Closest to the moon by walking
Peter Munn
climbed Everest to become the first person to do this and cross both
Arctic and Antarctic, spoke of his ascent as being the closest you can
get to the Moon by walking. This got me thinking.
Taken literally, you don't have to think long to realise it's at least
not always true, because the Moon isn't always overhead. Know about the
moon's orbit, think a little longer, and you realise your timing has to
be just right. Consider the shape of the Earth, and you will wonder if
Everest is even the right mountain to climb.
So how do you get closest to the Moon by walking? Who might the current
record holder be? And when and where could a record attempt be made?
Firstly, the Earth-Moon distance varies each month by several times the
diameter of the whole planet, never mind the height of a mountain, so
you have to choose exactly the right time of month.
Secondly, the Earth as a whole is almost like a smooth ball, so it
matters greatly whether the moon is very nearly directly above you
rather than somewhere else. If the moon is just 1 degree away from
zenith, you effectively lose 972m of height, and it doesn't frequently
get that close to being overhead at Everest [1].
Thirdly, the right combination might easily occur at night, not exactly
a traditional time of day for being atop such a large mountain.
But is Everest even the right mountain for a record attempt at any time?
Mountain peaks are quoted in height above sea level, but the Moon's
orbit is determined by the centre of the Earth, not sea level; and at
the equator, sea level is over 21,000m further from the centre of the
Earth than it is at the poles. So, we need to consider the heights of
mountains relative to the centre of the Earth.
According to the equation I have to hand[2], the peak of Everest is
about 6,382,305m from the centre of the Earth, equivalent to a mountain
of only 4165m on the equator. So, it seems to be easily beaten by Mt
Kenya's 5199m on the equator, or three degrees further South by
Kilimanjaro's 5895m, worth about 5830m. But all of these appear to be
beaten by Chimborazo in Ecuador, which I get to be worth about 6260m
were it exactly on the equator; and Huascaran in Peru, worth about
6250m.
Consequently, I suspect record attempts should be made from Ecuador or
Peru, not Nepal; though given the frequency with which Kilimanjaro is
climbed, the current record holders may be fairly ordinary tourists who
just happened to be atop that peak when the moon passed very close to
overhead at exactly the right time of month.
Finally, the Moon isn't flat either, so if you want to become the
nearest to the surface of the Moon, rather than its centre, you have to
consider the presence of lunar mountains and crater rims, too. (As seen
from the Earth, the moon rocks significantly back and forward and up and
down, so the point on the Moon that is nearest to us - and its height -
varies considerably.)
So I wonder if it's possible to be sure who has got closest to the Moon
by walking. More tractable, perhaps, if you want to claim a new record
for getting closest to the Moon by walking, when and where should you
climb?
Peter Munn 21/05/2009
[1] The sea-level point on Earth that is nearest to the Moon, the
sublunar point, traces a path as our planet revolves. On average the
path oscillates between the tropic of Capricorn and the tropic of Cancer
each day, but some months it oscillates less, travelling between about
18 degrees North and South, some months more, moving between about 29
degrees North and South, and most months somewhere between these
extremes. Everest is 28 degrees North, so the sublunar point will pass
near enough to Everest sometimes, but not every month, and even less
often at the right time of month and a convenient time of day. I
suspect good opportunities arise only every few years.
[2] Derived from the 1997 British Astronomical Association handbook:
distance of sea level from centre of Earth =
(0.99832707 + 0.00167644*cos(2*phi) - 0.00000352*cos(4*phi) +
0.00000001*cos(6*phi)) * 6378.140 km, where phi is the latitude angle
--
,---. __ E-mail replies: please simply reply
_./ \_.' without altering the subject line.
'..l.--''7 If this newsgroup message is over
|`---' two months old, or you meet other
| Peter Munn problems, please mail to newsreply
| Staffordshire UK @pearce-neptune... instead.
Androcles
"Peter Munn" <pmun...@pearce-neptune.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u8aIAGAj...@pearce-neptune.demon.co.uk...
1) Day/night is irrelevant, one would bivouac at night for any
serious climbing attempt. That is exactly a traditional time of
night for being atop such a large mountain. You don't come
down each evening and then go up again the next morning and
you will not climb Everest by walking in 12 hours or even 24
hours.
2) The Moon is closest to the Earth at apogee (by definition).
3) There are 13 apogees a year, half at night and half during the day.
3a) ("Day"-- it is always day somewhere, I'm talking about the lit side)
4) The Moon's orbit is tilted ~5 degrees from the plane of the Earth's
orbit: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/rog/eclipses.jpg
5) The Earth is tilted 23.5 degrees.
Hence the shortest straight line from the centre of the Moon to
the centre of the Earth intersects the Earth's surface at a latitude
no more than +/- 28.5 degrees.
Everest would be at the Northern limit and an unlikely candidate.
6) I'll leave you to find out where.
D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch
> 2) The Moon is closest to the Earth at apogee (by definition).
Care to recheck that one? I always thought that the lowest point in
an orbit was perigee.
> 6) I'll leave you to find out where.
I think there are probably times when the closest point on earth to
the moon might be Mauna Kea (coincidentally, site of a huge observatory
complex). Mauna Kea, Hawaii, mid-Pacific. Think about it.
Bill
__o |
_`\(,_ | Burn fat, not oil.
(_)/ (_) |
Androcles
<D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch> wrote in message
news:gv5aaf$ljk$1...@news.xmission.com...
> In rec.climbing Androcles <Headm...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>> 2) The Moon is closest to the Earth at apogee (by definition).
>
> Care to recheck that one? I always thought that the lowest point in
> an orbit was perigee.
>
So you caught my deliberate mistake :-)
>
>> 6) I'll leave you to find out where.
>
> I think there are probably times when the closest point on earth to
> the moon might be Mauna Kea (coincidentally, site of a huge observatory
> complex). Mauna Kea, Hawaii, mid-Pacific. Think about it.
That rather depends on whether perigee is in the Northern or Southern
hemisphere. Think about it.
Klooch Man
Man, I only got as far as thinking that Everest could equally likely
be the farthest you could get from the Moon by walking.
Sounds more likely that the Moon will come to Mohammed.
Androcles
"Klooch Man" <lek...@intergate.ca> wrote in message
news:2361d055-6f49-4fdd...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
I didn't mean YOU should think about it, that would clearly be an
impossibility.
Michael A. Riches
Well, then...??? "WHO" should think about it...???
> that would clearly be an impossibility.
For you or Klooch...???
Ratzzz...
william...@gmail.com
> <D_Frumiou...@ndersnat.ch> wrote in message
> > I think there are probably times when the closest point on earth to
> > the moon might be Mauna Kea (coincidentally, site of a huge observatory
> > complex). Mauna Kea, Hawaii, mid-Pacific. Think about it.
>
> That rather depends on whether perigee is in the Northern or Southern
> hemisphere. Think about it.
The moon's orbit precesses fast, with a period of only about 19
years. If, at some time, perigee occurs as far north as possible,
than about 9.5 years later it will happen as far south as possible.
So anywhere on the earth's surface beween about +/- 28.5
degrees latitude can be directly below the moon at perigee.
What point on the earth's surface is furthest from its centre?
It's bound ot be fairly close to the equator. That point will be
the one that comes closest to the moon 's centre.
Does the topography of the moon's surface matter? I'm
not sure...
dow
Androcles
<william...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e310deb-6c4b-4049...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
=====================================
Well done!
=====================================
Does the topography of the moon's surface matter? I'm
not sure...
dow
=====================================
Well, considering the original statement that brought this up, Sir Ranulph
Fiennes ascent of Everest and his claim "This is the closest you can get
to the moon by walking" , the lunar topography really doesn't matter.
If we construct a straight line between centres at perigee then wherever
we find the highest point on Earth that is close to that line and closest
to a point on the Moon, even if that point is on a crater wall, it will
not affect the closest we can walk toward the moon.
In other words if I walk the plank until I am closest to your nose and
you turn sideways so that I become closer to your outstretched hand,
I can still get no closer to you than the end of the plank.
D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch
> What point on the earth's surface is furthest from its centre?
> It's bound ot be fairly close to the equator. That point will be
> the one that comes closest to the moon 's centre.
I don't have the Guiness Book at hand, but I seem to recall that it
says the farthest point from the Earth's center is Chimborazo
(20,561'/6,265m), in Ecuador.
Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| The surest way to become a pacifist is to join the infantry. |
| --Bill Mauldin |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Androcles
<D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch> wrote in message
news:gvcgmt$a79$1...@news.xmission.com...
"I had 26 kills in Iraq" - A British sniper.
Ref:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_two/2009-05-24 10:30 pm
Fighting Passions
Sun, 24 May 2009
Documentary featuring interviews with soldiers on the act that defines them:
killing.
Bill Mauldin (whoever he his) hasn't a clue.
Steve Haymes
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
> Bill Mauldin (whoever he his) hasn't a clue.
Clueless? Wow...
Dwight "A fugitive from the law of averages"
Androcles
"Steve Haymes" <sdha...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:pxlSl.1111$_s1...@newsfe04.iad...
>
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
>
>> Bill Mauldin (whoever he his) hasn't a clue.
>
> Clueless?
Yep.
(And I provided the evidence, you ignorant trolling cunt!)
Fuck off.
Michael A. Riches
>Yep.
>Fuck off.
Guess he told you, Steve... 'Course I'm still trying to figure out just
who's the real troll here...
I think Androclueless is probably the biggest candidate. But then you could
argue that cross posters never troll, right...???
Ratzzz...(Ohhh...and fuck off back at ya...)
Androcles
"Michael A. Riches" <rock...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GMydnaLPvoT2XIfX...@powerusenet.com...
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
Steve Haymes
>>>
>>>> Bill Mauldin (whoever he his) hasn't a clue.
>>> Clueless?
>>Yep.
>>(And I provided the evidence, you ignorant trolling cunt!)
>>Fuck off.
> Guess he told you, Steve... 'Course I'm still trying to figure out just
> who's the real troll here...
> I think Androclueless is probably the biggest candidate. But then you
> could argue that cross posters never troll, right...???
I just couldn't let Bill Mauldin's memory be slandered like that. I could
ignore the
pissing match over such an esoteric posit, however. "Think about it". Wow,
if an
insult that paltry ever rated getting defensive about, I'd think I was
dealing with
a toddler. He thinks that was on-topic? Life Rule #2 Get the fuck over
yourself.
Hey Androcles, try to live up to your adopted namesake and show some grace.
IMHO, you don't deserve to be educated or informed, you go ahead with your
self-serving, incomplete knowledge of the world. Maybe change your handle to
"lil adolph", because you are in danger of becoming a cartoon character.
Dwight
Putting out the flag at 10:21 am, now the neighbors will gossip about my
patriotism.
dammit, I hate reville.
Androcles
Hey Fuckwit!
I have the grace to put evidence before bullshit. I don't have the
gracelessness to snip the evidence.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> | The surest way to become a pacifist is to join the infantry. |
> | --Bill Mauldin |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
"I had 26 kills in Iraq" - A British sniper.
Ref:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_two/2009-05-24 10:30 pm
Fighting Passions
Sun, 24 May 2009
Documentary featuring interviews with soldiers on the act that defines them:
killing.
Bill Mauldin (whoever he his) hasn't a clue.
IMHO, you are a stooopid clueless cunt.
Fuck off.
william...@gmail.com
> <williamsdavi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Does the topography of the moon's surface matter? I'm
> not sure...
>
> dow
> Well, considering the original statement that brought this up, Sir Ranulph
> Fiennes ascent of Everest and his claim "This is the closest you can get
> to the moon by walking" , the lunar topography really doesn't matter.
> If we construct a straight line between centres at perigee then wherever
> we find the highest point on Earth that is close to that line and closest
> to a point on the Moon, even if that point is on a crater wall, it will
> not affect the closest we can walk toward the moon.
> In other words if I walk the plank until I am closest to your nose and
> you turn sideways so that I become closer to your outstretched hand,
> I can still get no closer to you than the end of the plank.
Suppose the moon is directly overhead at some point on the earth's
equator, and suppose there are two mountains on the earth of equal
heights, one a bit north of the sub-lunar point, and the other an
equal
distance south of it. Obviously, the summits of both mountains are
at equal distances from the moon's centre. It is possible that they
are closer to the moon's centre than anywhere else on the earth's
surface.
But suppose there is a mountain on the moon a bit to the north
of the sub-earth point. The peak of this mountain will be slightly
closer to the summit of the northern mountain on the earth than
to the southern one. It is possible that this distance between
the summits of the northern mointain on the earth and the
mountain on the moon is the closest distance between any
two points on the surfaces of the earth and the moon.
Even if the southern mountain on the earth is very slightly
higher than the northern one, which would make the southern
summit slightly closer to the moon's centre than the northern
one, it is still possible that the northern summit is closer to
the top of the lunar mountain than anywhere else on the earth.
So the lunar topography *can* be important in this problem.
But the question is, *is* it important in the real case, in which
the moon librates and nutates? I don't know.
dow
Androcles
<william...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd95c249-7d52-4897...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On May 23, 10:23 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <williamsdavi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Does the topography of the moon's surface matter? I'm
> not sure...
>
> dow
> Well, considering the original statement that brought this up, Sir Ranulph
> Fiennes ascent of Everest and his claim "This is the closest you can get
> to the moon by walking" , the lunar topography really doesn't matter.
> If we construct a straight line between centres at perigee then wherever
> we find the highest point on Earth that is close to that line and closest
> to a point on the Moon, even if that point is on a crater wall, it will
> not affect the closest we can walk toward the moon.
> In other words if I walk the plank until I am closest to your nose and
> you turn sideways so that I become closer to your outstretched hand,
> I can still get no closer to you than the end of the plank.
Suppose the moon is directly overhead at some point on the earth's
equator, and suppose there are two mountains on the earth of equal
heights, one a bit north of the sub-lunar point, and the other an
equal
distance south of it. Obviously, the summits of both mountains are
at equal distances from the moon's centre. It is possible that they
are closer to the moon's centre than anywhere else on the earth's
surface.
=====================================
Let O1 and O3 be moon positions 1 hour behind and
1 hour ahead of perigee, with O2 being perigee.
Let A, D and B be mountain tops on Earth with centre C
O1
-----------------------------------A
C--------------------------------D O2
-----------------------------------B
O3
A,B and D are equidistant from O2, but A is closer to O1.
Yes, one can construct an arc centred on O2 upon which
a number of points are equally as close to O2 at perigee.
Actually we can construct a shallow dish, but I can't draw that
in 2D.
=====================================
But suppose there is a mountain on the moon a bit to the north
of the sub-earth point. The peak of this mountain will be slightly
closer to the summit of the northern mountain on the earth than
to the southern one.
==========================================
Let P be the peak on O. We construct a new arc centred
on P2, but A is still closer to P1 and B still closer to P3.
So the closest is to P2 even though it is from A, D and B.
P----O1
-----------------------------------A
C--------------------------------D P-----O2
-----------------------------------B
P----O3
=====================================
It is possible that this distance between
the summits of the northern maintain on the earth and the
mountain on the moon is the closest distance between any
two points on the surfaces of the earth and the moon.
Even if the southern mountain on the earth is very slightly
higher than the northern one, which would make the southern
summit slightly closer to the moon's centre than the northern
one, it is still possible that the northern summit is closer to
the top of the lunar mountain than anywhere else on the earth.
So the lunar topography *can* be important in this problem.
============================================
Not so, there is only one perigee at the time we stand on the mountain.
(There can be a different perigee a month later, but that doesn't matter)
P----O1
-----------------------------------A Pi--\
C---------------------------------D O2
-----------------------------------B Pj--/
P----O3
If D is equidistant to the twin peaks Pi and Pj of O then
A and B cannot also be equidistant to both.
Remember that we seek the closest point ON EARTH to the Moon.
If A is closest to Pi and B is closest to Pj simultaneously that would
be remarkable indeed, but neither is actually closer than the other.
But the question is, *is* it important in the real case, in which
the moon librates and nutates? I don't know.
dow
============================================
Well no, this has no importance at all. All we'd done is proven
Sir Ranulph Fiennes ascent of Everest and his claim "This is the
closest you can get to the moon by walking" has no real basis in
geometry, there are many places you could walk to that are
closest to the moon at the time you take a stroll up a mountain.
The moon will be where it will be and if Everest is facing away
from the Moon then Sir Ranulph Fiennes is FURTHEST from
the Moon (which he will be 12 hours later as the Earth turns).
A--------------------------------
D--------------------------------C-----------------------------O
B--------------------------------
This animation shows libration quite well:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0709/lunation_ajc.gif
It happens to show perigee at new moon. Think about that.
Steve Haymes
in. You've made it so that I can only reply to alt.morons, thank you, I
deserved that. Please, if you think of any more clever turns, by all means,
feel free to censor my opinions, because you deserve better.
Sincerely, Dwight
D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch
> > | The surest way to become a pacifist is to join the infantry. |
> > | --Bill Mauldin |
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "I had 26 kills in Iraq" - A British sniper.
> Bill Mauldin (whoever he his) hasn't a clue.
Most people consider it kind of gauche to go off on a tag line. In
doing so you have said something about yourself.
That you impugn a man about whom you admit you know nothing, says
even more about you.
FYI, the late Bill Mauldin knew what he was talking about. He served
in the U.S. Army's 45th Infantry Division in World War II, including
fighting in Sicily and at Anzio, a battle in which the Allies did not
have the overwhelming advantage over their enemies in firepower (or
leadership, training, and weapons for that matter) that they do today.
Mauldin considered himself and those like him to be part of "the
Benevolent and Protective Order of Them What Has Been Shot At." Have
you ever been shot at?
Mauldin knew a few soldiers like the one you cite, but points out
that most soldiers are part of "the other infantry - the great numbers
of men who stay and sweat in the foxholes that give their more
courageous brethren claustrophobia. ...they don't shirk hazards,
because they don't want to let their buddies down. The army couldn't
get along without them, either. Although it needs men to do the daring
deeds, it needs men who have the quiet courage to stick in their
foxholes and fight and kill even though they hate killing and are scared
to death while doing it." Mauldin also points out that in general,
people who glorify combat and killing have little experience with
either. "No normal man who has smelled and associated with death ever
wants to see any more of it." Mauldin wrote a book about combat that
ought to be required reading for people like George Bush, Dick Cheney,
and you. It's called "Up Front." Read it. (Don't be afraid, it's got
lots of pictures.) Then you'll know a little bit about war.
I have a close relative who agrees with Mauldin. He is one of the
most placid, soft-spoken men I have ever met. He never brags about
himself or his warrior past. I knew him for forty years before I found
out that he was tail gunner in a B-17. I give more credence to the
opinions of a man who has been face-to-face with the multiple machine
guns and cannon of Me-109's and FW-190's, than to those of a guy who
picked off people who didn't even know he was there. Or to yours.
Bill Mauldin survived World War II and came home with a Purple Heart
and a Pulitzer Prize. (He won another one later.) He now rests with
the other honored dead of Arlington National Cemetery. So if you'll
pardon me, I think I'll continue to believe that he knew what he was
writing about.
Now can we get back on topic?
Bill
__o | Some Usenet posts tell you more about the poster
_`\(,_ | than they do about the subject.
(_)/ (_) |
Androcles
<D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch> wrote in message
news:gvh6d3$c3o$1...@news.xmission.com...
> In rec.climbing Androcles <Headm...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > | The surest way to become a pacifist is to join the infantry. |
>> > | --Bill Mauldin |
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> "I had 26 kills in Iraq" - A British sniper.
>
>> Bill Mauldin (whoever he his) hasn't a clue.
>
> Most people consider it kind of gauche to go off on a tag line. In
> doing so you have said something about yourself.
I'm not most people.
It is bigotry to snip to ignore the evidence.
Doing so says it all about you.
It is legitimate to respond in kind.
Now fuck off, gauche cretin.
Michael A. Riches
>writing about.
> Now can we get back on topic?
>Bill
Bill, Steve... The guy's a moron... let him rant his ravings and spew his
B.S....
Me, I'm for moving on...
Ratzzz...
Steve Haymes
> B.S....
> Me, I'm for moving on...
Definitely not a high-value target, too bad.
Dwight
Klooch Man
Hey, don't give up on the guy too quick.
First a deliberate mistake, then deliberate provocation; I was afraid
that a pun was coming next.
If he gets to that place closest to the Moon, I bet he'd let me stand
on his shoulders to prove that you can get still closer to the Moon by
walking.
Steve Haymes
> Hey, don't give up on the guy too quick.
> First a deliberate mistake, then deliberate provocation; I > was afraid
> that a pun was coming next.
I don't think it was deliberate, he's a meglomaniac like MV of
rec.backcountry fame. If he proves smart enough to be dangerous, maybe, I'll
change my mind.
Dwight
Michael A. Riches
>First a deliberate mistake, then deliberate provocation; I was afraid
>that a pun was coming next.
>If he gets to that place closest to the Moon, I bet he'd let me stand
>on his shoulders to prove that you can get still closer to the Moon by
>walking...
You know, I was kinda getting into the thread until Mr. Munn Mann went off
the deep end...
Takes all kinds I guess.
Ratzzz...
Michael A. Riches
>Ratzzz...
Ohhh... My most humble apologies to Mr. Munn... I meant Androcles...
Ratzzz...(Promise, won't happen again...)
william...@gmail.com
>
> Well no, this has no importance at all. All we'd done is proven
> Sir Ranulph Fiennes ascent of Everest and his claim "This is the
> closest you can get to the moon by walking" has no real basis in
> geometry, there are many places you could walk to that are
> closest to the moon at the time you take a stroll up a mountain.
> The moon will be where it will be and if Everest is facing away
> from the Moon then Sir Ranulph Fiennes is FURTHEST from
> the Moon (which he will be 12 hours later as the Earth turns).
Not 12 hours, not unless Everest is on the equator, which it isn't.
But there will be a time, when the latitude of the sub-lunar point is
roughly equal and opposite to that of Everest, when the peak of
Everest is the most distant point on the earth from the moon .
dow
Androcles
<william...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7608d4e7-2ea7-4277...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
dow
===========================
Jim Janney
Unless you can provide a surer way to make the quoted sniper into a
pacifist, Mauldin's method is still the surest. Whether or not it
works in every single case. Think about it...
--
Jim Janney
Androcles
"Jim Janney" <jja...@shell.xmission.com> wrote in message
news:2pskimg...@shell.xmission.com...
The sniper appeared on TV, did not claim to be a pacifist, did not
want to become a pacifist, was proud of his kills. Therefore Mauldin's
method is a complete and total fuckin' failure, it did not produce a
pacifist even if it appeared to work for one miserable squaddie. Think
about it!
The surest way to become a pedestrian is to give up driving.
The surest way to become a driver is to buy your own car.
Bill Mauldin (whoever he his) is fuckin' clueless.
Jim Janney
You seem to labouring under the fallacy that your sniper is a
counter-example to anything that has been claimed. He isn't. There
have always been men who enjoy war and killing and Mauldin, whose
experience of war went considerably beyond watching interviews on TV,
surely knew this. Note that he said "the surest way", not "the
infallible way."
--
Jim Janney
Androcles
Bwahaha!
You seem to be labouring under the fallacy that counter-examples
have no validity and have no clue what a fallacy is.
> He isn't.
Yes he is. He is the perfect counter example to Mauldin's fallacious
assertion that joining the infantry will produce a pacifist, and
my assertion carries more weight than your fallacious assertion.
> There
> have always been men who enjoy war and killing
Right, so joining the infantry will not make them pacifists and
Mauldin's assertion is a fallacy.
> and Mauldin, whose
> experience of war went considerably beyond watching interviews on TV,
> surely knew this. Note that he said "the surest way", not "the
> infallible way."
You want a sure and certain way to make a man a pacifist?
Shoot him dead, he'll never want to kill again.
You are as illogical as Mauldin.
Jim Janney
Even the surest way may fail, occasionally or even frequently. In the
absence of a surer way -- one that fails less often -- it remains the
surest way.
>> and Mauldin, whose
>> experience of war went considerably beyond watching interviews on TV,
>> surely knew this. Note that he said "the surest way", not "the
>> infallible way."
>
> You want a sure and certain way to make a man a pacifist?
> Shoot him dead, he'll never want to kill again.
When your dead man starts to attend rallies, write letters to the
editor, and otherwise agitate for peace, I'll count him as a pacifist,
but not before.
> You are as illogical as Mauldin.
> Bill Mauldin (whoever he his) hasn't a clue.
Homework assignment: look up the dictionary definitions of "surest"
and "infallible". Compare and contrast.
--
Jim Janney
Androcles
Homework assignment: Fuck off.
Michael A. Riches
>and "infallible". Compare and contrast.
>--
>Jim Janney
Jim:
You ain't going to win this one. No matter how good your argument is, this
moron is so full of himself that no amount of reason will ever change his
stance. When you're born with a peanut instead of brain, you simply don't
have the power to reason or conduct any sort of intelligent conversation.
I'm sure the doctors that are in charge of Mr. Clueless will eventually pull
his plug. This was an experiment that didn't work.
What did it prove...??? Well, you and everyone else can see that even those
with "Zero" (as in Androclueless' case) to meager amounts of consciousness
can actually work the internet. But Like Androclueless, it takes more than
meager intelligence to actually get involved and hold any form of
"intelligent" conversation...
Ratzzz...(Ohhh...and by the time he gets done kill-filing everyone, there
won't be a need to continue this thread...)
Jim Janney
I'm familiar with the type. Rather than admit a mistake, they squirt
ink in all directions, then vanish in a cloud of insults. It can be
entertaining, or just sad.
--
Jim Janney
Steve Willner
D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch writes:
> I don't have the Guiness Book at hand, but I seem to recall that it
> says the farthest point from the Earth's center is Chimborazo
> (20,561'/6,265m), in Ecuador.
Many years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote an article identifying the tallest
mountains on Earth by three different measures. Mt. Everest is of
course the highest above sea level, and Mauna Kea is the highest
measured from its base (which is far below the sea surface). The
third measure was from Earth's center, and I remember Asimov's answer
as being in the Andes, but I don't remember the name. It may well be
Chimborazo, as the previous poster sugggests. Whatever the answer
is, it must answer the OP's question.
--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)
arkle
<wil...@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
> In article <gvcgmt$a79$1...@news.xmission.com>,
> D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch writes:
> > I don't have the Guiness Book at hand, but I seem to recall that it
> > says the farthest point from the Earth's center is Chimborazo
> > (20,561'/6,265m), in Ecuador.
>
> Many years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote an article identifying the tallest
> mountains on Earth by three different measures. Mt. Everest is of
> course the highest above sea level, and Mauna Kea is the highest
> measured from its base (which is far below the sea surface). The
> third measure was from Earth's center, and I remember Asimov's answer
> as being in the Andes, but I don't remember the name. It may well be
> Chimborazo, as the previous poster sugggests. Whatever the answer
> is, it must answer the OP's question.
Chimborazo is correct. Check it out at
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/BeataUnke.shtml
william...@gmail.com
I suspect we've all been missing an important point. The moon's orbit
around the earth is strongly perturbed by the gravity of the sun. The
shortest distance between the moon and earth is likely to occur when
the earth is closest to or furthest from the sun - I have no idea
which. By coincidence, the greatest earth-sun distance occurs close to
the June solstice, when the sun is furthest north in the sky. Quite
possibly, the shortest earth-moon distance may occur when the moon is
well to the north of the celestial equator.
So maybe the summit of Mount Everest *is* the point on the earth's
surface that gets closest to the moon.
dow
william...@gmail.com
wrote:
> According to a BBC report this morning, the explorer Fynes, having just
> climbed Everest to become the first person to do this and cross both
> Arctic and Antarctic, spoke of his ascent as being the closest you can
> get to the Moon by walking. This got me thinking.
>
> Taken literally, you don't have to think long to realise it's at least
> not always true, because the Moon isn't always overhead. Know about the
> moon's orbit, think a little longer, and you realise your timing has to
> be just right. Consider the shape of the Earth, and you will wonder if
> Everest is even the right mountain to climb.
>
> So how do you get closest to the Moon by walking? Who might the current
> record holder be? And when and where could a record attempt be made?
>
> Firstly, the Earth-Moon distance varies each month by several times the
> diameter of the whole planet, never mind the height of a mountain, so
> you have to choose exactly the right time of month.
Not all lunar perigees are equal. At some perigees, the moon is many
kilometres closer to the earth than at other perigees. The perigee
distance varies because the moon's orbit is substantially distorted by
the gravity of the sun, and this distortion varies depending on how
close the earth is to the sun, which depends on the time of year.
It is possible, but I don't know if it is actually true, that the very
smallest earth-moon distance may happen if perigee roughly coincides
with the earth's perihelion (in early January) and with full moon, or
alternatively with the earth's aphelon (early July) and new moon. In
these cases, the moon's celestial latitude can be about as far north
as possible, i.e. 28.5 degrees north, which happens to be close to the
latitude of Mount Everest.
So it *is* possible that the summit of Everest is the point on the
earth that periodically goes closest to the moon.
dow
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
> According to a BBC report this morning, the explorer Fynes, having just
> climbed Everest to become the first person to do this and cross both
> Arctic and Antarctic, spoke of his ascent as being the closest you can
> get to the Moon by walking. This got me thinking.
