NavList:

   

Reply

On 6 Dec 2004 at 18:14, Alexandre Eremenko wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Ken Muldrew wrote:
>
> > I wonder if you could clarify just what it is that you are saying.
> > I'm
> > afraid I'm a bit confused.
>
> I am saying (answering the question why there was
> no "Lunar era") that there was no
> "Lunars era" in history
> of navigation because
> a) accuracy is too low and
> b) reduction is too hard.
> c) a better method (chronometer) became available at almost
> the same time.

For land navigation there was a lunars era. Chronometers were too
expensive and fragile, accuracy was easily good enough because landmarks
could be used, reduction wasn't a problem (either for people who were
trained in mathematical school (which is not a high school) or for people
who only had rudimentary schooling). Most of the North American continent
was explored and mapped in the lunars era (and I think Australia as well).

There are important differences between land navigation and sea
navigation, but the only one that concerns the difficulty of reduction is
the fact that many more navigators were required for sea trips. I really
don't think that the demand outstripped the number of candidates who could
learn to do navigation, though.

Ken Muldrew.
   \----------------------------+---------------------------------+   o_,
 O_/ \    Ken Muldrew, PhD      | Voice: (403) 220-5976           |
<\__/7
 <\__  \  Dept. of Cell Biology | Fax:   (403) 270-0617           |     |
/
  "\ L  | University of Calgary | kmuldrew@acs.ucalgary.ca        |   / /
   <    +-----------------------+---------------------------------+ / /
               Morning coffee recapitulate phylogeny               L/

   

Reply