Shape of the Earth

"Brett Aubrey" wrote in message
a...

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

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

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

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

"Telnet Pirate" wrote...
Brett, Check these atlases I get to use, they are a little
more updated than yours.

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

This is a 2 mimute resolution dataset that combine bathymetry
and topography. Now click on the 45 degree block that contains
the Hawaiian islands. This should enlarge the view for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now since you sarcastically pushed aside my comment of using ESRI
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.

Don't worry about the "plug" statement, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the thread doesn't help you, Greg, try the words in "absolutely, totally
irrelevant" in a dictionary.
Best regards, Brett.

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

"Brett Aubrey" wrote in message
a...
"Greg Neill" wrote...


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

Offhand? Oh, please... read the thread, will ya?

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

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

"Greg Neill" wrote...
"Brett Aubrey" wrote...
"Greg Neill" wrote...
The point was, an offhand dismissal of Asimov as a reasonable
source of practical information might not be warranted.

Offhand? Oh, please... read the thread, will ya?

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

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

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

"Brett Aubrey" wrote in message
a...
"Greg Neill" wrote...
"Brett Aubrey" wrote...
"Greg Neill" wrote...
The point was, an offhand dismissal of Asimov as a reasonable
source of practical information might not be warranted.

Offhand? Oh, please... read the thread, will ya?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Painius wrote:

? Odysseus, it's the sea floor where the mountains sit... it's the
part of the plateau on which Everest sits... why would you think
it might be anywhere else? Why is all this so hard for everyone
to see?

I wish i could find Asimov's treatment of this. It's around here
somewhere but i cannot find it. He explained it so much better
than i can.

You remove the water. The mountains rise up from a flat surface.

Here's your misconception in a nutshell, which I've brought up
several times (as has Brett) but which you continue to talk past.
There are very few extensive "flat surfaces" on earth, and they're
particularly rare near mountains. Why is this so hard for you to see?

For Kea and Loa this flat surface is the ocean floor. For Everest
this flat surface is the plateau. When you measure Everest from
the surface of the plateau to its summit, then measure the volcanos
from the ocean floor where they sit up to their summits, you find
that the volcanos are nearly two times as tall as Everest.

Look at a map, for crying out loud! How can you call the Tibetan
plateau, containing as it does some of the most rugged terrain on
earth, a "flat surface"? And while there are a couple of 'flattish'
basins in the Pacific floor near the Hawai'ian islands they're more
or less shaped like shallow bowls (hence the term "basin"), the
nearly 6000-metre soundings indicated on a typical map being just
their deepest points.

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

I'm outta here.

You're certainly not getting any nearer ...

--Odysseus