It may not be unreasonable to assume Earth as a 'hypotheical sphere' fo mean radius - 6371 km, as I have tried to assume. The following may prove useful:
Polar Radius =6356.783 km; Equitorial Radius =6378.136 km
These were the best known values that I could trace. Accordingly, considering the Earth to be a hypothetical sphere of radius 6371 km, the circumference would work to 40030.15926869 km (24873.587796448 miles) and 1/36000TH of the circle to define the nautical kilometre as: '1/100TH of one degree' on earth circumference works to 1.11194886884 km or 0.690932994338 mile - to become the 'new' conversion factors, for length units.
The Nautical Kilometre (n km') as related to the decimal clock (of 240000 decimal seconds to the day), can be defined as: ONE NAUTICAL KILOMETRE (n km') is the surface distance on Earth made by one minute (1/100TH of 1�) of arc-angle at its center.
The nautical mile of 1852 m (1.852 km), shall be 1.1507794480235 mile or 1.6655442097189 kilometre new (n km').
Regards,
Brij B. Vij TIME: to think Metric!<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <And Calendar too>
From: "Joseph B. Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [USMA:24369] Re: The Measure of All Things Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 13:06:06 -0500Bill Potts wrote in USMA 24361:In October, Ken Alder, the author of The Measure of All Things, gave a one-hour talk (including a question and answer period) at a bookstore in Winnetka, IL.I recommend the bo0k. It contains much fascinating detail about the survey of M�chain and Delambre. However, Alder is no physicist. He gives an incorrect description of the 1793 draft metric system and he got the ratios of the pre-revolutionary monetary system interchanged. His sub-title "Hidden Error that Transformed the World" is quite unjustified by the text, in which he states "the final determination of the meter was based on the very data they [M�chain and Delambre] had been sent to supersede". He goes on in the next paragraph to state "Seven years of labor had only succeeded in making the meter less accurate". On page 250 Alder wrote "the earth's radius at the poles was 1/300 (or 0.3 percent) shorter than its radius at the equator". I would rephrase that as "the radius of curvature of the meridians of longitude is 1/300 greater at the poles than at the equator". It is true that the distance to the center of the earth is less from the poles than from the equator. However, the distance on the surface of the earth between latitude 89� and the pole is greater than the distance from the equator to latitude 1�. I admit that I am not sure how "aplatissement " was defined. -- Joseph B. Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 Telephone 416-486-6071
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
