of course i couldnt wait til tomorrow to order the topos
but managed to do so online already today
i think
despite some anomalies at the suppliers website
in fact i was so excited i even muffed the sumatra quad on my
first order try
so i had to email a correction besides
what helped me finally get to the right quad was this usgs page
http://pubs.usgs.gov/prof/p1386i/ecuador/intro.html
which not only reconfirmed the official summit elevation but more
importantly corrected the unofficial peakware summit coords that
i had been using temporarily
from nlat 00d02m to 00d01m
& from wlong 77d58m to 77d59m
& this slight correction triggered a further advance in precision
for it matched so well with the apparent summit point on the topo
we have been using temporarily
http://www.igepn.edu.ec/varios/productos/Cayambe.gif
& also fit my earlier guess of 5 minute squares upon this map
that it led me to refine the most probable coordinates further
myself by an exact direct measurement of them on my video
screen
so we now have for our working guesses
nlat 00d00m38s5 x wlong 77d58m53s4
& antipodally
slat 00d00m38s5 x elong 102d01m06s6
all with perhaps a digit or 2 of spurious accuracy
meaning we may already be down to within about 10 horizontal
meters of the truth
to dovetail with our roughly 10 meter vertical window now too
hopefully
but please stand by for more & better
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >