the antipodal topo order has now been confirmed
& the ends of the earth will indeed be coming soon
to a try pointing arena near you
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
<barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >