Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #60 on: May 26, 2021, 11:55:35 AM »

I am sure they do.

They also use a point of origin.

What, exactly, do you mean by 'point of origin'?, and how does that facilitate the calculation of a distance between two lat/long points?
Whenever you calculate distance between two point on a x/y coordinate system, there is always a point of origin.

Then it is simply the distance formula d=√((x2-x1)²+(y2-y1)²)

Ok...so one of the two points is your x1y1 and the other point is your x2y2

I gave you two places, one in Iraq and one in Tehran, with a lat/long for each. I don't mind which one you take as your point of origin, if that's how you like to think about it. I just want you to plug the coordinates in to your equation and work out the distance between them.

Quote
If I was struggling with it, then I would not have given the formula for how to do it.

Careful though...your formula there is for cartesian coordinates, so you'll want to convert your lat long before you plug the numbers in, or maybe just come up with a formula that works the distance out directly from the angular coordinates on, presumably, the monopole FE map. Curious to see how you go about doing that.

Looking forward to your answer!

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #61 on: May 26, 2021, 04:02:50 PM »

I am sure they do.

They also use a point of origin.

What, exactly, do you mean by 'point of origin'?, and how does that facilitate the calculation of a distance between two lat/long points?
Whenever you calculate distance between two point on a x/y coordinate system, there is always a point of origin.

Then it is simply the distance formula d=√((x2-x1)²+(y2-y1)²)

Ok...so one of the two points is your x1y1 and the other point is your x2y2

I gave you two places, one in Iraq and one in Tehran, with a lat/long for each. I don't mind which one you take as your point of origin, if that's how you like to think about it. I just want you to plug the coordinates in to your equation and work out the distance between them.

Quote
If I was struggling with it, then I would not have given the formula for how to do it.

Careful though...your formula there is for cartesian coordinates, so you'll want to convert your lat long before you plug the numbers in, or maybe just come up with a formula that works the distance out directly from the angular coordinates on, presumably, the monopole FE map. Curious to see how you go about doing that.

Looking forward to your answer!
Of course you wouldn't mind which is the point of origin, given there is no true longitudinal zero for the fake sphere.

You knew this of course.

Further proof all of it a bunch of crap.

ICBM's, as far as everyone here is concerned, are fictional.

Therefore, the OP is fictional.

It belongs in Complete Nonsense, like most of the other fictional stuff offered up by the usual crowd.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #62 on: May 26, 2021, 04:40:59 PM »
Of course you wouldn't mind which is the point of origin, given there is no true longitudinal zero for the fake sphere.

That's completely irrelevant. Longitudinal datum is indeed entirely arbitrary - a historic debate won by the British. But that's equally true of the monopole FE map, which is, I'm assuming, your preferred model? You and Tom have both agreed that lat/long coordinates work just fine on FE, so where's the problem there?

Origins are generally arbitrary things. Your formula, using cartesian coordinates, would return the same distance between two places regardless of where the origin was placed. It could be one of the two places, or somewhere entirely different - it would all cancel out.

Your problem isn't the origin. Your problem is you've triumphantly presented a formula for cartesian coordinates but you've been given lat/long, measured in degrees. So plugging degrees into a formula designed for distances isn't going to work. You need some way of converting the two, especially since you and Tom keep saying how simple it is and how, for example, mariners have been navigating that way for ages. Well, ok...but they've been using lat/long for centuries, and very happily calculating distance between points. So you need to explain how that could be possible on a FE.

If you are going with the monopole model, what you effectively have in a lat/long is a set of polar coordinates. These are normally a distance and an angle, of course, but on the monopole FE that's kind of what you have. Longitude makes sense on either RE or FE. Latitude though can't be an angle on the monopole FE. So you need some way of converting degrees latitude to a distance from north pole - the origin of your polar coordinate system. I don't know what you want to use for this conversion because you guys never really say - I guess 1nm per minute of latitude, as per conventional navigational thinking? That would give a radial distance for the FE of 180 * 60 = 10,800 nautical miles, which is pretty close to the Wiki's estimate for the radius.

Assuming you're happy with that conversion, you should just be able to plug in any lat/long to a polar/cartesian coordinate converter and, hey presto, out will come the x/y pairings you need to plug into your formula. Then we can get some distances out of you.

With me so far?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #63 on: May 26, 2021, 04:46:07 PM »
Of course you wouldn't mind which is the point of origin, given there is no true longitudinal zero for the fake sphere.

That's completely irrelevant. Longitudinal datum is indeed entirely arbitrary - a historic debate won by the British. But that's equally true of the monopole FE map, which is, I'm assuming, your preferred model? You and Tom have both agreed that lat/long coordinates work just fine on FE, so where's the problem there?

Origins are generally arbitrary things. Your formula, using cartesian coordinates, would return the same distance between two places regardless of where the origin was placed. It could be one of the two places, or somewhere entirely different - it would all cancel out.

Your problem isn't the origin. Your problem is you've triumphantly presented a formula for cartesian coordinates but you've been given lat/long, measured in degrees. So plugging degrees into a formula designed for distances isn't going to work. You need some way of converting the two, especially since you and Tom keep saying how simple it is and how, for example, mariners have been navigating that way for ages. Well, ok...but they've been using lat/long for centuries, and very happily calculating distance between points. So you need to explain how that could be possible on a FE.

If you are going with the monopole model, what you effectively have in a lat/long is a set of polar coordinates. These are normally a distance and an angle, of course, but on the monopole FE that's kind of what you have. Longitude makes sense on either RE or FE. Latitude though can't be an angle on the monopole FE. So you need some way of converting degrees latitude to a distance from north pole - the origin of your polar coordinate system. I don't know what you want to use for this conversion because you guys never really say - I guess 1nm per minute of latitude, as per conventional navigational thinking? That would give a radial distance for the FE of 180 * 60 = 10,800 nautical miles, which is pretty close to the Wiki's estimate for the radius.

Assuming you're happy with that conversion, you should just be able to plug in any lat/long to a polar/cartesian coordinate converter and, hey presto, out will come the x/y pairings you need to plug into your formula. Then we can get some distances out of you.

With me so far?
Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

So, no.

I will never be "with you."

Because that is a flat out lie.

It's arbitrary, as you just admitted.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #64 on: May 26, 2021, 04:56:54 PM »

Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

So, no.

I will never be "with you."

Because that is a flat out lie.

It's arbitrary, as you just admitted.

All coordinate systems are to some extent arbitrary. You can have any origin you wish. As long as the coordinates all reference the same system, distances between pairs of coordinates will give the same result.

You yourself said you could work it out with your formula, but now you're saying you can't because the system is wrong. But all those mariners through the ages, diligently recording their lat/long based on celestial observations (as per Tom's statement)...were they wrong, then?

And what, exactly, is the lat/long system we should be using then? What system do you suppose our Iraqi Scud aimers were using?

And which FE model are you using?

And how big is the FE?
 

[edited to remove tautology!]

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #65 on: May 26, 2021, 05:01:07 PM »

Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

So, no.

I will never be "with you."

Because that is a flat out lie.

It's arbitrary, as you just admitted.

All coordinate systems are to some extent arbitrary. You can have any origin you wish. As long as the coordinates all reference the same system, distances between pairs of coordinates will give the same result.

You yourself said you could work it out with your formula, but now you're saying you can't because the system is wrong. But all those mariners through the ages, diligently recording their lat/long based on celestial and solar observations (as per Tom's statement)...were they wrong, then?

And what, exactly, is the lat/long system we should be using then? What system do you suppose our Iraqi Scud aimers were using?

And which FE model are you using?

And how big is the FE?
I am certainly not stating the distance couldn't be worked out using two points.

You are not paying attention.

I am stating the two points being arbitrary would be close, but it was not used to fire those missiles which you love to use.

Like I wrote earlier, a much more likely scenario  would have been actual distances obtained by close up surveillance of the land, performed by live people.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2195
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #66 on: May 26, 2021, 05:03:24 PM »
Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

You are wrong:

History of longitude
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude

"Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE first proposed a system of latitude and longitude for a map of the world."

Remember, Eratosthenes was the guy who first calculated the size of the earth based upon it being spherical.

Separately, centuries later, "Ancient Hindu astronomers were aware of the method of determining longitude from lunar eclipses, assuming a spherical earth. The method is described in the Sûrya Siddhânta, a Sanskrit treatise on Indian astronomy thought to date from the late 4th century or early 5th century CE.[9]"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #67 on: May 26, 2021, 05:06:32 PM »
Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

You are wrong:

History of longitude
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude

"Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE first proposed a system of latitude and longitude for a map of the world."

