One hell of a number.

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
for some reason, i thought of going to the beach and getting a couple stars caught in my buttcrack.

Just say NO to crack

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: ndee
how did they count all the grains of sand?

The size range for what is considered sand is known, so it is a volume problem from there, they didn't actually count everyone, they estimated using known factors and math.

 

[Bootprint]

Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
for some reason, i thought of going to the beach and getting a couple stars caught in my buttcrack.

Who are you, J Lo ?

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: FrogDog

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: FrogDog

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: FrogDog

Originally posted by: ndee
how did they count all the grains of sand?

Count them in a small area and then apply that to all the area in the world with sand on it.

So.... the sand has everywhere the same depth? How deep is the sand going down before it gets Magma?

No clue how they did it, but I would imagine they would be able to come up with a fairly good average number for how deep it goes.

Nooooooooot so sure about that And how can they estimate the number of stars when they don't even know the size of the universum and also count the ones that they can't see?

It says in the article that there are more stars in the known universe than grains of sand on Earth. So they do know the size of what they're measuring. And from there it's just a matter of, again, counting the number of stars in a relitively small chunk of area. The Cosmological Priciple says that the Universe is homogeneous over a great distance - that is, there aren't more stars in one area than another, as long each of the areas studied is big enough (about 300 megaparsecs).

But really, I agree, the article is pretty foolish. They can't count either one exactly, and who really cares if there's more stars than grains of sand anyways? It's a meaningless comparison that people are supposed to find interesting (I guess).

Yeah, but still, they don't know how big the universe really is, right? Anyway. Pretty dumb article.

 

[Kung Lau]

Better yet, what if each grain of sand was an universe of it's own?


Remember the ending to MIB?



What we know is so little in relation to ALL things in the universe.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: FrogDog

Originally posted by: ndee how did they count all the grains of sand?

Count them in a small area and then apply that to all the area in the world with sand on it.

So.... the sand has everywhere the same depth? How deep is the sand going down before it gets Magma?

A simple understanding of geology would tell you that under sand, is ROCK. Al they have to do is count the number of sand particles in one area, then estimate the size of the areas that sand covers, and estimate it's depth, then multiply.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: FrogDog

Originally posted by: ndee how did they count all the grains of sand?

Count them in a small area and then apply that to all the area in the world with sand on it.

So.... the sand has everywhere the same depth? How deep is the sand going down before it gets Magma?

A simple understanding of geology would tell you that under sand, is ROCK. Al they have to do is count the number of sand particles in one area, then estimate the size of the areas that sand covers, and estimate it's depth, then multiply.

Yes rblowjob, there is rock. But what you are saying is: "Take the estimate of the estimate of the estimate" -> not accurate dude

 

[Gujski]

Originally posted by: Bootprint

Originally posted by: 911paramedic
While on this topic, does anybody remember that website with the multiple zoom graphics (through space) ending up on a tree leaf? Sure would like to see that again...

One of the Powers of 10 sites around.

Pretty slick

 

[MainFramed]

And that's only the stars we can actually see.

:Q:Q:Q:Q

however that doesnt surprise me....

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Guys.. why all the nitpicking about the amount of sand? The fact is there are so many stars, that even if they are off by 25% on the sand estimate, there are still more stars.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: FrogDog

Originally posted by: ndee how did they count all the grains of sand?

Count them in a small area and then apply that to all the area in the world with sand on it.

So.... the sand has everywhere the same depth? How deep is the sand going down before it gets Magma?

A simple understanding of geology would tell you that under sand, is ROCK. Al they have to do is count the number of sand particles in one area, then estimate the size of the areas that sand covers, and estimate it's depth, then multiply.

Yes rblowjob, there is rock. But what you are saying is: "Take the estimate of the estimate of the estimate" -> not accurate dude

Thanks captain obvious, sounds like you're learning the meaning of estimate Estimates are never correct, they just give a general idea.

 

[ClueLis]

My gues is that that is only a fraction of the stars out there. Each galaxy alone contains billions and billions (gotta love Carl Sagan) of stars, with each cluster holding thousands and thousands of galaxys.

 

[wyvrn]

I just wanted to say you are an ass and I hope some fat kid beats you up and takes your ice cream

It's not as estimate of an estimate of an estimate. It's an estimate times an estimate times an estimate. Get it right fooker!

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: FrogDog

Originally posted by: ndee how did they count all the grains of sand?

Count them in a small area and then apply that to all the area in the world with sand on it.

So.... the sand has everywhere the same depth? How deep is the sand going down before it gets Magma?

A simple understanding of geology would tell you that under sand, is ROCK. Al they have to do is count the number of sand particles in one area, then estimate the size of the areas that sand covers, and estimate it's depth, then multiply.

Yes rblowjob, there is rock. But what you are saying is: "Take the estimate of the estimate of the estimate" -> not accurate dude

 

[CubicZirconia]

People, the point is there are a hellava lot of stars. That's it.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: ndee
how did they count all the grains of sand?

ah... switzerland... i see

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: ndee
how did they count all the grains of sand?

ah... switzerland... i see

Ah... Texas..... explains a lot.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MazerRackham
1 mol of stars! (1 mol = 6.022^23)

actually... isn't it an order of magnitude less than a mole?