wiadomo, że są to jednostki niemianowane ("czysta liczba")
a stare tony rejestrowe były w gruncie rzeczy "objętością" (1 RT = 100 stóp sześc.)
porównanie długości z największym obecnie "pasażerem" nie wypada bardzo źle dla Titanic'a...
no, ale w "tonażu pojemnościowym" róznica byłaby chyba duża -kilkukrotna...
"na oko" mnie nie interesuje...
a porównywanie tonażu pojemnościowego ze starymi jednostkami dla Titanica i nowymi dla współczesnego statku nie ma żadnego sensu...
( http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/7171 ... smlgj5.jpg )do we know the exact value of gross tonnage in CURRENTLY VALID units?...
I mean, NOT the old, traditional "register tons" (1 RT = 100 cu ft)
to learn the real gross tonnage in contemporary units one should know the exact volume (in cu ft or cu m) of Titanic (but measured and calculated "from scratch" from bluepritns, not just simply by multiplying the known GT in old units by 100 cu ft) to calculate gross tonnage according to contemporary rules...
OLD value of ship's gross tonnage (measured / calculated for a particular ship in old units - register tons) is NOT translateable / convertible directly into contemporary units, also because the old and new units are of different nature and new measurement is NOT simply generated by multiplying the old measurement by any kind of factor...
after all current units are just "units" (bare number), and old units were in fact "real" volume (1 RT = 100 cu ft)
so.. has anyone measured and calculated the gross tonnage of Titanic in contemporary units to be able to compare it PROPERLY, "scientifically" with gross tonnages of today's largest passenger ships?...
comparison of lengths (with Oasis of the Seas) is not so bad for Titanic
http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... smlgj5.jpg
