BLUEMOMENT

An old chestnut this, but in an effort to start a more controversial thread than ParaHandy's excellent Bishop thread I've had to call out the big guns:

On the return leg Moitessier crossed his outward bound track before RKJ crossed his.

RJK went aground in Otago Bay, and got off the boat to wade out with his anchor which he deployed.

So, who was the first man round the world non-stop?

Windfinder wrote: got off the boat to wade out with his anchor which he deployed.

So which anchor was it?

Windfinder wrote: So, who was the first man round the world non-stop?

I think it depends on how you define "round the world". If someone sets off from, say, Capetown and makes a circuit of the Southern Ocean he might be thought to have sailed round the world although his track will be much shorter than the earth's circumference. His track will be shorter still if he keeps closer to Antartica.

Taking this to extremes, if I sail round Shuna keeping it to starboard then I can also claim (with equal topological correctness) to have sailed round the rest of the world, keeping it to port...

A circumnavigation (of the world) involves passing across all lines of longitude and crossing the equator twice.

I doubt that sailing around Shuna would count, at least not unless your navigation was a long way out.

"Non stop" really requires tighter definition, does it require motion to be maintained at all times? Id so I doubt if anyone has suceeded so far?

I think non stop could reasonably be defined as "under way".

Having said that anchoring to wait out a foul tide is a valid sailing technique so I would argue the toss if pulled up about it.

Anchoring for a couple of weeks break off a Pacific island would be taking the mick though.

not sure I agree, cos that would be "round the world continuously under way" whereas its definitely "non stop round the world", and I 'm sur that at some point the boat would be going backwards in relation to the world so at the point of transition from forward motion to backward motion the bcraft would most definitely be stopped.

By that definition then, going round the world without touching land wouldn't qualify either.

There would be few who wouldn't recognise it as going round non-stop because that is generaly what they mean when they say a non-stop circumsision.

aquaplane wrote:By that definition then, going round the world without touching land wouldn't qualify either.

There would be few who wouldn't recognise it as going round non-stop because that is generaly what they mean when they say a non-stop circumsision.

Blinking 'eck ... it means getting yer knob peeled as well! Then all I'm surpised about is that so many are willieing to have a go!

jim.r wrote: at some point the boat would be going backwards in relation to the world so at the point of transition from forward motion to backward motion the bcraft would most definitely be stopped.

This reminds me of the old "how can a fly stop a train" question...

DaveS wrote:
This reminds me of the old "how can a fly stop a train" question...

What's the last thing the fly does?

Kisses it's arse goodbye

aquaplane wrote:I think non stop could reasonably be defined as "under way".

I reckon so. In his book about his Saga sponsored 5 Oceans Race RKJ makes some rather defensive comments about his record which suggests to me he suspects the same. Perhaps the truth is that records are totally arbitary and we shouldn't take them too seriously.

DaveS wrote: This reminds me of the old "how can a fly stop a train" question...

You must have used the same Physics textbook as me.

Do you remember the drawing with the boy standing on a plank fitted with a single (pulley) block. A rope came down from a fixed point on the roof, round the block, and held by the boy.

Q:- Can the boy lift himself up?

Ash

ash wrote:

DaveS wrote: This reminds me of the old "how can a fly stop a train" question...

You must have used the same Physics textbook as me.

The logic being that once the fly is in contact with the train the two are going at the same speed. The fly changes course by 180 degress. Therefore at some point it must be stationary. If it is stationary and in contact with the train the train must also be stationary.

I can't explain why but I'm sure that logic has a flaw.

Windfinder wrote: I can't explain why but I'm sure that logic has a flaw.

No flaw. I think that that sort of logic is great.

It's all relative. It's just a matter of getting a small enough increment of time.

Ash