Tony, it impugns your image to think of you as half asleep. For the record, I prefer to think that you were half awake.
-Bill In a message dated 2/3/2004 9:15:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Subj: Was I half asleep? > Date: 2/3/2004 9:15:50 AM Eastern Standard Time > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tony moss) > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[email protected]";> [email protected]</A> > To: [email protected] (Sundial Mail List) > > Fellow Shadow Watchers, > There was a programme on UK Discovery yesterday - > 2nd Feb - with some excellent material covering a thousand years of > history. I must admit that I wan't paying 100% attention but one > sequence caught my immediate attention. This described a French?? > expedition to northern latitudes to determine the true shape of the earth > which, as we now know, is an 'oblate spheroid' which is flattened near > the poles. The whole thing was expensively restaged in costume with > elegantly attired gentlemen trudging through deep snow on a frozen lake > laying wooden poles end to end to measure surface distances. > > By comparing accurate astronomical positioning with linear measurements > made on the surface they proved - accoding to the programme - that the > distance between lines of latitude is GREATER at the poles. This > 'concept' was supported by using a graphical representation of the earth > with a superimposed protractor BOTH of which stretched as the earth was > distorted. As the protractor stretched or rather distorted, with the > earth image this point *appeared* to be true. > > Have I got it wrong? Surely the linear distance between lines of > latitude will be decreased by flattening a sphere at its poles? Or had I > missed something important by simultaneously watching TV and designing a > heliochronometer base casting on my computer? Back on topic - ish. > > Tony Moss > -
