In the 19th century, the prime meridian, the basis for longitude and time zones, was established at Greenwich in England, further confirmed at the 1884 International Meridian Conference. This meridian was forwarded over other proposals like a Paris or Berlin meridian or the more neutral Ferro meridian in the Canaries. At the time, this was a source of controversy.
But to me, it seems the most truly neutral meridian would be one objectively defined by science (rather than culture/European history, like the Ferro meridian, or religion like the proposed Mecca meridian or potentially a Jerusalem or Rome meridian). And this suggests the highest point on Earth's surface at the equator would be an objective and neutral prime meridian. This point is on the southern slope of the volcano Cayambe in Ecuador, about 60 kilometers from Quito, at almost 78'00 W . In this time period, it was known that this area had the highest point on Earth, since the second highest point on the northern slope of Mount Kenya is much lower, and no other point at Earth's equator is as high as those two points. Hypothetical mountains at the equator in "darkest Africa" were falling into the category of "thoroughly disproved" in that period, and in any case, a search for a peak higher than Cayambe at the equator in the heart of Africa would be a fantastic excuse for European nations to send more explorers into the region.
Could this argument be raised in the context of the mid-late 19th century and nations be convinced to adopt the idea in the spirit of compromise? While the eurocentric nature of the meridians proposed obviously isn't an issue at the time, there's a certain appeal to having such an objective definition laid down, especially given the historic difficulties regarding longitude.
The effects of the Ecuador/Cayambe meridian are numerous, given the use of longitude in defining borders between nations and administrative divisions (a lot of counties in the Great Plains in the US will have very different borders TTL). For instance, colonial borders in Africa might be drawn differently, which if decolonisation still happens, could have some interesting effects. In the Americas, disputes in South America in the late 19th century/early 20th century may be solved differently. The Alaska panhandle dispute may also be solved differently due to the differing longitude.
For astronomy, such a definition of longitude will logically be applied to other planets and moons, where the highest point at their equator becomes the prime meridian. This is where I got the idea from, since I felt it was strange the definition of Mars and Venus's prime meridians are so arbitrary (under this definition, Mars's would be a point on Pavonis Mons, and I believe Venus's is on Maat Mons). The exception to this would be objects tidally locked, and this exception would start with the Moon as it's highest equatorial point is on the side invisible from Earth and would continue to other tidally-locked objects like Titan or Pluto. Gas giants like Jupiter with no known surface features would also not have this definition.
Is there any chance in the 19th century for this argument to succeed?
But to me, it seems the most truly neutral meridian would be one objectively defined by science (rather than culture/European history, like the Ferro meridian, or religion like the proposed Mecca meridian or potentially a Jerusalem or Rome meridian). And this suggests the highest point on Earth's surface at the equator would be an objective and neutral prime meridian. This point is on the southern slope of the volcano Cayambe in Ecuador, about 60 kilometers from Quito, at almost 78'00 W . In this time period, it was known that this area had the highest point on Earth, since the second highest point on the northern slope of Mount Kenya is much lower, and no other point at Earth's equator is as high as those two points. Hypothetical mountains at the equator in "darkest Africa" were falling into the category of "thoroughly disproved" in that period, and in any case, a search for a peak higher than Cayambe at the equator in the heart of Africa would be a fantastic excuse for European nations to send more explorers into the region.
Could this argument be raised in the context of the mid-late 19th century and nations be convinced to adopt the idea in the spirit of compromise? While the eurocentric nature of the meridians proposed obviously isn't an issue at the time, there's a certain appeal to having such an objective definition laid down, especially given the historic difficulties regarding longitude.
The effects of the Ecuador/Cayambe meridian are numerous, given the use of longitude in defining borders between nations and administrative divisions (a lot of counties in the Great Plains in the US will have very different borders TTL). For instance, colonial borders in Africa might be drawn differently, which if decolonisation still happens, could have some interesting effects. In the Americas, disputes in South America in the late 19th century/early 20th century may be solved differently. The Alaska panhandle dispute may also be solved differently due to the differing longitude.
For astronomy, such a definition of longitude will logically be applied to other planets and moons, where the highest point at their equator becomes the prime meridian. This is where I got the idea from, since I felt it was strange the definition of Mars and Venus's prime meridians are so arbitrary (under this definition, Mars's would be a point on Pavonis Mons, and I believe Venus's is on Maat Mons). The exception to this would be objects tidally locked, and this exception would start with the Moon as it's highest equatorial point is on the side invisible from Earth and would continue to other tidally-locked objects like Titan or Pluto. Gas giants like Jupiter with no known surface features would also not have this definition.
Is there any chance in the 19th century for this argument to succeed?