schlackoff, English even as a third language is way beyond you. You are
FORBIDDEN to own an EPIRB. Let Darwin teach you how to navigate.

jeffie, go ask your wife to review your posts before sending. be careful that
she is in a good mood, otherwise she might scold you for what you write.



Jaxie's original "context" was actually simply mathematics. His "planar"
comment was part of the great "3 dimensional vector" discussion, where jaxie
revealed his ignorance in a variety of disciplines. (The ICBM comment was
also
from that.)

His actual comment was:

"btw, if vectors are "3 dimensional", just how can they be used at a point on
the Earth's surface (which by definition is planer)."


And on ICBM's:
"An Inter Continental Ballistic Missile is "ballistic" and thus has no
navigation system."


And, of course, jaxie just made up his "answer," and was wrong by a few
orders
of magnitude. The difference between a Rhumb Line and a Great Circle route
can
be a tenth of a mile on a 120 mile trip, and almost a degree on initial
heading
at mid latitudes. Not a great difference, I'd argue that there are
difference
aspects of the "non-planar" nature of the ocean that are of more relevance to
the coastal sailor. In fact, one sees the effect on any trip longer than a
few
miles.

Of course, near the poles this could be more significant At 70 N, for
instance, to go 100 miles East your heading should be 87.6 degrees.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
bass, **IN THE CONTEXT** given, the difference in distance over 120 nm is
about
0.000872225 miles, or a little over 3 feet.

Oh, I totally understand the differences between planar and spherical
mathematics. I also understand that you are foolish if you think that,
when measuring distances across the earth's surface, there is
absolutely no way that planar math will give you the correct distance.
No more that than in ANY circle. The chord length will ALWAYS be
shorter than the arc length of the same segment. Do you disagree with
this statement? If so, how?

On 21 Mar 2004 01:00:51 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

You're too funny Jax. According to your strict definition, a bullet is
not ballistic either since it's guided by the gun barrel for the initial
portion of it's flight and travels in a straight line, not a ballistic
flight path, for that portion of it's journey to the target.

ballistic

\Bal*lis"tic\, a. 1. Of or pertaining to the ballista, or to the art of hurling
stones or missile weapons by means of an engine.

ballistic

adj : relating to or characteristic of the motion of objects moving under their
own momentum and the force of gravity; "ballistic missile"

Neither of those definitions preclude an ICBM from having a navigation
system since they are obviously only ballistic for a portion of their
flight path, not the entire path. Just like a bullet or hurling stone
or missile weapons, all of which are ballistic weapons but do not follow
a path strictly under their own momentum and the force of gravity for
the entire trip. They all have to get started somehow. The way you are
limiting their motion, all they could do is fall when dropped.

Face it Jaxie, even though it's obvious you are only arguing for the
sake of argument, you can't even do that effectively.

Steve

On 21 Mar 2004 01:01:23 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

schlackoff, English even as a third language is way beyond you. You are
FORBIDDEN to own an EPIRB. Let Darwin teach you how to navigate.

Time for you to go back to rehab. The last trip didn't take.

Steve

schlackoff, do no attempt to write English here. use your native language
only. English is beyond you.

You're too funny Jax. According to your strict definition, a bullet is
not ballistic either since it's guided by the gun barrel for the initial
portion of it's flight and travels in a straight line, not a ballistic
flight path, for that portion of it's journey to the target.

ballistic

\Bal*lis"tic\, a. 1. Of or pertaining to the ballista, or to the art of
hurling
stones or missile weapons by means of an engine.

ballistic

adj : relating to or characteristic of the motion of objects moving under
their
own momentum and the force of gravity; "ballistic missile"

Neither of those definitions preclude an ICBM from having a navigation
system since they are obviously only ballistic for a portion of their
flight path, not the entire path. Just like a bullet or hurling stone
or missile weapons, all of which are ballistic weapons but do not follow
a path strictly under their own momentum and the force of gravity for
the entire trip. They all have to get started somehow. The way you are
limiting their motion, all they could do is fall when dropped.

Face it Jaxie, even though it's obvious you are only arguing for the
sake of argument, you can't even do that effectively.

Steve

On 21 Mar 2004 23:37:44 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

schlackoff, do no attempt to write English here. use your native language
only. English is beyond you.

Good one jaxie. Your intelligence is shining through as usual.

Steve

You're too funny Jax. According to your strict definition, a bullet is
not ballistic either since it's guided by the gun barrel for the initial
portion of it's flight and travels in a straight line, not a ballistic
flight path, for that portion of it's journey to the target.

ballistic

\Bal*lis"tic\, a. 1. Of or pertaining to the ballista, or to the art of
hurling
stones or missile weapons by means of an engine.

ballistic

adj : relating to or characteristic of the motion of objects moving under
their
own momentum and the force of gravity; "ballistic missile"

Neither of those definitions preclude an ICBM from having a navigation
system since they are obviously only ballistic for a portion of their
flight path, not the entire path. Just like a bullet or hurling stone
or missile weapons, all of which are ballistic weapons but do not follow
a path strictly under their own momentum and the force of gravity for
the entire trip. They all have to get started somehow. The way you are
limiting their motion, all they could do is fall when dropped.

Face it Jaxie, even though it's obvious you are only arguing for the
sake of argument, you can't even do that effectively.

Steve

From:

[ ]