On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 15:14 +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote: > John W Kennedy wrote: > > On May 21, 2008, at 4:29 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote: > >> The metre was never based on the distance from Paris to the North > >> Pole. It was based on the meridian measured from the equator to the > >> North Pole. > > > > Specified as being taken along a line /through/ Paris, however. > > Does that make a difference for the length of the metre? I can't > immediately see how some parts of the equator can be further from the > north pole than other parts of the equator. To my knowledge, the very > definitions of north pole and equator ensure that the north pole is > equidistant to all points in the equator. Unless the definition of metre > included terrain features like mountains and valleys. I sure hope it didn't.
I bet with seismic activity etc there are some minute variations. You might be able to define a stylistic Earth with precise distances between specific points but it's not likely to be an accurate representation of precisely what is there. Ian -- New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications www.theINGOTs.org You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
