On 15 Jul 2004 13:02:02 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

no, base kisser, the statement was made that across the distance from NYC to
Phildelphia the surface of the Earth is less than a meter or so from planer and
therefore there is no need to calculate curvature to know the distance to sail
a boat. "steve" didn't understand that .

As usual, Jox is wrong. The statement was made in the discussion about
3d vectors, where Jox made the general statement:

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).

Anyway you look at it, it's a stupid statement. A "point on the Earth's
surface" is a point, not planar. And the Earth's surface itself hasn't
been described as planar for a long time.

"steve" also doesn't understand the meaning of the word "ballistic", which has
too many sylables. nor does he understand what deduced reckoning is, but
thinks it means watching for lighthouses and nav marks.

According to Jox, a bullet does not travel a ballistic path because it's
guided by the barrel for the initial portion of it's flight. According
to Jox, an ICBM doesn't have a guidance system even though the rest of
the world knows that's not true. According to Jox, the earth's magnetic
field is not an outside reference that the compass reads when you're
doing ded reckoning. He's just full of stupidity.

no does "steve" have any rational clew what cost accounting is (nevermind it
has been a thoroughly understood business principal for more than forty years),
nor does he have anyremote clew that differences (there are many, many, many)
between a generator and an alternator.

And Jox still doesn't believe that the voltage produced by an alternator
isn't related to the rpm. He's easily confused because he may be
thinking of ones with a builtin regulator, which not all have.

no does he have an rational clew how a gyroscope works.

Ah, I see Jox still doesn't believe there's such a thing as a north
seeking gyro even after the principles of how it works were explained to
him and he was shown commercial examples of them. What a moron.

Steve

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:49:49 GMT, (Steven Shelikoff)
wrote:

On 15 Jul 2004 13:02:02 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

"steve" also doesn't understand the meaning of the word "ballistic", which has
too many sylables. nor does he understand what deduced reckoning is, but
thinks it means watching for lighthouses and nav marks.

According to Jox, a bullet does not travel a ballistic path because it's
guided by the barrel for the initial portion of it's flight. According
to Jox, an ICBM doesn't have a guidance system even though the rest of
the world knows that's not true.

I should have said that according to Jox, a bullet, after it leaves the
barrel, does not travel a ballistic path because it was guided down the
barrel. Just like an ICBM must not travel a ballistic path during the
final portion of it's flight because it was guided by it's guidance
system during it's initial portion of it's flight. He just doesn't
understand that an ICBM does, indeed have a navigation system. Inertial
and GPS are the usual ones.

Steve

"steve", obviously English is not you first or second or third or fouth
language. go sleep it off for a few days.


(Steven Shelikoff)
wrote:

On 15 Jul 2004 13:02:02 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

"steve" also doesn't understand the meaning of the word "ballistic", which
has
too many sylables. nor does he understand what deduced reckoning is, but
thinks it means watching for lighthouses and nav marks.

According to Jox, a bullet does not travel a ballistic path because it's
guided by the barrel for the initial portion of it's flight. According
to Jox, an ICBM doesn't have a guidance system even though the rest of
the world knows that's not true.

I should have said that according to Jox, a bullet, after it leaves the
barrel, does not travel a ballistic path because it was guided down the
barrel. Just like an ICBM must not travel a ballistic path during the
final portion of it's flight because it was guided by it's guidance
system during it's initial portion of it's flight. He just doesn't
understand that an ICBM does, indeed have a navigation system. Inertial
and GPS are the usual ones.

Steve

"steve", you have been over served. go sleep it off yet again.

From: (Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 7/15/2004 7:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 15 Jul 2004 13:02:02 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

no, base kisser, the statement was made that across the distance from NYC to
Phildelphia the surface of the Earth is less than a meter or so from planer
and
therefore there is no need to calculate curvature to know the distance to
sail
a boat. "steve" didn't understand that .

As usual, Jox is wrong. The statement was made in the discussion about
3d vectors, where Jox made the general statement:

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).

Anyway you look at it, it's a stupid statement. A "point on the Earth's
surface" is a point, not planar. And the Earth's surface itself hasn't
been described as planar for a long time.

"steve" also doesn't understand the meaning of the word "ballistic", which
has
too many sylables. nor does he understand what deduced reckoning is, but
thinks it means watching for lighthouses and nav marks.

According to Jox, a bullet does not travel a ballistic path because it's
guided by the barrel for the initial portion of it's flight. According
to Jox, an ICBM doesn't have a guidance system even though the rest of
the world knows that's not true. According to Jox, the earth's magnetic
field is not an outside reference that the compass reads when you're
doing ded reckoning. He's just full of stupidity.

no does "steve" have any rational clew what cost accounting is (nevermind it
has been a thoroughly understood business principal for more than forty
years),
nor does he have anyremote clew that differences (there are many, many,
many)
between a generator and an alternator.

And Jox still doesn't believe that the voltage produced by an alternator
isn't related to the rpm. He's easily confused because he may be
thinking of ones with a builtin regulator, which not all have.

no does he have an rational clew how a gyroscope works.

Ah, I see Jox still doesn't believe there's such a thing as a north
seeking gyro even after the principles of how it works were explained to
him and he was shown commercial examples of them. What a moron.

Steve