Peter,

Your questions are good questions. Where did you get get the information
about Sumatra? Are you sure of that information?

It would be difficult to get a good accurate Sun sight at this time of
Solstice. I would have a greater question about the sighting that shows
it moved 35 meters than how to prove it did.

The only answer I have for you is Sun Sights averaged over a few weeks.
The noon sight shouldn't be to hard to determine GMT Local Noon for
Longitude. It may take a lot of "Witch's Hats" to average Latitude.

Again, I'd really question the single sighting on Sumatra? That is the
one that sounds strange.

Good Luck on your questions.

We here in Western Washington are on a fault line but the Pacific Plate
is sliding under our Plate and our position has remained the same for
the thirty-five years I've been here but Mt St Helen has let us know
that changes are occurring under us

Ole Thom

BC,

Where in your Bible does it say the Earth is traveling 250meter/sec,
where does it say it is wobbling?

Amen? The Book of God

Ole Thom

Thom wrote:
Where did you get get the information
about Sumatra? Are you sure of that information?

I heard it on the TV-news, on two different ocations. I am sure I heard it,
but I am not sure it is true.

Peter S/Y Anicula

Thom Stewart skrev i en
...
Peter,

Your questions are good questions. Where did you get get the information
about Sumatra? Are you sure of that information?

It would be difficult to get a good accurate Sun sight at this time of
Solstice. I would have a greater question about the sighting that shows
it moved 35 meters than how to prove it did.

The only answer I have for you is Sun Sights averaged over a few weeks.
The noon sight shouldn't be to hard to determine GMT Local Noon for
Longitude. It may take a lot of "Witch's Hats" to average Latitude.

Again, I'd really question the single sighting on Sumatra? That is the
one that sounds strange.

Good Luck on your questions.

We here in Western Washington are on a fault line but the Pacific Plate
is sliding under our Plate and our position has remained the same for
the thirty-five years I've been here but Mt St Helen has let us know
that changes are occurring under us

Ole Thom

I just read in today's paper that the source seems to be Ken Hudnut from the
US-GS. He has been quoted for saying something like:
"The earthquake changed the world map"
"Small islands in the Indian Ocean has been moved up to 20 meters, while the
north-western tip of Sumatra may have moved up to 36 meter."
(my translation from the Danish translation).

Erik Schou Jensen, from The Geological Museum at the University of
Copenhagen, thinks that Ken Hudnut has been misquoted, and says:
"What he (KH) is talking about, is a small splinter (?) of a plate located
on the sea-bottom north of Sumatra. This, he (KH) thinks, can have moved up
to 36 meter"
"It has not been possible to perform the necessary measurements, since the
Indonesian authorities has closed the whole area down (?) but the island can
have moved a few centimeters..."
"During the earthquake, it was the Indian plate that slid down under the
plate with Sumatra, so it would not have been Sumatra that moved, but the
sea-bottom under the Indian ocean and not more than five to six meter at one
time."

So it looks like it was just another example of the press not being able to
present the facts.

Peter S/Y Anicula



Overproof skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:SBHAd.24735$Y72.23238@edtnps91...
Look you closet geologists...... if the friggin continent of Australia or
any related tectonic plate subduction resulted in a land mass move of that
severity in such a small time frame.... we'd be facing much greater
cataclysmic disturbances than an oceanic shock wave.

35 meters?...... Not! Hell... even the severest case of isostatic
rebound
doesn't amount to more than a centimeter every century.

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
You didn't answer any of my questions.

There were only a earth quake in the western end of the plate.
The north part of New Zealand is on the same tectonic plate as Sumatra,
but
not on the same tectonic plate as the southern part, and I think it
would
not have gone unnoticed if half of the Northern Island (Auckland) had
moved
36 meter relative to the other half (Wellington). (yes they are on
different
tectonic plates).
So I can't see that it is simply the matter of the hole plate moving 36
meters.

Anyway my question was about the consequences for navigating the area,
using
GPS.

I also find it interesting to find out how the whole plate moved, but I
can't se that it could be as simple as you suggest.

Does any of our colleagues down under se any change in their GPS
positions
?


Peter S/Y Anicula

o
Capt. Neal® skrev i en
...
Understand this. Not just isolated islands moved. The entire tectonic
plate
in the area of the quake subsumed and everything on this plate moved
along
with the plate. If the tectonic plate moved three meters then Australia
moved three meters provided the whole of Australia is on that plate.

Pate tectonics are not hard to understand. Since Pangea plates have
moved.
Over the millennia Pangea broke up into the continents we see today
which
are
pretty evenly spaced around the globe.

CN


"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the "Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these questions
?

