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.
Cheers,
Daniel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How could it take those things into account? They did not measure it. It
was an arbitrary estimate. Probably one of the reasons it was moved to
the light wavelength standard was to avoid having to recalibrate the
reference standard when accurate measurements became possible. And given
the uneven distribution of mass, it would not surprise me if there are
bulges and depressions of such a large, though gradual, scale to make
for many variations in the measured distance.
Wow, I'm being stubborn about this. I must be turning into a curmudgeon!
But thanks for the wonderful, and enlightening responses.
-Greg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
