No, the instruction was to move the tiller to port. In normal circumstances this would cause the ship to turn to starboard. But it in some circumstances of wind and tide it may not have that effect. The directions on what to do with the tiller are precise the responsibility for the consequences of the action rest with the person giving the order.
I think it steered the front wheels. And I also think went forwards and backwards, rather than side to side, which would have been interesting in a hard stop.
Andy
The helm on HMY Britannia is a wheel in a small room underneath the bridge, with no external view. Orders were sent down by speaking tube, and the helmsman drove blind.
Ian
Pretty well universal practice on all but the smallest warships since the
1860s-70s, I think. The only people exposed on the bridge were those who really needed to see - and who particularly needed to see when the ship was in action. If anyone didn't absolutely need to be up there, then they were well down in the ship and if possible behind armour. Which is where the helmsman was.By the start of the 20th century it was only torpedo boats and related types - and ships taken up from trade - which had a wheel anywhere with a view. I don't think this has changed in the post-1970s builds of ship, either.
It's bloody obvious what five times smaller means to anyone with half a brain.
I think you will find that all bridges ALWAYS had a wheel but it wasn't the only one on the ship.
Engines were however controlled remotely.
In message , Lieutenant Scott writes
The size of your prick ...
Quite right. 5 times smaller clearly means 500% smaller. Since 100% smaller is zero, 500% smaller is thus meaningless as it doesn't even translate as a negative concept.
What the user means may also be obvious but that doesn't make it right or a usage that should be encouraged in any way.
Starboard lookout chattin'.
Chris
In message , harry writes
Does that allow two drivers to fight over who steers the ship?
There is no wheel of any sort on the Britannia's bridge. See
Ian
One times smaller means you remove one times the object, that is, the whole object. In which case there's none of it left.
I expect you're one of these fools who says "Production dropped by 500% this year", when a drop of just 100% reduces it to zero. Obvious really to anyone with half a brain.
Mmm, good practice for motorway driving then.
One x anything equals the same thing. So one times smaller must be the same size.
2 x smaller is pretty meaningless though unless you say what its smaller than.In message , "dennis@home" writes
The expression "once as small" is meaningless, and would never be used. "Twice as small" is perfectly sensible (="half as big"). Etc. For more complex comparisons (such as "three quarters as big"), no one attempts to use the "four thirds as small". That's not how the language works.
Yes, but I don't see why that means it's mass has to increase. It has POTENTIAL energy, and not the same as the kinetic energy from a fast moving object as below.
As yet.
Is that the particle they got all excited about recently that broke the speed of light by 0.000000000000001% or something?
What happens is that the earth and the object gain mass, and whoever is doing the pushing loses it.
Energy and mass are conserved, but you are moving teeny bits around.
indeed.
I think its probably true to say that in the realm of quantum physics and relativity, we have sets of equations that fit the experimental data.
No one really understands what either MEAN. Hence 'curved space' 'string theory' 'many universe theory' etc. etc.
As a philosopher, I see it from a different angle - the ontology* of classical phenomena is inadequate to describe these areas, but its the only ontology we have, hence its all bloody messy.
*broadly the way in which we see and understand things, in very basic terms. I.e. in this case, space, time, cause and effect, matter and energy are the defining ontological elements of classical physics: the question arises as to whether they are in fact the best set of entities to approach relativity and quantum theory with. Is time real? is the sort of basic question you start to ask: Certain philosophers, notably Kant, and Schopenhauer, would argue that it is not, it, space, matter, energy, are human INVENTIONS to attempt to give substance and orderliness to human experience. Once you start down that trail, you are deep into metaphysics and unless your are deeply fascinated by it, its wise to let the curtain fall back into place...
Yeah, right.
So now you have changed the mass of the Earth then the gravitational effects will now affect the entire universe. Where is your proof?
If you think about it carefully, it's very simple.
"Five times" is a ratio. One thing is five times more than the other.
"Five times less" means the thing you are interested in is the thing with less.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.