#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
well fellas there is the difference between relief and elevation.
Relief is a local measure of how high an object is from some local base. If we choose that local base in the case of Everest to be the abyssal plain of the Indian Ocean then Everest is "higher" than Mauna Loa. If we chose the local base to be the base camp of the Everest climbers as a local base and the abyssal plain of the Pacific for Mauna Loa then Mauna Loa is "higher". Mauna Loa is supported by the buouyancy of the water column Eversest is not. We commonly use mean seal level as a global datum. Measured from that datum the Earth is essentially a sphere. The proportion of volume involved in local deviations from the sphere is infinitesimal. In that frame, Everest and Mauna Loa are just "noise' except to people our size. I wonder what an orange "looks" like to an amoeba? Odysseus wrote: Painius wrote: ? Odysseus, it's the sea floor where the mountains sit... it's the part of the plateau on which Everest sits... why would you think it might be anywhere else? Why is all this so hard for everyone to see? What are the exact elevations of said sea floor and plateau? Where do you choose to start your measurement? That's what I've been asking all along, yet you seem to keep pointing at the "sea floor" and the "plateau" as if mountains were plonked on to -- or pop up out of -- an otherwise featureless surface. I wish i could find Asimov's treatment of this. It's around here somewhere but i cannot find it. He explained it so much better than i can. You remove the water. The mountains rise up from a flat surface. For Kea and Loa this flat surface is the ocean floor. For Everest this flat surface is the plateau. When you measure Everest from the surface of the plateau to its summit, then measure the volcanos from the ocean floor where they sit up to their summits, you find that the volcanos are nearly two times as tall as Everest. Are you claiming that the Pacific floor and the Tibetan plateau, other than having the odd mountain here and there, are perfectly flat? Try looking at a map that shows relief with some semblance of realism, rather than an sketch-map that depicts mountains as upside-down Vs -- really, I can't see where else you'd get such a picture of the earth's topography. I'm outta here. Since you're apparently unable to answer my repeated requests (and Brett's) for some kind of quantitative rationale for your claim (and Bert's -- hey, almost an anagram!), and since nobody has been convinced by your hand-waving at the "sea floor" and the "plateau" as if they were flat as griddles, I agree that you have few other options. --Odysseus |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message fellas there is the difference between relief and elevation. Relief is a local measure of how high an object is from some local base. If we choose that local base in the case of Everest to be the abyssal plain of the Indian Ocean then Everest is "higher" than Mauna Loa. If we chose the local base to be the base camp of the Everest climbers as a local base and the abyssal plain of the Pacific for Mauna Loa then Mauna Loa is "higher". BA: Yes. Using multiple arbitrary points and measurements, you can choose anything to be higher, but if you say from 'Everest base camp to the summit', then it's not "Everest", it's an arbitrary portion of Everest. And if you choose 'Hillary Step to the summit', it's still not "Everest". And if you choose the abysmal plain, from where are you measuring? If it is a point (and a single low elevation is VERY likely to be a point), where is this point? If it's a deep point somewhere in the East Pacific Basin of Hawaii, then you are measuring just one slope, just as if you measure Everest from some point in the East Indian ocean, or Aconcagua from the Richard Deep, or Guam from the Challenger Deep. And if it's a deep point somewhere in the East Pacific Basin of Hawaii, then to "buzz-saw" it off (Paine's analogy), you get some 85% (likely more) of the earth's surface, including Everest, with only a few small "holes" where the deeper trenches and basins exist (... that dawg don't hunt!). As stated, Maua Loa is only higher if you choose unequal and arbitrary points. And the way it looks thus far, since no one has yet to come up with a geographic location for a Mauna Loa base, this point can only arbitrarily measure one slope, which can be handily "bested" by choosing any of an infinity of arbirary points for Everest in the Mid-Indian Basin. Regards, Brett. snip |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
"Painius" wrote:
snip As you can see by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, saying "abysmal plain" says very littly quantatatively about depth. Hence our continued requests for a location for your point. Especially when there's a range from ~10,000 ~20,000 ft., are generally adjancent to a continent and are most rare in the Pacific, making your claim even more incredulous (at max. depth of this definition, *not* adjacent to a continent, plus in the Pacific, where abyssmal plains are rare.) http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=379759 Abyssmal Plain: Flat seafloor area at a depth of 10,000-20,000 ft (3,000-6,000 m), generally adjacent to a continent. The larger plains are hundreds of miles wide and thousands of miles long. The plains are largest and most common in the Atlantic Ocean, less common in the Indian Ocean, and even rarer in the Pacific Ocean, where they occur mainly as small, flat floors of marginal seas or as long, narrow bottoms of trenches. They are thought to be the upper surfaces of land-derived sediment that accumulates in abyssal depressions. Regards, Brett. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
Brett Aubrey wrote:
