You are on page 1of 11

Gabriel Rayo

Specialist Maths

HOW BIG IS THE


EARTH?
SACE Number: 503732T

SACE Number: 503732T

Gabriel Rayo

Introduction:
Alfred Russel Wallace proposed a method for calculating the radius of the earth, during the 19 th century. This
method a basic knowledge of circle geometry. Circle geometry is part of a special case of geometry called
deductive or Euclidean geometry. Deductive geometry uses the theorems that are related to the shape of an
object and uses logical reasoning to prove certain observations about geometrical figures are true. Therefore,
Circle geometry is a branch of mathematics that uses circle theorem to prove that certain observations about
the geometrical figures inside the shape. Many amazing discoveries have been made by mathematicians and
non-mathematicians by just simply drawing figures with straight edges and compasses. (Haese, et al., 2002) One
of these discoveries was made by Alfred Russel Wallace in the 19th century as explained.

Part 1: Calculating a Radius from a Chord Line


Alfred Russel Wallace figured out the method for finding the radius of the Earth, it made use of the formula:
=

1 2
( + )
2

Before using the formula, proving that it works comes first. Consider the diagram below:

Photo courtesy of Australian Science Mathematics School


(Australian Science Mathematics School, 2015)
In the diagram given above, ANB is an arc of a circle. AB is a chord of the circle and NM is the perpendicular
bisector of the chord AB.
The

information

given

in

this

diagram

was used to
1 2
= ( + )
2

prove

that

the

radius

is

given

by

By connecting A to the centre of the diagram, which is the bottom of the bisector of the chord AB. Therefore,
the diagram would be shown like this:

SACE Number: 503732T

Gabriel Rayo

Photo courtesy of Australian Science Mathematics School


(Australian Science Mathematics School, 2015)
The line that connects A to the end of the bisector of the chord line is the radius, assuming that the end of the
bisector is at the end of the circle. According to the theorem Chord of a circle (actual name from the textbook)
the line that bisects the chord is perpendicular. Therefore, it can be seen that it makes a right angle when the
radius is drawn. If A to the end of the bisector is the radius, then N to the end of the bisector is also the radius.
As the length from the centre of the circle to the end is always the radius.
By taking away the radius by the length of NM which is x, it gives the length of M to the centre of the circle. This
length is one of the sides in the right angle triangle, and y is one of the sides of the triangle, and r is the
hypotenuse of the right angled triangle. Therefore, by using the Pythagoras theorem:
R2 = y2 +(r-x)2
= y2 +(r-x) (r-x) expand brackets
R2= y2 +r2-2rx+x2
Then the equation is re-arranged so that it solves for r.
R2= y2 +r2-2rx+x2
R2+2rx = y2+x2+r2 add both sides by 2x
2rx = y2+x2 take both sides by r2, which then cancels both r2s out
R=

2 + 2
2

divide both sides by 2x to get r by itself

Then
r=
r=

1
2
1
2

r=

1
2

simplify
(
(

2 + 2

the

equation:

+ ) the x cancels out

Therefore, it can be seen that the radius is given by the equation. However, assuming that points A, N, and B
have coordinates (6,8), (9.53, 10.94), and (14, 12) correspondingly, the radius given by the equation above can
be used to locate the centre of the circle (point C (k, h)) on NM as shown in the diagrams above. First the values
for x and y must first be calculated.

SACE Number: 503732T

Gabriel Rayo

Since the length of AM is equal to y then:


(2 1 )2 + (2 1 )2 = y
Since the coordinates of A is already given then:
A was the first coordinate as it is being measured from that point. Therefore it is the first point.
(2 6)2 + (2 8)2 = y
However since M is the midpoint of A and B then by using the midpoint formula the coordinates of M can be
found. It is also said in the Chord of a circle theorem that the bisector of the chord also goes through the middle
of the chord. Therefore, where two lines meet is the midpoint of the chord line.
1 +2 1 +2

Midpoint formula: (

In this case:

6 + 14 8 + 12
(
,
)
2
2

20 20
=( , )
2 2
= (10, 10)
Therefore, M (10, 10). By placing it in to the distance formula:

(10 6)2 + (10 8)2 = y


(4)2 + (2)2 = y
16 + 4= y
20= y
Therefore, the values of y is 20 units. Now for the x-value, the same sort of method can be used to find the
value of x. Since x is equal to the length of NM, then:
(2 1 )2 + (2 1 )2 = x
Then the values of the corresponding points are placed into the equation:
N (9.53, 10.94) and M (10, 10). Since the starting point is N the first coordinates are (9.53, 10.94)
(10 9.53)2 + (10 10.94)2 = x
(0.47)2 + (0.94)2 = x
(0.47)2 + (0.94)2 = x
0.2209 + 0.8836= x

SACE Number: 503732T

Gabriel Rayo

1.1045= x
Therefore, x is equal to 1.05 (2 d.p.) units
Therefore, when the values of x and y are placed into the equation:
1

r=

20
1.05

+ 1.05)

Then the value of r is solved using the equation:


R=
R=
R=

1
2
1
2
1
2

20
1.05

+ 1.05) square of the square root is the value inside the square

(19.047619 + 1.05)
(20.097619)

R = 10.048
= 10.05 (2 d. p.)
Now that the value of r is known the coordinates of C can be calculated. This can be done by using vector
theorems using the values given. When thinking in a vector perspective, r and x are parallel because they both
go in the same direction (both coordinates are positive). Therefore, by using the parallel theorem:
r = k(x)
where k is a scalar of x
Now when the values of r and x are placed in, the value of k can be calculated.
10.05 = k(1.05)
10.05
1.05

= divide both sides by 1.05

X = 9.57
Since r is also equal to NC, when NC is represented as a direction vector:
[(k-9.53), (h 10.94)]
The same can be done for NM:
[(10-9.53), (10 10.94)]
[0.47, -0.94]
Since r = k(x), then:
[(k-9.53), (h 10.94)]= k [0.47, -0.94]
The value of k is known, then when placed into the expression:
[(k-9.53), (h 10.94)]= 9.57 [0.47, -0.94]
[(k-9.53), (h 10.94)]= [4.4979, -8.9958]
Therefore, it can be said that:
(k-9.53) = 4.4979 This is because the x value is equal to k-x1
K = 4.4979+9.53

SACE Number: 503732T

Gabriel Rayo

K = 14.03 (3 d.p.)

(h 10.94) = -8.9958 this is because the y value is equal to k y1


H = -8.9958+10.94
H = 1.94
Therefore, the coordinates of C is (14.03, 1.94)
This can be proven and shown in a graph:

This graph shows that the centre of the circle is C, which has coordinates (14.03, 1.94). This can be seen as all
three lines that have been drawn meet at the centre of the circle. According to the Chord of a line theorem, the
bisector chord line goes through the centre of the circle. Therefore, if three bisector lines were drawn, then the
intercept of all three lines would be at the centre as shown.

Part 2: Calculating Radius of Circle Using Circle Theorems


There are also other ways of proving that the radius of a circle is given by:
r=

1
2

This method can be done by using the Intersecting Chords Theorem.

SACE Number: 503732T

Gabriel Rayo

Consider the diagram below:

(Australian Science
Mathematics School, 2015)
Let the midpoint of RP be M.
According to the Intersecting Chords Theorem, the length of MS multiplied by the length of QM is equal to the
length of RM multiplied by the length of MP.
In other words:
MS*QM = RM*MP
Looking at the diagram QM = x, and RM = y
Since M is the middle point of RP (as explained in the previous part), then RM = MP. Therefore, MP is equal to
y. It can be seen that QS is the diameter of the circle. Therefore, the value of MS is equal to QS-QM. This is
because as it can be seen that MS is not the full diameter of the circle, but when QM is added, then the diameter
of the circle is calculated, which is:
QS = MS + QM
Therefore, MS is equal to
MS = QS QM (take QM of both sides)
As QM is equal to x, and QS is equal to the diameter. The diameter is then equal to 2 radius. Therefore MS is:
MS = 2r x
Therefore, the by substituting in the variables into the Intersecting Chords Theorem:

SACE Number: 503732T

Gabriel Rayo

(2r-x)x = y(y)
Simplify:
2rx-x2= y2
Since the value of r is desired for this inquiry, the equation must be re-arranged to fit the criteria, therefore:

2rx-x2= y2
2rx= y2 + x2 add both sides by x2 to transfer x2 to the other side of the equation
R=

2 + 2
2

divide both sides by 2x to get r by itself

Then simplify the equation:

R=

2 + 2
2
1 2 + 2

R= (
2

1 2

R= (
2

1 2

R= (
2

+ ) x cancels out

Then it can be seen that the radius of a circle is given by:


1 2

R= (
2

+ )

Part 3: Using Alfred Russel Wallaces Discoveries:


As explained in the Introduction, there was a man who was able to propose a method of calculating the Earths
radius by using the formula:
1 2

R= (
2

+ )

He was able to perform this investigation by setting up three vertical poles that are at the same height in sea
level in a straight line. These poles are exactly 2 metres apart along a straight canal. When he looked from one
end of along the top of the three poles, the middle pole was seen to be a little higher. Wallace then measured
this height difference as accurately as possible and it was determined that the height differential is 314 mm.

SACE Number: 503732T

Gabriel Rayo

Here is a representation of how the scenario would have looked like:

As seen from the diagram above, the three poles are points A, D, and C. The canal is the line that connects A to
D which is 2 km apart as told by the description. However, the question is, why would the middle pole be higher
by 314 mm to the other two poles? The answer is simple. Even though that the poles are at the same height
above sea level, the ground is not flat, in fact it is actually curved. Therefore, if the middle pole was placed at
the highest point on the curve, and the two poles were placed at the end of the curve, then the middle pole
would be higher compared to the other poles. This is seen in the diagram above. The middle pole is on the
highest point on the curve, whilst the other two poles are on the lowest point of that curve. Therefore, the
middle pole is higher than both of the two other poles. The two other poles are on the same height as they are
both on the lowest point on the curve, and since they both have the same height above sea level, then their
heights are the same.
It can be seen that when the appropriate sketches are drawn on Earth to represent the experiment done by
Alfred Russel Wallace, that it represents a circle that is cut a by chord from the first pole to the third pole. Then
the middle pole connects directly from the centre of the Earth. Therefore, the radius formula can be used:
1 2

R= (
2

+ )

Where y = 2km and x is 314 mm


However, since the y and x have different units, both of them have to be converted to SI units for length (which
is metres), to be able to make correct calculations:
To convert 2km to metres, 2 is multiplied by 1000 since there 1000 metres in 1 km. Therefore, y is equal to 2000
metres.
To convert 314 mm to metres, 314 is divided by 1000 metres as there are 1000 millimetres to 1 metre. Therefore,
x is equal to 0.314 metres.
Then to calculate the radius of the Earth, the formula is used:
=
=

1 2
( + )
2

1 20002
(
+ 0.314)
2 0.314

SACE Number: 503732T

Gabriel Rayo

1 4,000,000
(
+ 0.314)
2
0.314

1
(12,738,853.5032 + 0.314)
2
=

1
(12,738,853.81712)
2
= 6,369,427

Since the length of the values were converted into metres, the value gathered from the formula is metres.
However, to make things easier, it can be converted into kilometres by dividing the number by 1000. Therefore,
the radius of the earth is 6,369.43 km.
According to experts the radius of the Earth is equal to 6,371 km. However, the value gathered from the formula
is 6, 369 km. This 2 km difference is because of how the Earth is shaped. The Earths shape is what people would
call an oblate spheroid. An oblate spheroid is gathered from two terms oblate and spheroid. Oblate means
that the shape is slightly oblong in appearance, and the spheroid means that the shape of an object is almost a
sphere. However, the Earth is only very slightly oblate. This can be seen from the diameter of the Earth form the
North to the South Pole, which is approx. 12,714 km, and the diameter of the equator which is 12, 756 km. It
can be seen that there is not a big difference between, but this difference suggests that the Earth is not quite a
sphere. There three pieces of evidence that supports that the Earth is not a sphere. The first evidence is pictures
taken from space. The Earth is close to being a perfect circle that it would look like a sphere from space, however,
if accurate measurements are conducted it can be shown that the Earth is not a perfect circle. Another evidence
is that very accurate measurements of the positions of the stars also provide evidence that the Earths shape is
not a perfect circle. The position of the stars and Sun appear to change between great distances on the Earths
surface. The last evidence that the Earth is not completely spherical, is precise gravity measurements. The pull
of gravity changes as the distance of the object from the centre of the Earth, as a result the further away it is
from the centre the less the object ways. If the Earth was a perfect circle, then the weight of the object would
be the same on any place on the Earth. However, the weight of an object varies as it changes position on the
surface of the Earth. Therefore, the Earths shape is an oblate spheroid. (Elkins, 2003)
Therefore, the limitations of the radius formula is that the shape of the circle has to be a perfect circle. This is
because when the object is not a perfect circle, the radius on the elongated side of the circle is longer compared
to the flattened side of the circle. This is true in the case of the Earth. The actual radius of the Earth is 6,371 km,
whilst using the radius formula it is 6,369 km. As explained in the paragraph above, the earth is not a perfect
circle. As a result the radius of one side is shorter than another side. Another evidence that supports the
limitations is that the diagrams in Parts 1 and 2, where the circles are perfect circles. The radius calculated from
the diagrams are all the same.
The assumption that affected the value of the radius is:
1.

That the cross-section of the Earth was a circle, however that is not the case for the Earth. The earth is
shaped like a flattened circle, which means that part of it has a bigger radius than another.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the results show that the radius formula derived by Alfred Russel Wallace can be proven by
using mathematical methods such as using circle geometry (using circle theorems), and vector theorems. It
also shows that the method proposed by Alfred Russel Wallace to calculate the radius of the Earth is
supported by the investigation conducted in this report. However, this method is only limited to perfect circles
which can be seen also from the results.

SACE Number: 503732T

Gabriel Rayo

References
Australian Science Mathematics School, 2015. How Big is The Earth?, Adelaide : Australian Science
Mathematics School.
Elkins, T., 2003. Oblate Spheroid. [Online]
Available at: http://regentsprep.org/regents/earthsci/units/introduction/oblate.cfm
[Accessed 30 April 2015].
Haese, R. et al., 2002. Specialist Maths. In: mathematics for year 12 Speciialist Maths. Adelaide:
Haese & Harris Publications, p. 184.

10

You might also like