On Molecular Numbers

[lhynard]

I tried posting two text posts over the weekend, but neither came through then. I've fixed the problem, but they probably won't show up on your Friends Pages.

Also, I neglected to announce my 1000th post....I was at a retreat this weekend. More on that later, but as I am behind, I'll post some short entries inspired by an astronomy talk given

Comments

[ubersecret]

ah, but how many inches is the universe across?

[ubersecret]

I'll let Google answer the question for me:

17 000 000 000 light years = 6.33184972 × 10^27 inches

[ubersecret]

or:

17 000 000 000 light years = 1.60828983 × 10^36 angstroms

now that's an astronomical number!

[lhynard]

But that's still nothing compared to the number of micromoles in a gallon! So ha!

This is why I switched to comparing amounts to amounts rather than distances to amounts. The latter is not a fair comparison.

[dogs_n_rodents]

I always assumed there was a reason why Astronomers didn't quite have the perspective Chemists always did. ;) This explains it. But for now, I'll finish my 1.97 x 1025 molecules worth of water before I leave the lab. :D

[shadewright]

Yeah, to make this fair, you need to measure the universe in the diameter of the average solar system or something.

[lhynard]

They do have AUs -- astronomical units -- which I believe is the distance from the earth to the sun.

[shadewright]

AH-HA!

See? You admit that you even *knew* about a more fair system of measurement, and declined to use it! You reveal your bias, sir. For shame, my dear man, for shame.

;)

[lhynard]

Yes, yes, but in my post above, I said, "To be fair...," and then proceeded to compare amounts of things with amounts of things, because comparing distances to number of things is not fair.