Talk:Chimborazo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Where?

Where in earth shall Everest be (latitude, longitude or both) to tie with Chimborazo in distance from peak to the centre of the Earth? Is this an answerable question? Even with estimates?Undead Herle King (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of irrelevant external links

detailed reasons i deleted the links:

in my opinion a very cheap and inaccurate website which does not provide any additional value to the article (go to their homepage, select southamerica, select the andes, then you get a list of hundreds of summits, most of them not in the andes to my knowledge)

this too links are personal logs about climbing chimbo, the second one is not even chimbo specific but a log about a whole 2weeks mountaineering tour. to justify linking to such pages from wikipedia they would need to provide some really special information or be of much better quality than these are. i don't think that it would be a god idea if everybody who visited some spot on this earth would add links to his personal photopages to the respective wp articles

ecuaworld.com is a commercial travel agency site which is spamming each and every ecuador related article, i don't thin it would be a good idea if every travel agency would post their links on wikipedia articles. in this case the page is really providing additional information regarding the etymology of chimborazo, allthough in my opinion and to my knowledge this information is partly wrong. i will do research on the chimbo etymology and include this information into the article with the respective sources. afterwards i will delete this link

--Ma xyz 17:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, deletion of irrelevant links (aka linkspam)

Details about why i deleted each link:

more extensive etymology information than provided by this webpage is allready included in the main article (under history)

what has the information on this website to do with chimborazo? there are not even any pictures of chimborazo on this page. (as of today at least, and even when...read below)

to ecuaworld.com/maquinet.info who continues spamming ecuador related articles with their links:

  • if you want to contribute etymological information why don't you include the information in the main article, would be easy for you to c opy paste this 2 lines from your pages?
  • if you want to contribute pictures of ecuador, why don't you release them with a gnu license and post them directly to the wikimedia commons project?

i tell you why, because you do not want to contribute information, your only goal is to promote your business and drive traffic to your webpage, thats not what wikipedia is intended for, there are lots of other posibilities on the internet to promote your pages, please stop spamming on wikipedia. --Ma xyz 00:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Glacier melting removed, lack of sources and relevance

I removed the following part:

"The capital of Bolivar, Guaranda (25,000 inhabitants) is supplied by "vertientes" in the high "páramo" (arid Andean plateaus over 4,000 m) situated 25 km from the city. In the summer of 2005 the water supply of the city suffered severe crisis, probably due to the fast disappearance of the ice cover of the Chimborazo. According to French researchers, Andean high glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate and most are feared will disappear within the coming decades. Therefore, Quito, Lima, La Paz and other cities founded on glacial flows are bound to find themselves fighting severe water supply problems in the near future."

due the lack of sources and also relevance to the chimborazo article. i'd rather want to add some chimborazo specific information regarding the accelerated melting of its glacier due to climate changes and eventually due to tungurahua activity. i am looking for sources and will add something as soon as i can. any help is appreciated. --Ma xyz 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"It is also the tallest in the world above sea level."

Either this quote does not square with the info below or more explanation is needed. Elevation is by definition "above sea level". Did you mean to say: "It is also the tallest in the world above the earth's center"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.52.98 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It's nonsense. Statement deleted 145.97.222.84 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Farthest from center of the Earth??

When you make such statement, it requires explanation and proof why it would be farther from the centre than Mt.Everest. Dunnhaupt 17:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is more a tongue-in-cheek/trivia kind of fact, but it is also mentioned on articles like Extreme points of the world and even Mount Everest, so i guess it makes sense to have it here as well. Anyway, your comment inspired me to look for sources to cite, i found one and added it. On the other hand i do not understand what you mean by explanation, there is a short explanation in the article and even a link to equatorial bulge for a more detailed explanation, what else do you need? And proof? It's just a fact, the world is full of facts you just have to believe sometimes ;-). Saludos Ma xyz 04:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagreed. This claim of being farthest point from the centre of the earth, only serves to make this entire article look shambolic. A shame, considering the true facts about this peak. The cited article is a (broken) link to an (unfound) article by a dubious consumer magazine. The logic stated in the article itself to support the claim is ladled with supposition and inaccuracy. I vote that this notion is removed from the article, until it becomes proven and credible. Right now, it's just absurd.

The above unsigned comment is unnecessarily negative. The claim that Chimborazo is the farthest point from the center of the Earth is quite common and not hard to cite; I have provided two new citations to replace the broken link. The fact that Chimborazo's summit is significantly farther from the center of the Earth than Everest's is quite well-known, and is supported by the simple calculation presented in the article. There is no particular supposition, nor any significant inaccuracy there.
Now, the tricky part comes in when considering the claim of Huascarán. The reliable sources I have seen which mention Chimborazo in this context do not mention Huascaran's status as the number two, nor the (unlikely) possibility that it could be number one. We have already had a great deal of discussion at Talk:Huascarán about this issue, and in particular, about whether mentioning Huascarán's status amounts to original research.
So, hopefully the issue of Chimborazo at least being the putative farthest point from the center is settled by the references I have put in. If you still dispute that, please address that here. If, instead, you want to discuss the issue of Huascarán's status, please do that at Talk:Huascarán. Thanks. -- Spireguy (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Even Diageo (it actually owns what used to be the Guinness PLC)states right after mentioning the Mount Everest, that Chimborazo is the point farthest from the centre of planet earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Earth's Diameter. Sorry to disappoint, but the article mentions something about the earth's diameter. It may just be that we are actually meant to talk about the line that is half a diameter, which would be the radius. (82.134.28.194 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

Please note that the article's lede mistakes meters for kilometers (and so enormously understates the Earth's radius). The correct figures, which are 6,384.4 km (3,967.1 mi), are stated later down in the relevant section. I would correct this myself but I have no idea how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.61.130 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. Viewfinder (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd heard about Chimborazo on a TV show (?NOVA?), but couldn't recall the name. I was pleased, but surprised Google hit here for "What is the mountain furthest from the center of Earth?". The section that gives the numbers is worded a bit awkwardly and I had to copy it and carefully dissect the numbers. I also did the calculations and found the numbers are off. I don't know which are correct, but: "

"Chimborazo ... is 6,384.4 km (3,967.1 mi) from the Earth's center, 2,168 m (7,113 ft) farther than the summit of Everest (6,382.3 km (3,965.8 mi) from the Earth's center)."

From Center of Earth

Everest = 6,382.3 km, or 3,965.8 mi.
Chimborazo = 6,384.4 km, or 3,967.1 mi.
This (well, Excel) calculates to 2.1 km and 1.3 mi. which is 2100 m or 6864 ft. difference,
not the stated 2,168 m 7,113 ft.
Sharpen your slide Rule (;-o)
Regards, -- Steve -- (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@Steve. I suspect the discrepancy is due to 'difference in precision'/'rounding errors' and the fact that you calculated one figure from values given with a precision of a tenth of a km, and then compared it to a figure stated with a precision of a meter. The margin of error exceeds the difference between the two values. On a more general note, you are right that the numbers are presented awkwardly and it has caused confusion before. Perhaps it's time to rewrite it better? --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify with a hypothetical:
Chimborazo's distance of 6,384.4 km could have been rounded from a distance in meters of say 6,384,442 m.
Everest's distance of 6,382.3 km could have been a rounding of 6,382,274 m.
6,384,442 - 6,382,274 = 2,168
So neither is really wrong; it's just wrong that we mixed precisions. I would also add that a figure given in meters for a measurement of this nature would be overly precise anyway. All the numbers should be given in tenths of km. That would be a precision less likely of being affected by the measurement error contained within the raw data, but more importantly, it would be far less confusing to the reader and would read less awkwardly. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 06:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks. The precision should match, for sure. I have no idea about the precision of measuring mountains. With GPS theswe days I imagine it can be to within a few meters, but that's only a guess from using GPS.

RE: the description. I recommend something that mentions one mountain, then the other, then the difference; using consistent units for all three numbers. Then the precision can be the same number of decimal points and be consistent. Regards, -- Steve -- (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

RE: precision. For an elevation, yes, stating the elevation to a precision of one meter is completely acceptable. With an elevation you have to figure out the geoid in the area (sea level) and then how far vertically from it. The measurement error in each of those is considered when determining the accuracy of the measurement. I was talking about a measurement from center-of-Earth. I don't know if you can can just assume the center of a device's approximation of the geoid, is the same as the actual center of the physical body of the Earth. That may be a whole different can of noodles. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 01:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh Yea, good point. The math for GPS assumes you want standard elevations relative to sea level. I suppose with GPS there should be some way to "un-correct" for the sea level variation and go to a simple spherical earth measurement. I'll save that investigation for when I am not busy. (;-) Regards, -- Steve -- (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Since the Earth is not a sphere but rather an oblate spheroid, it should say the Earth's "centroid". Andrew S. (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Chimborazo - mentioned in a poem by Emily Dickinson

Hello friends,

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the article according to your criteria, but the Chimborazo is mentioned in a well-known love poem by Emily Dickinson.

Here goes the poem and if you think it deserves to be added, ok, otherwise forgive me for taking your time.

The layout of the poem and the dashes have not come out correctly on my posting.


BlueSkies999 (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Love - thou art high - I cannot climb thee - But, were it Two - Who knows but we - Taking turns - at the Chimborazo - Ducal - at last - stand up by thee -

Love - thou art deep - I cannot cross thee - But, were there Two Instead of One - Rower, and Yacht - some sovereign Summer - Who knows - but we’d reach the Sun?

Love - thou art Veiled - A few - behold thee - Smile - and alter - and prattle - and die - Bliss - were an Oddity - without thee - Nicknamed by God - Eternity -


Emily Dickinson

BlueSkies999 (talk)

Thanks for the poem, it's interesting to me that she mentions the peak. But I think it's not quite pertinent enough to the article to include it. Others may disagree. -- Spireguy (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

First ascent

I've changed the heading "First Ascent by Europeans" to just "First Ascent"; as far as I've been able to determine, nobody has suggested that there's any evidence of earlier climbs of Chimborazo by indigenous people, though other high peaks in the Andes do have Precolumbian archeological sites on their summits. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw mention of this mountain as a potential launch point for rockets/spacecraft. There was a proposal for a simple launch pad at the top, and I think the fuel savings (or additional payload) was around 8%. This is due to the decreased atmospheric drag and the "slingshot" effect of being near the equator and the increase elevation. There was also a proposal for a magnetic launch tube on this mountain, I will see if I can find the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.28.12.20 (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you really see Chimborazo from Guayaquil?

