I assume he wants the angle relative to a latitudinal line.that makes absolutely no sense... there is no angle on a line.
that makes absolutely no sense... there is no angle on a line.
I assume he wants the angle relative to a latitudinal line.
typically a question like this means an angle against a fixed line, in this case the equator makes perfect sense. Since latitude and longitude exist in a coordinate system, an axis in the system is considered a reference point.
Start with this premise: "The angle between two locations on the equator is 0 degrees"
typically a question like this means an angle against a fixed line, in this case the equator makes perfect sense. Since latitude and longitude exist in a coordinate system, an axis in the system is considered a reference point. Similar to how someone says "angle of elevation", it is implied that the ground is the baseline of 0 degs.
Start with this premise: "The angle between two locations on the equator is 0 degrees"
The distance between Cleveland and Jerusalem is 9.70 degrees south and 116.85 degrees east according to your numbers.
So...tan(theta)=9.70/116.85, theta = -4.73457 degrees?
Mmm, true enough. Yeah, I'm not going to carry it any further than that.The problem is the latitude/longitude system isnt equivlant to a cartesian coordinate system, longitudinal lines vary in distance from eachother at every latitude. The actual calculation of angles on the surface of the earth is a PITA function. I've used it before, but I'm too lazy to look it up now..
The problem is the latitude/longitude system isnt equivlant to a cartesian coordinate system, longitudinal lines vary in distance from eachother at every latitude. The actual calculation of angles on the surface of the earth is a PITA function. I've used it before, but I'm too lazy to look it up now..
I thought there was something weird like that going on. It's beyond me - anyone care to prove their math prowess?![]()
That seems incredibly wrong.Ok, I think I got it, thanks to
http://web.archive.org/web/20060630011442/http://www.kcatv.org/calc.htm
It just seems strange that it would be at around 40 degrees north of east.
That seems incredibly wrong.
Trying to find the angle between Cleveland (41° 29' N / 81° 41' W) and Jerusalem (31° 47'N 35° 10'E).
Thanks!
Yeah, now that I think about it it does make sense. Since they are separated by nearly a third of the globe, heading towards the pole would make more sense.It does, but it makes sense when you think about latitude and longitude lines not actually making a grid - the distance between longitudinal lines get larger the closer you get to the equator, so it would make sense that an arc cutting through the shortest distance would tend toward the poles. I think.