XKCD Discussion thread #??? - (needs whacky subtitle)

[Kato]

So, because a certain thread has derailed far enough and because we haven't had a thread for this since some time after "Time" ended, here it is.

I won't start off continuing the original argument, but instead wonder... did Munroe in the last What If take into account the earth not being plain? I mean, not that it would matter since there isn't enough paint anyway (well, maybe if we make a really, really thin layer) but it's still kind of a poor estimate to say the earth's surface is equivalent to the part of the world not covered in water.

[Pseudo_Nym]

It was simplistic, yeah. Sufficient, but simplistic. We're just spoiled because he normally likes to go above and beyond, like the hair dryer that turned out to have settings far beyond the sane. Today he was content to say, "Nope, you can't do it, here's why not." Which satisfies the question, but not our curiosity.

Your comment about "really, really thin" paint makes me think of Gabriel's Horn, by the way, the geometric figure with finite volume but infinite surface area. The paradox being that you can fill it with a finite amount of paint, but you can never have enough paint to cover even the inside surface. Unless, of course, the paint is really, really thin.

[dark.sun.druid]

Infinitely thin, in fact! Which is really the clincher for that one, because actual paint cannot be infinitely thin (it can only be as than as whatever the largest molecule in paint is).

[Mando Knight]

It'll get you an order-of-magnitude answer. (Which is a lot of what the article is about, since it's using Fermi estimation)

The Earth is actually rather round and smooth, on a proportional level. Unless you regularly deal with super-precisely-smoothed objects, the roundest, smoothest spheroid you come into contact with on a daily basis is probably the Earth itself.

[dark.sun.druid]

It'll get you an order-of-magnitude answer. (Which is a lot of what the article is about, since it's using Fermi estimation)

The Earth is actually rather round and smooth, on a proportional level. Unless you regularly deal with super-precisely-smoothed objects, the roundest, smoothest spheroid you come into contact with on a daily basis is probably the Earth itself.

Good point. Much rounder than, say, an orange. Of course, there's always that silicon sphere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y) that they're trying to use to redefine the kilogram.

Incidentally, I did Fermi estimation in the Science Olympiad when I was in high school, and I've found that since then being able to estimate things to an order of magnitude has been a very useful skill (I'm studying engineering). That's one of the reasons I love what-if so much; it's often about the same kind of estimation, except when being really really precise matters (and knowing which situation is which).

[TiaC]

Good point. Much rounder than, say, an orange.

It's smoother than a billiard ball, but not actually rounder. It's an oblate spheroid, not a sphere.

[Kato]

Okay, okay, I'll concede my point. Thinking on planetary scales just is such a bother. (Arguing the land part of the earth is a good bit smaller than its overall surface won't do much to affect the outcome either, I guess) I still do wonder if we make some random guess for the earth uneven-ness how much surface we'd have to add...


I'm quite surprised how many golf balls were needed in the latest What If as well :smalleek: Good thing we have more efficient rocket engines.

[Feddlefew]

It's smoother than a billiard ball, but not actually rounder. It's an oblate spheroid, not a sphere.

Earth bulges at both polar caps, if I recall.

[Radar]

Obligatory xkcd link (http://xkcd.com/1318/) concerning Earth's shape. :smalltongue:

[Kato]

So... is there a point I'm missing in regard to the assembly of the... what would you call them, just squares? It seems like there's some reasoning behind it but I fail to grasp it :smallredface: