|
Did Australia move ?
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
"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. Regards Donal -- |
Do you realize that Australia is moving at about 250 m/sec?
How fast and far does the earth move as it wobbles on its axis twice a year? Are you absolutely certain on the isostatic rebound rate? 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 |
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 |
Movement is relative
Yes I'm certain on the Isostatic Rebound... CM "Bob Crantz" wrote in message ink.net... Do you realize that Australia is moving at about 250 m/sec? How fast and far does the earth move as it wobbles on its axis twice a year? Are you absolutely certain on the isostatic rebound rate? 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 |
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 |
"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 |
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! |
Lacustrine deposit...... it's not shield rock.
The fastest isostatic rebound is experienced on the Island of Igloolik. Your internet intellect falls short of reality. CM "Bob Crantz" wrote in message link.net... 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 |
I just love it when they start researching on the internet...... when they
find something to back their argument it's a factual statement.... when it fails to back their claims it's just more internet crap. BTW - I'm not a Geologist... I'm a Geotechnical Technician. CM "Scout" wrote in message ... 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! |
That seems a whole lot more plausible Peter. Plate subduction can be extreme
at times of failure..... but what will be most interesting is the cause of the massive plate movement in the first place. Tectonic Plate subduction is the primary cause of "Earthquakes" as well as volcanic formations. Fault line slip is not the culprit... it's the weakpoint effected by amassing pressure due to tectonic plate movement. I'm certain our lovable Bible Toting Bob will provide us with further proof that his assumptions as researched on the internet are correct...... even though he should admit it was God's Will that this occurred. Next thing we know he'll be questioning "Creationism" CM "Aniculapeter" wrote in message ... 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 |
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message The Himalayas grow about 1 meter every 100 years as the result of relative movement of tectonic plates. Amen! Bwahahahahahahaaaaa........ Yeah Bob.... India absorbs almost nothing in regards to plate movement..... it's all miraculously transferred to foliating the gneiss of the Himalayas a thousand miles inland! Next you'll be preaching to me how God formed the Rockies! CM |
How about relevant to the established datum... at the time that data was
collected.... and the accuracy of the equipment utilized to derive it. BTW - Lots of people disagree with me.... none that count though. CM "Bob Crantz" wrote in message k.net... 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? |
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message link.net... 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. Big problem there is that this is based on uniform movement.... an implausible assumption which corrupts the basis of the estimate. 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. Not rates so much as limits...... rates are "estimated" based on "assumption" of annual rates. 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." Again ... the local geomorphology has a lot to do with the rate of rebound. 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! No... I haven't You are not even a barstool geologist! The only rocks you've ever encountered are in your head! You are mistaken..... I've been involved in a detailed reasearch on the geology of the Northwest Territories.. specifically Glacial Lake McConnell, it's beach ridge deposits and limits of lacustrine impact as well as the Moraine, Alluvial formations. I've worked with Petroleum Geologists and Geological Engineers. Is that enough of a beating or do you want some more? Bring it on Bob.... your current stance on evolution will anger your God when he realizes that you do not believe him to be responsible for such action. Seriously Bob... how can anyone lend credence to an argument of scientific nature presented by someone who believes in "Creationism"??? CM |
You have renounced your God... you will burn in the Lava Lakes of Hell!!
CM "Bob Crantz" wrote in message link.net... 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 |
You can attack me or my sources all you want. But you can't refute a single
fact. The bottom line is you said isostatic rebound is never more than a few cm/100 yrs. I've found numerous references that show otherwise by a large factor. Every challenge you presented I've met with data published by geologists at Universities. All you've done is reduce the scope of your statement or added qualifications. The bottom line is your statement of fact is wrong. The statement of fact is not altered by your summer job or any other consideration about you. The facts are proven by reality, not the colour of your socks. You've received an efficient and thorough beating from me and you've learned something too, so you won't look so ridiculous staggering around the bar up north next summer. You should thank me. On more note, you won't be going to the lava lakes when you expire. God does not send retards to hell, he has a special place in heaven for people like you. Here, on earth, you are an embarrassment to all who drool. Next time try taking your beating like a man. You'll look less foolish. Amen! Bob Crantz "Overproof" wrote in message news:0BVAd.33032$Y72.2281@edtnps91... Lacustrine deposit...... it's not shield rock. The fastest isostatic rebound is experienced on the Island of Igloolik. Your internet intellect falls short of reality. CM "Bob Crantz" wrote in message link.net... http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Rebound/...%20Rebound.htm Says: "The greatest measured rates of isostatic or postglacial rebound in North America occur in the Richmond Gulf area of southeastern Hudson Bay (presumably where the ice was thickest). There, a kind of "staircase" of 185 Holocene (postglacial) strandlines (former shorelines) provide a continuous record of emergence from about 8,000 years ago until the present. At least 935 feet of recovery (isostatic rebound) has been recorded by these strandlines. By determining the age of these strand lines, and by subtracting the apparent component of uplift due to relative sea level fluctuations, geologists have been able to measure rates of isostatic rebound. The rates of uplift have declined from a maximum of 33 to 39 feet per 100 years immediately following deglaciation (8,000 years ago at Hudson Bay - in North Dakota deglaciation occurred about 5,000 years earlier) to a current rate of about 4.3 feet/100 years. In other words, the shoreline at Churchill, Manitoba on the shore of Hudson Bay is currently rising about 4.3 feet per century." Not only are you remarkably wrong in your statements, the fastest North American rebound on record is right under your own two feet! And you've shot both of them! You are not even a barstool geologist! The only rocks you've ever encountered are in your head! Is that enough of a beating or do you want some more? Amen! Bob Crantz "Overproof" wrote in message news:PBKAd.35229$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 |
I see you here administering a severe beating to CM with your every post. Who says men of the cloth are narrow-minded and ignorant? You, sir, prove otherwise with your every erudite, factual and insightful post. Your grasp of the physical world is ever so much worldly than a certain, drunken, Nova Scotia, neophyte sailor's ever will be. In spite of being soundly pummeled about the head and shoulders, I see CM remains in total denial. How is it some folks can't seem to accept reality, admit their mistakes and step out of the pyre that consumes them? Could it be they are so possessed by Lucifer that they have come to enjoy ignorance and pain? Surely such as CM will have their immortal souls reincarnated in canine form so they will have two more feet to chew off when they get caught in the inevitable bear trap of their own stupidity. Praise! Glory. CN "Bob Crantz" wrote in message k.net... 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 |
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound arguing with Bob Crantz?
