My Stab At Colin's Puzzle
The estimable @colinthemathmo suggests a method for estimating the radius of the earth, which he credits to a sundial expert friend named Mike:
Stand on a wall, perhaps two metres high, and wait for sunrise. When you see the sun just peak above the horizon, start the stopwatch, and jump off the wall (or drop the stopwatch to a friend). Since you are now lower down, you can no longer see the Sun, so wait a bit until you can see it again, and stop the clock.
And astonishingly, that’s enough!
When Colin says “the simplified sums are not too nasty”, you can bet you’re in for an afternoon of head-scratching. I thought it’d be interesting to do the sums. (I’m writing this in the summer, though - and while my house has a technical sea view 1, I’m not getting up early just to test it out.)
Setting up the puzzle
So, to start with, I’m going to assume that the sun’s light shines in the plane of my circle of latitude. I’m also going to assume that I’m two metres tall, because that’s a nice number. I’m also going to assume that my circle of latitude is a lot more than 2m in radius. I’ll call that radius
I’m then going to set up two right-angled triangles. The first, standing on top of the wall, has a hypotenuse of
The second, from the floor, has a hypotenuse of
Getting into the angles
The angle turned by the earth between the two observations is the difference between the small angles in the two triangles. Supposing they’re small enough to use the small angle approximation 2
We also know, by virtue of having timed it, what fraction of a day has passed between the two observations - so
Since
Adjusting for latitude
Now, since Weymouth is at 50.6º north 3, the radius of the circle of latitude is
That gives us
Checking it’s reasonable
It’s good to go through the motions of checking that that’s a reasonable answer. After all, we know the radius of the earth: it’s about
* Edited 2017-07-31 to fix a LaTeX error - thanks to @christianp for spotting it. * Edited 2017-07-31 to move an ambiguous footnote - thanks @colinthemathmo * Edited 2017-09-18 after @colinthemathmo spotted another error * 2020-03-27 I’m happy to provide a link to a more detailed solution by Manfred Borgens. I haven’t gone through it in detail, but Manfred has certainly put more thought into the problem than I have.
Footnotes:
1. It’s over there, between the land and the sky
2. which seems reasonable, the triangle is right-angled and pretty much isosceles
3. pretty much the only time it’s excusable to use degrees
4.
5. Calculator work says 5.7