Using either of the tropics or polar circles as a
place from which to measure latitude would cause
significant difficulties as these locations vary (over
a cycle of about 41,000 years).
--- acroorca2002 <
orc@...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Please understand that my calling your points
> "semantic" was
> not meant to
> > disparage them in the least (as some commonly use
> that
> word). Semantics and
> > etymologies are wonderful intellectual pursuits
> from which
> much can be learned.
> >
> > You are right to point out: (1) the functional
> difference between
> latitude and
> > longitude; and (2) the natural basis of the
> Equator as opposed
> to the artificial
> > designation of Greenwich. However, the two poles
> and the
> axis through them are
> > concepts just as natural as the Equator. Suppose,
> if you will
> for the sake of
> > discussion (not argument),
>
> true
> & yes i will
> for this is already a multiple improvement
>
> we direct our aggression toward the truth itself
> wherever it may lead us
> rather than push or bang against anything
>
> > that the North Pole had been arbitrarily
> designated
> > as latitude zero degrees, the Equator as 90
> degrees (to the
> axis), and the South
> > Pole as 180 degrees.
>
> ok
> & i would insert
> since we are talking about equability itself here
> & also because
> in the eyes of nature
> north isnt really up any more than south is down
> etc etc
> lets simultaneously suppose a reciprocal
> trigonometric scale
> in which the australocentric & borealocentric
> neolatitude values
> of any place always add up to 180 degrees
>
> > Under such a scheme, the Equator would be a
> parallel of
> > latitude (the 90th), just like all the other
> east-west rings circling
> the earth.
> > It has a special significance, of course, but so
> too do the two
> tropics.
>
> indeed so too do all 4 solstitial circles
>
> so
> that makes 7 axially perpendicular planes in all
> counting those of the poles & equator
> that are specially significant because objectively
> determinate
>
> but in the eyes of nature
> & in all truth & equability
> the extra special significance of the equator
> remains
>
> > To
> > really turn the system on its ear, what if the
> fathers of
> coordinates had been
> > even more attuned to astronomy than they were? We
> could
> have ended up with
> > latitude measured from the Ecliptic!
>
> hahahahaha
> yes that would turn everything on both ears
> ever so gently
> every year
> & we would really need our reciprocal trig scales
> then
> hahahahaha
>
> > So, yes, the Equator is "fixed by nature;" but the
> choice of it
> (from among
> > several equally natural possibilities) as the
> place from which to
> measure
> > latitude was as arbitrary as the choice of
> Greenwich as the
> place from which to
> > measure longitude (though Greenwich is,
> admittedly, as
> artificial as it is
> > arbitrary).
>
> well the 7 special planes are equally natural
> but one is more special than the others
> & thus the choice of the equator is neither
> arbitrary nor artificial
>
> indeed it seems the only thing on the globe that is
> neither arbitrary nor artificial
>
> for we can turn a representational globe & all 7 of
> its objective
> planes upside down
> without in any way violating truth
> as those of the australocentric persuasion well know
> provided only that the equator stays where it is
> a unique objective constant everything else relates
> to
>
> & it seems that is precisely why all the parallels
> of latitude are
> parallel to the equator rather than to the poles or
> anything else
> & why the equator is unparalleled on earth in having
> no latitude
>
> > Now, since we do arbitrarily measure latitude from
> the natural
> Equator, I have
> > already conceded that it might not be a
> "parallel"--even though,
> as you have
> > conceded, it is parallel to all of the parallels.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:27 PM
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit
> border
> >
> >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
>
> McManus"
> > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > Okay, I can see all your semantic points,
> but...
