essay, "Up and Down the Earth." If so,
> > we can be certain that he handled it a damn sight better than i have.
>
> I doubt he did, for his statements did not go even close to the lengths of
> yours (no reference needed? - Ha!).

You have misquoted me here if you think i ever said "no reference
needed." As you mentioned above, i said that it didn't matter which
of my base figures was used. Asimov used only two figures, one for
the base of Hawaii--the sandy sea floor--and one for Everest's base--
the minimum altitude of the Tibetan plateau--so his case was much
less confusing than my botched up argument where i included both
the glacier and plateau heights for Everest, and both the sea floor
and the bedrock beneath the sandy sea floor as possible bases for
the Hawaiian volcano.

Keep in mind that, just as removing the glacier would make Everest
appear even taller than it does *with* the glacier, removing the sand
and using the Earth's rocky crust beneath the sandy sea floor would
make the Hawaiian volcano even taller than Asimov's figure!

Oops, i guess i'm botching it again. Forgive me if the above was
just too confusing for words.

> Thanks for taking the time out to respond to my comments.

Pleasure!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Life without love is
A lamp without oil,
Love without prejudice
A world without soil,
Tool without toil.

Paine Ellsworth

David Knisely
July 5th 03, 10:32 AM
You posted:

> Asimov only mentioned the volcano that is topped by Hawaii.

Nope, its Hawaii that is topped by the volcanoes (4 of them actually).
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
**********************************************

Painius
July 8th 03, 09:59 PM
With all due respect, David, are you saying that you don't
understand the NEW perspective that Asimov was trying to
give you? Will you forever be GLUED to a perspective that,
while in a sense true, still gives only a partial, limited picture
of what's happening above AND beneath the surface?

Will you always restrict yourself to stifling, suffocating "tip of
the iceberg" views of your awesome Universe?

It perturbs me that, for a person who sez he instructs young
people in astronomy, you seem to have the imagination of a...

No, i won't be disrespectful... but i *am* perturbed.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
With eyes and tears that burn,
From their spot on Mars they ask,
"When will they ever learn?"

Paine Ellsworth

"David Knisely" > wrote...
in message ...
> You posted:
>
> > Asimov only mentioned the volcano that is topped by Hawaii.
>
> Nope, its Hawaii that is topped by the volcanoes (4 of them actually).
> --
> David W. Knisely
> Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
> Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
>
> **********************************************
> * Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
> * July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *
> **********************************************

Painius
July 9th 03, 12:51 PM
"David Knisely" > wrote...
in message ...
>
> . . . IF you cut Mt. Everest off at a base near the lowest point of
> the surrounding region (say, base camp at 17,600 feet), and IF you put
> it on the sea floor next to Hawaii, THEN Hawaii's highest point (Mauna
> Kea) would be taller than the "cut-off" Mt. Everest. . .

Precisely... thank you, David... I understand every word you wrote.
And i understand your rather urgent and consuming need to stay
within certain "realistic" (scientific) bounds.

> --
> David W. Knisely
> Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
> Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
>
> **********************************************
> * Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
> * July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir *