/sci/ - Science & Math

>what are the odds an atom has an atom

>>3904668
nice dubs

>>3904675
>what are the odds that an atom has an atom that came from some significant source

>>3904683
>what are the odds that an atom has an atom

the medic is right. He's a total grammar nazi.

>>3904680


>dubs

>...668

really?

REALLY?


REALLLYYYY?


ARE YOU SERIOUS?


god you're a faggot.

>>3904690
>>3904683
>>3904675
Atoms tend to be connected with other atoms, picture is still grammatically valid (unless you're using US English).

neglecting the grammar


>implying homeopathy

Just a rough estimate based on the assumption that all the earth's water has circulated several times since the time of napoleon.

cup of water = 250 mls = 250 grams
mols of H2O in 250 mls of water = 18*6.022*10^23 = 1.084*10^25

minimum volume of testes = 15 mls
humans are 90% water so 13.5 mls of water, 54 mls for all 4 testes, a minute quantity of water from charlemagne's testes may have ended up in napoleon's but it's definately less than a billionth as you will see so it's not significant.

earth's water = 3.6×10^8 km² = 3.6×10^23 milliliters

54/3.6×10^23=1.5×10^-22 = average proportion of charlemagne/napoleon testicle water molecules in cup of water

1.084*10^25*1.5×10^-22 = 1626 = average number of charlemagne/napoleon testicle water molecules in cup of water

>>3904732
>atoms, not molecules.

>>3904732
Jesus fuck your post was retarded. Lrn2dimensional analysis.

>cup of water = 250 mls = 250 grams
>mols of H2O in 250 mls of water = 18*6.022*10^23 = 1.084*10^25

Moles of H2O in 250 mL of water? lolno: 18(g/gmol)*6.022*10^23(atoms/gmol) = 1.084*10^25 ([g*atoms]/[gmol^2])...meaningless value
(you didn't even calculate (or attempt to calculate) for 250 ml, you need to convert 250 mL (NOT mls, FAGGOT) to grams before you can calculate the amount of gram moles)

>humans are 90% water so 13.5 mls of water, 54 mls for all 4 testes, a minute quantity of water from charlemagne's testes may have ended up in
It's 60% actually

>earth's water = 3.6×10^8 km² = 3.6×10^23 milliliters
>km²

>54/3.6×10^23=1.5×10^-22 = average proportion of charlemagne/napoleon testicle water molecules in cup of water
The only thing in your post where your units are used correctly, although it has nothing to do with the question:
54(mL of water that was contained in the 4 testes)/3.6×10^23(mL of water on the earth)=1.5×10^-22(mL of water in 4 testes)/(mL water on the earth)...meaningless value

>1.084*10^25*1.5×10^-22 = 1626 = average number of charlemagne/napoleon testicle water molecules in cup of water
1.084*10^25 ([g*atoms]/[gmol^2]) *1.5×10^-22 (mL in4 testes/mL of water on the earth)
= 1626 [g*atoms(mL in 4 testes)]/[(gmol^2)(mL of water on the earth)]....

>>3904861

Hi there, different anon.

(you didn't even calculate (or attempt to calculate) for 250 ml, you need to convert 250 mL (NOT mls, FAGGOT) to grams before you can calculate the amount of gram moles).

They guy was obviously using a temperature at which water density results in a 1:1 ratio of mL to gram.

>>3904732

I believe you used the wikipedia article to determine the volume of the world's oceans. Unfortunately it wasn't a measure of volume that you read, but a measure of area. On top of that, that sentence doesn't even provide a source.

Here's a citation on the bottom of that page from HDNO that might better help you in your endeavors. Containers are three dimensional, ergo volume will be to the third power of a distance. km^3 / m^3 / mm^3 - granted there are standards for measurements.

>>3904913

HDNO

http://www.oceansatlas.com/unatlas/about/physicalandchemicalproperties/background/seemore1.html

>>3904895They guy was obviously using a temperature at which water density results in a 1:1 ratio of mL to gram.

250 mL=/= 1 mL = 1g

It should have been: 250 mL water= 250 grams
thus the number of moles in one cup of water:
250g/[18(g/gmol)] *6.022*10^23(molecules/gmol) = _ molecules of water in one cup
thus the number of atoms in one cup of water:
_times 3 etc. atoms of water in one cup

I know water density gives a ratio of 1:1, I said the anon in >>3904732 needed to "convert" it first because he somehow went:
>250 mL of water in a cup
>???
>1g of water in a cup

...and then proceeded to multiply the MM of water with avogardo's number...

>>3904915
you both seem to forget napoleon had a lower water% due to his small size

>>3904923

He was of average height for a Frenchman in his time, 5'8" I believe. The misconception of his height is a result of a misunderstanding of a nickname given to him by some people of his army.

>>3904923you both seem to forget napoleon had a lower water% due to his small size
>Implying percentages change with total size.

There does seem to be a large percentage of trolls today though...

>>3904668
Napoleon only had one testicle. So, much less likely than as it first appears.

>>3904923
>you both seem to forget napoleon had a lower water% due to his small size
>you both seem
>you both SEMEN

lol

Considering the prevalence of carbon in and the relatively constant nature of the material on the surface of the earth in such a short time frame, the following estimation will be correct to an order of magnitude or two.

It is easy to show that this problem is quantum mechanically chaotic, so we will be unable to do any better than an estimate.


Take the number of atoms in a pair of testicles and divide it by the number of atoms on the surface of the earth;

exponentiate that number by three.