Navigational Miracle or Fiction?

I've argued that fact over and over. There is no year "zero". Just like there is no mile "zero". Mile one, the number/measurment, is at beginning of mile two...
 
True, but I have little doubt that 999 of 1000 people would say that July 15, 2000 is in the 21st century; and for my money it is.

The mathematical problem you mention doesn't really cause a problem as long as we all make the same mistake consistently. There is still 100 years in each century since the "extra" year we gave the 21st century by considering the year 2000 as being in the 21st century above is taken away in the year 2100 which we would consistently assign to the 22nd century.

P.S. I will admit that that the 1st century, but only the 1st century, is cheated out of a year and only contains 99 years.
 
smckean (Tosca)":1id85a83 said:
...

P.S. I will admit that that the 1st century, but only the 1st century, is cheated out of a year and only contains 99 years.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we talked about this when I was a kid back in 0098. I remember saying, "We're gonna party like it's oh-oh-ninety-nine!"

I also remember the big hoopla about "Will our abacus still work in 0100?"

Yep, those were the days. :wink:
 
I remember an argument during the big millennial celebration. I asked a friend how many years were in a century. He answered 100. When I asked him to count to 100 he began counting 1, 2, 3...
 
This is the argument I have all the time:

We have "take home", aka, issued patrol cars in my dept. However, the maximum mileage one can take it "home" is 15 miles from the county lines via the road route. NOT as the crow flies. OK. Mile one ends where mile two starts. You all following me?

Ergo, mile 15 is actually mile 15.9999999999999999999999... You get the point. That "extra mile", which is NOT an extra mile, can make a difference.

Yet our "brass" apparently can't grasp this logical fact.
 
Ergo, mile 15 is actually mile 15.9999999999999999999999...
Click to expand...
OK. OK, I'll admit to being a nerd! My heroes are Richard Feynman and Richard Dawkins.....what can you expect. That being the case, I find localboy's situation interesting!

Never thought about that, Mark. OTOH, it's the same situation as the 1st century cheat. I presume the 15 miles would be determined via your odometer. As you point out, if you got your cruiser with 000000 on the odometer, and you were limited to no more than 15.0 miles on the odometer to get home, you'd have to walk that last mile. However, from that moment forward your mileage home would be determined by the differential between the starting odometer reading and the ending odometer reading, so you'd get your full 15 mile limit allowance forever more.
 
localboy":1auzkakr said:
This is the argument I have all the time:

We have "take home", aka, issued patrol cars in my dept. However, the maximum mileage one can take it "home" is 15 miles from the county lines via the road route. NOT as the crow flies. OK. Mile one ends where mile two starts. You all following me?

Ergo, mile 15 is actually mile 15.9999999999999999999999... You get the point. That "extra mile", which is NOT an extra mile, can make a difference.

Yet our "brass" apparently can't grasp this logical fact.
Click to expand...
That doesn't seem logical to me. E.g. if the maximum is 15, 15.1 is greater than the maximum.
 
Pacificcoast101,

Right you are! And for exactly the reason you say; namely,:

Although our calendar begins with the year 1, odometers begin with zero.
Click to expand...
And here I thought I was a genuine nerd......and I am......but I guess I'm just not a very good one :wink: :lol:.
 
Irregardless of the argument about the calendar this is complete fiction. The navigation of that day was not accurate enough to have obtained these precise enough fixes. Even with GPS it would be difficult. Currents, wind and other environmental factors would prevent the precise speed necessary to accomplish this, even if the navigation were to be accurate.

Also contributing to the errors would be the inaccuracy of the Chronometer of that era--even a second off--and it would be more than that, since they had a time signal. (which were only available with accuracy near the coasts--many days before.)

Also to work out the celestial sight, would take from 40 to 50 minutes--all done by hand, for each of the lines of position...

So basically this old wives tale sounds great to someone who has not crossed an ocean by celestial sights only. Even in the last 60 years sights have become much easier--with computer generated and available tables, the specific calculators designed to do the celestial navigation problems, and now the computer programs. The wrist watch which is more accurate than the best chronometer available in 1899.
 
WOW, and I thought I was messed up because I can't get to first base.

I know what time it is, approximately, and about where I am. Just tryin to figure out why is keepin me busy most of the time.

The rest of the time, I think I'll take a nap..............

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

Entrance_sign.sized.jpg
 
Mathematics, using numbers, is not a pure science and can be confusing;
erebeit (my term), the above discussion.

Only ideas are pure. They are often wrong but they can be pure.

For example, in *F, say today is 33* and tomorrow is forecast to be 2X as warm.
How warm is it expected to be tomorrow? Yes, easy and most of you are correct.

Now try this one, still in*F. Today it is 0* and tomorrow is forecast to be 2X as
cold. How cold is it expected to be tomorrow?

Not fair with a "zero"? OK, try this instead, still in*F. Today it is 1* and tomorrow
is forecast to be 2X as cold. How cold is it expected to be tomorrow?

I rest my case.

Aye.
 
Foggy":3h6n9e29 said:
Mathematics, using numbers, is not a pure science and can be confusing;
erebeit (my term), the above discussion.

Only ideas are pure. They are often wrong but they can be pure.

For example, in *F, say today is 33* and tomorrow is forecast to be 2X as warm.
How warm is it expected to be tomorrow? Yes, easy and most of you are correct.

Now try this one, still in*F. Today it is 0* and tomorrow is forecast to be 2X as
cold. How cold is it expected to be tomorrow?

Not fair with a "zero"? OK, try this instead, still in*F. Today it is 1* and tomorrow
is forecast to be 2X as cold. How cold is it expected to be tomorrow?

I rest my case.

Aye.
Click to expand...
That's not math, that's poorly worded questions.
 
There is no such thing as cold so it cannot be measured in asterisks (*) or degrees (º). The word is merely an abstract expression for the absence of heat.
 
Foggy's comparisons could only be accurately and sensibly done if the temperatures were on an absolute scale, the Kelvin scale, for example. Tyboo and rogerbum are both correct.
 
Back
Top