> > >
> > > well good
> > > as semantic does after all mean
> > > pertaining to the actual meaning of things
> > >
> > > & semantics are often dismissed as if they ran
> counter to
> good
> > > sense or good taste or were somehow gratuitously
> picky or
> > > sophistical or ultimately meaningless pointless
> worthless
> vain
> > > void etc
> > >
> > > but to be dismissive of meaning is just anti
> intellectualism
> > > & disregard for truth really
> > >
> > > so yes indeed lets start with the actual & exact
> meaning of
> things
> > > & hang onto these for dear life at all times
> > >
> > > > Since you say that the Equator "has no
> latitude," does the
> > > Greenwich Line have
> > > > no longitude?
> > >
> > > well that wouldnt seem to follow either
> logically or
> semantically
> > > from the equator having no latitude
> > > would it
> > >
> > > indeed quite the contrary
> > > it seems to me
> > > since all lines of longitude are of equal
> objective stature
> > > even if not of precisely uniform length
> > > with zero longitude having been determined
> utterly arbitrarily
> > > rather than absolutely & as a fact of natural
> geography
> > > in the very distinctive way the equator is fixed
> by nature
> > >
> > > so the tudes of lat & long are oranges & apples
> par
> excellence
> > >
> > > by your reasoning of tude equals tude
> > > you might as well expect exactitude & negritude
> & quietude to
> > > behave exactly like latitude too
> > >
> > > crabapples pomegranates potatoes
> > >
> > > but you are careful to distinguish lat from long
> otherwise
> > > because you know full well they behave quite
> differently
> > > & that they will trip you up if you dont respect
> that
> > >
> > > so why disregard or deny what you know to be
> their very real
> > > distinction just in the moment of greatest truth
> > >
> > > the truth is they are not the same thing at all
> > > & neednt be expected or forced to act as if they
> were
> > >
> > > > What about that point in the Atlantic Ocean
> "under the hump
> of
> > > > Africa" where these two lines cross? Does it
> have no
> > > coordinates?
> > >
> > > but wait
> > > you are into pineapples now too
> > >
> > > of course it has coordinates
> > >
> > > we werent talking about coordinates
> > >
> > > coordinates are something else
> > >
> > > it has zero longitude for one coord
> > > which is a distinct meridian of longitude
> > > & zero or no latitude for the other coord
> > > which is not & cant be a parallel of latitude
> > > because it is the equator
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > if you were on the Equator, are you telling
> me that
> > >
> > > yes
> > >
> > > & thats all she wrote
> > >
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:01 PM
> > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section
> chit border
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > aw lets compound the technicality anyway
> > > > > just to make sure we really are correct
> > > > >
> > > > > for are you absolutely sure the equator is a
> parallel of
> latitude
> > > > >
> > > > > my dictionary says a parallel
> > > > > in geography
> > > > > is
> > > > > any of the imaginary lines representing
> degrees of
> latitude
> > > > > encircling the earth parallel to the plane
> of the equator
> > > > >
> > > > > & i dont think it is possible for the
> equator
> > > > > which is a line in the plane of the equator
> > > > > to also be parallel to the plane of the
> equator
> > > > > because parallel in this basic & original
> geometric sense
> > > refers
> > > > > to 2 things that are beside one another &
> thus never meet
> > > > >
> > > > > also as previously mentioned
> > > > > the equator is said to lie at zero degrees
> of latitude
> because
> > > it
> > > > > has no latitude
> > > > >
> > > > > does that make it a parallel of latitude
> > > > >
> > > > > i dont think so
> > > > >
> > > > > or is it simply parallel to the parallels of
> latitude that are
> > > parallel
> > > > > to it
> > > > >
> > > > > my dictionary says latitude
> > > > > in geography
> > > > > is
> > > > > the angular distance north or south of the
> equator
> > > > > measured in degrees along a meridian
> > > > > as on a map or globe
> > > > >
> > > > > so from this i also gather the equator has
> no latitude & is
> not
> > > a
> > > > > parallel of latitude because it lies no
> distance & no
> degrees
> > > > > either north or south of the equator
> > > > >
> > > > > the advantage of this view
> > > > > if it is indeed correct
> > > > > for your technical formulation
> > > > > is that it can thus be tightened up as
> follows
> > > > >
> > > > > any parallel of latitude
> > > > > or any other line of constant bearing that
> is not a meridian
> of
> > > > > longitude or the equator
> > > > > is not straight
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> "Lowell G.
