Let me explain my last two IFs this way: If the rate were constant, 477 m per
degree would negate the claims of peaks not pretty darn close to the Equator.
Since I now believe the rate to be non-constant, and indeed greatest nearest the
Equator, the claims of rival peaks would be negated all the more with distance
from the Equator.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 5:02 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: How far is it?
> excuuuuse me lowell
> you were not silent but quite explicit here in the following extract
>
> & by one possible reading of it you do indeed appear to agree
> cotopaxi & chimborazo bite the dust
>
> > > > > > > > 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.
>
> i just cant be sure whether the last 2 ifs are in series or parallel
>
> which might make all the difference in the world
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>