Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I'm waiting to hear that an airliner disappeared over the 'island' and the crew and passengers are now Lost.

In seriousness, I'm wondering why the trip took 25 days. Flying over the area would likely be more (of) a reasonable option.




Flying over the area would likely be more a reasonable option

Unless you actually wanted to sail around the south pacific for a month and be able to call it "work"


"I see", said the blind man to his deaf wife. Especially true if you've seen BBC's South Pacific (...several times over).

Intro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3gtTicceg0 BBC Two http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jq11g

______

Edit: The initial "nonsense verse" I used made me curious so I looked it up and that's where I found the ending of one version of the phrase.

"I see", said the blind man to his deaf wife as their dog with no legs got up and ran away. He pissed in the wind and said "It all comes back to me now."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsense_verse


Guessing they were also systematically measuring the depth of the ocean around the area, as they make reference to it being "deep ocean".

In other words, they were seeking to establish that it's not an island that once existed and has been submerged due to rising sea levels, it flat-out never existed.

Not sure if it's possible (or at least, best practice) to do that from an airplane?


Sea levels haven't risen all that much - 8 inches in the last 150 years says one reference. There are other options which are more probable. If it was a volcanic island then the top could be easily eroded. Consider the island of Ferdinandea, off the coast of Italy. "At its maximum (in July and August 1831), it was 4,800 m (15,700 ft) in circumference and 63 m (207 ft) in height." while by January 1832 it had eroded to below sea level. Surtsey is another example, this off the coast of Iceland, and Kavachi is a third, this in the Solomon Islands.

If this were the case then depth soundings would easily identify a submerged volcano, even if it were 100m below the surface. A simple visual fly-by wouldn't.


In other words, they were seeking to establish that it's not an island that once existed and has been submerged due to rising sea levels, it flat-out never existed.

Or, y'know go out there to map the place to get better and more accurate maps.

If it has an island that isn't there, it's not a good sign that your maps of the area are accurate.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: