Subject: Re: How far is it?
Date: Mar 12, 2004 @ 17:16
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> highest & deepest thanxx lowelltruth
> for this further advancement
> & for all your extremely fine guidance & being in this quest
>
> & indeed
> for this confirmation of profoundest harmonies in finest pursuit
>
>
> pending anything better
> your extra 274 meters not only blast us clear thru the 12762 km
> barrier with about 60 meters to spare
> but they also bring us down to within 10 meters of absolute
> in terms of altitudesto
> unless my evaluations are mistaken
>
> which of course makes it all the more relevant & pressing now
> that we refine our latitudes & longitudes
> since they lag all the farther now behind the altitudes
> having only gotten down to the correct square mile of the truth
>
> & we have now also reached the point of needing to know
> whether the true altitude of cayambe is in fact 5786 or 5790 m
> or perhaps something else
>
>
> & shouldnt we also consider at this juncture
> adding the height of the permanent snowcap
> if not of the mountain climber & of the tree stump
> hahaha
> or is glacier not the earth either
>
> or yikes maybe thats already expressed in the 4 extra meters
>
>
> but whatever your responses & next advice
> please know i am hanging by now on your every nuance
> as i do believe we are careering into new truth at every step
> toward the literally farthest flung points on earth
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Congratulations on the thoroughness of your research. I can
> give 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
> your total. (Thecoordinates
> > polar diameter, by the way, is 12,713.322 km.)
> >
> > 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
> > stated belowin
> >
> > & if all that is correct
> > then we have what is probably the 5780 meter elevation line
> > the larger of the 2 enclosed shapesshape
> > & possibly even the 5790 meter elevation line in the tiny
> > abutting itsuperimpose
> >
> > again all this remains subject to better data
> > but at least it is now possible to at least mentally
> > these shapes on an antipodal map to see where the highestantipodes
> > combined elevations might lie
> > if indeed not at the exact summit of cayambe
> >
> > now the best available sumatra map shows that the
> oflubukbertubung
> > cayambe fall in the swampy lowlands around
> > just nw of rengatequatorial
> >
> >
> > the map also shows btw that the best candidate for
> > high point of sumatra has antipodes in the swampy lowlandsanywhere
> of
> > coastal ecuador
> > & thus it confirms our earlier surmise that no sumatracentric
> > approach could ever produce an antipodal diameter
> > near as long as the ecuadorcentric approachlubukbertubung
> > & thus also confirms we are most probably travelling in the
> > correct direction for success & truth
> >
> >
> > so
> > resuming the chase in the jungles of rengat &
> > http://www.maanystavat.fi/april/gallery/index3.htmpresumed
> > 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
> tohttp://www.nickwinter.com/journeys/south_america/ecuador.htm
> > be ground zero
> > 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
> &in
> > 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
> > sumatradetail
> > & 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
> > > because all the highest equatorial areas of ecuador are farto
> > > 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
> > > areas of ecuador that are not nearly so steepwe
> > >
> > > 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
> > > have a leading candidate in mount cayambetrials
> > > 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
> > > would get from their antipodal partner elevation in sumatraits
> > >
> > > most probably not nearly enough boost to matter tho
> > >
> > >
> > > so for now it sure likes like the summit point of cayambe &
> > > antipodal counterpart are the winnershave
> > >
> > > obviously tho
> > > more & better detail
> > > as well as the most exact measurement possible
> > > are needed before resting completely satisfied that we
> > > done itof
> > >
> > >
> > > --- 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
> > theor
> > > > 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
> > notvery
> > > > 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
> > > > nearlyabove
> > > > > equatorial
> > > > > > antipodes with the greatest combined elevation
> > seablend
> > > > > 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 &
> > > muchfinally
> > > > > more gradually with their surrounding regions until
> > > > > disappearing somewhere around the 45th parallelthe
> > > > >
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++
> > > > > 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
> > > polarup
> > > > regions high and
> > > > > dry. Centrifugal force being what it is, the seas do pile
> > 27centrifugal
> > > > 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
> > > forcemeters
> > > > is greatest.
> > > > > If it were constant, though, that rate would be 477
> > perthe
> > > > degree of
> > > > > latitude. If so, then just a few degrees of latitude from
> > > > equator woulddifferences
> > > > > negate the effects of some fairly pronounced
> inheight
> > > > 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
> > ofparameters
> > > > > altitude
> > > > > but dont know yet at what latitude this advantage begins
> to
> > > > taper
> > > > > off
> > > > >
> > > > > so can you think of any way to evaluate these
> > > > > or to at least bridge the apparent data gapshorter
> > > > > 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
> > > thanbecause
> > > > > 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
> > > anypick
> > > > > 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
> > thethe
> > > > > diametrically
> > > > > > opposite pair of west and east longitudes that cross
> > > > > maximum amount ofroutes
> > > > > > 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
> > > > between any twothe
> > > > > 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
> > > lengthdisregard
> > > > 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
> > > reliefThe
> > > > as a factor and
> > > > > simply bask in the sheer wonder of this proposition:
> > > > equality ofit
> > > > > 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
> isare
> > > > 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
> > > > farthestevaluated
> > > > > > > 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
> > forsupposedly
> > > > 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
> > > mosta
> > > > > > > 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
> > > pairinconsequential
> > > > 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
> indiametrically
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > farthesttoward
> > > > > > > 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
> > > thesemight
> > > > > > > ends
> > > > > > > > > if we knew what to look for
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > greatest circumference & diameter figures
> beto
> > a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > place to start
> > > > > > > > > since these are likely to have been worked out
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links