Random facts and Trivia

curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
cannabineer said:
It is currently estimated that the visible* Universe contains approx. one-tenth of a mole of stars. A mole is Avogadro's number, 6.022 x 10E23, times what's being counted. So 6 x 10E22 stars/universe.
I found a calculation online that places a high boundary on [sand]/Earth at 1.7 x 10E27 grains. I was surprised at this result, but there you have it. Sand takes it, provisionally. Florida is asking for a recount.

*"visible" differentiates my analysis from Annie's rather larger premise.
Click to expand...
So now we are being splitting hairs about moles are we?
original.jpg

Moles.jpg
 
mo2oregon

mo2oregon

Active Member
Humans have 206 bones in their bodies and the hyoid bone (above the Adam's apple, below the chin) is the only bone that does not articulate with another bone.
 
M

minnesmoker

Well-Known Member
minnesmoker said:
there are more stars than sand on the earth.
Click to expand...

So I said that...


Jimmyjonestoo said:
Not saying youre wrong....but how does one prove that?
Click to expand...
And he asked me that...

A very reasonable question.

minnesmoker said:
Ask an autistic with OCD...

That was a cheap response, I apologize (it's insincere, but you deserve an apology.)

So, you can do it a couple ways. You could actually count the sand on the planet. As it's not infinite, and then count stars, until you hit 1 more... Or, you could do a bunch of really goofy math, crazy math involving a shit ton of boundaries, like "what is a pebble of sand?" It must be defined, as does "what is a star?" Count black holes? They're just super-dense stars, they've imploded and are actually brilliant, but the light can't escape the gravity (remember the "does light have mass thread? That's one way to prove light has mass... Only objects with mass can be affected by gravity.) How small can it be, before it's not a star? Does it have to be actively ignited? Can we count supernovas? And then, you figure out the size, approximately, of the universe, based on an expansion at the speed of light for 13.1 billion years, calculate galaxy density in the visible distance, and extrapolate from their, giving a margin of error of 50%+/-. With that margin of error in tact, and given math to approximate the "number of pebbles of sand" and then calculate the approximate number of stars. If the number show, unequivocally (i.e. double the margin of error, not mathematically, but numerically, and still have a difference greater on one side than the other.)

Basically, it's "theoretical," but, it's a pretty fuckin' solid theory.
Click to expand...
Lengthy, huh? If you read it the first time, I hope you skipped it this round!


curious2garden said:
Let n = all the sand on earth
Let s = all stars in universe

Earth is finite, and because n is a subset of earth n is finite. Currently the universe is expanding and infinite and s is a subset of universe. It follows s is hypothetically infinite. Therefore it would always be at least s >= n+1 by definition within our accepted physics.

Minne you really took the roundaboutation way LOL and I'm on brain2.0 (the stoopid years), as well!
Click to expand...
I stated it simply, and skipped the actual math (cuz, I know someone'll complain that they said there'd be no math.)
But, I said it simply and had word diarrhea for a reason:

cannabineer said:
It is currently estimated that the visible* Universe contains approx. one-tenth of a mole of stars. A mole is Avogadro's number, 6.022 x 10E23, times what's being counted. So 6 x 10E22 stars/universe.
I found a calculation online that places a high boundary on [sand]/Earth at 1.7 x 10E27 grains. I was surprised at this result, but there you have it. Sand takes it, provisionally. Florida is asking for a recount.

*"visible" differentiates my analysis from Annie's rather larger premise.
Click to expand...
Nobody said "Visible." It's cheating, to attempt to disprove me, by rewriting the question -- yer Bones, not Kirk.

gioua said:
I started counting sand to prove one of you right.. are we talking beach sand only or?
Click to expand...
KISS, man. All of it. Just like all of the stars, not CN's attempted rewrite of Life, The Universe, and Everything.

fr3d12 said:
Armadillos while crunchy on the outisde are soft in the middle
Click to expand...
I got munchies, brb.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I come from the astronomer's prejudice. They say "universe" as a shorthand for "visible universe". I figured I'd better add the disclaimer.
 
M

minnesmoker

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I come from the astronomer's prejudice. They say "universe" as a shorthand for "visible universe". I figured I'd better add the disclaimer.
Click to expand...
No dice. LoL, you even threw that up, after I made it clear, the universe, from it's gooey big bang center to it's unknowable bounds.

Thanks for just ignoring the Star Trek reboot.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
minnesmoker said:
No dice. LoL, you even threw that up, after I made it clear, the universe, from it's gooey big bang center to it's unknowable bounds.

Thanks for just ignoring the Star Trek reboot.
Click to expand...
And this is why astronomers don't often drink with cosmologists. ;)
 
M

minnesmoker

Well-Known Member
was that an attempt at polarizing the conversation?

Random factoid here: we derail threads quicker than infinite loop spaghetti code.

Speaking of which, anyone remember the "beep/pause" bug that you could slip into scripts, so when your user was about to do something profanely stupid, their windows computer would crash in a blaze of beeping fury?
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Leaving the delicious pun-tential of "polarizing" aside, i have been pondering the dichotomy between astronomers and cosmologists.

I concede that i am working from the empiricist's premise, "if you cannot detect it it just ain't there". Cosmologists are more inclusive, allowing what smacks to me of metaphysics (e.g. string theory) to be admitted into the court of evidence. Beyond my empiricist's credo lies only subjectivism, my doubt that reality is really real. If this is insufficient concession, I'll disengage this argument and recognize I came to it late.

ceterum censeo i am startlingly illiterate in re code. You'll find that enthusiastically confirmed by those who know.
 
M

minnesmoker

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I concede
...
ceterum censeo i am startlingly illiterate in re code. You'll find that enthusiastically confirmed by those who know.
Click to expand...
Thank you, good sir, a gentleman and scholar, and able to concede, without winding yourself, or attempting an end run appeal to empathy reliant logic. :bigjoint:

By the way, the pun... A test, to see just how low you can reach, on the proverbial lowest branch -- again, well played good sir, well played indeed.

Ignore the code, industry speak.
 
S

silasraven

Well-Known Member
random fact -if you want to keep at a one hit it quite it try switching up your weed selection and always keep a variety. smoke the lesser thc strains in the early morning and switch to stronger strains as the day progresses, end the day with hash if needed. never do the same thing twice when it comes to smoking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top