Remember, Eratosthenes was the guy who first calculated the size of the earth based upon it being spherical.

Separately, centuries later, "Ancient Hindu astronomers were aware of the method of determining longitude from lunar eclipses, assuming a spherical earth. The method is described in the Sûrya Siddhânta, a Sanskrit treatise on Indian astronomy thought to date from the late 4th century or early 5th century CE.[9]"
Longitude is arbitrary, meaning there is no true 0/0.

You're wrong.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2195
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #68 on: May 26, 2021, 05:09:57 PM »
Every long distance route taken by sea or air has essentially remained UNCHANGED since long distance travel commenced.

None of it was ever based on the idea of a globe.

Wrong again. Dead reckoning and rhumb lines were the first navigational methods. Since then, for long hauls, excluding course corrections due to weather and other needs, great circle navigation is used. Look it up.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #69 on: May 26, 2021, 05:12:07 PM »
Every long distance route taken by sea or air has essentially remained UNCHANGED since long distance travel commenced.

None of it was ever based on the idea of a globe.

Wrong again. Dead reckoning and rhumb lines were the first navigational methods. Since then, for long hauls, excluding course corrections due to weather and other needs, great circle navigation is used. Look it up.
I do not need to look it up.

Everything you mention has nothing to do with a sphere.

NOTHING.

Long distance navigation does not need a sphere to get you where you want to be.

Bye now.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2195
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #70 on: May 26, 2021, 05:20:26 PM »
Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

You are wrong:

History of longitude
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude

"Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE first proposed a system of latitude and longitude for a map of the world."

Remember, Eratosthenes was the guy who first calculated the size of the earth based upon it being spherical.

Separately, centuries later, "Ancient Hindu astronomers were aware of the method of determining longitude from lunar eclipses, assuming a spherical earth. The method is described in the Sûrya Siddhânta, a Sanskrit treatise on Indian astronomy thought to date from the late 4th century or early 5th century CE.[9]"
Longitude is arbitrary, meaning there is no true 0/0.

You're wrong.

What do you mean by "true"? The Prime Meridian is used as 0 degrees longitude on pretty much every navigational map/chart in the world. And yes, it was determined by man. So what? So are the hours of a day, arbitrarily concocted to be made up of concocted and arbitrary 60 minutes for each and so on.  Longitude & Latitude are used to accurately & uniformly & consistently navigate just like Hours and Minutes are used to accurately & uniformly & consistently tell time. Your "arbitrary" point means literally nothing.

"If you look at the intersection of 0 degrees latitude (known as the Equator) and 0 degrees longitude (known as the Prime Meridian) on a map, you will see that the confluence falls in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of western Africa."
https://www.geographyrealm.com/zero-degrees-latitude-and-zero-degrees-longitude/

And you're still wrong, "Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE first proposed a system of latitude and longitude for a map of the world."

Remember, Eratosthenes was the guy who first calculated the size of the earth based upon it being spherical.


Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #71 on: May 26, 2021, 05:24:25 PM »
Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

You are wrong:

History of longitude
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude

"Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE first proposed a system of latitude and longitude for a map of the world."

Remember, Eratosthenes was the guy who first calculated the size of the earth based upon it being spherical.

Separately, centuries later, "Ancient Hindu astronomers were aware of the method of determining longitude from lunar eclipses, assuming a spherical earth. The method is described in the Sûrya Siddhânta, a Sanskrit treatise on Indian astronomy thought to date from the late 4th century or early 5th century CE.[9]"
Longitude is arbitrary, meaning there is no true 0/0.

You're wrong.

What do you mean by "true"? The Prime Meridian is used as 0 degrees longitude on pretty much every navigational map/chart in the world. And yes, it was determined by man. So what? So are the hours of a day, arbitrarily concocted to be made up of concocted and arbitrary 60 minutes for each and so on.  Longitude & Latitude are used to accurately & uniformly & consistently navigate just like Hours and Minutes are used to accurately & uniformly & consistently tell time. Your "arbitrary" point means literally nothing.

"If you look at the intersection of 0 degrees latitude (known as the Equator) and 0 degrees longitude (known as the Prime Meridian) on a map, you will see that the confluence falls in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of western Africa."
https://www.geographyrealm.com/zero-degrees-latitude-and-zero-degrees-longitude/

And you're still wrong, "Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE first proposed a system of latitude and longitude for a map of the world."

Remember, Eratosthenes was the guy who first calculated the size of the earth based upon it being spherical.
Just throwing more meaningless words into the issue isn't going to help you here.

Eratosthenes could have done everything you want attributed to him.

Hell, he could have won an Oscar for all I care.

Doesn't matter what he proposed.

0/0, as far the earth is concerned, is arbitrary.

ICBM's, as far as anyone here is concerned, are fictional.

Therefore, the OP is a fictional pursuit and thus belongs in CN.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2195
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #72 on: May 26, 2021, 05:25:28 PM »
Every long distance route taken by sea or air has essentially remained UNCHANGED since long distance travel commenced.

None of it was ever based on the idea of a globe.

Wrong again. Dead reckoning and rhumb lines were the first navigational methods. Since then, for long hauls, excluding course corrections due to weather and other needs, great circle navigation is used. Look it up.
I do not need to look it up.

Everything you mention has nothing to do with a sphere.

Great circle navigation certainly is all about a sphere, the shortest route on a sphere.

"A great circle, also known as an orthodrome, of a sphere is the intersection of the sphere and a plane that passes through the center point of the sphere."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle

Long distance navigation does not need a sphere to get you where you want to be.

Bye now.

Of course it does't "need it". But if you want the shortest long haul route, Great Circles win and are used by the transport of goods and humans the world over.

Bye now.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #73 on: May 26, 2021, 05:30:59 PM »
Every long distance route taken by sea or air has essentially remained UNCHANGED since long distance travel commenced.

None of it was ever based on the idea of a globe.

Wrong again. Dead reckoning and rhumb lines were the first navigational methods. Since then, for long hauls, excluding course corrections due to weather and other needs, great circle navigation is used. Look it up.
I do not need to look it up.

Everything you mention has nothing to do with a sphere.

Great circle navigation certainly is all about a sphere, the shortest route on a sphere.

"A great circle, also known as an orthodrome, of a sphere is the intersection of the sphere and a plane that passes through the center point of the sphere."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle
Great circle navigation is just a bunch of fiction.

No way to demonstrate it is actually performed.

And, it has nothing to do with the OP.

Just more obfuscating BS peddled by your sorts to hide the original BS.
Long distance navigation does not need a sphere to get you where you want to be.

Bye now.

Of course it does't "need it". But if you want the shortest long haul route, Great Circles win and are used by the transport of goods and humans the world over.

Bye now.
Like I wrote above, just more regular BS trotted out by you and the rest.

As if people and things do not arrive when they do, regardless.

Taking a line from a flat surface and transcribing it to the surface of a sphere will usually result in a a curve.

Bye now.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2195
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #74 on: May 26, 2021, 05:31:34 PM »
Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

You are wrong:

History of longitude
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude

"Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE first proposed a system of latitude and longitude for a map of the world."

Remember, Eratosthenes was the guy who first calculated the size of the earth based upon it being spherical.

Separately, centuries later, "Ancient Hindu astronomers were aware of the method of determining longitude from lunar eclipses, assuming a spherical earth. The method is described in the Sûrya Siddhânta, a Sanskrit treatise on Indian astronomy thought to date from the late 4th century or early 5th century CE.[9]"
Longitude is arbitrary, meaning there is no true 0/0.

You're wrong.

What do you mean by "true"? The Prime Meridian is used as 0 degrees longitude on pretty much every navigational map/chart in the world. And yes, it was determined by man. So what? So are the hours of a day, arbitrarily concocted to be made up of concocted and arbitrary 60 minutes for each and so on.  Longitude & Latitude are used to accurately & uniformly & consistently navigate just like Hours and Minutes are used to accurately & uniformly & consistently tell time. Your "arbitrary" point means literally nothing.

"If you look at the intersection of 0 degrees latitude (known as the Equator) and 0 degrees longitude (known as the Prime Meridian) on a map, you will see that the confluence falls in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of western Africa."
https://www.geographyrealm.com/zero-degrees-latitude-and-zero-degrees-longitude/

And you're still wrong, "Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE first proposed a system of latitude and longitude for a map of the world."

Remember, Eratosthenes was the guy who first calculated the size of the earth based upon it being spherical.
Just throwing more meaningless words into the issue isn't going to help you here.

Eratosthenes could have done everything you want attributed to him.

Hell, he could have won an Oscar for all I care.

Doesn't matter what he proposed.

0/0, as far the earth is concerned, is arbitrary.

ICBM's, as far as anyone here is concerned, are fictional.

Therefore, the OP is a fictional pursuit and thus belongs in CN.

Your opinion does not matter and is irrelevant. You're still wrong.

0/0 is as arbitrary as 12 o'clock is on your watch.

ICBMs are fictional "as far as anyone here is concerned"? Wrong again. There are loads of people here who believe they, in fact, are quite real. You're fictional opinions not rooted in fact most likely belong in CN.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2195
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #75 on: May 26, 2021, 05:39:23 PM »
Every long distance route taken by sea or air has essentially remained UNCHANGED since long distance travel commenced.

None of it was ever based on the idea of a globe.

Wrong again. Dead reckoning and rhumb lines were the first navigational methods. Since then, for long hauls, excluding course corrections due to weather and other needs, great circle navigation is used. Look it up.
I do not need to look it up.

Everything you mention has nothing to do with a sphere.

Great circle navigation certainly is all about a sphere, the shortest route on a sphere.

"A great circle, also known as an orthodrome, of a sphere is the intersection of the sphere and a plane that passes through the center point of the sphere."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle
Great circle navigation is just a bunch of fiction.

No way to demonstrate it is actually performed.

Wrong again:



And, it has nothing to do with the OP.

Umm, everyone is talking about distances and routes. Now you're just scrambling.

Just more obfuscating BS peddled by your sorts to hide the original BS.
Long distance navigation does not need a sphere to get you where you want to be.

Bye now.

Of course it does't "need it". But if you want the shortest long haul route, Great Circles win and are used by the transport of goods and humans the world over.

Bye now.
Like I wrote above, just more regular BS trotted out by you and the rest.

As if people and things do not arrive when they do, regardless.

Taking a line from a flat surface and transcribing it to the surface of a sphere will usually result in a a curve.

Bye now.

People and things arrive when they do regardless of the route they take. Interesting assertion.

See yah.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #76 on: May 26, 2021, 06:01:40 PM »
Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

You are wrong:

History of longitude
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude

"Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE first proposed a system of latitude and longitude for a map of the world."

Remember, Eratosthenes was the guy who first calculated the size of the earth based upon it being spherical.

Separately, centuries later, "Ancient Hindu astronomers were aware of the method of determining longitude from lunar eclipses, assuming a spherical earth. The method is described in the Sûrya Siddhânta, a Sanskrit treatise on Indian astronomy thought to date from the late 4th century or early 5th century CE.[9]"
Longitude is arbitrary, meaning there is no true 0/0.

You're wrong.

What do you mean by "true"? The Prime Meridian is used as 0 degrees longitude on pretty much every navigational map/chart in the world. And yes, it was determined by man. So what? So are the hours of a day, arbitrarily concocted to be made up of concocted and arbitrary 60 minutes for each and so on.  Longitude & Latitude are used to accurately & uniformly & consistently navigate just like Hours and Minutes are used to accurately & uniformly & consistently tell time. Your "arbitrary" point means literally nothing.

"If you look at the intersection of 0 degrees latitude (known as the Equator) and 0 degrees longitude (known as the Prime Meridian) on a map, you will see that the confluence falls in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, in the Gulf of Guinea off the coast of western Africa."
https://www.geographyrealm.com/zero-degrees-latitude-and-zero-degrees-longitude/

And you're still wrong, "Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE first proposed a system of latitude and longitude for a map of the world."

Remember, Eratosthenes was the guy who first calculated the size of the earth based upon it being spherical.
Just throwing more meaningless words into the issue isn't going to help you here.

Eratosthenes could have done everything you want attributed to him.

Hell, he could have won an Oscar for all I care.

Doesn't matter what he proposed.

0/0, as far the earth is concerned, is arbitrary.

ICBM's, as far as anyone here is concerned, are fictional.

Therefore, the OP is a fictional pursuit and thus belongs in CN.

Your opinion does not matter and is irrelevant. You're still wrong.

0/0 is as arbitrary as 12 o'clock is on your watch.

ICBMs are fictional "as far as anyone here is concerned"? Wrong again. There are loads of people here who believe they, in fact, are quite real. You're fictional opinions not rooted in fact most likely belong in CN.
See, I am not offering opinion.

I am offering fact.

Another relevant discovery of a weak area of thought when it comes to you.

Clearly cannot cannot tell between a fact (ICBM's are currently FICTIONAL) and an opinion (Many people BELIEVE in ICBM's)

ICBM's?

Nothing offered by anyone to show they are real, except a statement of belief.

As you agree, we are done here.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 911
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #77 on: May 26, 2021, 06:02:22 PM »
Every long distance route taken by sea or air has essentially remained UNCHANGED since long distance travel commenced.

None of it was ever based on the idea of a globe.

Wrong again. Dead reckoning and rhumb lines were the first navigational methods. Since then, for long hauls, excluding course corrections due to weather and other needs, great circle navigation is used. Look it up.
I do not need to look it up.

Everything you mention has nothing to do with a sphere.

Great circle navigation certainly is all about a sphere, the shortest route on a sphere.

"A great circle, also known as an orthodrome, of a sphere is the intersection of the sphere and a plane that passes through the center point of the sphere."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle
Great circle navigation is just a bunch of fiction.

No way to demonstrate it is actually performed.

Wrong again:



And, it has nothing to do with the OP.

Umm, everyone is talking about distances and routes. Now you're just scrambling.

Just more obfuscating BS peddled by your sorts to hide the original BS.
Long distance navigation does not need a sphere to get you where you want to be.

Bye now.

Of course it does't "need it". But if you want the shortest long haul route, Great Circles win and are used by the transport of goods and humans the world over.

Bye now.
Like I wrote above, just more regular BS trotted out by you and the rest.

As if people and things do not arrive when they do, regardless.

Taking a line from a flat surface and transcribing it to the surface of a sphere will usually result in a a curve.

Bye now.

People and things arrive when they do regardless of the route they take. Interesting assertion.

See yah.
As if a web picture demonstrates actual reality.

Jesus.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1187
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #78 on: May 26, 2021, 06:10:18 PM »
AnYtHiNg I dOnT lIkE dOeSnT eXiSt

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2195
    • View Profile
Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #79 on: May 26, 2021, 06:12:01 PM »
Every long distance route taken by sea or air has essentially remained UNCHANGED since long distance travel commenced.

None of it was ever based on the idea of a globe.

Wrong again. Dead reckoning and rhumb lines were the first navigational methods. Since then, for long hauls, excluding course corrections due to weather and other needs, great circle navigation is used. Look it up.
I do not need to look it up.

Everything you mention has nothing to do with a sphere.

Great circle navigation certainly is all about a sphere, the shortest route on a sphere.

"A great circle, also known as an orthodrome, of a sphere is the intersection of the sphere and a plane that passes through the center point of the sphere."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle
Great circle navigation is just a bunch of fiction.

No way to demonstrate it is actually performed.

Wrong again:



And, it has nothing to do with the OP.

Umm, everyone is talking about distances and routes. Now you're just scrambling.

Just more obfuscating BS peddled by your sorts to hide the original BS.
Long distance navigation does not need a sphere to get you where you want to be.

Bye now.

Of course it does't "need it". But if you want the shortest long haul route, Great Circles win and are used by the transport of goods and humans the world over.

Bye now.
Like I wrote above, just more regular BS trotted out by you and the rest.

As if people and things do not arrive when they do, regardless.

Taking a line from a flat surface and transcribing it to the surface of a sphere will usually result in a a curve.

Bye now.

People and things arrive when they do regardless of the route they take. Interesting assertion.

See yah.
As if a web picture demonstrates actual reality.

Jesus.

That's hilarious, a "web picture". It's a radar depiction of the route of a flight from LA to London. You can look at many, many more great circle flights and routes here (and every other flight tracking service - They all, strangely, show the same thing): https://www.flightradar24.com/-0.88,-60.28/3

Funny how those long haul non-stop flights just don't blast straight from point to point. Funny how these great circle routes look longer to the layperson. Strange that the airlines would take a visually longer route than necessary, burning more fuel, longer durations, less flights, all meaning less profit. So very strange indeed.

Oh wait, maybe you have a flat earth map that would explain this phenomenon. Can you post your flat earth map? The one you perhaps use.