Questions 0
Answers 225


It’s easy to see how someone might think I’m the subject of that photograph.  I posted my photo on here years ago. Despite my nifty hat covering my beautiful head, anyone can see the amazing resemblance by comparing the two.laugh

GingerAle Nov 4, 2017

GOOD JOB!! Mr. BB. You sourced your quote, though Google isn’t the source. The quote is from:  

So . . .  no banana for you.


Also, your post is knot really an answer to his question.  From the context, his question should be read as “what is the linear value of one nautical mile at the equator?” 


Johannes von Gumpach makes the same error, using “knot” when he means “nautical mile” on page 253 of his book The True Figure and Dimensions of the Earth (1862


I use a quote from Gumpach’s book to partly answer the question


The explanation however will appear as simple, when as it is remembered that the nautical mile is an angular, rather than a linear measure, being one of 360x60=21,600 parts of the Earth's equatorial circumference whatever be the true linear value of that circumference. Hence considered as a linear measure it has as yet no definite value and its correctness depends absolutely on the correct linear measurement of an equatorial degree. If therefore the circumference of the Earth is taken too great by 166 or 167 miles, the nautical mile being one of its equal parts, and the subdivisions of the nautical mile or knots of the log-line__by which the distance sailed by a vessel is actually measured—are  likewise taken too great; and consequently, the linear distance sailed by a vessel when reduced to angular distance, is reduced by means of too  great a unit of measure; whence the number of nautical miles sailed both by computation and by the log-line, falls short of the true number.



This book is in the public domain. Here’s a link for a high-quality PDF image copy of an original book in the NY Public Library archive collection.  The next time I’m there, I may “check it out.”


Everyone should read this book—for both its highly erudite presentation of science and mathematics, and Gumpach’s elaborate and convoluted writing style. This book is a collection of wordy sentences, full of appositives, presented in nuanced, painful, pedantic detail. It’s a reasonable substitute for self-flagellation.


My favorite part is his criticism of Sir Issac Newton. I’m sure the Royal Astronomical Society received him with open arms and great fanfare.indecision

GingerAle Oct 29, 2017

She would have about 1500 dollars. Hardly wealthy.


However, if we, the members of web2.0calc, had a farthing for every wrong answer you gave, our wealth would exceed all that of the Earth since time immemorial.   



Update Statistical counters:

Increment BB error count by 1: BB=(6.0244834478561245 E21) + 1


It seems we are getting richer by the second.


Personally, I’d give it all back, if you would just go away.   In fact, I would I’d give it all back and pay continuously compounded interest on it. . . . In perpetuity.




GingerAle Oct 23, 2017