The researchers found that there were about 100 greasy carbon atoms for every million hydrogen atoms, accounting for between a quarter and a half of the available carbon.
In the Milky Way this amounts to about 10 billion trillion trillion tonnes of greasy matter — that's 1 with 34 zeros after it.
0
Options
valhalla13013 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered Userregular
So you're saying by washing my face constantly, I'm denying the natural order of the universe?
Billion trillion trillion also means nothing to me, to be honest. At some point it just becomes "a lot"
I mean I agree but if you're a scientific researcher you can't conclude your report with "there's a lot of 'em".
Trillion is probably the highest round number that people can at least understand on a basic level (like we can kiiiind of get our head around a trillion-dollar deficit, for example), so just stacking a bunch of billions and trillions together is the easiest way to get across the idea of a literally unimaginable fuck-ton without swearing in your report.
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
I think "billion trillion trillion" is a more useful term for the general audience than "10 decillion," which is better than "10^34," but all notations are pretty useless at that scale.
Even our old friend the Megapenny Project kind of fails us here. You can barely grasp the difference between a billion and a trillion by using a billion pennies to construct five school-bus-sized rectangular blocks and using a trillion pennies to build a 27-story cube. Using a decillion pennies to construct a cube ten times the size of the sun and then telling the audience to imagine ten of those is useless, because the sun is already uselessly huge as far as points of comparison go.
Copernicus was a mistake.
+5
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure how they're planning to use this research?
I would assume the size of the carbon molecules is largely determined by the partial pressure of the carbon in the plasma, and that would change the spectra of absorbed light.
..which would be local to the star, in its observed colour already, and deduced?
I guess we can repeat the experiment a lot and get some good statistical analysis on the likely distribution of organic compounds for certain partial pressures?
Blah.
It's research; I shouldn't be questioning what they wanted to do with an answer they didn't know yet.
Billion trillion trillion also means nothing to me, to be honest. At some point it just becomes "a lot"
I mean I agree but if you're a scientific researcher you can't conclude your report with "there's a lot of 'em".
Trillion is probably the highest round number that people can at least understand on a basic level (like we can kiiiind of get our head around a trillion-dollar deficit, for example), so just stacking a bunch of billions and trillions together is the easiest way to get across the idea of a literally unimaginable fuck-ton without swearing in your report.
Well, billion trillion trillion has another problem: how is the math done? Is it billion * trillion * trillion or a billion + trillion + trillion? Just saying '34 zeroes' is perfectly fine for me in this scenario.
Billion trillion trillion also means nothing to me, to be honest. At some point it just becomes "a lot"
I mean I agree but if you're a scientific researcher you can't conclude your report with "there's a lot of 'em".
Trillion is probably the highest round number that people can at least understand on a basic level (like we can kiiiind of get our head around a trillion-dollar deficit, for example), so just stacking a bunch of billions and trillions together is the easiest way to get across the idea of a literally unimaginable fuck-ton without swearing in your report.
Well, billion trillion trillion has another problem: how is the math done? Is it billion * trillion * trillion or a billion + trillion + trillion? Just saying '34 zeroes' is perfectly fine for me in this scenario.
It's handled no differently than any other large number we say like "a hundred thousand". As mentioned, trillion is just the largest number people might be familiar with how many zeros it has, so that's what you break the number up into when you say it. Even when they know how much a trillion is, it's still difficult to visualize, so the "34 zeros" reinforces for the reader just how big the number is.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
0
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
I prefer trollish nomenclature, in which a trillion is lots^250,000,000,000.
Now see in our Vampire campaign in college when we found a massive black sarcophagus we just dumped it into the deepest part of the ocean we could get to.
Much to the chagrin of the guy running the campaign who then basically threw away an entire notebook.
Posts
Probably.
Because after a point numbers become meaningless with the human system of counting
I mean I agree but if you're a scientific researcher you can't conclude your report with "there's a lot of 'em".
Trillion is probably the highest round number that people can at least understand on a basic level (like we can kiiiind of get our head around a trillion-dollar deficit, for example), so just stacking a bunch of billions and trillions together is the easiest way to get across the idea of a literally unimaginable fuck-ton without swearing in your report.
Even our old friend the Megapenny Project kind of fails us here. You can barely grasp the difference between a billion and a trillion by using a billion pennies to construct five school-bus-sized rectangular blocks and using a trillion pennies to build a 27-story cube. Using a decillion pennies to construct a cube ten times the size of the sun and then telling the audience to imagine ten of those is useless, because the sun is already uselessly huge as far as points of comparison go.
Copernicus was a mistake.
Only in articles submitted for Brewer’s Quarterly.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
How carbon absorbs light
I'm not sure how they're planning to use this research?
I would assume the size of the carbon molecules is largely determined by the partial pressure of the carbon in the plasma, and that would change the spectra of absorbed light.
..which would be local to the star, in its observed colour already, and deduced?
I guess we can repeat the experiment a lot and get some good statistical analysis on the likely distribution of organic compounds for certain partial pressures?
Blah.
It's research; I shouldn't be questioning what they wanted to do with an answer they didn't know yet.
Well, billion trillion trillion has another problem: how is the math done? Is it billion * trillion * trillion or a billion + trillion + trillion? Just saying '34 zeroes' is perfectly fine for me in this scenario.
It's handled no differently than any other large number we say like "a hundred thousand". As mentioned, trillion is just the largest number people might be familiar with how many zeros it has, so that's what you break the number up into when you say it. Even when they know how much a trillion is, it's still difficult to visualize, so the "34 zeros" reinforces for the reader just how big the number is.
There is a real possibility that people won't know what your talking about.
Almost certainly.
See if the 'not often' 10, 20 and 30 percents are regional.
Edit: that is the weirdest autocorrect, my phone added 'not often' in front of the 20 and 30 in that sentence
At least one bone.
Maybe you'll get so many curses that they will cancel each other out.
Now see in our Vampire campaign in college when we found a massive black sarcophagus we just dumped it into the deepest part of the ocean we could get to.
Much to the chagrin of the guy running the campaign who then basically threw away an entire notebook.
It's a cooler. They'll open it, and there'll be nothing in there but some ice and a dozen or so cans of Coors.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
I bet a solid gold dildo would be pretty good
It'd be bloody heavy, especially if it was a real big one.
Hmm, is gold as antibacterial as silver is?