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

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

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

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

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

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

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