shearzone

not red shift, the other one. Red shift occurs in signals moving out of the Earth's ________ field. 'blue' shift and 'magnetic' field? Blue shift is correct. Besides electromagnetism, what is the other force that can act on objects larger than the atomic scale?

not red shift, the other one. Red shift occurs in signals moving out of the Earth's ________ field.

You are on the right track with the Doppler effect. I'm looking for a 'shift' that occurs when an EM wave travels through a certain 'field'.

You win the prize! The picture is taken with a 28mm lens, so this fish is a whopper! WooHoo! OK, for my second question, let's bring back the topic of relativity. When the GPS signal leaves the satelite, it has a known frequency and wavelength. By the time that signal reaches your receiver, the signal's frequency has increased and the wavelength has decreased. Our receivers are smart enough to correct for this. Name the phenomena and the fundamental force responsible for this.

Husky the Muskie in Kenora Ontario. I even have pictures, but computers and I aren't the best of friends and I don't know how to post them .

I have applied twice for the bronze level pin, but I have yet to hear a response from the GSA. I can't imagine that the GSA is so swamped with earthcache masters applications that they do not have time to reply my application. To become a bronze earthcache master, you must 'visit and log three or more Earthcaches in two (2) or more states/countries'. I have visited six earthcaches (five in British Columbia, one in Alberta). The only reason I can think of is that the GSA does not recognize provinces as the Canadian equivalent of states. It seems to me that finding earthcaches in two or more provinces is harder than two or more states, because 1) there are fewer earthcaches in Canada, and 2) most provinces are larger than most states. I am one earthcache away from being at the silver level, but it's a long way to the next earthcache outside of Alberta or BC (Ontario or Idaho are the nearest).

La Cloche is correct. The highest peak is Silver Peak and it has a cache on it. The range started to form 2.5 billion years ago, and is predominantly made of quartzite, which is sparkling white. The Group of Seven liked to hang out in this area a lot. In my humble opinion, this area is one of the crown jewels of Canada. Sorry for making the question too hard. Now, if anybody knows if there is a trail out of Killarney lake up Silver Lake, please PM me. I'm leaving on Sunday. Cheers! Looks like a nice place, I'd like to visit it one day.

While we're at it, can anyone recommend any caches in the Goldstream PP area? I'll be there over the August long weekend. I'm looking for two types of caches, some that will lead me on a good hike and maybe a scenic view, and some that will be fun for two kids of 8 and 10 years old who I have diagnosed to have ADD that I'll likely have to entertain for a few hours.

Are you going to the Adirondaks of the Grenville Province? I haven't actually been there, but I'm going to guess that the major component of those rocks are granites. I don't know the name of the tallest peak, probably the name of some famous american. ooops, I forgot that the original question stated that the range was in Canada. I'm going to keep my answer within the Grenville Province, but change the range to the Laurentians. Again, I'm going to stick with granite as the major composition and I don't know the name of the tallest peak.

Are you going to the Adirondaks of the Grenville Province? I haven't actually been there, but I'm going to guess that the major component of those rocks are granites. I don't know the name of the tallest peak, probably the name of some famous american.

>The Canadian Shield is the oldest mountain range that I'm aware of. Used to be huge. It's believed to be about 4.5 billion years old. >Kinda confused on this one. Assuming you mean the highest peak that is still left in existence, as there wasn't anyone around back then to measure. They figure it was about 12,000 feet tall on average. The CURRENT highest peak is Mount Caubvick in Nfld. > Major composition ? Granite? Nickel? northernpenguin is mostly right. The Canadian Shield is composed of the roots of countless mountain chains, each overprinted by successive orogenies (aka mountain building events). Most of these rocks have the same composition that you would find if you could dig dip under present day mountains. At their tallest, many of the former mountains of the Canadian Shield had peaks that were taller than Mount Everest (but not at the same time). The oldest rock known in the Canadian Shield (and in the world) is the Acasta Gneiss (pronounced 'nice') of the Slave geological Province, has be dated at just over 4 billion years. Also, what way do you mean how many years ago did they start to form? Do you mean, 'when did the rocks that eventually become uplifted into mountains accumulate' or do you mean 'when was the onset of uplift'? An example of this are the Canadian Rockies, where some of the rocks accumulated as sedimentary rocks in topographic basins over 1 billion years ago, yet uplift only started about 180 million years ago. Finally, when you ask what is the major composition of the rock, do you mean of the range or of the peak itself? Anyway, I've likely made this question more complicated than you intended. I'm going to guess you mean present-day mountain ranges, because you imply that the peak is still there. But by definition, a peak is a topographic high, whether it is at 200 m a.s.l. or 8000 m a.s.l., so in theory, it could be almost any old range. So, long story short, I've gone and confused myself. Can you specify the question a bit? Ok, I've thought about it, and I'm going to go ahead and take a stab at this question. The Monashee Complex (near Revelstoke BC) of the Monashee Range in the Columbia Mountains (Kootenay region) are the oldest mountains that are still what we would call mountains. They are rocks of the Canadian Shield that stick up through the overlying rocks. The highest peaks of the complex is either the Frenchman's Cap, Thor, or Odin peak and their age is Paleoproterozoic (1.8 to 2.5 billion years old), but were caught up in Cordilleran deformation sometime during the Jurassic to Eocene (sometime between 200 and 50 million years ago). The rocks are gneisses, but I can't remember if they were once igneous or sedimentary in origin. That's the best guess off the top of my head (we can't look it up, right?). You've probably guessed by now that I'm a (soon-to-be) geologist.

>The Canadian Shield is the oldest mountain range that I'm aware of. Used to be huge. It's believed to be about 4.5 billion years old. >Kinda confused on this one. Assuming you mean the highest peak that is still left in existence, as there wasn't anyone around back then to measure. They figure it was about 12,000 feet tall on average. The CURRENT highest peak is Mount Caubvick in Nfld. > Major composition ? Granite? Nickel? northernpenguin is mostly right. The Canadian Shield is composed of the roots of countless mountain chains, each overprinted by successive orogenies (aka mountain building events). Most of these rocks have the same composition that you would find if you could dig dip under present day mountains. At their tallest, many of the former mountains of the Canadian Shield had peaks that were taller than Mount Everest (but not at the same time). The oldest rock known in the Canadian Shield (and in the world) is the Acasta Gneiss (pronounced 'nice') of the Slave geological Province, has be dated at just over 4 billion years. Also, what way do you mean how many years ago did they start to form? Do you mean, 'when did the rocks that eventually become uplifted into mountains accumulate' or do you mean 'when was the onset of uplift'? An example of this are the Canadian Rockies, where some of the rocks accumulated as sedimentary rocks in topographic basins over 1 billion years ago, yet uplift only started about 180 million years ago. Finally, when you ask what is the major composition of the rock, do you mean of the range or of the peak itself? Anyway, I've likely made this question more complicated than you intended. I'm going to guess you mean present-day mountain ranges, because you imply that the peak is still there. But by definition, a peak is a topographic high, whether it is at 200 m a.s.l. or 8000 m a.s.l., so in theory, it could be almost any old range. So, long story short, I've gone and confused myself. Can you specify the question a bit?

3% ?

This is a good question! If all the land mass is moving, then what frame of reference are the measurements taken from? The only thing I can think of is the poles. Oops... forgot to mention how fast it is moving. Considering most plates move about 2-3 cm each year. My guess is that the Pacific plate is close to 10 cm per year. You got it! The Pacific plate is moving at ~ 10 cm/year or 10 km/million years with respect to the hot spot responsible for the Hawaiian Islands. On to you Freelancer.

Shearzone hasn't asked one yet... WooHoo I finally got one!!! Sorry about the delay. I was camping in Jasper NP and soaking in the Miette Hot Springs. OK, here's a question that does not involve mass, proper mass or any other form of special or general relativity. GPS monitoring has greatly enhanced the observation of the motions of tectonic plates and the deformation of the Earth's crust. 1) What is the name of the fastest moving plate and how fast is it moving? 2) What is the geologic feature to which this motion is referenced to?

The Maldives?

Actually, if you assume that the shape of the Earth is a sphere (for mathematical ease), the force of gravity inside the Earth is constant from the centre of the Earth until you reach the surface. It's a simple proof we learned in a second year mechanics course. Hmmm...not sure why, but my previous post appeared three times. Is there a way I can delete two of them?

Actually, if you assume that the shape of the Earth is a sphere (for mathematical ease), the force of gravity inside the Earth is constant from the centre of the Earth until you reach the surface. It's a simple proof we learned in a second year mechanics course.

Actually, if you assume that the shape of the Earth is a sphere (for mathematical ease), the force of gravity inside the Earth is constant from the centre of the Earth until you reach the surface. It's a simple proof we learned in a second year mechanics course.

Actually, if you assume that the shape of the Earth is a sphere (for mathematical ease), the force of gravity inside the Earth is constant from the centre of the Earth until you reach the surface. It's a simple proof we learned in a second year mechanics course.

I have a similar goal, I really like the concept of EarthCaches. I am also thinking of developing new EarthCaches too. Does your goal only include grandfathered Earthcaches still available on geocachinging.com or those on Waymarking.com too? Just curious to find out if you will be visiting my EarthCaches that are too late to be published on geocaching.com. I currently have one active in Edmonton (WMA65, Mazama Ash - Edmonton), but it has only attracted one visitor so far. There seems to be a serious lack of interest in EarthCaches since they've been moved to Waymarking.com. Maybe this issue should be addressed in another thread.

Of course, this grouping was devised to encourage discussion and is by no means set in stone. Those who are interested in such a group are encouraged to add their two cents. The important thing here is: don't trust anyone over 30! BTW, congrats on getting accepted to the U of O. I did my BSc there. I'm sure you'll enjoy the dynamic Ottawa-caching scene. Be sure to find the caches placed by my sister (~*hecate*~) and I in the east-end of town when you're there.

Um... take a look at this thread... ok, so many women answered the thread, but a lot mention a husband and/or kids (whether they like to go caching or not), so I think we can infer many of those women do not fall into the 27 years old or less category. I also noticed that many of the comments were made by men stating that their wives and daughters like to geocache. Both points support my argument that independant female participation in the under 27 bracket is unfortunately low.

We can split this group up even more. I propose 3 categories: under 12, teenagers and university/college. The way I see it, people of the first group might be eager to join their parents in the hunt, people of the second group might have to be pulled by the ears to come along, and people of the third group (such as your's truly) likely live away from home, own their very own GPS and rarely have a chance to cache with family members, let alone anyone (not by choice). Come to think of it, a fourth group could be created for girls that could span the entire age range because, and correct me if I'm wrong, but many (most?) females of th 0-27 age bracket would never go caching if it wasn't for a male-relative/friend, and most participating females (willing or not) are daughters, sisters, girlfriends (prospective or official) and/or wives of an active cacher. Maybe someone can try to explain this phenomena in another thread.