I only just realised this, but for every 5 people on earth there's around one cubic kilometre of ocean.
Didn't expect it to be that large an amount.
Any issues of scale or magnitude* that have surprised you?
* knob jokes expected. :)
It always surprises me just how short most people are - when I look down every now and then.
Quote from: mongers on May 12, 2014, 04:57:15 PM
I only just realised this, but for every 5 people on earth there's around one cubic kilometre of ocean.
Didn't expect it to be that large an amount.
Any issues of scale or magnitude* that have surprised you?
* knob jokes expected. :)
I remember as a kid going fossil collecting with my dad, and being struck like a hammer with the notion of "deep time". The fossils we were collecting were of creatures from a time so old that vertebrates did not exist yet ... just inconceivably old. Ordovician, around 480 million years ago ... yet there they were, under our picks. It gave me a sort of mental vertigo that is difficult to explain.
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2014, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 12, 2014, 04:57:15 PM
I only just realised this, but for every 5 people on earth there's around one cubic kilometre of ocean.
Didn't expect it to be that large an amount.
Any issues of scale or magnitude* that have surprised you?
* knob jokes expected. :)
I remember as a kid going fossil collecting with my dad, and being struck like a hammer with the notion of "deep time". The fossils we were collecting were of creatures from a time so old that vertebrates did not exist yet ... just inconceivably old. Ordovician, around 480 million years ago ... yet there they were, under our picks. It gave me a sort of mental vertigo that is difficult to explain.
Yes that's a good one.
It is almost unimaginably long ago. :outback:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2014, 04:59:32 PM
It always surprises me just how short most people are - when I look down every now and then.
So you're permanently stuck in an early 1960s comedy sketch? :P
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2014, 05:06:40 PM
It gave me a sort of mental vertigo that is difficult to explain.
Now you get a sense of what it is like to be around so many short people.
I've grown downwards the past ten years.
that the moon is about 10 earth circumferences away from earth.
That whatever it is that powers quasars, it is vastly more efficient than nuclear fusion, the most efficient power generation process of which we are aware.
Quasars (and blazars and the rest of that class of galactic nuclei) are just cool and mind-bending in general.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2014, 05:50:05 PM
mind-bending in general.
Now you get a sense of what it is like to be around so many short people.
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2014, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2014, 05:50:05 PM
mind-bending in general.
Now you get a sense of what it is like to be around so many short people.
Why would I need to think of quasars for that when I'm six foot three? You all look short to me.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2014, 08:32:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 12, 2014, 05:51:25 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2014, 05:50:05 PM
mind-bending in general.
Now you get a sense of what it is like to be around so many short people.
Why would I need to think of quasars for that when I'm six foot three? You all look short to me.
At 6'3" you as tall as my children.
When you grow up let me know.
Back when I was far less educated about computer science, I remember being struck by the full implication of what an exponential run time entails, usually after bumping into it the hard way.
Want to try a brute-force approach that tries every combination of 5 lowercase letters? Sure, write a very clever and efficient code, and wait a couple of minutes. Want to move up to 10 characters? It'll finish when you retire. Want to try 15 characters? The sun will probably go out before you're done.
Quote from: DGuller on May 12, 2014, 09:10:57 PM
Back when I was far less educated about computer science, I remember being struck by the full implication of what an exponential run time entails, usually after bumping into it the hard way.
Want to try a brute-force approach that tries every combination of 5 lowercase letters? Sure, write a very clever and efficient code, and wait a couple of minutes. Want to move up to 10 characters? It'll finish when you retire. Want to try 15 characters? The sun will probably go out before you're done.
What about adding capital letters or *gasp* a special symbol or two?
Quote from: sbr on May 12, 2014, 09:13:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 12, 2014, 09:10:57 PM
Back when I was far less educated about computer science, I remember being struck by the full implication of what an exponential run time entails, usually after bumping into it the hard way.
Want to try a brute-force approach that tries every combination of 5 lowercase letters? Sure, write a very clever and efficient code, and wait a couple of minutes. Want to move up to 10 characters? It'll finish when you retire. Want to try 15 characters? The sun will probably go out before you're done.
What about adding capital letters or *gasp* a special symbol or two?
:hmm: It's going to take even longer.
Quote from: DGuller on May 12, 2014, 09:22:27 PM
Quote from: sbr on May 12, 2014, 09:13:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 12, 2014, 09:10:57 PM
Back when I was far less educated about computer science, I remember being struck by the full implication of what an exponential run time entails, usually after bumping into it the hard way.
Want to try a brute-force approach that tries every combination of 5 lowercase letters? Sure, write a very clever and efficient code, and wait a couple of minutes. Want to move up to 10 characters? It'll finish when you retire. Want to try 15 characters? The sun will probably go out before you're done.
What about adding capital letters or *gasp* a special symbol or two?
:hmm: It's going to take even longer.
:o
Yeah, you need a really good PC to run some of those calculations quickly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2014, 08:48:24 PM
At 6'3" you as tall as my children.
I are grammar better than your children, too.
QuoteWhen you grow up let me know.
When you learn to write
, let me know.
What have we learnt from this thread so far?
That CC likes to look down upon all people ? :(
And for a change, in this instance, Garbon doesn't. :P
Spending 10, 20, 30 years of one's life in prison. Never getting out of prison.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2014, 05:10:00 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2014, 05:06:40 PM
It gave me a sort of mental vertigo that is difficult to explain.
Now you get a sense of what it is like to be around so many short people.
I have a vision of your future:
http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Skeleton-Charles-Byrne-display.jpg
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2014, 05:06:40 PM
I remember as a kid going fossil collecting with my dad, and being struck like a hammer with the notion of "deep time". The fossils we were collecting were of creatures from a time so old that vertebrates did not exist yet ... just inconceivably old. Ordovician, around 480 million years ago ... yet there they were, under our picks. It gave me a sort of mental vertigo that is difficult to explain.
Had the same mental vertigo when I first tried to comprehend the endlessness of space.
When I used to hunt in some remote woods of Maine or other New England state I was amazed t seeing stone walls in the middle of the woods. Those were all farmer's fields and property separated by the walls. A century or two ago most of that land was barren of trees or in the process of becoming barren as so much was chopped down for fuel and to clear fields. Now though there's more forest in New England than in the mid 1800s. That's always amazed me how that could have been at a time of much fewer people.
Quote from: mongers on May 13, 2014, 06:42:12 AM
That CC likes to look down upon all people ? :(
The point is I dont. It hurts my neck.
But it is cute that someone standing a mere 6'3'' believes he is tall. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2014, 05:06:40 PMI remember as a kid going fossil collecting with my dad, and being struck like a hammer with the notion of "deep time". The fossils we were collecting were of creatures from a time so old that vertebrates did not exist yet ... just inconceivably old. Ordovician, around 480 million years ago ... yet there they were, under our picks. It gave me a sort of mental vertigo that is difficult to explain.
It can be. I have a similar feeling about imagining pre-historic times or the surfaces of other planets, or other solar systems - because it makes you aware of how much stuff goes on in the universe, and how many wonders there are without humans having any effect on it, or even being there to observe it. It gives me a desperate feeling of loneliness. Being stranded on Earth, say, 5 million years ago is also one of the most depressing thoughts.
Actually, it might be what turned me off Brin's Uplift books, where spaceships are millions of years old (constantly repaired/updated), races are indentured to one another for hundreds of millennia, and the (genetically engineered) individual just seems so incredibly insignificant that I failed to get emotionally involved in this. It's a fascinating setting, but I couldn't connect to it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdilbert.com%2Fdyn%2Fstr_strip%2F000000000%2F00000000%2F0000000%2F000000%2F20000%2F6000%2F200%2F26233%2F26233.strip.gif&hash=b1d2573b5be03bf426e8dcdab4cfb385d1ca060a)
I was in college when this strip was published; and had taken a course in modern physics the year before. Since the speed of light is a hard constant all sorts of strange things begin to happen once you approach the speed of light; (many not requiring you to teach gym.) Like most of the things I studied in modern physics it seemed to be of no use to an engineer; since when are you going to travel at 90% of the speed of light?
As it turns out wireless communications systems today have such large throughput that they run up against this limit. As users move his signal becomes distorted by the limitations of the speed of light (called the Dopler shift) and throughput is lowered. I was astonished when I ran through the calculations and discovered a radio on a train traveling at 100 Kmph would be impacted by the speed of light. The difference in scale between light and a train is so vast that it seems impossible; but the receive rate is so fast that it occurs.
Even more astonishing was that I found a use for something I learned in my modern physics class.
Quote from: KRonn on May 13, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
When I used to hunt in some remote woods of Maine or other New England state I was amazed t seeing stone walls in the middle of the woods. Those were all farmer's fields and property separated by the walls. A century or two ago most of that land was barren of trees or in the process of becoming barren as so much was chopped down for fuel and to clear fields. Now though there's more forest in New England than in the mid 1800s. That's always amazed me how that could have been at a time of much fewer people.
A large portion of West Virginia had been clear-cut by the mid to late 1800s. But there are more trees there now than there were in the late 1700s.
Quote from: KRonn on May 13, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
When I used to hunt in some remote woods of Maine or other New England state I was amazed t seeing stone walls in the middle of the woods. Those were all farmer's fields and property separated by the walls. A century or two ago most of that land was barren of trees or in the process of becoming barren as so much was chopped down for fuel and to clear fields. Now though there's more forest in New England than in the mid 1800s. That's always amazed me how that could have been at a time of much fewer people.
Heh, we have that up at our "near cottage" in Oro-Medonte township, Ontario. The land was crappy for farming, but had nonetheless been farmed until the 1930s, then abandoned. You can still find farming artifacts - stone walls, a row of fruit trees growing in otherwise mixed forest, remains of old roads, and in some places, foundations of buildings.
There used to exist a 'genuine' haunted house back in the woods a ways, with a very sad history. It was the last inhabited house on the land - it had an old woman living in it in the 1940s, the last remnant of the family that used to farm that land: all her kids and relations were dead. She was totally demented, and her neighbours brought her food from time to time (social services were I guess pretty primitive back then). One day in winter, the neighbours came and found the door open and the old woman gone. She was never seen again and her body was not found; the house then proceeded to molder.
When I was a child, it was still standing, with massive brambles growing out of its smashed windows - the very picture of depressing decay. We kids were very frightened of it and avoided it, though we did not know the story above (I learned that as an adult). My brothers used it to scare the shit out of me, and doing so, endangered themselves, as I think I've told elsewhere.
Quote from: KRonn on May 13, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
When I used to hunt in some remote woods of Maine or other New England state I was amazed t seeing stone walls in the middle of the woods. Those were all farmer's fields and property separated by the walls. A century or two ago most of that land was barren of trees or in the process of becoming barren as so much was chopped down for fuel and to clear fields. Now though there's more forest in New England than in the mid 1800s. That's always amazed me how that could have been at a time of much fewer people.
That was the best land available when it was cleared, but when better land became available, New England was abandoned by farmers. Those people clearly were not as stupid as someone who thinks a person taller than 97% of the male population is not tall.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2014, 10:51:29 AM
Quote from: KRonn on May 13, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
When I used to hunt in some remote woods of Maine or other New England state I was amazed t seeing stone walls in the middle of the woods. Those were all farmer's fields and property separated by the walls. A century or two ago most of that land was barren of trees or in the process of becoming barren as so much was chopped down for fuel and to clear fields. Now though there's more forest in New England than in the mid 1800s. That's always amazed me how that could have been at a time of much fewer people.
That was the best land available when it was cleared, but when better land became available, New England was abandoned by farmers. Those people clearly were not as stupid as someone who thinks a person taller than 97% of the male population is not tall.
Not as stupid as someone who doesnt realize that if he is tall at a mere 6'3" then that proves my initial point that the rest of the world is truly short.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2014, 11:07:00 AM
Not as stupid as someone who doesnt realize that if he is tall at a mere 6'3" then that proves my initial point that the rest of the world is truly short.
I haven't a clue as to what your argument is, here, other than that you don't think a 6'3" person is tall. I haven't responded to any point of yours other than your assertion that "At 6'3" you as tall as my children," and even then I was just razzing you about a typo. I don't give a shit about any initial point you may have made. :cool:
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2014, 11:46:24 AM
you don't think a 6'3" person is tall.
You would be the fifth tallest guy on my youngest sons grade 9 club team. Although you would be the third tallest boy on his grade 8/9 school spring league team. So at least you would have less boys to look up to.
This thread was about "big stuff" and orders of magnitude of difference. I made a joke about how my height is orders of magnitude different than the average. It was cute (adorable even) in the context of this thread that you thought you were tall when on most sports teams where height is an asset you would be considered short.
I'm always blown away by just how massive the differences in scale there are, and the wide variety of properties that exist at one scale and don't at another or alternatively carry through.
Starting small:
Subatomic: Quantum mechanics rules, as well as the Strong and Electromagnetic forces. The difference between a particle and a wave is almost not there, and it is easy for things to be created or disappear. Particles have handedness, favoring the continuation of right-handed over left-handed due to the Weak force. This is possibly why there isn't an equal amount of matter and anti-matter.
Atomic: Quantum mechanics still has power particularly with electrons/photons. The Strong force keeps the nucleus together while the Electromagnetic force keeps Electrons around it. Protons, Neutrons and Electrons are long-lived (as long as the projected age of the universe). A given Proton, Neutron or Electron is indistinguishable from another Proton, Neutron or Electron as far as all properties.
Molecular: Atoms bind together through the interaction of electrons and the Electromagnetic force. These bindings can be homogeneous (all the same type of atom), heterogeneous (different kinds of atoms) or unlikely (noble gasses).
Chemical: The interactions of molecules determine the chemical properties of matter using the universal glue of the Electromagnetic force.
Microscopic: Chemicals knit together in increasingly more complicated patterns. Solid objects, through the Electromagnetic force, are possible. Life can be said to exist, starting from simple viruses all the way up to large bacteria and tiny insects.
Human: Animals, plants, buildings, machines, the ground, the sky, everything we interact with on a daily basis. Gravity starts to be important in keeping things tied to a locale, although Electromagnetic is still the force that drives things.
Planetary: Gravitationally accumulated chunks of material, anywhere from tiny asteroids up to failed stars. Electromagnetic force can still make a showing through the magnetosphere.
Stellar: Giant nuclear furnaces. Held together by gravity, kept from collapsing by fusing tiny atoms together, causing the Strong force to release massive amounts of Electromagnetic energy. Suddenly all that subatomic stuff pops right back up again. Many stars have planets orbiting them through gravitation, although the apparent empty space is vast between any given object. Eventually the star loses the balance between fusion and gravity and it collapses into a dense ball, or hyper-dense ball, or black hole. This may be proceeded by a really big kaboom.
Interstellar: Stars separated even more unimaginable distance from each other. Too far apart for gravity to pull together, yet not so far that they easily drift apart.
Galactic: Huge accumulations of hundreds of thousands of stars at various stages of existence spread across increasingly unimaginable distance. Held together by gravity as well as mysterious amounts of dark matter and dark energy.
Intergalactic: Groups of galaxies separated by even more unimaginable distances, held together by gravity.
