Jump to content
IObit Forum
Top Free Driver Updater Tools Best 25 PC Optimization Software Best 22 Antimalware Best 22 Uninstaller Software IObit Coupons & Discount Offers PC Optimizer Mac Boost Advice IObit Coupons A Good Utility Program From IObit IObit Promo Codes IObit Coupon Codes IObit Coupons and Deals FAQs Driver Booster Pro Review

Earthquake in eastern Turkey


Recommended Posts

Hi sunny

I just saw that the fiscal year in England started the 6. April - also a leftover from the Romans apparently and not chosen to follow the normal year. England first adopted the Gregorian calender in 1752-53 - Denmark in 1700.

The latest to do so I think was Turkey in 1927 under atatürk (father of the Turks) Mustafa Kemal.

Russia was also quite late to convert from the Julian calender to the Gregorian one. (around the revolution 1917)

This gave Napoleon the victory at Austerlitz (1805) because the Russians arrived about 2 weeks late for the battle where they were in alliance with Austria, because the date of the rendevous with Austria for the Russians were Julian while it for the Austrians were Gregorian. And that made it possible for Napoleon to first defeat the Austrian army and then much later the the Russian army.

In about 3000 years the Gregorian system needs to omit one of the 400 year leap years. So it is fairly accurate.




England is slowly going metric it is now taught in schools instead of imperial english measurements [which mostly originated from when the romans lived here].


petrol is no longer bought in gallons but per litre


most people talk about the weather now in centigrade. farenheiht is no longer used.


but buying clothes food etc is mostly still imperial so is miles when driving.


older people like me prefer the imperial way as this is what we were taught and brought up with.


also medical height and weight at hospitals still imperial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Hi Melvin

Even the metre system has definition problems.

Originally it was defined as a 10 millionth of the distance between equator and the north pole - because of the flattening at the poles it was 0,2 mm off.

Since 1983 it has been defined as 1/speed of light - per second

But was is a second - well it is 1/3600 of 1 hour - and 24 hours to the revolution of the Earth - but the problem is that the revolutions of the Earth is slowing down, albeit very very slowly, which means that the days becomes longer, and by definition also the seconds :-)


The highest mountain is Everest if we define height as elevation above mean sea level, but the mean sea level is difficult to define precisely. The tide levels are rather easy - but the influence of magnetic fields and the gravitational fluctuations in different part of the globe makes it rather imprecise.

If we then choose the distance from the center of the Earth we find that it isn't Everest that is the highest but rather Chimborazo (an inactive volcano in Equador) because it lies only 1° south of the Equator, which makes it's top about 2 km further from the center of the Earth than Mount Everest. :-) (the radius of the Earth at the equator and at the poles differ about 22 km.)

Universal constants are difficult to define precisely.



p.s. On account of our revolutions around the sun and especially the 23° tilt of the the Earth to that plane we get activity in the molten innards of the earth that plays a role in vulcanic activity. (in this way we are back at the subject matter of the thread) :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi sunny

yes - if we measure it from the level of the surrounding crust of the earth

I think Mount Kea in Hawaii is probably the highest. The mountain itself is a bit higher and the surrounding ocean floor is a bit further down than the Fuji settings.

If you are interested I recommend reading Isaac Asimov's book A choice of catastrophes - which he wrote in 1979.

Hawaii is about 20° north of the equator.

If we look at it from the highest mountain (everest) to the deepest grave (marianer) Everest will be the highest. :-)

Where does the crust begin in Tibet? Isn't it really a part of the crust?

Perhaps the mean level of the crust could be used?

70% of the earth is covered with water to about a mean depth of 4 km

30% is land with a mean hight of I guess 1,5 km maximum - that would place the mean level of the crust about 3,5 km below sea level :-)

But we still have to think about the center of the earth too I think! :-)




i always thought mt fuji was the higest when measure from its base, perhaps this is a different scenario
Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...