h a l f b a k e r yI CAN HAZ CROISSANTZ?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The Nile, the Amazon and the Yangtze are all very
impressive, so I'm told. At least one of them has had an
online retailer named after it, and things clearly don't
get
much better than that.
Howevertheless, all of these longest rivers operate under
the grave disadvantage of not being in
England. It
should
be obvious to even the simplest dunderhead that the
World's Longest River ought to be in this Sceptered Isle.
Fortunately, this is fairly easy to rectify. The current
title-
holder is the Nile at 4,258 miles. The Thames is
currently
215 miles long - only 4,043 miles shorter.
To correct this geographical error might seem difficult -
4,043 miles from either the existing start or end of the
Thames puts you in a different country, which would
really
defeat the object of the exercise.
But wait! If you view the Nile from the air, you will see
that it is not quite straight - it cheats by wiggling around
quite a bit. Well, if it's good enough for the Egyptians,
it's
good enough for the English.* We simply need to find a
square mile of land, adjacent to the Thames, which can
be
levelled and concreted - any part of Reading, for
example.
Into this levelled area, we need to etch a narrow but
extremely loopey channel, curving back and forth on
itself
in a dense, reticulated pattern. We divert the Thames
through this reticulated channel and - Gadulka! - sanity
and reason are returned to the world.
Obviously, there will be problems for boats; and the
narrow channels might not accommodate the full flow of
the Thames. For this reason, a canal could be dug to
bypass the reticulated portion. This would cut some
4,043
miles off the journey - an achievement on a par with the
Suez canal.
(*Not generally, of course. We do not, for example,
want to have a Prime Minister called Two Birds Wavy Line
Fish Fish)
Anatomical_20Drinking_20Straw
drinking straw version (sort of) [xenzag, Jul 07 2016]
flow of the Thames
https://www.britann.../place/River-Thames
[Voice, Jul 08 2016]
Killer whale naming convention
https://www.goodrea...-winged-whale-sings
[normzone, Jul 12 2016]
[link]
|
| |
// a square mile of land, adjacent to the Thames, which can be levelled and concreted - any part of Reading, for example. // |
|
| |
Milton Keynes ? Immediately available, no human occupancy, and most of it is concreted over already. |
|
| |
It's a winner - see my drinking straw equivalent in the link. [+] |
|
| |
However, coiling 4,043 miles of river into one square mile implies a channel width of less than 40cm. This may struggle to support the normal flow of the Thames for much of its length, especially with a gradient of essentially zero. The simplest solution is to find the official 'start' of the Thames, where presumably the flow is just a trickle, and extend backwards from there. |
|
| |
May I refer you to the final paragraph of the idea? |
|
| |
Hmm, perhaps instead of seeking the title of longest river,
you could be content with the longest drivel? Go with your
natural advantages mate. |
|
| |
[+] Rather less complicated would be to divert 95% of the outflow back to the headwaters thus (on average) water flowing into the ocean would have travelled over the 4,258 mi milestone. |
|
| |
"You're going to contract Weil's disease" ? |
|
| |
//you could be content with the longest drivel?// I
prefer to think of it as waffle rather than drivel, but
will bear your suggestion in mind cobber. |
|
| |
I do like the category choice. |
|
| |
EDIT: Hey, no fair, it looked better in other:general ! |
|
| |
While this idea has all the hallmarks of simple common
sense, I fear the cabal of shadowy power figures that
control the world of physical geography would find some nit-
picking technicality to disqualify the mighty Thames. They
might argue that this is a river with an artificial extension,
a canal-river Chimera if you will. If it does end up being a
canal, it will, of course, be the longest. An even longer one
could be made by stretching a tube from a river up some
Scottish mountain to the southern tip of the British Isles,
which is obviously in the Falklands somewhere. |
|
| |
Since all of france is technically a posession of the English crown (and will be again, if the EU exit negotiations go to plan) a bit of digging by surly gallic peasants, and a few smart lads with a few million bags of Portland cement, could extend the Thames through the channel tunnel all the way to the Mediterranean. |
|
| |
//all the hallmarks of simple common sense// I do
apologize. |
|
| |
//They might argue that this is a river with an
artificial extension// Ah, but have you ever noticed
that there are NO satellite images or videos showing
the formation of the Nile? None whatsoeveratall.
We simply take it on trust from the Egyptians that it
was like that when they found it. Just saying. |
|
| |
//one square mile implies a channel width of less than 40cm. This may struggle to support the normal flow of the Thames for much of its length// |
|
| |
All we have to do is raise the speed of the water until it's all getting through in time. Alternatively, just use a very deep channel. The peak flow is 590 cubic meters per second, so get to work! |
|
| |
It's relativity at work.
Let me explain:
If a boat travels from from East to West on the
Thames, it takes much longer due to relativistic
affects which slows it down as observed by the
lone inhabitant of Reading (The occupant of the
boat swears he is rowing like crazy).
This makes the length of the Thames appear at
least....4000 miles long, maybe 5000. |
|
| |
This cannot be duplicated on the other mentioned
rivers because the occupant of the watercraft will
never be reliably observed, since he will have
become most likely consumed by alligators or
crocodiles. |
|
| |
how long would it be if it followed (closely) to the coastline? |
|
| |
If it followed it closely enough, it would have
arbitrarily great length. But then it would probably
be partly in Wales, which is clearly unacceptable. |
|
| |
Clearly all that's needed is to add a fractal riverbank to a small section of the Thames, giving it infinite length. |
|
| |
Is the length of a river measured along the banks, or along the centre? |
|
| |
Probably depends on whether the surveyor has a pair
of waders. |
|
| |
You can't keep a single wader. It'll get lonely and
pine for the fjords. |
|
| |
Beautiful plumage, though ... |
|
| |
Oh yes ... very handsome. It's just such a shame that those pretty bright orange beaks fall off after the mating season. |
|
| |
I once knew a surveyor of Greek-French-Irish
ancestry. Theo D'o'lite, he was called. |
|
| |
I'm scratching my head, trying to figure out why [MB], realizing that
//[i]t should be obvious to even the simplest dunderhead that the
World's Longest River ought to be in this Sceptered Isle//, chooses an
addition length sufficient to put the Thames, not into the lead, but into
a *tie* with the Nile for greatest length. |
|
| |
(Holds in reserve the idea for the "Thames Capillary", a 1 meter
plastic cube assembled from layers cut with 1 mm^2 channels,
capable of holding 1 firkin of Guinness, which can add approximately
40 km to the attached river...) |
|
| |
//into a *tie* with the Nile// |
|
| |
You make an excellent point. |
|
| |
You can also bring in the population from the Nile, Ganges,
and the Yang-Tze so that you get the full effect. |
|
| |
May I suggest going 'up' with a series of arches constructed
out of narrow plastic pipes? Once you've pumped the water
high enough to crest the top of the arch, the siphon effect
will help with the energy requirements needed to move the
water. You could use these arches to simultaneously create
the world's largest croquet course. This would provide
Britain with its second tourist attraction besides
Stonehenge. (a second croquet course?) |
|
| |
[AusCan]'s idea of fitting in more river length by
pumping it up a series of vertical pipes saves a lot
of space but could also mean that the Thames gets the
record for the longest river and *also* the highest
waterfall. |
|
| |
I am liking this more and more. |
|
| |
Are the heights of waterfalls added to the length of a river? Or is the length measured as a two-dimensional projection onto the theoretical surface of the globe? |
|
| |
- and if so, is the length of the river projected
onto the theoretical surface of the globe _at sea
level_, or at the altitude at which the river is?
Could be an important difference. |
|
| |
Why not just simply compress the H2O molecules more
closely together, and you'd get Nile+ quantity of water into
the Thames riverbed. |
|
| |
Do I have to do all the thinking here? |
|
| |
How about "widest river with a transverse current"? |
|
| |
[hippo] most rivers are not at the same altitude along their entire length. Did you mean the spherical equivalent of an inclined plane? But I don't know what the name is for that. |
|
| |
//most rivers are not at the same altitude along their
entire length// |
|
| |
I disagree. Many of the world's widest rivers are at
the same altitude throughout. The term for such a
river is "lake". |
|
| |
//‘ski the entire Thames’// Height, width or length? |
|
| |
What's a 'river'? Define. |
|
| |
// Did you mean the spherical equivalent of an inclined plane? // |
|
| |
An inclined plane is simply any planar surface where the direction of gravity is not normal to the plane, resulting in a force vector acting parallel to the plane's surface. |
|
| |
A hemisphere (or indeed a sphercal section) on which gravitational force acts at any angle to the circular base would presumably be the equivalent; but for any given hemisphere, if the force acts from below the plane of the curcumference, then there will always be a point on the curved surface to which said force acts normally, resulting in a zero net sideways vector. Unlike the plane, a point mass at that location will be in stable equilibrium. |
|
| |
// But I don't know what the name is for that. // |
|
| |
// ... which gravitational force acts at any angle to the circular base
would presumably be ... // pointing at an elephant |
|
| |
Are you certain? I have it on good authority that all killer whales are named Kevin. |
|
| |
The thinking here is far too lateral, where it should be
vertical; the better way forward, relying on the siphon
effect, is to drape a length of hose over the top of the
Reading Space Elevator*. Several times. |
|
| |
*not included in retail price |
|
| |
If it will elevate Reading into space, the price doesn't matter; whatever the cost, it will still be excellent value for money. |
|
| |
//elevate Reading into space// The sudden loss of
atmosphere would probably go unnoticed in Reading. |
|
| |
The sudden loss of Reading would go unnoticed everywhere else ... |
|
| |
That was a cruel and unkind remark, [8th]. Reading
is a lovely place, populated with cheerful and
beautiful people who go about their lives in a
carefree spirit from which we could learn much. Add
to that the beaches, the climate, the food, not to
mention th... Ah, hang on. I'm thinking of Cancun. |
|
| |
I think it was django who had the idea of extending rivers via inflatable devices. Certainly a surfeit of ideas regarding rivers and inflatable devices. In any case, the ocean side of the Thames could be extended via inflatable trough to the hard-won Falkland Islands which google tells me is 4202 miles from London. That plus the inland distance of the Thames should put it just over the Nile. |
|
| |