Bwahahaahahaaa -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "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 |
Thank you, kind sir. The current beating I'm administering pales in
comparison to the beatings you deliver on an almost daily basis to the liberals, liars, cowards, lubberly types, Tugboat Captains, Bobsprit and, in general, those destined to burn in the flames of hell. It is a small thing I do to relieve you, a Master Mariner, of your righteous duty to administer a flogging to those who lag. Perhaps one day, one time, one of them will realize the error of their thinking and straighten out. Until then it is an almost thankless task only appreciated by those who understand the purpose of living on God's good earth. Amen! God Bless you and Master Mariners everywhere! God bless George Bush and the right wing of the Republican Party! God bless John Wayne, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and George Wallace! God bless General Patton, Chester Nimitz, General Sherman and Jefferson Davis! God bless the Confederacy and Robert E. Lee! Amen! Bob Crantz "Capt. Neal®" wrote in message ... I see you here administering a severe beating to CM with your every post. Who says men of the cloth are narrow-minded and ignorant? You, sir, prove otherwise with your every erudite, factual and insightful post. Your grasp of the physical world is ever so much worldly than a certain, drunken, Nova Scotia, neophyte sailor's ever will be. In spite of being soundly pummeled about the head and shoulders, I see CM remains in total denial. How is it some folks can't seem to accept reality, admit their mistakes and step out of the pyre that consumes them? Could it be they are so possessed by Lucifer that they have come to enjoy ignorance and pain? Surely such as CM will have their immortal souls reincarnated in canine form so they will have two more feet to chew off when they get caught in the inevitable bear trap of their own stupidity. Praise! Glory. CN "Bob Crantz" wrote in message k.net... 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 |
"JG" wrote in message ... Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound arguing with Bob Crantz? You think that I'm Bob Crantz?? That's absolutely ridiculous!! Regards Donal -- Bwahahaahahaaa -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "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 |
I was thinking your Bob Crantz as well.
It fits, and bobs ISP is in England, and Bob C has an Irish accent. Admit it Donal! Joe |
County Cork to be exact, ya buck-eget! Donal is from Innesfree.
Bob Crantz "Joe" wrote in message oups.com... I was thinking your Bob Crantz as well. It fits, and bobs ISP is in England, and Bob C has an Irish accent. Admit it Donal! Joe |
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com... I was thinking your Bob Crantz as well. It fits, and bobs ISP is in England, and Bob C has an Irish accent. Admit it Donal! OK hands up! I've been caught. I won't do any more posts as BC. Amen Donal -- |
wrote in message ... On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:01:34 GMT, I just can't stop thinking about pedophilia. It's on my mind almost constantly. Every other post I make is about it. I do extensive research on Google about it - I even have Ganz beat. BB (Bloated Buttload) |
You make many good points.
I must point out here, however, that the Great General Lee, a man for whom I hold great admiration, admitted that in his heart, he was a humanitarian, and by today's definitions, was as close to the left extreme as he was to the right! Scout "Bob Crantz" wrote God bless Robert E. Lee! |
|
Proof? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH!
You call a few lame, edited posts from proof. You'd better beef up if you want to play with the big boys. CN wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:57:03 -0500, Capt. Neal® wrote: Capt. Neal has been exposed as a pedophile. He demanded proof, and it was easy to find quite a bit of it without looking very hard at all. I wonder if the authorities in his area are aware of his proclivities... I wonder what they might turn up if they searched his boat and computer... BB |
It's incredible that no one from the authorities has yet to investigate Neal
Warren's boat for pedophile material. Of course, he was gone from the newsgroup for a long time, so possibly he was in jail. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com wrote in message ... On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:03:32 -0500, "bell" wrote: wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:57:03 -0500, Capt. Neal® wrote: Capt. Neal has been exposed as a pedophile. He demanded proof, and it was easy to find quite a bit of it without looking very hard at all. I wonder if the authorities in his area are aware of his proclivities... I wonder what they might turn up if they searched his boat and computer... BB ****ING ASS HOLE, TAKE YOUR BACKDOOR TROJAN AND STICK IT UP YOUR OWN ASS Oh wait.........you're the cyber=stalker, not the virus spreader. So close it's hard to tell the difference. Carry on BB=BobBrody=stalker So, Bell, do you and Neal trade kiddy Porn? You seem to be squarely in his corner on this issue. BB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com