>
> Taken literally, you don't have to think long to realise it's at least
> not always true, because the Moon isn't always overhead. Know about the
> moon's orbit, think a little longer, and you realise your timing has to
> be just right. Consider the shape of the Earth, and you will wonder if
> Everest is even the right mountain to climb.
A laser beam is closest any humans will ever get to the moon, by
walking.
Since the people who actually understand mountaineereing,
satellites, elevators,
and walking mostly built lasers, masers, laserdisks, mini
harddisks, fiber optics, usb, xml,
holographics, gps, digital terrain mapping, optical computers, flat
screen hdtv, blue ray.
cell phones, distrubuted processing, on-line banking, on-line
shopping. on-line publishing,
self-replicating machines and self-assembling robots. because of
the nonsense
you often hear in science class about "On a Clear Night, You Can
See Forever'.
>
> So how do you get closest to the Moon by walking? Who might the current
> record holder be? And when and where could a record attempt be made?
>
> Firstly, the Earth-Moon distance varies each month by several times the
> diameter of the whole planet, never mind the height of a mountain, so
> you have to choose exactly the right time of month.
>
> Secondly, the Earth as a whole is almost like a smooth ball, so it
> matters greatly whether the moon is very nearly directly above you
> rather than somewhere else. If the moon is just 1 degree away from
> zenith, you effectively lose 972m of height, and it doesn't frequently
> get that close to being overhead at Everest [1].
>
> Thirdly, the right combination might easily occur at night, not exactly
> a traditional time of day for being atop such a large mountain.
>
> But is Everest even the right mountain for a record attempt at any time?
> Mountain peaks are quoted in height above sea level, but the Moon's
> orbit is determined by the centre of the Earth, not sea level; and at
> the equator, sea level is over 21,000m further from the centre of the
> Earth than it is at the poles. So, we need to consider the heights of
> mountains relative to the centre of the Earth.
>
> According to the equation I have to hand[2], the peak of Everest is
> about 6,382,305m from the centre of the Earth, equivalent to a mountain
> of only 4165m on the equator. So, it seems to be easily beaten by Mt
> Kenya's 5199m on the equator, or three degrees further South by
> Kilimanjaro's 5895m, worth about 5830m. But all of these appear to be
> beaten by Chimborazo in Ecuador, which I get to be worth about 6260m
> were it exactly on the equator; and Huascaran in Peru, worth about
> 6250m.
>
> Consequently, I suspect record attempts should be made from Ecuador or
> Peru, not Nepal; though given the frequency with which Kilimanjaro is
> climbed, the current record holders may be fairly ordinary tourists who
> just happened to be atop that peak when the moon passed very close to
> overhead at exactly the right time of month.
>
> Finally, the Moon isn't flat either, so if you want to become the
> nearest to the surface of the Moon, rather than its centre, you have to
> consider the presence of lunar mountains and crater rims, too. (As seen
> from the Earth, the moon rocks significantly back and forward and up and
> down, so the point on the Moon that is nearest to us - and its height -
> varies considerably.)
>
> So I wonder if it's possible to be sure who has got closest to the Moon
> by walking. More tractable, perhaps, if you want to claim a new record
> for getting closest to the Moon by walking, when and where should you
> climb?
>
> Peter Munn 21/05/2009
>
> [1] The sea-level point on Earth that is nearest to the Moon, the
> sublunar point, traces a path as our planet revolves. On average the
> path oscillates between the tropic of Capricorn and the tropic of Cancer
> each day, but some months it oscillates less, travelling between about
> 18 degrees North and South, some months more, moving between about 29
> degrees North and South, and most months somewhere between these
> extremes. Everest is 28 degrees North, so the sublunar point will pass
> near enough to Everest sometimes, but not every month, and even less
> often at the right time of month and a convenient time of day. I
> suspect good opportunities arise only every few years.
>
> [2] Derived from the 1997 British Astronomical Association handbook:
> distance of sea level from centre of Earth =
> (0.99832707 + 0.00167644*cos(2*phi) - 0.00000352*cos(4*phi) +
> 0.00000001*cos(6*phi)) * 6378.140 km, where phi is the latitude angle
> --
> ,---. __ E-mail replies: please simply reply
> _./ \_.' without altering the subject line.
> '..l.--''7 If this newsgroup message is over
> |`---' two months old, or you meet other
> | Peter Munn problems, please mail to newsreply
> | Staffordshire UK @pearce-neptune... instead.