Hans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Howdy Byrd
>
> It should be possible to determine the center of
> mass of all land masses.


That depends on what section of the globe you're looking at. If you slice it along the equator, there's a different answer. Slice it at a 45 degree angle, it's another answer.

And then (not being obnoxious, but precise), how do you define the continental boundary? Continental shelves that were above water back in the last ice age? The average shoreline on an average day (winter? summer?) Do you count mountains as flat geometry or as topological 3D shapes? In places where there are strings of islands do you count them all, dismiss them (compromising your data), or what? If you count continental shelves, then do subsurface oceanic volcanos within 50 feet of the surface count? Atolls? Do you accept the political definitions or geologic definitions? Are canyons (inverse of mountains) counted as surface area or as missing data or as a flat plain?

The problem is that what was asked was a question that was to be answered by precise measurement, but we use a type of mathematics called "fuzzy logic" in actually measuring land areas. The two don't actually jive in any meaningful way at this point.

So, "beneath my cat's fanny" is an accurate measure of centrality for at least one (if not more) layouts.