email reply test: does this work?
ok i am back again already from both ecuador & sumatra
with several chunks of good news
on the
how far is it
front
first & unexpectedly
we appear to have reached some sort of an objective
ceiling
with the most recent instalment of this prolonged try
aka message 13550
to which this message is actually an addition
but which now seems to resist further additions to its
text via the
normal reply function
so our long years of trying & testing how high we can
stack a
yahoo thread appear to have finally reached a certain
objective
culmination & cosmic accolade
second
the actual progress report on the diametric trials
the still uncorrobated but probably adequate peakware
coords
in integral degmin or approximate mile squares
for all 4 of the candidate peaks of ecuador were first
antipodized
to sumatra & then matched with the actual topography
there
& all 4 of these diametric trials arrived rather
uniformly in various
parts of the coastal lowlands of riau province
where any boost obtained would certainly be measurable
in no
more than single digits of meters
so this discovery already flatly rules out candidate
number 4
antisana
& third
as to the only remaining question that needs to be
answered
before selecting the true winner from among cayambe &
its 2
taller rivals is the question of the bulge gradient
regardless of all those spheroidal & ellipsoidal &
geoidal maths
which i confess i dont fully understand
my intuition keeps telling me that the latitudes of
polar flattening
will be the more nearly spherical ones & the latitudes
of
equatorial bulging the less spherical ones
& that the gradient of differentiation must be most
gradual near
the poles & steepest & indeed quite steep nearest the
equator
so those 477 meters per degree average of yours lowell
might
actually drop to 0 at the 90th degree but might
approach 4777 or
even 47777 meters or who knows what maximum in the
degree
or minute or second nearest the equator
& having zigzagged all that thru my mind several times
now in
both directions
i am imagining that your nod & blessing over it all
yesterday
implicitly included your agreement on this very
question about
the gradient
& that it just wasnt worth talking about then
so you didnt waste any breath on it
& it continues to not be worth talking about now
except
i would like some explicit corroboration from at least
someone
who feels comfortable with the maths in the links to
message
13550
before continuing to acclaim cayambe the winner
& proceeding to zero in on its coords & its elevation
to obtain the final answer to & object of our quest
thanx
--- acroorca2002 <
orc@...> wrote:
> on still further afterthought
> lowell & anyone else
>
> i could easily have confused a square for a square
> root
> almost anywhere in all that math
> thus at least cubing the normal effects of my normal
> sydlexia
> hahaha
>
> so until anyone can confirm the mathematical
> evaluations that
> have led me to review & compare all 4 of these
> maxidiameter
> candidates as closely as possible
> i wont actually change my best bet from cayambe to
> chimborazo
> but i will certainly still test the 3 additional
> candidate diameters
> pending further confirmations or complications
>
> so again i am off again on this multiple chase &
> comparison
> for it is so much fun anyway
> even if it proves to be gratuitous
>
> beeps
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
>
> <orc@o...> wrote:
> > & a big oops must now be inserted
> > because
> > after reading these slightly strange but highly
> pertinent pages
> >
>
http://www.mentorsoftwareinc.com/CC/gistips/TIPS0998.HTM
> > &
> >
>
http://www.mentorsoftwareinc.com/CC/gistips/TIPS1098.HTM
> > i realize we havent truly disposed of the bulge
> gradient factor at
> > all yet
> > but have merely blown it off with some ignorant
> approximations
> > & it is indeed still looming high above us
> > in the form of ecuadors 2 higher peaks at least
> > plus
> > we still have the potential sumatran boost factor
> underfoot for
> > these too
> > as well as for the fourth highest of ecuadors
> peaks
> > all as detailed below
> >
> > so with that realization
> > on top of the satisfaction we have just enjoyed in
> administering
> > the cosmic stitch from cayambe to lubukbertubung
> > i am off again breathless to antisana & cotopaxi &
> finally &
> most
> > deliciously chimborazo
> > since thats where i have just changed my best bet
> to
> > for 3 additional stitches de grace
> >
> > & will report back as appropriate
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
> "acroorca2002"
> > <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > 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
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com