Subject: Re: How far is it?
Date: Mar 12, 2004 @ 14:01
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Congratulations on the thoroughness of your research. I cangive you a more
> accurate equatorial diameter for the earth at sea level.WGS84/NAD/83/GRS80
> puts it at 12,756.274 km, so you can add these extra 274 m toyour total. (The
> polar diameter, by the way, is 12,713.322 km.)of
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:03 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: How far is it?
>
>
> 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
> cayambe fall in the swampy lowlands around lubukbertubungof
> 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
> coastal ecuadorarising
> & 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
> there that could significantly displace our trial diameter awaythere
> from the summit of cayambe
>
> in fact it seems there is hardly even a tree standing around
> any morethat
> 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
> no other point on cayambe can expect much help from itsthe
> 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
> summitto
> it seems to me the cayambe summit point must be presumed
> be ground zerohttp://www.nickwinter.com/journeys/south_america/ecuador.htm
> for the worlds longest diameter & most farflung pair of places
> pending any better data than we have
>
> &
>
> shows a human rather than arboreal projection & prolongation&
> celebration of this maximum distancealready
> 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
> > even without having to look for much more topographic detailequatorial
> > 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
> °ree
> > 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
> >these
> >
> > & tho we still dont know the actual gradient of the bulge
> > it is clear that cayambe would not be overtaken by any of
> > other peaks even at the minimum gradientany
> > 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
> > > other pairthe
> > >
> > > & 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
> > > 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:
> > > >the
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- 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
> > > > famous equatorial bulgeequally
> > > > just as the diametric minimum would fall within the
> > > > famous area of polar compressionbulge
> > > > but have no idea how broad or how locally steep this
> &spheroidal
> > > 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
> > arcpile
> > > > 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
> > upbroadly
> > > 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
> > andin
> > > 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
> > > relief.to
> > > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > taperpresent
> > > > 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
> > anshortest
> > > > 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
> > > (most directthat
> > > > possible) circumferential routes--as opposed to those
> > > take unnecessarilydistance
> > > > long and scenic paths just to make themselves longer.
> > > Imagine two equatorial
> > > > antipodes and the question of the circumferential
> > > between them. Theybecause
> > > > could be joined by an equatorial route, a polar route, or
> > > anything in between.
> > > > The equatorial route would be unnecessarily long
> itshortest
> > > runs the bulge all
> > > > the way around. The polar route would clearly be
> > > (most direct), andpair
> > > > 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
> ofthe
> > > > antipodes would be
> > > > > equally interdistant one from the other. This is because
> > any
> > > > imaginable great
> > > > > circle connecting them would make two crossings of
> > > > bulging equatorial regionworld,
> > > > > and two of the flattened polar regions. On the real
> > onlyW
> > > > 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°
> > andare
> > > > 110° E.
> > > >
> > > > interesting too
> > > > tho i am not sure i understand
> > > >
> > > > are you saying here that all circumferential differences
> > > > levelled except for those presented by reliefeffectively
> > > >
> > > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > > 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
> > > measure suchon
> > > > 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
> > ouronly
> > > 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
> ais
> > > 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
> > > hardtake
> > > > 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
> > > someare
> > > > > > trial and error.
> > > > > > > However, since the antipodes of most continents
> > > > oceanic,earth
> > > > > > 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
> ismiles.
> > > 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
> > Onin
> > > > 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
> > > > > > determining the two mostfind
> > > > > > > interdistant tripoints.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At http://williams.best.vwh.net/gccalc.htm , you will
> > yetbe
> > > > > > 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
> avia
> > > > 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
> > > thesehere
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > & if so
> > > > > > > > by exactly what means could we get there from
> > > > > > > >between
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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
> > two
> > > > > > selected
> > > > > > > > points:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > www.indo.com/distance/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > LN
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links