Dear Marcus, Joe, and All, If I add Hayford's 'Equatorial circumference of the earth = 40 076.594 km' and his 'Polar circumference of the earth = 39 941.028 km' and divide by 2, does this give me the mean circumference of the Earth? In this case it would be 40 008.811 kilometres � or some 9 kilometres more than the original (1792) figure.
BTW, Marcus, where did you get the number '560 m below sea level'? Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS Geelong, Australia on 2002-08-17 01.18, Ma Be at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 >
