User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

altitude data?

altitude data?

Posted Mar 7, 2009 1:31 UTC (Sat) by roskegg (subscriber, #105)
In reply to: altitude data? by flewellyn
Parent article: OpenStreetMap: the data behind the maps

I understand, from a physics and scientific point of view, the number I am looking for viz the point on earths surface closest to the center of mass, is useless.

But I am wanting this data for religious reasons. That particular bit of data figures in various schools of theology and prophetic interpretation. A number showing that the spot is neither Jerusalem or Babylon should put an end to a lot of bad prophetic interpretation.

Science, meet religion. Religion, science. Thank you.


(Log in to post comments)

altitude data?

Posted Mar 7, 2009 1:47 UTC (Sat) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link]

You left out Mecca.

altitude data?

Posted Mar 7, 2009 2:01 UTC (Sat) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link]

Mecca has never been in the running, but Antioch and Damascus are also contenders.

altitude data?

Posted Mar 7, 2009 1:49 UTC (Sat) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

The center of volume isn't going to be useful for finding the center of mass, because the earth's core is liquid and not of constant density. I wouldn't even be too surprised if the center of mass moved randomly in a certain area around the center of volume, so there wouldn't be any way to rule out the point you're looking for being in any given location on any given day. Maybe if you could solve all the fluid dynamics, and you knew when the prophesy was going to come true, you could pick out the relevant location at that time, but that's sort of begging the question.

altitude data?

Posted Mar 7, 2009 1:59 UTC (Sat) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link]

Thank you for helping me clarify the question. You are right that finding the center of mass is a pretty hairy job, maybe even impossible right now.

But the center of volume will be quite sufficient for theological discussions.

altitude data?

Posted Mar 7, 2009 2:37 UTC (Sat) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

IIRC, the geographic north pole is the point where sea level is closest to the center of volume of the earth, by a healthy enough margin over equatorial locations to rule out anywhere there were early civilizations. The earth bulges out at the middle, so it's all higher (and therefore further from the center) than the poles.

I think you're trying to ask where the point on the surface is such that the center of the earth is most on that side of the earth. This makes sense for any other point inside the earth, such as the bottom of the Mariana Trench, because you can say that, to get to that point from, say, London, you'd have to go past the center of the earth to get there. But the center of the earth is defined as being the point that's just as much directly under Jerusalem as Milwaukee or Tahiti. In order to get any result at all, you need to find the geometric center, and then find the center of relevant stuff, and then you draw a line from the geometric center through the center of relevant stuff and see where it hits the surface. But you obviously can't use the same center for both things, because then the line doesn't go anywhere.

I was thinking you intended to use the center of mass as the second point, but that would give you different answers over time. Imagine a balloon with a rubber ball in it, flying through the air; there's a center of mass, which is the center of the rubber ball, and there's a center of volume, which is the center of the balloon, and you could pick the point on the surface of the balloon that the ball is most directly under. And that's great, but a moment later the relationship between the two has changed and it's a different point.

altitude data?

Posted Mar 8, 2009 0:24 UTC (Sun) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]

Minor nitpick. The earth's core is divided into two regions. The outer core is -- indeed -- liquid. But the inner is believed to be a solid sphere some 1,500 miles in diameter.

altitude data?

Posted Mar 8, 2009 3:27 UTC (Sun) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

Clearly my references are 2-4 billion years out of date. But, in any case, this means that there's a more dense, possibly irregular, object in the center of the earth which is not rigidly attached to the surface. People think it's rotating relative to the surface at about a degree/year, too, which implies that any theologically significant point on it moves under the surface by about 66 miles every year (in some direction).

altitude data?

Posted Mar 7, 2009 1:54 UTC (Sat) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

I figured that it was for such reasons. Honestly, you're better off leaving the truth of mythos as mythos, and not trying to "prove" it with the mechanisms of logos. They are two separate categories of truth, and it's a category error to use one to "prove" the other. Especially since mythos is not intended to be literal and provable.

altitude data?

Posted Mar 7, 2009 1:55 UTC (Sat) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link]

That is a very logical approach to the matter, but doesn't really help those who don't wish to sever the connection between science and religion.

altitude data?

Posted Mar 9, 2009 3:22 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

That is a very logical approach to the matter, but doesn't really help those who don't wish to sever the connection between science and religion.
You are well able to sever the connection between science and religion for yourself. The problem is that there will still be religionists for whom this has no meaning. One I discussed the issue with confessed a lack of belief in cause and effect.

altitude data?

Posted Mar 9, 2009 17:10 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

However hard you try, you're never going to get OpenStreetMap to show you how to find the Easter bunny.

This entire discussion is so ridiculous that I'm having trouble believing it isn't all a joke, but surely the answer is that, assuming the Earth to be an oblate spheroid of constant density (not actually true but apparently close enough), any point lying on the equator, plus the poles, would be 'directly above' the centre of mass, if by that you mean that the surface normal at that point intersects the centre (NB. this is based on my intuitive geometric understanding of the spheroid. I haven't attempted to verify it mathematically, though doing so should be straightforward).

If you actually care about the Euclidean distance from the centre, then clearly the poles are going to be the closest points, and given that the density of the Earth isn't really constant, one is likely to be closer than the other (an earlier poster claimed that the north pole is closer to the Earth's centre of mass than the south). Note that the equatorial region, though 'directly above' the centre of mass, is furthest from it.

Re: Mythos vs Logos

Posted Mar 26, 2009 9:25 UTC (Thu) by ldo (guest, #40946) [Link]

flewellyn wrote:

[mythos and logos] are two separate categories of truth, and it's a category error to use one to "prove" the other.

So the fact that there are two different categories of truth—what kind of truth is that? Is that a “mythos” or a “logos” truth?

altitude data?

Posted Mar 7, 2009 7:44 UTC (Sat) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

...should put an end to a lot of bad prophetic interpretation.
Yeah, good luck with that.

altitude data?

Posted Mar 25, 2009 21:35 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

I believe the answers you've received already amount to "you can't get there from here"; it doesn't really matter whether you were trying to prove or disprove the old assertion.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds