cayambe topo with pix
http://www.igepn.edu.ec/varios/productos/Cayambe.gif
show the volcano cone with the summit on its west side
so the presumably singular peak point
as well as the entire west side of the cone adjacent to it
constitute our most probable ground zero area
but i cant quite make out the map scale or coordinates yet
possibly 5 miles & therefore 5 minutes per square
& at least that is an arrangement that would fit the coordinates
stated below
& if all that is correct
then we have what is probably the 5780 meter elevation line in
the larger of the 2 enclosed shapes
& possibly even the 5790 meter elevation line in the tiny shape
abutting it
again all this remains subject to better data
but at least it is now possible to at least mentally superimpose
these shapes on an antipodal map to see where the highest
combined elevations might lie
if indeed not at the exact summit of cayambe
now the best available sumatra map shows that the antipodes of
cayambe fall in the swampy lowlands around lubukbertubung
just nw of rengat
the map also shows btw that the best candidate for equatorial
high point of sumatra has antipodes in the swampy lowlands of
coastal ecuador
& thus it confirms our earlier surmise that no sumatracentric
approach could ever produce an antipodal diameter anywhere
near as long as the ecuadorcentric approach
& thus also confirms we are most probably travelling in the
correct direction for success & truth
so
resuming the chase in the jungles of rengat & lubukbertubung
http://www.maanystavat.fi/april/gallery/index3.htm
there is virtually no chance of any topographical features arising
there that could significantly displace our trial diameter away
from the summit of cayambe
in fact it seems there is hardly even a tree standing around there
any more
i mean
in case we had any thoughts of prolonging our diameter by
running it up that tree in its capacity as part of the earth
so
since the flatness of the entire target area in sumatra means that
no other point on cayambe can expect much help from its
sumatran partner in overcoming the advantage of the summit
& since it doesnt appear that any amount of equatorial bulge
could promote some other point on the cayambe cone above the
summit
it seems to me the cayambe summit point must be presumed to
be ground zero
for the worlds longest diameter & most farflung pair of places
pending any better data than we have
&
http://www.nickwinter.com/journeys/south_america/ecuador.htm
shows a human rather than arboreal projection & prolongation &
celebration of this maximum distance
in his capacity as part of the earth
& now that we have finally found the most probable point pair
as well as identified them down to what we believe are their
correct minutes
namely
nlat 00d02m x wlong 77d58m
&
slat 00d02m x elong 102d02m
then how long is this distance along this diameter
yes
we are finally ready to ask
how far is it
as promised
reference works give the equatorial diameter as 12756 km
presumably a sea level average
so to that add 5790 meters for the mountain
& 2 meters for the man
& perhaps a few more meters for the elevation of the jungle in
sumatra
& you get
so far
most probably about 200 meters less than 12762 kilometers
& we could still do better
as soon as we find a better cayambe topo
but thats it for now
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> ok in morning light it looks like we can proceed further already
> even without having to look for much more topographic detail
> because all the highest equatorial areas of ecuador are far
> higher as well as far steeper generally than anything on
sumatra
>
> in fact the most equatorial stripe of andean cordillera
antipodizes
> to the lowlands of sumatra
> while the most equatorial highlands of sumatra antipodize to
> areas of ecuador that are not nearly so steep
>
> so it appears our quest is leading us to the highest equatorial
&
> pene equatorial peaks of the cordillera
>
>
> a preliminary survey of ecuador at peakware etc suggests we
> have a leading candidate in mount cayambe
> which is ecuadors 3rd highest mountain
> & which offers the highest elevations in the world on the
equator
> while peaking at only 2 minutes north latitude
>
> but there are evidently 3 others in all that cant be ruled out
>
> here are the raw & still unconfirmed data
>
> 1
> chimborazo
> elev 6310 or 6267 meters
> slat 01d28m x wlong 78d48m
>
> 2
> cotopaxi
> elev 5897 meters
> slat 00d40m x wlong 78d26m
>
> 3
> cayambe
> elev 5786 or 5780 meters
> nlat 00d02m x wlong 77d58m
>
> 4
> antisana
> elev 5752 or 5705 meters
> slat 00d29m x wlong 78d08m
> possibly close enough to stay in the running
> at the minimum bulge gradient of 477 meters per degree
> just in case there happens to be a high enough hill at the
> sumatran antipodes for the diametric length to exceed the
> diametric lengths produced from all 3 of ecuadors higher
peaks
>
> 5 etc
> evidently all lower than 5315 meters
> which would easily disqualify them all
> even at the minimum bulge gradient of 477 meters per degree
>
>
> & tho we still dont know the actual gradient of the bulge
> it is clear that cayambe would not be overtaken by any of these
> other peaks even at the minimum gradient
> but it just isnt clear yet what boost any of the 4 diametric trials
> would get from their antipodal partner elevation in sumatra
>
> most probably not nearly enough boost to matter tho
>
>
> so for now it sure likes like the summit point of cayambe & its
> antipodal counterpart are the winners
>
> obviously tho
> more & better detail
> as well as the most exact measurement possible
> are needed before resting completely satisfied that we have
> done it
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
> <orc@o...> wrote:
> > great
> > thanx
> > i get it
> >
> > so we should drop the circumferential pursuit
> > because even if we could determine the exact longitudes of
the
> > longest meridional circuit
> > which we cant
> > no single pair of points on that circuit would present
> themselves
> > as being any farther apart along the earths surface than any
> > other pair
> >
> > & this regardless of whether they were actually antipodal or
not
> > hahaha
> >
> > & therefore we can cut back to the only chase that we still
have
> > left to us
> > by examining & comparing topographical maps of the
sumatra
> &
> > ecuador neighborhoods
> > so as to try to find the pair of antipodes thereabouts with the
> > greatest combined elevation above sea level
> >
> > to be continued no doubt
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > Insertions below between lines marked thus: +++++++++
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:00 PM
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: How far is it?
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > I seem to have misconstrued the original quest as
> pertaining
> > > to tripoints.
> > > >
> > > > If it pertained to [just] points, then I think that the two
points
> > > farthest
> > > > apart diametetrically would be the two equatorial or very
> > nearly
> > > equatorial
> > > > antipodes with the greatest combined elevation above
sea
> > > level. The bulging
> > > > equatorial diameter would easily overcome any
elevational
> > > advantages of
> > > > non-equatorial points. I would nominate some
Ecuadorian
> > > peak and its Sumatran
> > > > antipode.
> > >
> > > good thinking
> > >
> > > i also realized the diametric maximum would fall within the
> > > famous equatorial bulge
> > > just as the diametric minimum would fall within the equally
> > > famous area of polar compression
> > > but have no idea how broad or how locally steep this bulge
&
> > this
> > > compression are
> > >
> > > like
> > > are they very nearly as linear & perpendicular as the
equator
> &
> > > axis themselves are
> > > being confined to say only a very few degrees of spheroidal
> arc
> > > or
> > > do they perhaps spread out much more broadly & blend
> much
> > > more gradually with their surrounding regions until finally
> > > disappearing somewhere around the 45th parallel
> > >
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > If the solid structure of the earth were a perfect sphere,
> > centrifugal force
> > > from the diurnal rotation would cause our fluid seas to pile
> up
> > 27 miles deep at
> > > the Equator, swamping everything there while leaving the
> polar
> > regions high and
> > > dry. Centrifugal force being what it is, the seas do pile up
27
> > miles deep
> > > there anyway, but the sea floors and the dry lands of the
> > equatorial regions
> > > providently bulge upward to precisely match their swell!
> Since
> > solid structure
> > > and centrifugal effects on fluid must be in perfect
agreement,
> > the equatorial
> > > bulge and the polar flats must necessarily spread broadly
> and
> > blend gradually.
> > > I doubt that the rate of bulging is constant throughout. I
> would
> > expect the
> > > rate to be greatest near the equator where the centrifugal
> force
> > is greatest.
> > > If it were constant, though, that rate would be 477 meters
per
> > degree of
> > > latitude. If so, then just a few degrees of latitude from the
> > equator would
> > > negate the effects of some fairly pronounced differences in
> > relief.
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > if the former
> > > then you must be right on with ecuador & sumatra
> > > & we might proceed to narrow the possibilities further
> > >
> > > & if the latter
> > > then we might have to consider peaks of the entire
equatorial
> > > region
> > > conceivably even as far afield as the tropics
> > >
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > It wouldn't be nearly that far.
