Mike,
You're going to have to hang by on my every nuance for a while longer. My well
pump is down, and I have a lot of work to do today to fix it. I'll hope to get
you some more nuances by tomorrow.
Thanks for being patient.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:01 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: How far is it?
highest & deepest thanxx lowell
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 truth
in terms of altitudes
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 to
your total. (The
> 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 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
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links