"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message fellas there is the difference between relief and elevation. Relief is a local measure of how high an object is from some local base. If we choose that local base in the case of Everest to be the abyssal plain of the Indian Ocean then Everest is "higher" than Mauna Loa. If we chose the local base to be the base camp of the Everest climbers as a local base and the abyssal plain of the Pacific for Mauna Loa then Mauna Loa is "higher". BA: [snip] As stated, Maua Loa is only higher if you choose unequal and arbitrary points. And the way it looks thus far, since no one has yet to come up with a geographic location for a Mauna Loa base, this point can only arbitrarily measure one slope, which can be handily "bested" by choosing any of an infinity of arbirary points for Everest in the Mid-Indian Basin. Regards, Brett. Well, I think Robert has put his finger on it in mentioning "relief". One could define a mountain's "base" as a contour where the slope, averaged over a given minimum distance, falls below a certain value as one moves away from the region of the peak. But since it's been Herb and Painius that are making the "tallest" claim, I don't think it's up to us to do their work for them by continuing to propose criteria that they might avail themselves of in order to make their assertions meaningful, i.e. possible to evaluate quantitatively. (BTW, guys, please refrain from posting in HTML.) --Odysseus |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
"Odysseus" wrote:
Brett Aubrey wrote: "Robert Ehrlich" wrote: well fellas there is the difference between relief and elevation. Relief is a local measure of how high an object is from some local base. If we choose that local base in the case of Everest to be the abyssal plain of the Indian Ocean then Everest is "higher" than Mauna Loa. If we chose the local base to be the base camp of the Everest climbers as a local base and the abyssal plain of the Pacific for Mauna Loa then Mauna Loa is "higher". BA: [snip] As stated, Maua Loa is only higher if you choose unequal and arbitrary points. And the way it looks thus far, since no one has yet to come up with a geographic location for a Mauna Loa base, this point can only arbitrarily measure one slope, which can be handily "bested" by choosing any of an infinity of arbirary points for Everest in the Mid-Indian Basin. Regards, Brett. Well, I think Robert has put his finger on it in mentioning "relief". One could define a mountain's "base" as a contour where the slope, averaged over a given minimum distance, falls below a certain value as one moves away from the region of the peak. But since it's been Herb and Painius that are making the "tallest" claim, I don't think it's up to us to do their work for them by continuing to propose criteria that they might avail themselves of in order to make their assertions meaningful, i.e. possible to evaluate quantitatively. (BTW, guys, please refrain from posting in HTML.) --Odysseus 1. While I understand both Robert and your point, it still comes down to an arbitrary, non-standard and not-yet-defined position, and the chance of any peak in the Hawaiian chain besting all the taller peaks (by standard definitions) in the Himalayas, Andes, Russia, European Alps and elsewhere by any fair definition is extraordinarily tenuous at best. And for any new definition like this, one would have to start from scratch and do all peaks by the same, or as similar as possible, definition. 2. I wouldn't care if they can take anything said by me or anyone else and make their assertions meaningful, as long as there is some fairness and sense in the position. Using, say, a point in the Mariana Trench for one peak and a glacier or plain for another just doesn't cut it. Nor does saying some "flat" part of the Pacific cut it (unless the flat part surrounds the entire peak and little or nothing else, which clearly does not happen for the Maunas). 3.; Interestingly, Robert's criteria would cut the Maunas down to fairly insignificant bumps (Nubbin Loa and Nubbin Kea?), for in the case of both peaks, the contour rises from the saddle between them to the other peak. Even if they wanted to use the whole island with the twin Maunas as part of a newly defined "Mt. Hawaii", it would only go down a few thousand feet until rising up to to Maui, the rest of the chain and many other undersea areas. I'd think they might want to avoid the use of "relief"... OTOH, their responses continue to surprise and amaze... Best regards, Brett. P.S. Let me know if this was HTML, please. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
"Painius" wrote in message
... "Brett Aubrey" wrote in message... a... . . . can you answer a question asked several times and to my knowledge never answered... from where is the base being measured? TIA. Regards, Brett. One more time, Brett... this question was answered *several* times including in Bert's original post. I disagree. It has not. His reference was to remove all the water including the glacial ice around Everest. So... if you then take a giant buzz saw and remove Everest from the plateau on which it sits, then enlist the aid of our hero, Superman, to fly the mountain over to the dry Pacific basin, and gently place it down on the sea floor near the volcanos, then Loa and Kea would dwarf Everest... each of them being nearly twice as "tall" as the mountain (and quite a bit "fatter" as well). Why cut everest down at the plain? This is exactly the problem with this discussion. There is NO singular measurement point, which invalidates the whole argument. There is no need for all this defensive behavior. Nobody ever challenged Everest's place as the world's highest mountain above sea level. All that was said was that if you remove all the water from view, Everest is not the tallest mountain... which is true! Mount Everest remains to this day the most challenging of climbing feats. It is indeed the highest cemetery in the world! For more reasons then it's height. BV. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
Brett,
Check these atlases I get to use, they are a little more updated than yours. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/2minrelief.html This is a 2 mimute resolution dataset that combine bathymetry and topography. Now click on the 45 degree block that contains the Hawaiian islands. This should enlarge the view for you. Note that The Big Island of Hawaii (both ML and MK and the other peaks) has a portion of itself as blue. If each pixel is then 2 minutes, one can determine that all slopes of ML are within 1 degree of its peak. (34.5 pixels to be exact) Now do the same for ME, now this might be a little harder, since ME is not as easy to pick out of the Himalayan range. Here is a hint 28.0 N, 86.9 E. But if I had to help you find ME and you could find ML by yourself does not that say something... Now since you sarcastically pushed aside my comment of using ESRI to help your spatial analysis as a plug. Then maybe you would like to use another software, Mapinfo, Erdas Imagine, Idrisi, ENVI. This should help you. But I see another plug comment coming. Now take the same circle of 34.5 pixels which was the same measurement to ML's base. Note this is skewed since we are measuring ME to ML, if can provide the same level of spatial analysis with ML to ME, I would entertain that. I just want reiterate that the number has been state 34.5 pixels of 2 minutes each pixel for a number that is approx. 1 Degree. You measure every point of within 1 degree of ME an every point of within 1 degree of ML and you will find that subtracting the mean value from the peak you get a greater overall displacement for ML. That said the areal extent of ML is also larger than ME, this is even more convincing to me that ME is JUST AN UPLIFTED ROCK when compared to ML. For more sources bathymetry and topograhpy check out, http://www.marinegis.com/dataen.html __o _ \_ (_)/(_) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
Hi Brett Take away earth water throw a rock off Everest,and throw the
same size rock off Loa and tell me what rock came to a stop first???? We all know the answer Bert |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
Hi Brett Take away earth water throw a rock off Everest, and throw the same size rock off Loa and tell me what rock came to a stop first???? We all know the answer Bert. No, you don't, but this doesn't answer address your claim, anyways. Mininally, it depends on which way you throw it. Now theoretically, if you're very, very careful and very, very lucky, it might possibly go down the single slope to a deep point in the East Pacific Basin or the Hawaiian trough. In that extremely unlikely case, we still don't know the answer because you've still not given us the location of your deep point, which may or may not be in the Hawaiin Trough. Is your point 200 feet offshore, 800 miles off shore, or in the Mariana Trench some 4,000 miles away? And this scenario addresses only single-slope length and is of use only for boulder trundling*, as opposed to mountain tallness or height. You're still not being honest with yourself, Bert... until you know the location, you simply can NOT know the answer (unless, of course, you're being trollish and simply not telling us this location). And if the location's 200 feet off shore, again, all you've got is (maybe, depending on several factors), a single hypothetical longer slope than one on Everest. But in reality, we both know the rock won't even reach the beach. And if you throw this rock in another direction and it manages to go to another level point, it can end up a relatively pitiful 4,000-6,000 feet down (very rough estimate, since I have no good Hawaiian maps) in the Kea - Loa saddle. Give up the hypothetical, I'd say, and start being honest with yourself. More importantly, even if it did roll to your deep point, a rock thrown off any of hundreds of Andes summits will be rolling looooonnnng after yours has stopped at your arbitrary deep point, since there the difference between summits and arbitrary deep points in the Atacama Trench is up to 49,295 feet, dwarfing your slope (i.e. this is a fair comparison - a deep point in a trough or basin vs. a deep point in a trench). And you still have the rest of the world to figure out - with this new definition you're introducing, you can't simply take Everest and Mauna Kea and ignore all other mountain slopes. And most of the world won't care much about the longest slope, anyway. Mauna X is not the highest, by any but the most parochial, constricted, and arbitrary definitions, and likely not even then, as I'm coming to realise with each new scenario you come up with. Deal with it. And please come back with data relevant to others' figures please or your own past arguments (like location and depth), instead of constantly raising new and yet more flawed analogies. Also, have a look at TelNetPirate's 12:22 post today... it might give you a better chance at some valid scenario (I'm still looking at it). Best regards, Brett. See SF Forrester's "Boulder Trundling" in Ken Wilson's "Games Climbers Play - A collection of Mountaineering Writing" c1978, Sierra Books, for an enlightening essay on this hallowed sport. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Shape of the Earth
Bert posted:
Take away earth water throw a rock off Everest,and throw the same size rock off Loa and tell me what rock came to a stop first???? We all know the answer Bert Yup, those of us who know those Hawaiian volcanoes well know the answer: it will stop first when thrown from the top of Mauna Loa. The slopes of the volcano are so gentle that probably most people would have a lot of trouble getting one to go even 100 yards before it came to rest a little ways down the slope. The slopes of Everest are a lot steeper, so the same-size rock would probably go a lot farther down the slopes unless it got stuck in some ice on the way down. -- David W. Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/ ********************************************** * Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir * * http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org * ********************************************** |
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 |