it turns out there isnt much more at my local library either
but i did see in the times atlas there
that our primary ground zero in sumatra appears to fall in a
remote area
except that it is near a roadway
& an interior lowland stream crossing
& it is possibly tens rather than merely units of meters above sea
level there
contrary to previous assumption
but that doesnt slow us down a bit
while it does slightly increase the prospective maxidiameter
& i have also learned in the meantime that there are likewise
sumatran paper topos available
which i will also be able to order in due time
tho not before getting the exact point right on the ecuadorean
topo first of course
which i will order as soon as we are satisfied with all the maths
finally
desserts stressed
as the discoverers of these farthest flung points on earth
or yikes
maybe they are nothing less than the legendary
long sought & elusive
so called
ends of the earth
yikes
it will also be our great honor & privilege to figure out how to
properly enshrine them
but this is so exciting i am getting ahead of ourselves
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
<barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> --- 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >