lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,709
- 8
- 81
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
Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
for some reason, i thought of going to the beach and getting a couple stars caught in my buttcrack.
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.Originally posted by: ndee
how did they count all the grains of sand?
Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
for some reason, i thought of going to the beach and getting a couple stars caught in my buttcrack.
Originally posted by: FrogDog
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).Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: FrogDog
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.Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: FrogDog
Count them in a small area and then apply that to all the area in the world with sand on it.Originally posted by: ndee
how did they count all the grains of sand?
So.... the sand has everywhere the same depth? How deep is the sand going down before it gets Magma?
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?
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).
Originally posted by: ndee
So.... the sand has everywhere the same depth? How deep is the sand going down before it gets Magma?Originally posted by: FrogDogCount them in a small area and then apply that to all the area in the world with sand on it.Originally posted by: ndee how did they count all the grains of sand?
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: ndee
So.... the sand has everywhere the same depth? How deep is the sand going down before it gets Magma?Originally posted by: FrogDogCount them in a small area and then apply that to all the area in the world with sand on it.Originally posted by: ndee how did they count all the grains of sand?
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.
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.
And that's only the stars we can actually see.
Originally posted by: ndee
Yes rblowjob, there is rock. But what you are saying is: "Take the estimate of the estimate of the estimate" -> not accurate dudeOriginally posted by: rbloedowA 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.Originally posted by: ndeeSo.... the sand has everywhere the same depth? How deep is the sand going down before it gets Magma?Originally posted by: FrogDogCount them in a small area and then apply that to all the area in the world with sand on it.Originally posted by: ndee how did they count all the grains of sand?
Originally posted by: ndee
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: ndee
So.... the sand has everywhere the same depth? How deep is the sand going down before it gets Magma?Originally posted by: FrogDogCount them in a small area and then apply that to all the area in the world with sand on it.Originally posted by: ndee how did they count all the grains of sand?
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
Originally posted by: ndee
how did they count all the grains of sand?
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: ndee
how did they count all the grains of sand?
ah... switzerland... i see
Originally posted by: MazerRackham
1 mol of stars! (1 mol = 6.022^23)