John W Kennedy wrote:
On May 21, 2008, at 9:14 AM, 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 honestly don't know what they had in mind, but I have always seen it
quoted as being on the Paris meridian.
I don't think that even those who set the standard thought that the
particular meridian made any difference, just a bit of ethno-centrism,
which I think we will have to excuse them for, considering the way of
the times. If the British had done it, it would have been defined as
the Grenwich meridian, if the Germans, Berlin, the Americans, New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
