ok so i will move forward tomorrow by phoning a major map
supply house in north carolina
where i could get lucky enough to acquire both the correct
ecuadorean topo & the correct sumatran topo overnite
it will probably just depend on how attentive & helpful their staff
are able to be over the phone
for i am fairly satisfied now that all the maths do indeed point to
cayambe rather than cotopaxi or chimborazo
so i ought to be able to communicate flat out which maps i want
& they ought to have them both in stock & ought to be able to
verify that the requirements & coordinates match before shipping
therefore the most major remaining gap in my understanding &
process now is the extended question of
whether truth will require that we detect & account for any
differential between the spheroid & the geoid
which we know could amount to as much as 100 meters in
places
& if so then exactly how would we do all that
admittedly this inquiry would most likely only affect the how far &
not the where of our quest
so the question may be out of order at this time
but can anyone answer it anyway
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > 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. :-)
>
> hahahaha
> thank you thank you
> & dont you think the freakin ends of the earth are real enough
as
> both boundary points & extremities to fairly command attention
> here
> hahaha
> but just to fully & finally redeem them if they really needed it
> into a truly worthy bp combination triplication ensemble
>
http://www.futureforests.com/uploadedimages/heart_marsh1.gif
>
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >