#41
|
|||
|
|||
Masque of the Thread Death (was - Shape of...)
"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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
"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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
"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? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Masque of the Thread Death (was - Shape of...)
"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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Masque of the Thread Death (was - Shape of...)
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 * ********************************************** |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Masque of the Thread Death (was - Shape of...)
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 * ********************************************** |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Masque of the Thread Death (was - Shape of...)
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Earth rotation | don findlay | Astronomy Misc | 122 | July 9th 04 07:57 PM |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times (LONG TEXT) | Kazmer Ujvarosy | SETI | 2 | December 25th 03 07:33 PM |
Our future as a species - Fermi Paradox revisted - Where they all are | william mook | Policy | 157 | November 19th 03 12:19 AM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |
Space Calendar - September 28, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | September 28th 03 08:00 AM |