Peter S/Y Anicula

Isostatic rebound is usually exponential if the load is removed
instantaneously. Here's accurate rebound information for Lake Bonneville
from over 50 years ago:

http://www.geog.utah.edu/geoantiquities/rebound.htm

Now, since you said that data from over 50 years ago is highly uncertain how
can you support your claim that isostatic rebound is no greater than 1 cm/
100 years?
(You've shot yourself in the left foot)

Also what does isostatic rebound have to do with earthquakes and lateral
movement of land masses? Very little, unless you've discovered something
radically new in Geophysics. (Now you've shot your right foot).

And now, for the final blow, I will get you data of isostatic rebound of 1
cm/yr or greater, measured within the last 50 years.

One more thing, why do you refute published, peer reviewed data? Where is
your field work?

Prepare for a beating!

Amen!

BC


"Overproof" wrote in message
news:PBKAd.35229$dv1.16823@edtnps89...
Isostatic rebound is not uniform.... it is the result of removal of
pressure from Glacial encroachment. It is entirely subject to underlying
geomorphology

No accurate data exists beyond about 50 years ago.... the data is
interpolated from archeological investigation is based on proximity to
water
of ancient campsites.

The Laurentian Shield is not undergoing isostatic rebound at the rate you
posted.

If this were so...... we could buy sea frontage and expect our investment
to gain a meter every hundred years. I can assure you nobody has reported
such gains in the last 3 centuries.

The mid Atlantic Ridge is the opposing the subduction of the Pacific
plates.

Now cry to your God about how unfair life is and that Creationism is still
a
viable explanation of mankind's evolution.

Fanatics!... Phffft!

CM


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
You fool! The isostatic rebound of the Laurentian Shield is quoted as
1-2
cm/yr:

http://travesti.eps.mcgill.ca/~olivi...es/node43.html

Plus there's other rebounds of at least 2 inches per year! If rock had
the
coefficient of restitution that you quote there would be no earthquakes
over
magnitude 4! You, sir, are no arm chair geologist! Your chair has no
arms,
you are a barstool geologist!

Amen!

BC

"Overproof" wrote in message
news:SBHAd.24735$Y72.23238@edtnps91...
Look you closet geologists...... if the friggin continent of Australia
or
any related tectonic plate subduction resulted in a land mass move of
that
severity in such a small time frame.... we'd be facing much greater
cataclysmic disturbances than an oceanic shock wave.

35 meters?...... Not! Hell... even the severest case of isostatic
rebound
doesn't amount to more than a centimeter every century.

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
You didn't answer any of my questions.

There were only a earth quake in the western end of the plate.
The north part of New Zealand is on the same tectonic plate as
Sumatra,
but
not on the same tectonic plate as the southern part, and I think it
would
not have gone unnoticed if half of the Northern Island (Auckland) had
moved
36 meter relative to the other half (Wellington). (yes they are on
different
tectonic plates).
So I can't see that it is simply the matter of the hole plate moving
36
meters.

Anyway my question was about the consequences for navigating the
area,
using
GPS.

I also find it interesting to find out how the whole plate moved, but
I
can't se that it could be as simple as you suggest.

Does any of our colleagues down under se any change in their GPS
positions
?


Peter S/Y Anicula

o
Capt. Neal® skrev i en
...
Understand this. Not just isolated islands moved. The entire
tectonic
plate
in the area of the quake subsumed and everything on this plate moved
along
with the plate. If the tectonic plate moved three meters then
Australia
moved three meters provided the whole of Australia is on that plate.

Pate tectonics are not hard to understand. Since Pangea plates have
moved.
Over the millennia Pangea broke up into the continents we see today
which
are
pretty evenly spaced around the globe.

CN


"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the
"Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these
questions
?

Peter S/Y Anicula

Do you understand how ridiculous you sound?

The Himalayas grow about 1 meter every 100 years as the result of relative
movement of tectonic plates.

Amen!

BC

"Overproof" wrote in message
news:2DKAd.35231$dv1.5881@edtnps89...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the "Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these questions ?


A report on the news tonight said that some Islands close to the
epicentre
had moved 120 metres.

Do you have any idea of how ridiculous that sounds.??

CM

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/dec-2004/29/index2.php

Two USGS PhD's seem to disagree with you. Remember, movement is relative -
relative to what?



"Overproof" wrote in message
news:2DKAd.35231$dv1.5881@edtnps89...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the "Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these questions ?


A report on the news tonight said that some Islands close to the
epicentre
had moved 120 metres.

Do you have any idea of how ridiculous that sounds.??

CM

http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Rebound/...%20Rebound.htm

Says:

"The greatest measured rates of isostatic or postglacial rebound in North
America occur in the Richmond Gulf area of southeastern Hudson Bay
(presumably where the ice was thickest). There, a kind of "staircase" of
185 Holocene (postglacial) strandlines (former shorelines) provide a
continuous record of emergence from about 8,000 years ago until the present.
At least 935 feet of recovery (isostatic rebound) has been recorded by these
strandlines. By determining the age of these strand lines, and by
subtracting the apparent component of uplift due to relative sea level
fluctuations, geologists have been able to measure rates of isostatic
rebound. The rates of uplift have declined from a maximum of 33 to 39 feet
per 100 years immediately following deglaciation (8,000 years ago at Hudson
Bay - in North Dakota deglaciation occurred about 5,000 years earlier) to a
current rate of about 4.3 feet/100 years. In other words, the shoreline at
Churchill, Manitoba on the shore of Hudson Bay is currently rising about 4.3
feet per century."

Not only are you remarkably wrong in your statements, the fastest North
American rebound on record is right under your own two feet! And you've shot
both of them!

You are not even a barstool geologist! The only rocks you've ever
encountered are in your head!

Is that enough of a beating or do you want some more?

Amen!

Bob Crantz





"Overproof" wrote in message
news:PBKAd.35229$dv1.16823@edtnps89...
Isostatic rebound is not uniform.... it is the result of removal of
pressure from Glacial encroachment. It is entirely subject to underlying
geomorphology

No accurate data exists beyond about 50 years ago.... the data is
interpolated from archeological investigation is based on proximity to
water
of ancient campsites.

The Laurentian Shield is not undergoing isostatic rebound at the rate you
posted.

If this were so...... we could buy sea frontage and expect our investment
to gain a meter every hundred years. I can assure you nobody has reported
such gains in the last 3 centuries.

The mid Atlantic Ridge is the opposing the subduction of the Pacific
plates.

Now cry to your God about how unfair life is and that Creationism is still
a
viable explanation of mankind's evolution.

Fanatics!... Phffft!

CM


"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
link.net...
You fool! The isostatic rebound of the Laurentian Shield is quoted as
1-2
cm/yr:

http://travesti.eps.mcgill.ca/~olivi...es/node43.html

Plus there's other rebounds of at least 2 inches per year! If rock had
the
coefficient of restitution that you quote there would be no earthquakes
over
magnitude 4! You, sir, are no arm chair geologist! Your chair has no
arms,
you are a barstool geologist!

Amen!

BC

"Overproof" wrote in message
news:SBHAd.24735$Y72.23238@edtnps91...
Look you closet geologists...... if the friggin continent of Australia
or
any related tectonic plate subduction resulted in a land mass move of
that
severity in such a small time frame.... we'd be facing much greater
cataclysmic disturbances than an oceanic shock wave.

35 meters?...... Not! Hell... even the severest case of isostatic
rebound
doesn't amount to more than a centimeter every century.

"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
You didn't answer any of my questions.

There were only a earth quake in the western end of the plate.
The north part of New Zealand is on the same tectonic plate as
Sumatra,
but
not on the same tectonic plate as the southern part, and I think it
would
not have gone unnoticed if half of the Northern Island (Auckland) had
moved
36 meter relative to the other half (Wellington). (yes they are on
different
tectonic plates).
So I can't see that it is simply the matter of the hole plate moving
36
meters.

Anyway my question was about the consequences for navigating the
area,
using
GPS.

I also find it interesting to find out how the whole plate moved, but
I
can't se that it could be as simple as you suggest.

Does any of our colleagues down under se any change in their GPS
positions
?


Peter S/Y Anicula

o
Capt. Neal® skrev i en
...
Understand this. Not just isolated islands moved. The entire
tectonic
plate
in the area of the quake subsumed and everything on this plate moved
along
with the plate. If the tectonic plate moved three meters then
Australia
moved three meters provided the whole of Australia is on that plate.

Pate tectonics are not hard to understand. Since Pangea plates have
moved.
Over the millennia Pangea broke up into the continents we see today
which
are
pretty evenly spaced around the globe.

CN


"Aniculapeter" wrote in message
...
I heard that the island of Sumatra has moved 35 meter.

Is or was there any anomalies in GPS positioning on the
"Australian
Plate"?
Is it regulated by the satellites ?
As far as I can guess, a datum change would be necessary ?

Does anybody know any reliable sources for answers to these
questions
?

Peter S/Y Anicula

ROFLMAO - Ya gotta just love it when the debate gets around to this!
For my money, there's never been a funnier line.

"Bob Crantz" wrote:
You fool!

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
Isostatic rebound is usually exponential if the load is removed

It most certainly is NOT!