Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Heard" data-source="post: 1947268" data-attributes="member: 7280"><p>Ok. I think I see what the problem might be in interpretation now. When Eric's article on &quot;Measuring Up The Oerth&quot; (<a href="http://www.tc.umn.edu/~monax002/Council/OJ4/measure.html" target="_blank">http://www.tc.umn.edu/~monax002/Council/OJ4/measure.html</a>) refers to &quot;Oerik&quot; he's making reference to the original Darlene map and scale. It's not the entire continent represented on our maps as holding the Flanaess as small portion, it's JUST the Flanaess really. That's only 7985 miles across at the equator, and Mona does indeed place it as &quot;only 15% of the surface area of Oerth&quot;.&nbsp; But if you look at the maps from TSR you can see that the actual larger continental mass is much larger indeed than 9500 miles across, at least at the equator. If anything I'd say that I've already stretched the scales a bit, and old Oerth is bloated from Xmas pie in the 5th IR.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="James Heard, post: 1947268, member: 7280"] Ok. I think I see what the problem might be in interpretation now. When Eric's article on "Measuring Up The Oerth" ([url]http://www.tc.umn.edu/~monax002/Council/OJ4/measure.html[/url]) refers to "Oerik" he's making reference to the original Darlene map and scale. It's not the entire continent represented on our maps as holding the Flanaess as small portion, it's JUST the Flanaess really. That's only 7985 miles across at the equator, and Mona does indeed place it as "only 15% of the surface area of Oerth". But if you look at the maps from TSR you can see that the actual larger continental mass is much larger indeed than 9500 miles across, at least at the equator. If anything I'd say that I've already stretched the scales a bit, and old Oerth is bloated from Xmas pie in the 5th IR. [/QUOTE]

Verification