--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I don't have any time for complex maths now, since my
household is over 32 hours
yikes
thats pretty complex already
but this & your following message are generally reassuring of
my hunch & sense that cayambe will hold up over the other 2
candidates
in the meantime
i have learned its official elevation is 5790 meters
rather than 5786
but little else can be found online about either of these
prospective antipodes
there is a 50k scale cayambe topo i can order from ecuador tho
& i am off to the library now for better detail on the lats & longs
beeps
> without running water, and it will be mid-morning tomorrow at
best when I can
> get it running again.
>
> The sole practical function of the equatorial bulge is to match
the sea beds and
> dry lands to the effects of centrifugal force on the fluid seas--i.e.
to keep
> the equtorial regions from being swamped. Indeed, this
functional approach is
> what convinced Newton that there just had to be an equatorial
bulge, all
> mathematics aside.
>
> There is no centrifugal force at the precise point of the poles,
because those
> points are not in rotation. The force is greatest at the Equator,
since it is
> in fastest rotation.
>
> The formula for determining centrifugal force is:
> F=mv2/r
> In other words, the force equals the mass of the rotating object
times its
> velocity squared divided by the radius. (For the purpose of this
formula, the
> "radius" of any point on the earth would not be its distance from
the earth's
> center, but its perpendicular distance from the earth's axis.)
>
> Perhaps someone with enough mathematical skills (and
running water) might be
> able to determine the rate of change in centrifugal force per
minute of latitude
> in the vicinity of the equator. That should approximate the rate
of change in
> the equatorial bulge.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 3:35 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] where & how far are the farthest
places continued
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >