NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Meridional Distances
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2006 Jun 27, 13:50 +1000
From: Peter Fogg
Date: 2006 Jun 27, 13:50 +1000
George huffed: > > When Lu Abel correctly wrote ... and then > > ... Peter Fogg presumed to correct him by ... Regardless of whether what I propose is right or not, doesn't a rational approach (not to mention common sense) indicate examining the idea carefully THEN (possibly) reaching a conclusion, rather than the reverse? If I may presume to say so. I have been mentioning Meridional Distances here regularly over the last few years. I'm not unhappy that my bold and presumptuous statement has sparked a little interest. The following I sent earlier at UT0006, but as it hasn't appeared will repost: George muses: > In now seems to me most likely, from Peter's recent reply, is that his > reference to a table of "meridional distances" is actually to a table > of meridional parts, under another name. Am I right? > No. Involves both. Separate tables.
