this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
1384 points (98.9% liked)

Memes

45132 readers
1400 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] spez@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

yeah, only 66 million years!

[–] don@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Calling an asteroid a stone, while technically true, is akin to calling the planet it struck a rock-covered ball bearing.

[–] FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A "rock-covered ball bearing" is much more accurate than what a lot if people call it. Better than a pebble in space

[–] don@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

That I’ve met as many people as I have who assume it’s solid rock and that we can drill completely through it is… disconcerting.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I mean, the planet is likely smoother than a lot of ball bearings

The highest point and the lowest point aren't very far deviated. Less than 6 miles up and less than 6 miles down. Basically a little less than 0.001% deviation.

Edit: After doing a bit of digging it looks like Earth would be comparable to a 1 inch grade 1000 ball bearing. Grade 1000 are not remotely close to the highest grade, in fact it's one of the lowest grades of ball bearings.

mobile link, sorry

God damn ball bearings get down to some crazy tolerances at the really high grades.

I'm happy I dig some digging into it.

[–] bufordt@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

New ball bearings are still likely significantly smoother than the earth. Old worn out ball bearings might be rougher.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

After doing a bit of digging it looks like Earth would be comparable to a 1 inch grade 1000 ball bearing.

mobile link, sorry

God damn ball bearings get down to some crazy high tolerances.

I'm happy I dig some digging into it.

Edit: Grade 1000 is a really low grade ball bearing, thought I should clarify that.

[–] autokludge@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

It's only natural that it would be rougher than most grades of ball bearings -- as we already established its covered in rocks!

[–] don@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So you’re saying the earth is a very smooth ball bearing. This despite being classified as an oblate spheroid.

[–] Deuces@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm guessing smoothness doesn't consider the non-spherical shape of the planet, just the bumpiness of it. But I'm also some random on the Internet, so who knows

[–] don@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think I’m missing what the smoothness of the planet has to do with it being basically an iron-nickel ball covered by a bit of rock, but being a meat popsicle, I tend to miss a lot of things.

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I missed all of this, but you all seem swell!

[–] don@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

You as well, friend!

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The difference in diameter between the pole and the equator is only about 26 miles.

7926 miles vs 7900 miles

So a difference of about 0.03%

Yeah I'd say that's pretty spherical

Edit: Rereading this it comes of a bit rougher than I intended. Basically what I'm saying is something can be spherical without being a perfect sphere, infact if to be a sphere (in common usage of the word) only applied to perfect examples of a sphere than nothing would be a sphere. Definitions are pretty wishy-washy a lot of the times, especially when it comes to describing the world as it is.

Earth is an oblique spheroid, technically. But calling it a sphere is true enough to observers that I'd say it still counts.

[–] ElPussyKangaroo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The metallic core is a testament to your description.

[–] k110111@feddit.de 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It depends.... If we consider earth, which is a rock, in this calculation. Earth would be the biggest killer

[–] Valthorn@feddit.nu 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But is it Earth itself that kills the birds? Seeing as it is the rock quality of the Earth we're after, how many birds die from being struck by it? Does flying into the ground count as being struck by the Earth, if it is the bird that launches itself against it?

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you restrict it only to being struck by a rock then actually, while still probably the title holder, the meteor actually probably has a much lower body count than one might first assume. In fact I wonder if there'd be any way to calculate the average number of birds/avian creatures in the space occupied by the meteor at the time who could have been directly hit by the meteor not just killed off from second order effects.

[–] Shadow298@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

"Sir, how high are you?" "Yes."

[–] WingedObsidian@feddit.ch 2 points 1 year ago

This belongs in shower thoughts