[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 24 KB, 472x587, hydratom.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu May 12 23:28:22 2011 No.3047502 [Reply] [Original]

Somebody told me this but I can't seem to find anything that verifies it.

Can /sci/ help back-up or debunk this?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:31:22 2011 No.3047516 >>3047502 it's just god fucking with you, guy.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:32:22 2011 No.3047517 I remember reading about ramjets and that blurb put the density at a few atoms per cubic meter in the areas between superclusters Not sure which is right. Or how they arrived at their conclusions

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:32:22 2011 No.3047521 File: 95 KB, 400x266, broscience.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] blood is really blue

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:32:22 2011 No.3047519 File: 126 KB, 450x373, 127679019737[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mfw space would be measured in cubic inches, not square inches

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:32:22 2011 No.3047520 you mean cubic inch you retard. lrn2dimentionalspace

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:33:22 2011 No.3047522 there's no hydrogen 14 billion light years away.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:35:22 2011 No.3047527 >>3047520 whats the difference?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:36:22 2011 No.3047531 >>3047522 Thats cus theres no space 14 billion light years away. Agian lrn2dimentionalspace

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:37:22 2011 No.3047536 File: 20 KB, 406x293, 1305255256513.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3047527

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:37:22 2011 No.3047541 that's only on average

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:37:22 2011 No.3047543 >>3047527 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_space

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:40:22 2011 No.3047552 >>3047543 No seriously, if you took every square inch of space, wouldn't you still end up with a cube?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:42:22 2011 No.3047562 >>3047552 no, you'd have a fucking square

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:44:22 2011 No.3047570 one proton is one hydrogen atom (ionized)

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:46:22 2011 No.3047582 >>3047543 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:48:22 2011 No.3047595 >>3047570 lrn2atomicphysics

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:49:22 2011 No.3047598 >>3047562 learn2topology

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:50:22 2011 No.3047607 oh for fucks sake

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:50:22 2011 No.3047610 >>3047562 mmk. So, if you have a 3d space, and you have a square inch, how would you measure that space precisely? ...?

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:51:22 2011 No.3047618 File: 12 KB, 707x228, 1304743933963.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3047519 >mfw space would be measured in cubic meters not cubic inches

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:53:22 2011 No.3047629 >>3047618 but you could still do it with a square inch, could you not? And if you could do it with a square inch, could you not answer OP's pic? >mfw n+1 metric

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:55:22 2011 No.3047643 File: 83 KB, 959x641, wat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3047552 wat

>>	OP Thu May 12 23:55:22 2011 No.3047647 File: 9 KB, 252x159, 1305255642076.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3047618 >mfw you are a gigantic faggot and you can argue semantics all you like but it isn't going to change the concept one fucking bit.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:57:22 2011 No.3047664 >>3047647 *symbol shunting >implying that you understand concepts >broolstoryco.jpg

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:57:22 2011 No.3047665 File: 34 KB, 329x400, america-the-book_l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3047618 >mfw space would be mesured in cubic light nanoseconds.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:58:22 2011 No.3047669 >everyones_getting_trolled.jpg ² and inches, ² and inches everywhere

Anonymous Thu May 12 23:58:22 2011 No.3047671
File: 24 KB, 350x392, 1265498247292.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3047647
http://articles.cnn.com/1999-09-30/tech/9909_30_mars.metric.02_1_climate-orbiter-spacecraft-team-met
ric-system?_s=PM:TECH

Yes...I can see how this would be just semantics.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:58:22 2011 No.3047673 OP, I'm sorry /sci/ is too retarded to be able to answer your picture. They never realized how to measure 3d space with 2d metric.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 12 23:59:22 2011 No.3047682 File: 120 KB, 464x464, 1299129099881.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >and 9/10

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 00:01:22 2011 No.3047689 File: 29 KB, 377x603, Troll_spray.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3047682 You've been trolled as well?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 00:01:22 2011 No.3047691 >>3047502 ITT: pseudo mathematicians who only know symbol shunting

Anonymous Fri May 13 00:03:22 2011 No.3047704

You could say
The bit of area that is one cubic inch, in front of my face at x distant. Everything from the plane of that area, to a parallel plane behind it at x+y distance. That volume. But then you also have to define where you're looking, and how far the draw distance is.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 00:03:22 2011 No.3047706 File: 24 KB, 360x507, 1297240936185.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3047689 >in every square inch of space and the universe >inch of space and the universe >space and the universe >and (it is a double troll)

>>	OP Fri May 13 00:04:22 2011 No.3047712 >>3047664 My god, you're right, I can finally see how the distinction that humans make between inches and metres fundamentally changes the nature of the universe. SOMEONE REPORT THIS TO NATURE!

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 00:05:22 2011 No.3047718 >implying cosmologists don't measure everything in meters lol

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 00:07:22 2011 No.3047726 >>3047706 Oh you are most wise. I did not catch that.

Anonymous Fri May 13 00:12:22 2011 No.3047765

Okay, in case this really isn't a troll, then:
The estimated number of atoms in the observable universe = 10^80
the approximate volume of spacetime, assuming flat spacetime = 3*10^80m³
Leading to roughly one hydrogen atom to every three cubic meters of space.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 00:15:22 2011 No.3047784 >square The fuck? >inch Double 'the fuck'? Nigger, who measures space with imperial measurements?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 02:07:22 2011 No.3048322 >>3047784 >Nigger, who measures space with imperial measurements? Americans.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 02:17:22 2011 No.3048367 >>3047718 >>3047718 actually IME, lots of cosmologists use CGS I think it's just because they're really into ergs

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 02:21:22 2011 No.3048381 >The estimated number of atoms in the observable universe = 10^80 I keep seeing this figure, and it seems way too small to be legit to me. Maybe it's because I keep comparing it to Avogadro's number.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:34:22 2011 No.3050151 bump for topologists

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:36:22 2011 No.3050160 >>3048381 I sort of agree. Although it is an extremely large number, 10^80 really doesn't sound like "that" much.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:37:22 2011 No.3050167 >>3048381 10^80 would be like Avogadro's number x10^57. Does it seem bigger now?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:39:22 2011 No.3050174 >>3050167 that means there would only be 10^57 moles of hydrogen in the universe. This seems like the number of moles that would be in a star. how many moles of H2 are in the sun?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:42:22 2011 No.3050185 >measuring the universe in units as small as inches and meters enjoy using all the world's super computers to store all those digits

Anonymous Fri May 13 11:47:22 2011 No.3050199

>>3050174
Approximately 1.98e+33 moles.

That would give us approximately 3.97e+44 moles in our home galaxy.

Which means, if MW was the average galaxy, there could still be 2.52e+35 galaxies in the universe.

I can't believe I had to do this magnitude calculation to you guys. Usually only elementary or highschoold kids need this presented to them.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:48:22 2011 No.3050205 >>3050185 ever heard of compression? If OP is right, you could reduce most of the universe to a simple block of a hydrogen atom.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:49:22 2011 No.3050209 >>3050199 Just lazy. :D It all adds up now, though. (captcha: science, cominfo )

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:52:22 2011 No.3050217 >>3050205 now that I think of it...scientific notation. derp

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:55:22 2011 No.3050224 >>3050205 Wrong. the atoms in such a block would fuse pretty damn fast, and by the time you got them down to a block like that, it'd mostly just be protons with free electrons.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:56:22 2011 No.3050225 >>3047531 >Implying there isn't At best, we don't know. But we can't say there is not. It's just that the observable universe (from Earth) stops at 13.7 billion light years.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:57:22 2011 No.3050230 >>3047502 how much nitrogen is there in the universe?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 11:59:22 2011 No.3050239 >>3050224 Dude, the block would collapse into a universal black hole before it ever got a chance to fuse. Even if it was a diffuse nebula, all the matter in the universe in it would still cause it to be dense enough to collapse into a black hole.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 12:38:22 2011 No.3050377 >Nigger, who measures space with imperial measurements? The Empire, of course you rebel scum.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 12:41:22 2011 No.3050384 >>3050377 fukken lol'd Die in a fire remnant slag!

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 12:44:22 2011 No.3050401 >>3050239 mfw when I was refering to a block of code.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 12:47:22 2011 No.3050408 >>3050401 >talking about physical atoms >referring to a block of code >_>

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 12:51:22 2011 No.3050414 >>3050408 >referring to compression algorithms >_<

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 12:51:22 2011 No.3050417 >>3050408 Referring back to original post >>3050185 >>3050205 Try to follow causality, thanks.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 12:54:22 2011 No.3050427 >>3047531 says who. theories, theories everywhere.

>>	sage Fri May 13 12:59:22 2011 No.3050441 >>3047522 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

>>	Anonymous Fri May 13 13:22:22 2011 No.3050522 If they used the amount of stars in part of the way they came to the 10^80 conclusion, wouldn't it be nullified with the discovery last year. http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=8063

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]