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > still guessing wildly here of course
> > >
> > > in other words
> > > i do realize lowness of latitude will generally trump height
of
> > > altitude
> > > but dont know yet at what latitude this advantage begins to
> > taper
> > > off
> > >
> > > so can you think of any way to evaluate these parameters
> > > or to at least bridge the apparent data gap
> > > because i think this additional understanding could be
> > essential
> > > before proceeding further
> > >
> > > more below
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > The two most circumferentially distant antipodes present
> an
> > > entirely different
> > > > question. The polar flattening causes the shortest
> > > circumferential routes
> > > > between any two antipodes to be along a great circle
> through
> > > the poles.
> > >
> > > ok but thats the shortest & we want the longest
> > >
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > Yes, but what we want to find is the longest of the shortest
> > (most direct
> > > possible) circumferential routes--as opposed to those that
> > take unnecessarily
> > > long and scenic paths just to make themselves longer.
> > Imagine two equatorial
> > > antipodes and the question of the circumferential distance
> > between them. They
> > > could be joined by an equatorial route, a polar route, or
> > anything in between.
> > > The equatorial route would be unnecessarily long because
it
> > runs the bulge all
> > > the way around. The polar route would clearly be shortest
> > (most direct), and
> > > thus the truest answer to the question of the distance
> between
> > any pair of
> > > antipodes.
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > & does your next statement follow from this
> > >
> > > you seem to follow now by saying there are none shorter
> than
> > > any others
> > > which seems a contradiction of the above
> > >
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > What I say is that none of the most direct (polar) routes
would
> > differ in length
> > > from each other on an earth without relief. They would
> certainly
> > differ from
> > > unnecessarily longer indirect (non-polar) routes.
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > or do both of these propositions make sense
independently
> > >
> > > On a
> > > > smooth oblate spheroid (an earth without relief), any pair
of
> > > antipodes would be
> > > > equally interdistant one from the other. This is because
> any
> > > imaginable great
> > > > circle connecting them would make two crossings of the
> > > bulging equatorial region
> > > > and two of the flattened polar regions. On the real world,
> only
> > > the matter of
> > > > elevational relief crossed in the process would
differentiate
> > the
> > > distances
> > > > between any pair of antipodes. You would want to pick
the
> > > diametrically
> > > > opposite pair of west and east longitudes that cross the
> > > maximum amount of
> > > > continental relief during their circuit of the earth, then
> choose
> > > any two
> > > > antipodes on that circuit--perhaps something like 70° W
> and
> > > 110° E.
> > >
> > > interesting too
> > > tho i am not sure i understand
> > >
> > > are you saying here that all circumferential differences are
> > > levelled except for those presented by relief
> > >
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > Unfortunately, yes. I am saying that all direct polar routes
> > between any two
> > > true antipodes should be equal except for the effects of
> > intervening relief.
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > but in that case it seems to me we face the difficulty of
having
> > to
> > > measure in detail the actual terrain crossed by every
> possible
> > > great circle in the world
> > >
> > > or rather not just the difficulty but the ultimate
imponderability
> &
> > > practical impossibility of it
> > >
> > > so maybe the supposed answerability of this question
> actually
> > > evaporates under the heat of scrutiny
> > >
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > Yes, it does! Of course, there would be no way to effectively
> > measure such
> > > relief. One could only generalize that a route running the
> length
> > of the Andes
> > > would be considerably longer than one skimming the
> smooth
> > waters of the Pacific,
> > > etc. That is why we would probably do best to disregard
> relief
> > as a factor and
> > > simply bask in the sheer wonder of this proposition: The
> > equality of
> > > circumferential distance between any two antipodes
> > (something that we would
> > > expect to find on a perfect sphere) obtains nevertheless on
> our
> > oblately
> > > spheroidal earth! End of my insertions.
> > > ++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > but i am sure i dont fully understand this yet
> > > so please clarify further if you can
> > >
> > > thanx
> > >
> > > end insertions
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:41 PM
> > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: How far is it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > in bp terms
> > > > > you have improved as well as redeemed what was only
a
> > try
> > > > > pointing quest by turning it into an actual tripointing
quest
> > > > >
> > > > > moreover your upgraded version is interesting in its
own
> > right
> > > > >
> > > > > & it holds forth some promise of being ultimately
> > answerable
> > > too
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > so have a leading pair of candidates suggested
> > themselves
> > > yet
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > & having tried a few things too
> > > > > i can report that the original quest
> > > > > namely
> > > > > which points on earth are farthest apart
> > > > > & exactly how far apart are they
> > > > > remains as hard to make any real headway with as it is
> > hard
> > > to
> > > > > improve upon in curiosity value & elegance
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > > McManus"
> > > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > If one wanted to determine the two tripoints that are
> > farthest
> > > > > apart, one should
> > > > > > first determine which few pairs are the most likely
> > > candidates
> > > > > based on their
> > > > > > relative antipodality from each other. This would take
> > some
> > > > > trial and error.
> > > > > > However, since the antipodes of most continents are
> > > oceanic,
> > > > > there shouldn't be
> > > > > > an abundance of likely candidates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Next, the few candidates might have to be evaluated
for
> > the
> > > > > effects of the
> > > > > > spheroidicity of the earth and for elevation. The earth
is
> > an
> > > > > oblate spheroid,
> > > > > > bulging at the Equator and flattened at the poles.
> > However,
> > > the
> > > > > difference
> > > > > > between sea level diameters pole-to-pole and
Equator
> to
> > > > > Equator is typically
> > > > > > stated in the range of 40 to 43 km. The supposedly
> most
> > > > > precise model pegs the
> > > > > > figure at 42,952 meters, which is less than 27 miles.
> On
> > > top of
> > > > > this distance,
> > > > > > elevation could add a few more miles if one found a
> pair
> > of
> > > > > relatively antipodal
> > > > > > tripoints both in high mountains. Elevation would
most
> > > affect
> > > > > diametric
> > > > > > distance and would be much less significant
> > > circumferentially.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Considering the relative paucity of land-land
antipodes
> > and
> > > the
> > > > > relative paucity
> > > > > > of tripoints near the poles, the variations due to
> > > spheriodicity
> > > > > and elevation
> > > > > > above sea level would probably be inconsequential in
> > > > > determining the two most
> > > > > > interdistant tripoints.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At http://williams.best.vwh.net/gccalc.htm , you will find
> yet
> > > > > another
> > > > > > great-circle distance calculator into which one can
enter
> > the
> > > > > coordinates of any
> > > > > > two points and get their circumferential distance
apart.
> > > This
> > > > > calculator
> > > > > > differs from the others in that you can chose from
> various
> > > > > mathematical models
> > > > > > of the shape of the earth, from perfectly spherical
> through
> > a
> > > > > number of
> > > > > > spheroidal models. Among these last, the one
> currently
> > > > > accepted is
> > > > > > WGS84/NAD83/GRS80.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:31 AM
> > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: How far is it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > i dont remember that
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > & it is an interesting question
> > > > > > > as well as a challenging try pointing quest
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > perhaps even 2 of each
> > > > > > > since the farthest pair of points measured
> > > circumferentially
> > > > > > > might not be the same points as the diametrically
> > farthest
> > > > > pair
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > yet exactly how to solve for either set
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > alternatively
> > > > > > > someone may already have solved & posted
answers
> > for
> > > > > them
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so perhaps a prior question is
> > > > > > > exactly how to search for any such ready made
> > answers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > &or
> > > > > > > failing that
> > > > > > > there must be some data on the geoid already
> > developed
> > > &
> > > > > > > available somewhere that might be useful toward
> these
> > > > > ends
> > > > > > > if we knew what to look for
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > greatest circumference & diameter figures might be
a
> > > good
> > > > > > > place to start
> > > > > > > since these are likely to have been worked out to
> some
> > > > > degree
> > > > > > > of specificity & accuracy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > but where & how to find them
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > & could we in fact approach the correct answers via
> > these
> > > > > data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > & if so
> > > > > > > by exactly what means could we get there from here
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > but can anyone solve or advance this
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > or even clearly see the right way to go
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A.
> > Nadybal"
> > > > > > > <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > We discussed some time back the maximum
> > distance
> > > that
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > two places
> > > > > > > > on earth could be from one another.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This site claims to deliver the distances between
> two
> > > > > selected
> > > > > > > points:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > www.indo.com/distance/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > LN
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links