Live data from Hacker News

Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

popularmechanics.com

11–20 of 53 posts

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#11
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conversion from square meters to square feet is 13690 * 3.28 * 3.28 = 147282.496, so at least it's the correct number for area. But yeah, adding "across" sounds weird there. Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields.

> a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields. One that means absolutely nothing to the majority of the people on the planet.

It's about one Australian Rules Football ground

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#12
> Our knowledge of blue holes is limited by accessibility issues, sometimes due to opening being too small or the depths being so great, and sometimes due to limited oxygen in the water, making it dangerous to explore without specialized equipment.

I'm curious why lack of oxygen is a problem? We don't breathe water, so why should oxygen content matter?

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#13
What makes blue holes so fascinating, in my opinion, is the historical perspective they provide.

These were once deep air-filled vertical shafts, formed by the longterm erosional/dissolutional power of falling water under the influence of gravity. Speleothems like stalactites prove that they formed in an air-filled environment.

In other words, the present-day sea level at the Yucatan Peninsula was formerly at least 275m lower; and/or the present-day surface was at least 275m higher. The paper attributes this to "glacio-eustatic changes", which is the equal-and-opposite-reaction involving lowered sea level (increased global glaciation) and the buoyant rising of the regional continental crust since the mass of additional sea water has been removed.

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#15
post #5
post #4

What is it with those weird metrics? 147,000 square feet across , this is what science communication picks up from the paper? The major axis of the TJBH at ~10 mbsl was estimated to be ~151.8 m and was oriented ~10.76° clockwise from the north, similar to the main direction of geological faults in the region. The minor axis, perpendicular to the major axis, was ~124.4 m across. The surface area covered by the blue ho…

The conversion from square meters to square feet is 13690 * 3.28 * 3.28 = 147282.496, so at least it's the correct number for area. But yeah, adding "across" sounds weird there. Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields.

I think the main point was the measurement of area 'across', not the non-SI unit.

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields. One that means absolutely nothing to the majority of the people on the planet.

I think it was a joke. But I’m not sure.

Not a joke, the article converted from meters to feet so the demographic limitation is ~the same. Don't know why the title on HN uses metres, the original title doesn't have any size.

I only included "American" because I knew someone would jump on it with soccer/non-American football fields.

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#17
post #15
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conversion from square meters to square feet is 13690 * 3.28 * 3.28 = 147282.496, so at least it's the correct number for area. But yeah, adding "across" sounds weird there. Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields.

I think the main point was the measurement of area 'across', not the non-SI unit.

The article converted all the measurements for a US audience, but the "square feet across" line halfway down is the only one they jumped on. Plus questioning why not just use diameter at the bottom of their comment.

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#18
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conversion from square meters to square feet is 13690 * 3.28 * 3.28 = 147282.496, so at least it's the correct number for area. But yeah, adding "across" sounds weird there. Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields.

> a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields. One that means absolutely nothing to the majority of the people on the planet.

[deleted]

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#19
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was a joke. But I’m not sure.

Not a joke, the article converted from meters to feet so the demographic limitation is ~the same. Don't know why the title on HN uses metres, the original title doesn't have any size. I only included "American" because I knew someone would jump on it with soccer/non-American football fields.

Alright. The American obsession to use random things instead of the international system of units is weird and funny so I thought you were joking about it.

Re: Second massive “blue hole” found, 270 metres deep

#20
post #5
post #4

What is it with those weird metrics? 147,000 square feet across , this is what science communication picks up from the paper? The major axis of the TJBH at ~10 mbsl was estimated to be ~151.8 m and was oriented ~10.76° clockwise from the north, similar to the main direction of geological faults in the region. The minor axis, perpendicular to the major axis, was ~124.4 m across. The surface area covered by the blue ho…

The conversion from square meters to square feet is 13690 * 3.28 * 3.28 = 147282.496, so at least it's the correct number for area. But yeah, adding "across" sounds weird there. Edit: Actually for a much easier visual, it's right about 2.5 American football fields.

I can’t possibly visualize its overall Size without knowing how many Olympic sized swimming pools it could fill.
Post reply on HN