Share Your Interesting But Not Very Useful Facts

[Antony Moxey]

SpeckledJim said:

Ayahuasca said:

talksthetorque said:

If you stand at the shore at one end of Loch Ness you can only see approximately 1/8th of its length because of the curvature of the earth.

If you look out from the shore of any large body of water you can only see about 3 miles because of the curvature of the earth.

Entirely depends on how high above water level you are, and how tall the thing you’re looking at is.

He said ‘from the shore’. I think they’re pretty much all at sea level aren’t they?

[Wildcat45]

98elise said:

Agreed. You are "On board"

I served in the RN and nobody would say "in" a ship, it was "on" a ship.

"I'm on Ark Royal, my mate is on Invincible"

'In" just doesn't work!

That’s the opposite of my experience.

I was picked up once in a wardroom for saying “on” a warship. “Last time I saw him he was on Ocean.” I was told it was “in” When I say picked up, I mean it in a friendly way as part of a conversation about Jack Speak and slang words in general.

After that, I noticed it being “in” rather than “on” was more an officer thing.

I’m not RN but I had a role which saw me work very closely with the RN at sea for several years I spent time with JMOTS, FOST, CMST and NATO. (Other block capital initials organisations are available.)

[Silver Smudger]

SpeckledJim said:

Ayahuasca said:

talksthetorque said:

If you stand at the shore at one end of Loch Ness you can only see approximately 1/8th of its length because of the curvature of the earth.

If you look out from the shore of any large body of water you can only see about 3 miles because of the curvature of the earth.

Entirely depends on how high above water level you are, and how tall the thing you’re looking at is.

Distance to the horizon depends on your height - 5 to 6ft tall gives 2.9 to 3.2 miles to the horizon - No-one mentioned looking at a thing with any height, just the water in the loch

http://www.totally-cuckoo.com/distance_visible_to_...

[eldar]

Silver Smudger said:

Distance to the horizon depends on your height - 5 to 6ft tall gives 2.9 to 3.2 miles to the horizon - No-one mentioned looking at a thing with any height, just the water in the loch

http://www.totally-cuckoo.com/distance_visible_to_...

I'll have you know this is not the place for reason or sense.. what about people 16" or 11' high, huh. Gotcha.

[WrekinCrew]

Distance to the horizon depends on a lot of things. I'm sitting down and can see hills well over 20 miles away.

[98elise]

Wildcat45 said:

98elise said:

Agreed. You are "On board"

I served in the RN and nobody would say "in" a ship, it was "on" a ship.

"I'm on Ark Royal, my mate is on Invincible"

'In" just doesn't work!

That’s the opposite of my experience.

I was picked up once in a wardroom for saying “on” a warship. “Last time I saw him he was on Ocean.” I was told it was “in” When I say picked up, I mean it in a friendly way as part of a conversation about Jack Speak and slang words in general.

After that, I noticed it being “in” rather than “on” was more an officer thing.

I’m not RN but I had a role which saw me work very closely with the RN at sea for several years I spent time with JMOTS, FOST, CMST and NATO. (Other block capital initials organisations are available.)

I served in the RN for nearly a decade. Can't say I ever heard anyone say "in" when referring to being on board a warship.

Read Memoirs of a Matelot (a very funny account of life in the RN)...

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/pull-up-...

Just scanning the first page of the thread he refers to be "on" ships not "in"....

"I don't know how many lads are in a cricket team, but there are 287 lads on a stumpy 42, most of whom were in Harbour Lights that night, needless to say the cricket toffs got a good shoeing."

"At one point we passed a 23 coming the other way, clearly terrorists only attack stealy 42s because the lads on the 23 were not closed up and appeared to be having a flight deck BBQ."

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 25th May 18:16

[talksthetorque]

Antony Moxey said:

He said ‘from the shore’. I think they’re pretty much all at sea level aren’t they?

The highest lake in the world is higher than all the land on 5 of the 7 continents.

[Ayahuasca]

Silver Smudger said:

SpeckledJim said:

Ayahuasca said:

talksthetorque said:

If you stand at the shore at one end of Loch Ness you can only see approximately 1/8th of its length because of the curvature of the earth.

If you look out from the shore of any large body of water you can only see about 3 miles because of the curvature of the earth.

Entirely depends on how high above water level you are, and how tall the thing you’re looking at is.

Distance to the horizon depends on your height - 5 to 6ft tall gives 2.9 to 3.2 miles to the horizon - No-one mentioned looking at a thing with any height, just the water in the loch

http://www.totally-cuckoo.com/distance_visible_to_...

Container ships can travel at about 20 knots. That means that at sea you might think you are all alone on an empty blue ocean, and then be churned to bits by a ship's propeller, in about nine minutes.

[deadtom]

Penny Whistle said:

talksthetorque said:

If you stand at the shore at one end of Loch Ness you can only see approximately 1/80000th of its length because of the curvature of the earth it's always raining/snowing/foggy/misty/dark/you're running away from bd midges.

FTFY

FTFYB

Edited by deadtom on Friday 26th May 10:41

[Silver Smudger]

talksthetorque said:

The highest lake in the world is higher than all the land on 5 of the 7 continents.

I don't understand what this is saying

[KaraK]

Silver Smudger said:

talksthetorque said:

The highest lake in the world is higher than all the land on 5 of the 7 continents.

I don't understand what this is saying

I think he's referring to Ojos del Salado - it's a lake in the caldera of a dormant volcano, it's also at 6,500m which makes it significantly higher than large portions of the Earth's surface, including mountains. Presumably only two continents have mountains higher than this, hence the factoid.

[Silver Smudger]

KaraK said:

Silver Smudger said:

talksthetorque said:

The highest lake in the world is higher than all the land on 5 of the 7 continents.

I don't understand what this is saying

I think he's referring to Ojos del Salado - it's a lake in the caldera of a dormant volcano, it's also at 6,500m which makes it significantly higher than large portions of the Earth's surface, including mountains. Presumably only two continents have mountains higher than this, hence the factoid.

[Doofus]

On Simply Red's 1985 cover of the 1982 claptrap Money's Too Tight To Mention 'money' is mentioned fifty-one times.

The Valentine Brothers' original mentioned it thirty-five times.

Edited by Doofus because spelling on Monday 29th May 11:14

Edited by Doofus on Monday 29th May 11:15

[Halmyre]

Doofus said:

On Simply Red's 1985 cover of the 1982 claptrap Money's Too TightTo Mention 'money' is mentioned fifty-one times.

The Valentine Brohters' original mentioned it thirty-five times.

That's inflation for you.

[matchmaker]

Penny Whistle said:

talksthetorque said:

If you stand at the shore at one end of Loch Ness you can only see approximately 1/8th of its length because of the curvature of the earth it's always raining/snowing/foggy/misty/dark.

FTFY

Loch Ness contains more water than all the lakes in England & Wales combined.

[98elise]

"nature abhors a vacuum" is wrong.

Most of the universe is a vacuum

[kowalski655]

matchmaker said:

Loch Ness contains more water than all the lakes in England & Wales combined.

As well as more monster poo

[Ayahuasca]

98elise said:

"nature abhors a vacuum" is wrong.

Most of the universe is a vacuum

Doesn’t mean nature likes it.





Anyway space is not a vacuum, there Is always a small amount of matter in it.

[98elise]

Ayahuasca said:

98elise said:

"nature abhors a vacuum" is wrong.

Most of the universe is a vacuum

Doesn’t mean nature likes it.

Anyway space is not a vacuum, there Is always a small amount of matter in it.

All the bits that are not a vacuum stick together rather than rush to fill space

Edited by 98elise on Tuesday 30th May 14:59

[Penny Whistle]

98elise said:

Ayahuasca said:

98elise said:

"nature abhors a vacuum" is wrong.

Most of the universe is a vacuum

Doesn’t mean nature likes it.

Anyway space is not a vacuum, there Is always a small amount of matter in it.

All the bits at are not a vacuum stick together rather than rush to fill space

What's in between all the sub-atomic particles in tiny bits of stuff ?