|
Milo and POTUS posted:Weird question but if VY Canis Majoris was a planet and it had a trillion inhabitants, what would it's population density be? I'd do it myself but I am dumb as hell and all my fiddling around with scientific notation is getting me unsatisfactory answers Each person would have an area approximately ~1.3x the size of the US. wolframalpha.com is good for this sort of stuff.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Weird question but if VY Canis Majoris was a planet and it had a trillion inhabitants, what would it's population density be? I'd do it myself but I am dumb as hell and all my fiddling around with scientific notation is getting me unsatisfactory answers The radius is about 987,894,000 km, so the surface area is around 1.226*10^19 sq km, which would be about one person for every 815,398,000 sq km. The Earth is about 510,000,000 sq km. DuckHuntDog fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Mar 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Weird question but if VY Canis Majoris was a planet and it had a trillion inhabitants, what would it's population density be? I'd do it myself but I am dumb as hell and all my fiddling around with scientific notation is getting me unsatisfactory answers Wrong thread? Homework? Whatever I'll do it anyway. From wiki, Radius: 987.89 million km Surface area of sphere: A=4πr^2 A = 1.23×10^19 square km Population = 1x10^12 people Population/A = 8.1 x 10^-8 people per square km. So, the population density would be low. edit: god drat it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
The Wolfram Alpha calculation for the surface area was almost an order of magnitude smaller, which is interesting
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Wolfram Alpha tells me a sphere of rock the size of VY Canis Majoris would also have a mass 4.67 billion times the sun. I'm pretty sure it would instantly collapse into a black hole.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
VY CMa has three billion times the volume of the Sun and only seventeen times the mass. The Sun’s density is comparable to particularly dense lumber. VY CMa’s density is less than the density of Earth’s atmosphere at the boundary of space*. *By the U.S. definition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
Please draw a map of the planet’s surface, both to make it relevant for this thread and to answer questions like “is it even useful to discuss population density at the planetary level, given that people tend to live in clusters and large parts of the surface are likely to be uninhabitable”
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Ignore the physical limitations on planet size due to density and there would still be other problems like the fact that colonization from a single starting point would take millions of years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 01:40
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:Please draw a map of the planet’s surface, both to make it relevant for this thread and to answer questions like “is it even useful to discuss population density at the planetary level, given that people tend to live in clusters and large parts of the surface are likely to be uninhabitable” Welcome to the Something Awful forums, Mister Tyson.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Ignore the physical limitations on planet size due to density and there would still be other problems like the fact that colonization from a single starting point would take millions of years. So, if we turn the starting question around and ask: "How many people would live on the planet if its population density was the same as Earth's?", the answer would be about 180,810,000,000,000,000,000 or more than 180 quintillion people (180 trillion for the good long scale people of this forum). Let's say a single colony ship arrives and starts colonisation. As the "Alien vs Predator" fan wiki tells me, the USCSS Covenant from the 2017 Alien: Covenant movie carried 2,000 colonists, 1,140 embryos and 15 crew. These numbers are as good as any, so if we say that everything went smoothly, the colony can start out with 3,155 people. I also presume that 1,577 of them are women and that the average birth rate is the same as right now on Earth (2.4 children per woman). Let's also say that the average female generation length sits at 29 years, as the International Society for Genetic Genealogy confidently states on its homepage. So, generation 1: 1,007 women (1,140 of the initial colonists were embryos) Generation 2: 1,007 * 2.4 + 570 = 2,986.8, so let's round that up to 2,987. Generation 3 would then be 7,169 women ... Generation 45 would be 66,731,476,211,271,100,000 women, i.e. 133,462,952,422,542,000,000 (~133.5 quintillion) people altogether So, if everything goes perfectly, then by generation 46 we would already have overshot the mark by a significant amount. That's only 1,305 years after colonisation though, drat  Or did I gently caress up my math somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 08:39
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:So, if everything goes perfectly, then by generation 46 we would already have overshot the mark by a significant amount. That's only 1,305 years after colonisation though, drat Did you account for only half of the 2.4 children being women?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 08:51
|
|
|
Also pestilence, war and famine are likely to have something to say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 08:55
|
|
|
DuckHuntDog posted:The radius is about 987,894,000 km, so the surface area is around 1.226*10^19 sq km, which would be about one person for every 815,398,000 sq km. The Earth is about 510,000,000 sq km. The gravity would also make it that each person is spread over 815,398,000 sq km.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 10:21
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The gravity would also make it that each person is spread over 815,398,000 sq km.  It’s only like two hundred square kilometres, or three Manhattans. (Modelling the humans as seventy kilograms of water, spread in a continuous sheet one molecule thick.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 10:47
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The gravity would also make it that each person is spread over 815,398,000 sq km. The planet America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 10:50
|
|
|
This seems a good time to mention that if you distributed the population of Earth evenly across the globe, including the water, the population of Australia would triple or quadruple. Population density is very much not meaningful on a planetary scale, at least if the planet has features of basically any kind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 13:11
|
|
|
BonHair posted:This seems a good time to mention that if you distributed the population of Earth evenly across the globe, including the water, the population of Australia would triple or quadruple. Population density is very much not meaningful on a planetary scale, at least if the planet has features of basically any kind. Actually I think you'll find that "gently caress off we're full mate".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 13:25
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Actually I think you'll find that "gently caress off we're full mate". With a side of "Australia is mostly unfit for human settlement," yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 13:36
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:Did you account for only half of the 2.4 children being women? Nah, I totally forgot  can anybody else correct that? I’d do it but I gotta count votes, we’ve got elections today
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 14:26
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Nah, I totally forgot "In a surprise upset, dark horse candidate VY Canis Majoris..."
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:So, if we turn the starting question around and ask: "How many people would live on the planet if its population density was the same as Earth's?", the answer would be about 180,810,000,000,000,000,000 or more than 180 quintillion people (180 trillion for the good long scale people of this forum). I guess I didn't make my point very well. It wasn't about how fast they could reproduce, but how fast they could physically move across the surface of the planet. Using your numbers, if the colonists immediately started expanding their colony, in order to get to the antipode of their starting point in 1305 years (1.928 billion miles away) they would have to average ~2.9 million miles per year (~168 mph) across the surface of the planet. To do that, as a society, seems rather optimistic. The speed of expansion would be much closer to the 1 or 2 miles/year that prehistoric people took to populate the Americas. Even if they expanded at 1000 miles/year, they would still take almost 2 million years to cover the planet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
Now calculate it for if a star of that mass collapsed to have the density of Earth
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
what if the entire universe was a planet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Kennel posted:what if the entire universe was a planet? It is though 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Also pestilence, war and famine are likely to have something to say. No horses allowed
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:It is though By flat earth theory, Earth isn't a planet. Planets are those weird erratically moving orbs up in the sky. If earth is neither moving nor an orb, it's not a planet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
The sky isn't real. It's just the firmament separating the earth from the endless waters above it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 02:22
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:I guess I didn't make my point very well. It wasn't about how fast they could reproduce, but how fast they could physically move across the surface of the planet. Using your numbers, if the colonists immediately started expanding their colony, in order to get to the antipode of their starting point in 1305 years (1.928 billion miles away) they would have to average ~2.9 million miles per year (~168 mph) across the surface of the planet. To do that, as a society, seems rather optimistic. The speed of expansion would be much closer to the 1 or 2 miles/year that prehistoric people took to populate the Americas. Even if they expanded at 1000 miles/year, they would still take almost 2 million years to cover the planet. Ah, I see what you mean, although I doubt that a society that mastered interstellar flight would be limited to the same expansion speed as prehistoric people. But yeah, I didn't think of sheer planetary size. I also (hopefully correctly) redid my equation and it's quite different now, it would be the 207th generation to reach 180 quintillion people (or almost 6,000 years after initial colonisation)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:By flat earth theory, Earth isn't a planet. Planets are those weird erratically moving orbs up in the sky. If earth is neither moving nor an orb, it's not a planet. This amuses me because it’s the opposite of the historical evolution. People knew that the Earth was round two millennia before they could say the same of the planets*. It’s not till Galileo points a telescope at Jupiter in 1610 that anyone knows they’re not just points of light. *I would say “other planets”, but that is an anachronism. “Planets” were lights in the sky that wandered relative to the background stars, the word “planet” meaning “wanderer”. The Sun and Moon were themselves considered planets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
And Venus, where he discovered that it has phases like the moon. And the sun itself, where he discovered that there were sunspots and it wasn't a perfect sphere of light. I imagine people must have figured out there was something going on with the moon before then though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2020 10:27
|
|
|
 This is from the NYT's map of coronavirus cases. I guess Morocco gets the stuff it controls, but not all of Western Sahara?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 06:39
|
|
|
The line of control is public and static. It’s surprising that more maps don’t depict it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 06:41
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:
That's the area that Morocco effectively governs, within the Western Sahara Berm. It makes up the bulk of the population of Western Sahara. The rest is controlled by the Polisario Front.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 06:47
|
|
|
So I'm always on the lookout for when French Guiana is colored differently from France, but Greenland is a situation I'm less solid on. Should it always be colored the same as Denmark? Yes, Greenland has fewer cases than Denmark, but presumably Scotland has fewer cases than England.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 15:49
|
|
|
Golbez posted:So I'm always on the lookout for when French Guiana is colored differently from France, but Greenland is a situation I'm less solid on. Should it always be colored the same as Denmark? Yes, Greenland has fewer cases than Denmark, but presumably Scotland has fewer cases than England. Greenland is it's own country, which is in a  union with Denmark. They have some degree of independence, except their economy is completely dependent on cash from Denmark, and Denmark dictates foreign and military policy. But they are not members of the EU for instance. It is most definitely not a colony, because we stopped having colonies long ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
Then again, the Greenland flag and coat of arms are hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Then again, the Greenland flag and coat of arms are hilarious. What's wrong with a sunset and a polar bear? I'll give you that the flag looks very similar to Japan's, but compared to the average flag, it's pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 16:30
|
|
|
BonHair posted:Greenland is it's own country, which is in a Danish Puerto Rico
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
The degree to which the USA mainland is casually messing up Puerto Rico for bipartisan shits and giggles would be hilarious if it weren't for all the people suffering because of it. It's like something out of a lovely political comedy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
Grape posted:Danish Puerto Rico Greenland actually gets two (of 179 I think) seats in the Danish Parliament though. Same as the Faroe Islands. Also a more fun comparison is the Virgin Islands, which the USA bought from Denmark. Because we stopped having colonies, you see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2020 20:18
|
|