RadioBanter - View Single Post - Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...

Leo · February 14th 07, 03:15 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

On 13 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:13?pm, Leo wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:12:59 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 18:01:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 8:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote:
As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway?

About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect circle.

have conflicting figures here from
some 'engineer' in this group, who
will remain useless.....

Who is that, Leo?

That was you.

No, it wasn't. You are mistaken, Leo.

I'm sorry, Jim - you are incorrect ..... once again!

Nope. The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles.

By your 'accuracy' scale. (LOL!))

238,000 is a much more accurate approximation at apogee and perigee -
and thus, on average, in general.

I have posted the approximate distance from the earth to the moon here
a few times. 250,000 miles, each time.

A bit too approximate, OM

In your opinion.

- it varies considerably as the distance
changes during the orbit cycle:

As I noted when I wrote:

"About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect
circle."

Mean distance: 238,712 miles
At apogee: 252,586 miles
At perigee: 221,331 miles

That's a 11% error rate at perigee, and approaching a 5% error rate
at mean distance.

Nope.

Not an "error rate".

I'm guessing that you aren't employed by NASA.....

The figure 250,000 miles is accurate to within 11.5%.
(approximately) at perigee, using your figures.

Twice in each orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000
miles, btw.

Twice each day, a stopped watch is accurate, Jim......just like this
miscalculation - er, approximation....whatever you say

ot too far off at apogee, though - perhaps we can
get someone to hold it still for you?

If 250,000 miles isn't accurate enough for you, then you must fault
your buddy Len too. Because he stated the distance as a quarter
million miles....

Hiding behind Len now, are we....?

Never thought I'd see the day!

(him too, I'd reckon.....)

But you were much closer than you were with your Mars calculations!
One of them went over a 100% error rate.

(just in case you forgot again, you can find that one with Google if
you search the groups for the following subject line: " European
Mars probe to use 80meters to look for Martian water?" - August 7,
2004, to be precise).

Yup, I made an error on the Earth-to-Mars distance. So what? The error
was corrected.

By Len, actually. Not by you!

(you left it sit until 2 days later (August 9th), after several posts
pointing it out.......and even then, you tried to obscure it with a
new set of calcs - quite redundant, in fact, as the correct numbers
were already supplied in the posts immediately following the error.

That was quite odd.

Did I call anyone names for pointing out m,y mistake?

Not that I recall. I don't think you even pointed out your mistake -
until it had already been done.

Did I make fun of their education?

....now that would have been funny!

You're welcome!

Ptoooey - did you forget?

Ptoooey?

Ptoooey.

Ptoooey.

No signoff again?
ad form!

73, Leo

(why be 'approximate' when exact is so easy?)

No reply? orse form....

Why should I reply to someone who is anonymous?

Just thinking of that now?

Anonymous' means 'Having an unknown or unacknowledged name'. Mine's
Leo! (duh!)

You yourself have 'acknowledged' it many times in past correspondence
with me, over the past three years.

You forgot, huh? I understand.

(how can someone argue vehemently an error of only 0.04% in one
thread, and be as much as 11 percent out in this
one - and over 100
percent in another?? hat just ain't logical!!)

Who is arguing over an error of 0.04%, Leo?
Certainly not me.

No?

....Gee, wasn't that you who was arguing with Len that 49.46% rounds up
to 50%, and not 49%?

That's a difference (error) of 0.04%, isn't it?

Um....yes, it is!

Wrong Again, Jim! (ouch!)

Len claimed:

"that Technician class is now bigger
than ALL other US license classes combined"

But he was wrong. 100% mistaken.

That puts you in good company, Jim - you have been a member of the
100%er's club too!

Actually, Len was only off a few fractions of a percent, by your own -
ahem - calculations. You, however, were definitely in the 100%-plus
error category. Galactically speaking, of course.

Even if we allow the inclusion of Technician Pluses in the total, they
do not exceed the number of all other US license classes combined. The
difference is more than 0.5%, not 0.04%.

-um- that wasn't the 0.04% error thingie, Jim....please try to follow
along!

But the percentage difference doesn't matter. Len did not specify
"approximately" or cite any numbers in his claim

He didn't specify approximately, but he cited many, many numbers in
his claim!

In fact, his claim was based on numbers.....

"that Technician class is now bigger
than ALL other US license classes combined"

All he did was make the claim, which is either true or false. Only two
possible states - true or false - not a question of approximations or
percentage of accuracy.

I showed Len's claim to be false - using the numbers Len provided!
Those numbers are exact, not approximations.

In short:

The earth-to-moon distance is approximately 250,000 miles. Both Len
and I agree on that.

Too approximate. You're either precise or approximate - you can't
have it both ways!

Twice per orbit, the earth-to-moon distance is exactly 250,000 miles.

Stopped watch theory. See above.

but

The Technician class is *not* now bigger
than all other US license classes combined.
And if present trends continue, it never will be.

Perhaps! Perhaps not.

Jim, N2EY

73, Leo