Hi Marcus, Joe: If my ideas appeal to acknoledge the *mean radius* of Earth, I do not see it as any difficulty to align its 'NEW' definition in terms of the Nautical Kilometre or link it with the Velocity of light at existing or refined value, reported by me in the document: The Metric Second (1973). Regards, Brij B. Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21751] Is the meter defined at sea level? >Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:18:42 -0700 > >Based on Joe's post below and other ones earlier shall we conclude that we >still do not have the answer to the above question (in the subject)? > >Again, I launch the question what would prevent us from defining a specific >diameter for purposes of navigation and cartography at some 560 m below sea >level and use the principle of "relative" altitudes and all (like we >already do with atmospheric pressure) to get rid of the nautical mile crap? > >Marcus > > >>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... > > >Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably >Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. >Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
