On Oct 2, 12:08*pm, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Your approximation of the atmosphere is called the "homogeneous
atmosphere" which is the simplest possible atmospheric model: one then
assumes that the air density is constant everywhere up to some "upper
surface" where the atmosphere would end (somewhat like the oceans of the
Earth). *If the atmosphere was a liquid rather than a mix of gases, this
approximation would work well. *However, the "thickness of the
atmosphere" would not be as large as 20 miles, but instead about 8
kilometers (= about 5 miles). *That's what you get if you take the ground
air pressure (= the weight per unit area of the atmosphere) and divide it
by the ground air density and then also by the Earth's acceleration of
gravity. The "homogeneous atmosphere" approximation would yield some 40
airmasses in the horizontal direction compared to the vertical direction.

These formulae may be useful when you're observing from a high
mountaintop.

All this is pretense Schlyter and especially when none of you can work
with elevations and rotations speeds which is far more meaningful that
the harmless topic here.I quite enjoy putting the information out
there as few people even consider the difference in latitudinal speeds
when view at an elevation of Denver where an unobstructed view from
horizon to horizon along a longitude meridian covers 2 degrees of
latitude or roughly 224 KM.

At the location of Denver (using a hypothetical 1 km elevation),the
rotational speed for 40 degrees lat is 1281 km per hour so that the
observer can see a location at the horizon South of his meridian
rotating at 1297 km per hour and looking North across the same
meridian can see a location at the horizon rotating at a speed of 1261
km per hour insofar as difference in latitudinal speeds from horizon
to horizon,as seen from 1 degree North and 1 degree South of Denver is
roughly 36 km per hour.

http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/...s/table02.html

I spoke with a colleague today about errors that are not immediately
obvious and it happened before where the atmosphere and horizon
trajectories are concerned such as the overlooking of a metric/
imperial conversion -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

The mindnumbing error which prevents All readers here from affirming
that the Earth turns once in a 24 hour day is amazing given that when
men generally talk through a problem,they enjoy the resolution of a
mistake and act to correct the issue.In this era the senseless attempt
to explain the Earth's rotation using stellar circumpolar motion,a
mistake of enormous proportions,people either act like children or
abdicate complete responsibility for correcting something which is
plainly and clearly wrong and completely destroys any chance of
working with cause and effect between the planetary cycles and
terrestrial effects.

What is it that is preventing readers from seeing what is true in
order to obliterate the principles that are incorrect for as long as
this looms in the background,anything you and your empirical
colleagues try to promote will count for nothing.