> > > McManus"
> > > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > You are correct. The Equator is the only
> parallel of
> latitude
> > > that
> > > > > is also a
> > > > > > great circle. I thought of that after
> writing my message,
> but
> > > > > didn't want to
> > > > > > compound the technicality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Michael Kaufman"
> <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 1:53 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange
> section chit
> > > border
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, but I think the Equator would be
> the exception to
> > > > > > > this rule. Of course this is assuming
> the earth is a
> > > > > > > perfect sphere. But we know that it is
> just an
> > > > > > > approximation, and its irregular shape
> varies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Well, this is a technicality, but...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any parallel of latitude, or any other
> line of
> > > > > > > > constant bearing that is not a
> > > > > > > > meridian of longitude, is not
> straight. Only an arc
> > > > > > > > of a great circle is a
> > > > > > > > "straight" line. Even then, it is
> straight only in
> > > > > > > > the horizontal dimension,
> > > > > > > > since it curves with the surface of
> the earth and
> > > > > > > > probably goes up hill and down
> > > > > > > > as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Michael Kaufman"
> <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 4:14 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re:
> Strange section
> > > > > > > > chit border
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Which leads to the question of which
> manmade
> > > > > > > > segments
> > > > > > > > > are NOT straight. The only thing
> that comes to my
> > > > > > > > > mind is the DE-PA Arc (or Arcs).
> Are there any
> > > > > > > > world
> > > > > > > > > class examples? I can not think of
> one, but I may
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > forgetting about something.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- m06079 <barbaria_longa@h...>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > --- In
> BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter
> > > > > > > > > > Smaardijk"
> > > > > > > > > > <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Note also that it is a municipal
> exclave of
> > > > > > > > > > Innerferrera.
> > > > > > > > > > > Cf.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
>
http://www.innerferrera.ch/innerferrera/geschichte.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (mentions
> > > > > > > > > > > a territory exchange with Italy
> in 1962/63 as
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > cause).
> > > > > > > > > > > Peter S.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In
> BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> "chris
> > > > > > > > > > schulz"
> > > > > > > > > > <23568@g...>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thats right,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > as i know its result of
> special interests
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > switzerland.
> > > > > > > > > > > > the shown situation is from
> val di lei.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
>
http://www.home.pages.at/maxifant/Frames/val-di-lei.htm
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (german)
> > > > > > > > > > > > when the wall had been build,
> switzerland
> > > > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > > > > to save
> > > > > > > > > > this wall
> > > > > > > > > > > by itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > because in the case the wall
> would be hit
> > > > > > > > (by a
> > > > > > > > > > bomb or
> > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > all the water would come to the
> val di Avers
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > Switzerland.
> > > > > > > > > > > > so now switzerland can save
> the wall with
> > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > guns,...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > regards, chris
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Artur Kroc
> > > > > > > > > > > > To:
> BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 04,
> 2004 10:07 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint]
> Strange section
> > > > > > > > chit
> > > > > > > > > > border
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This section looks strange -
> like african
> > > > > > > > > > borders - like made
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > ruler...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > straight looking sections of
> borders are
> > > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > fairly common
> > > > > > > > > > everywhere
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > indeed they occur wherever a
> border runs
> > > > > > > > directly
> > > > > > > > > > between 2
> > > > > > > > > > markers
> > > > > > > > > > or in other words
> > > > > > > > > > just about everywhere there is a
> manmade
> rather
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > a natural
> > > > > > > > > > delineation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > & that means the great majority of
> the
> > > > > > > > individual
> > > > > > > > > > delineations in
> > > > > > > > > > the world
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > it is just that a much larger
> scale map is
> > > > > > > > needed to
> > > > > > > > > > see most of
> > > > > > > > > > them
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com