I do agree that "The Ends of the Earth" is a completely appropriate name for
these special places, since no other two points on the planet are farther apart.
Now, Mike, I want to remember your current state of excitement and pleasure the
next time someone else happens to stray from strictly tripoint-related material
in these discussions. :-)
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 12:24 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: where & how far are the farthest places continued
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>