Jo Joe: My applogy for not responding earlier. The fact I missed earlier posting, had been visiting friends. I have just posted you another mail regarding definition of the New Metre (m') based on the mean radius of Earth that I had, I am not aware of any better value accepted by CCU or other similar body. I wonder this satisfy curiosity of many USMA members. Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph B. Reid) >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21721] Re: Towards A World Calendar >Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:36:14 -0400 > >Marcus Berger wrote in USMA 21717: > > > >Yes, but aside from this simplicity one must mention that it would just >be > >a matter of choosing an average diameter that would yield exactly that > >value. I don't know if the actual value is technically tied to the > >official "sea level" on our planet (what I mean is we all know that this > >value, 40 Mm, is not exact). Perhaps someone here could clarify this to > >us. If this is not the case what would stop us from *defining* that > >specific diameter so that this issue can be definitively settled? > > >J. F. Hayford reported to the International Geodetic and Geophysical Union >in 1926 that; > Equatorial circumference of the earth = 40 076.594 km, > Polar circumference of the earth = 39 941.028 km. >My source does not state whether these figures are for sea level, as seems >likely, or if they take account of land and mountains. However, the >uncertainty in the radius of the earth can not exceed 50 metres. That is, >the uncertainty is only one part in 100 000. > >Joseph B.Reid >17 Glebe Road West >Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071 _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
