NavList:

   

Reply

George H, you wrote:
"I have changed the threadname to make it more relevant."

Thank you. I appreciate that.

"Once again, Frank Reed makes flippant excuses to avoid tackling a specific
question."

George, I answered your original question --very directly. To refer to your
previous demand for a detailed analysis as a 'specific question' is a little
weird. If you do actually have a SPECIFIC question, I will try to answer it.
When you asked me what the error would be, I answered you directly. Now you
seem to be mister-grumpy-grumpy because I didn't write you a treatise. As I
said previously, I do not jump through hoops just because you tell me to.


George H, you wrote:
"Frank Reed would like to think that my disbelief in his claimed accuracy in
determining longitude around noon is due to my "confusion"."

Well, I was being charitable.

And you wrote:
"Of course, he or I can think up scenarios in which his claim of "1 mile in
latitude, 5 miles in longitude", can indeed apply."

In fact, George, I can easily find scenarios where the errors are more like
"1 mile in latitude, TWO miles in longitude". Cool, huh??

Look, we all know that you consider this heresy. I feel bad for you that you
are burying yourself so deep on this one. You would really enjoy
understanding it from a mathematical perspective if you weren't so convinced
that even thinking about it is a dirty sin. Really -- it's too bad.

And GH wrote:
"However, he has insisted that it also applies to such "hard cases" as,
specifically, that Winter approach to the Clyde. And yet, when challenged
about the hard numerical details, the result is evasion."

Once again, you are mis-representing what I have said. That's not good,
George. Do you have a SPECIFIC question, George? Oh, and by the way, "give
me a complete error budget!" (I paraphrase) is not a question -- it's a
demand.

And you wrote:
"Well, it's up to him. If he wishes to convince sceptics (and there are more
than just me) then he will have to respond to sceptical questions."

You raise an interesting point in the world of science: if someone goes on
and on about how they're not convinced, and tells us that he has 'friends'
who aren't convinced either, should I worry about him? How important is the
opinion of someone who has his fingers in his ears?? My own answer is that
his opinion is EQUALLY as important as the opinion of any other individual,
BUT NO MORE SO. If he wants to learn, he can. If he wants to keep his
fingers in his ears, he can. I have no power over him. In addition, for
myself, I think it's important to avoid the "squeeky wheel" phenomenon,
where we devote too much attention to the loudest, "squeekiest" complainer.
Now I want to be clear, George, I am not saying any of this applies directly
to you. This is just a general issue. And again, if you have some specific
question, please do ask.

And George, you wrote:
"Assertion and reiteration do not make a convincing argument. If he insists
on selecting his own test-ground, that won't persuade doubters."

I have not selected my own test-ground. Are you trying to suggest that I
have proposed tests designed to make this method look better than it does? I
don't recall doing that, but maybe I have forgotten. I know you're not
trying to imply intellectual dishonesty on my part. I just want to be clear
that I have not suggested ANY test case.

By the way, I can think of a couple of cases where this method for finding
longitude would not work at all: in a submarine below 200 feet, and at the
north pole. 'Shocking! Frank's method of finding longitude fails completely
at the north pole! I think we should all avoid it!'  Oh, it also doesn't
work on a day when it's cloudy for forty minutes around noon.

And George you concluded by repeating yourself:
"So here, again, is that simple question, as yet unanswered-
[etc. etc.] A complete error-budget is requested" [etc. etc.]

George, I do not jump through hoops for you. When you wave the hoop in front
of my face again and say 'jump now!' (I paraphrase), I am even less likely
to jump through your hoop.

If you are not capable of formulating a specific question, I will get back
to the business of explaining how this works, and indeed how remarkably well
it works, to anyone else who cares to follow along. I realize that your
occasional bouts with stubborn-ness get you in trouble sometimes, and in
this case, it may make it impossible for you to understand this fascinating
and remarkably simple method of finding longitude.

 -FER



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply