Shape of the Earth

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

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

"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?
What's your rational here, please?

"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

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 *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

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

"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?
- becausyou "jump" without addressing others' comments?
- ...

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

Say what? Regards, Brett.

"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.

"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!
Sad, really...

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

"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
maintain this thread is dead.

BV.