Shape of the Earth

"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.

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).

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.
------------------------------------------
Hopefully, David, this also addresses your concern about using the
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
about 32,000 feet.

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
Mountains, Micronesia and adjacent "lands", French Polynesia and adjacent
"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
makes your statements:
- 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" befo
-"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!
Anyway, all this ado about Bert's allegedly "meaningless" statement
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
respond to my comments.

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

Ta. Regards, Brett.

"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
words in the thread (please read the thread). Allow
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
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.

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 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.'

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

"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
words in the thread (please read the thread). Allow
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
about.

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
your concerns.

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?

"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
about 32,000 feet.

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
Mountains, Micronesia and adjacent "lands", French Polynesia and adjacent
"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
makes your statements:

- 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!
Anyway, all this ado about Bert's allegedly "meaningless" statement
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

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

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!

--
Tender hearts wear crying mask,
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 *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

"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.

And yet... your words above renew my faith in your imagination!

--
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 *
**********************************************

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