11–20 of 290 posts
Obviously that water would be somewhat less accessible and quantifiable, but...
Anyone familiar with the current geoscience on this?
Wouldn't a cube be a better choice for visualizing volume? A more complete version would do it alongside with minerals, biomass, etc
Why?
A great example of this done in 8th grade science classes across the US is to put 100ml of water in a 100ml graduated cylinder, 150ml in a 1L beaker, and ask the class which has more. Humans are awful at estimating how much volume the increased radius adds, and usually will say the 100ml.
The problem only gets worse as we graduate from cylinders to spheres.
We can all visually see which sphere is bigger, but cannot come close to estimating how much bigger one is than another.
Can’t help but want to build that. Apparently all the mined gold in the world would fit inside a 5 m diameter sphere. Spheres are suspicious in hiding weight.
Does it include water in the mantle? (https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=111648)
or other non-liquid water for that matter like hydrates (ebsom salts, etc)
The height of the sphere isn’t easy to visualize, should over lay height of water over Americas area
Does this include the water inside of living creatures?
> and even the water in you, your dog, and your tomato plant.
Can’t help but want to build that. Apparently all the mined gold in the world would fit inside a 5 m diameter sphere. Spheres are suspicious in hiding weight.
> If every single ounce of this gold were placed next to each other, the resulting cube of pure gold would only measure around 22 metres on each side
So that can't possibly be right, you must be off by a factor of 10 or so at least—Wolfram Alpha says a 30m diameter sphere.