For The Love Of Port

KillerB wrote:could not remember Queen Victoria being alive

I remember Queen Victoria being alive, …

KillerB wrote:a psychological disorder.

… or at least, I think I do.

(And you’re quite right about the statistical nonsense. Why not report the standard deviation of bottle ages?)

KillerB wrote: If you are under the impression that your wine has aged by one year in 32 hours then you are either in possession of a TARDIS or a psychological disorder.

As I do not have a TARDIS............ :?

Derek

PS: Would it be accurate and acceptable to state that "the aggregate age of the bottles in the cellar increases by 1 year every ?? hours"?

Derek Turnbull wrote:

KillerB wrote: If you are under the impression that your wine has aged by one year in 32 hours then you are either in possession of a TARDIS or a psychological disorder.

As I do not have a TARDIS............ :?

Derek

PS: Would it be accurate and acceptable to state that "the aggregate age of the bottles in the cellar increases by 1 year every ?? hours"?

No, it is still Bolleaux. The aggregate age increases by one hour every hour and one year every year. You cannot add ages but you can average ages, and the average age increases by one hour every hour. All of your wine put together, no matter how much that you have of it (one bottle or one million bottles) ages by one hour every hour, one year every year.

It's a temporal thing.

KillerB wrote: It's a temporal thing.

Ahhhh, so if I keep the temperature constant I'm OK to use the 1 hour = 1 year thingy

Is this true.............the sum of the integers representing the vintage year of each of my bottles increases by 1 every ?? hours

Derek

Derek Turnbull wrote:

KillerB wrote: It's a temporal thing.

Ahhhh, so if I keep the temperature constant I'm OK to use the 1 hour = 1 year thingy

Is this true.............the sum of the integers representing the vintage year of each of my bottles increases by 1 every ?? hours

Derek

Now you're just being silly.