What's the source of the claim that the peak of Chimborazo can be seen from the coastal city of Guayaquil? I've done some calculations, assuming an elevation of 6268 m for the mountain, 0 m for the city, and a distance between them of 146154 m, and it seems very unlikely. Even disregarding the curvature of the earth, any decent-sized mountain range between the two points would block the view. Also, a person who claims to have lived in Guayaquil until he was 22 and traveled extensively in Ecuador has told me that this is the most ridiculous idea he's ever heard.

Do we have a reliable source for this factoid? 68.55.166.45 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am the proprietor of site Viewfinder Panoramas. While I take your point about the need for a reliable source, I take issue with your calculations and stand by the Guayaquil-Chimborazo line of sight, see the computer generated panorama. I also examined the intervening digital elevation models and found that the only serious candidates for intervening obstruction are sub-Andes rising to about 3,000 metres. As these are much closer to Chimborazo than Guayaquil, they do not obstruct the view, think about the geometry. Viewfinder (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Viewfinder. First, thanks for pointing me to your site, which is very interesting. The panorama model looks pretty convincing. I have done some further calculations, taking the Earth's curvature into account, and have determined that depending on the elevation of the observer, Chimborazo should appear about 1.8-1.9 degrees above horizontal from Guayaquil. That's about the same height as a 5 meter tall object would look if you were standing 90 meters away from it—pretty small but still potentially visible. I guess the only question I have is, how precise are your digital elevation data? With such a small apparent size, the mountain could be easily obscured by small hills near the city.
How about we say in the article that Chimborazo "should theoretically be visible" from Guayaquil, and include a reference to your site? I am willing to believe that there could be a place in Guayaquil from which you could see the mountain on a clear day, but saying it "can be seen" from there implies that we have a record of someone seeing it. (Maybe we will attract the attention of some observant Ecuadorian who actually has seen it, and can contribute a photo!) 68.55.166.45 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I should have thought earlier of checking the Spanish Wikipedia page on Chimborazo. It has a photo of the mountain as seen from near the Guayaquil airport!

A pesar de la distancia entre Guayaquil y el volcán, en raras ocasiones se suele avistar, generalmente en época invernal (diciembre ~ abril). Se puede apreciar en la foto a la derecha, que fue tomada desde el norte de Guayaquil, junto a la pista del Aeropuerto José Joaquín de Olmedo en febrero de 2008.

Rough translation: "Despite the distance between Guayaquil and the volcano, on rare occasions it can be seen, generally in the winter season (December-April). It can be noted in the photo at right, that it was taken from the north of Guayaquil, next to the runway of the José Joaquín de Olmedo Airport in February of 2008." 68.55.166.45 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I am happy with your edit. You are welcome to add a link to my site (I am discouraged from doing this myself), but I think that the photograph is sufficient. The digital elevation model is from SRTM and is accurate enough for our purposes. Viewfinder (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Age

The article states that the volcano is of Paleogene age. The Paleogene was from 65.5 ± 0.3 to 23.03 ± 0.05 'million years ago. I understand that there is citation, but if the volcano erupted in c. 640 AD, tens of millions of years AFTER, isn't it a little far-fetched? Even shield volcanoes, which erupt for much longer time-periods than stratovolcanoes, are not that old if they only erupted 1400 years ago... Guanlong wucaii

This sentence

"the highest summit nearest to the equator" Doesn't make any sense. For example, the next mountain slightly closer to the equator would also fit that description. Even everest could fit that description. It might be better to say something like "the highest peak within the tropics" or something along those lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.166.248.109 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.

Confusing

"Despite being 2,580 m (8,465 ft) lower in elevation above sea level, it is 6,384.4 km (3,967.1 mi) from the Earth's center, 2,168 m (7,113 ft) or 2.168 km (1.347 mi) farther than the summit of Everest (6,382.3 km (3,965.8 mi) from the Earth's center)."

This has got to be one of the most confusing sentences I have ever read. In fact, you have to read it like 5 times to figure out the jumps from m to km and from 2,168 to 2.168.

How about suggesting a better version? Viewfinder (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference to French Geodesic Mission?

"The Volcano was explored by French academicians in 1746. This explorers were on a quest to prove that the earth was not round. They could not reach the summit of Chimborazo. Later Bouger and La Condamine proved the earth was not round."

Bouger and La Condamine were part of the French Geodesic Mission, which had a significantly different purpose than proving the earth was not round. see French Geodesic Mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1009:0:be30:5bff:fedb:1ce4 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 8 July 2013

Rewrote for clarity. Vsmith (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chimborazo which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chimborazo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chimborazo/Archive_1&oldid=1146687825"