nightowl22366
 
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma...
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • nightowl22366

      I’ll answer you the same way I answered other people to say this:
      Only if you don’t put them equator to equator. Many (especially Saturn) are much wider at their equators than they are measured the other way (across the poles).
      It’s discussed in the comments on this article:
      http://www.universetoday.com/115672/you-could-fit-all-the-planets-between-the-earth-and-the-moon/
      The huge variances are covered in this article:
      http://www.universetoday.com/33962/diameters-of-the-planets/
      For example, Saturn is 10,000 Km wider around the equator than it is across the poles. That means it alone would take up the 4+ Km that is “spare” and still need another 5+ Km that wouldn’t be available.
      There is also the fact that the moon is at different distances from us at apogee than it is at perigee.
      So, one must be very careful when one is doing this hypothetical jigsaw puzzle, or it doesn’t work. ;-)

    • nightowl22366

      “For this graphic, Venus and the Earth are assumed to be in coplanar concentric perfect circular orbits” (which they definitely are not) “around the sun (with Venus’ orbit having a radius of 0.724 AU), and Venus’ and Earth’s orbital periods are assumed to be in an exact 8:13 ratio” (which they are not). The resulting 5-fold symmetric curve is sometimes called a ‘pentagram’ ” (though it has little resemblance to a conventional 5-pointed star).
      So, that’s rather a stretch. All of it.

    • nightowl22366

      Are you using the amount of ALL the elements in a marshmallow in this calculation, the amount of each element in a molecule of sugar in a marshmallow’s content, the amount of oxygen in it, the amount of carbon in it, or are you just using the marshmallow itself as a unit, pretending it is a single oxygen atom, then multiplying it by Avogrado’s Constant?
      A mole of anything on the Periodic Table is different from a mole of any other element on the Periodic Table, and a marshmallow is made up of many different elements. So, if you just calculated how many marshmallows deep we’d be buried in if you dumped 6.02214179×10^23 marshmallows on the planet, you didn’t figure out how deep we’d be buried in marshmallows if “the earth were covered in 1 mole of marshmallows…” http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Atomic_Theory/The_Mole_and_Avogadro%27s_Constant

    • nightowl22366

      Not really. That is ONLY the case with stars billions of light years away from us. Not all stars, and not even all the stars you see when you go outside at night and look up to the skies, even if you’re lucky enough to be far away from the light pollution of a city, where many more stars are visible to you.
      For example, the light from the closest star to us, our own Sun, is only 8 minutes old (give or take a few seconds), while the light from the next nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2421 years old, and the light from, say, the star commonly known as the North Star, Polaris, is estimated at 430 years old - I say estimated because the precise distance of Polaris is currently slightly disputed, but the most accepted distance is generally calculated at 430 light years away.

    • nightowl22366

      I’ll answer you the same way I answered the other person to say this:
      Only if you don’t put them equator to equator. Many (especially Saturn) are much wider at their equators than they are measured the other way (across the poles).
      It’s discussed in the comments on this article:
      http://www.universetoday.com/115672/you-could-fit-all-the-planets-between-the-earth-and-the-moon/
      The huge variances are covered in this article:
      http://www.universetoday.com/33962/diameters-of-the-planets/
      For example, Saturn is 10,000 Km wider around the equator than it is across the poles. That means it alone would take up the 4+ Km that is “spare” and still need another 5+ Km that wouldn’t be available.
      There is also the fact that the moon is at different distances from us at apogee than it is at perigee.
      So, one must be very careful when one is doing this hypothetical jigsaw puzzle, or it doesn’t work. ;-)

    • nightowl22366

      Only if you don’t put them equator to equator. Many (especially Saturn) are much wider at their equators than they are measured the other way (across the poles).
      It’s discussed in the comments on this article:
      http://www.universetoday.com/115672/you-could-fit-all-the-planets-between-the-earth-and-the-moon/
      The huge variances are covered in this article:
      http://www.universetoday.com/33962/diameters-of-the-planets/
      For example, Saturn is 10,000 Km wider around the equator than it is across the poles. That means it alone would take up the 4+ Km that is “spare” and still need another 5+ Km that wouldn’t be available.
      There is also the fact that the moon is at different distances from us at apogee than it is at perigee.
      So, one must be very careful when one is doing this hypothetical jigsaw puzzle, or it doesn’t work. ;-)

    • nightowl22366

      Um, no. Fingerprints are formed by the way in which the skin itself grows and what our DNA tells them to form as, not by what we touch inside the womb. If a fetus were to be able to grow in an artificial “womb” with smooth sides, that fetus would still grow the ridges and whorls that make up our fingerprints. They also start developing around the 10th week of of fetal age, not at 5 months, and are “set” by the 4th month, so you are wrong on all counts. For more information, see:
      http://www.livescience.com/30-lasting-impression-fingerprints-created
      http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/07/fingerprints-form-can-regenerate/
      http://omim.org/entry/125590
      http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/epl/i2004-10161-2/meta;jsessionid=A0B155B719941DB00AB2393115AE8030.c1

Load More
Loading...