Universal: Different groups of galaxies with even greater space in between. These groups are gradually getting further and further apart as the universe continues to expand. At this scale it's a question of whether even Gravity (the ultimate long range force) can bring us back together.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 13, 2014, 08:42:12 AM
Spending 10, 20, 30 years of one's life in prison. Never getting out of prison.
Are we coming around?
Anyway, I'm struck by how biologically successful the human species has been--iirc we're by far the most populous chordate; certainly, in terms of biomass, humans are pretty much the "biggest" species, second only to cows. Of course, the only reason cows are bigger is because humans deliberately raise them. Even without 'em, though, we're still bigger than (all species of!) either ants or termites. There are so very many of us that you have to wonder if it's a good idea (but you only wonder for about two seconds before recognizing that it isn't).
It is odd how people suffering from gigantism are all proud of it. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2014, 12:15:42 PM
It is odd how people suffering from gigantism are all proud of it. :hmm:
It's an unsublimated masculine dominance display. Doesn't work very well on the Internet.
Actual, grumbler, let me revise that.
It is odd how a person suffering from gigantism is so proud of it.
I know the difference between one person and more than one person - despite my previous post. -_-
Quote from: derspiess on May 13, 2014, 09:54:15 AM
Quote from: KRonn on May 13, 2014, 09:34:33 AM
When I used to hunt in some remote woods of Maine or other New England state I was amazed t seeing stone walls in the middle of the woods. Those were all farmer's fields and property separated by the walls. A century or two ago most of that land was barren of trees or in the process of becoming barren as so much was chopped down for fuel and to clear fields. Now though there's more forest in New England than in the mid 1800s. That's always amazed me how that could have been at a time of much fewer people.
A large portion of West Virginia had been clear-cut by the mid to late 1800s. But there are more trees there now than there were in the late 1700s.
Yeah, I'm sure this wasn't just a New England thing where so much land was cleared for farming and firewood for homes and businesses. It's still just pretty amazing to me to realize so much land was cleared. I guess thank Hod for fossil fuels! Probably in a century or two someone will be saying thank Hod for another energy source that replaced most of the fossil fuels. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:12:05 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 13, 2014, 08:42:12 AM
Spending 10, 20, 30 years of one's life in prison. Never getting out of prison.
Are we coming around?
:huh: When have I ever been "noted imprisonment advocate, C. Mihali..."?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:12:05 PM
Even without 'em, though, we're still bigger than (all species of!) either ants or termites.
The combined weight of all ants is alleged to equal (approximately!) that of the combined weight of all humans. Termites are alleged to weigh slightly more.
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2014, 02:55:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:12:05 PM
Even without 'em, though, we're still bigger than (all species of!) either ants or termites.
The combined weight of all ants is alleged to equal (approximately!) that of the combined weight of all humans. Termites are alleged to weigh slightly more.
There is a joke about a mountain in Alaska in there somewhere.
Also, I find it difficult to comprehend the difference in scale between my income and my overdraft. :ph34r:
The US Government owns enough land to give each US resident a free acre or so. I wonder how it breaks down for Canada and Russia.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:16:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2014, 12:15:42 PM
It is odd how people suffering from gigantism are all proud of it. :hmm:
It's an unsublimated masculine dominance display. Doesn't work very well on the Internet.
You wouldn't say that to his face. Or more accurately, his sternum.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 13, 2014, 11:37:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:16:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2014, 12:15:42 PM
It is odd how people suffering from gigantism are all proud of it. :hmm:
It's an unsublimated masculine dominance display. Doesn't work very well on the Internet.
You wouldn't say that to his face. Or more accurately, his sternum.
I don't see why not. Though it is unlikely that Ide and CC would ever be conversing in person.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 13, 2014, 11:20:23 PM
The US Government owns enough land to give each US resident a free acre or so. I wonder how it breaks down for Canada and Russia.
The US Government owns enough land to give each Canadian resident 10 free acres or so. ?
And a quarter mule.