Difference between revisions of "Talk:2471: Hippo Attacks"
Cwallenpoole (talk | contribs) |
m (Added Come in pointing out how the “surface area” of an undulating body of water will vary quite a bit based on wave density which is based on tides and wind.) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
"But, counting every body of water on the planet, this works out as around 400 (unique) waves per square meter" - Can we get a source for this information? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.20|108.162.221.20]] 11:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC) | "But, counting every body of water on the planet, this works out as around 400 (unique) waves per square meter" - Can we get a source for this information? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.20|108.162.221.20]] 11:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
:The Wikipedia article "Earth", in the section "Surface", says that the area of the oceans is 361.13 million sq km (their source: CIA's World Factbook). If so, then 850 trillion waves would average out to 2.354 million waves per sq km, or 2.354 waves per square meter.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.172|172.70.110.172]] 12:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC) | :The Wikipedia article "Earth", in the section "Surface", says that the area of the oceans is 361.13 million sq km (their source: CIA's World Factbook). If so, then 850 trillion waves would average out to 2.354 million waves per sq km, or 2.354 waves per square meter.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.172|172.70.110.172]] 12:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::But… is “area“ referring to the actual surface area of the world’s oceans, which are three-dimensional, or the are they assuming a flat surface within the perimeter? Not only that, is this value determined based on the mean value between tides? Finally, of course, if we are looking at the true surface area, including the undulations, that would be a remarkably much larger number then that calculated by merely looking at a flat surface within a perimeter. I’ll hang up and listen for the answer.[[User:Dhugot|Dhugot]] ([[User talk:Dhugot|talk]]) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
:I inserted the '(unique)' to the edit, among other things (I thought presuming stormy waters was overkill), taking on trust the number-per had been worked out accurately ahead of time. Maybe the original author of that ''had'' accounted for how many square metres a wave might cover (and thus combine with other waves nominally belonging to other ²m units). | :I inserted the '(unique)' to the edit, among other things (I thought presuming stormy waters was overkill), taking on trust the number-per had been worked out accurately ahead of time. Maybe the original author of that ''had'' accounted for how many square metres a wave might cover (and thus combine with other waves nominally belonging to other ²m units). | ||
:Assuming the 2ish waves value is correct (for one thing, assuming it's a US Trillion, which is likely; but the alternative can't account for the factor of ~175, regardless) then do change it, but any significant wave does exist in a greater area than 1m² both in width and between pairs of troughs, so two waves or ripples assigned to one area (prob. crossing paths) will probably also be mixed up with 'other square's waves'. | :Assuming the 2ish waves value is correct (for one thing, assuming it's a US Trillion, which is likely; but the alternative can't account for the factor of ~175, regardless) then do change it, but any significant wave does exist in a greater area than 1m² both in width and between pairs of troughs, so two waves or ripples assigned to one area (prob. crossing paths) will probably also be mixed up with 'other square's waves'. | ||
Revision as of 21:19, 3 June 2021
'Hippo violation' refers to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA or the Kennedy–Kassebaum Act) - probably ;) 172.69.35.95 22:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've worked with demographic data and experienced the removal of datapoints with only a couple people in them, because the statistics would reveal the details of the people. 172.70.114.48 22:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, wouldn't this be a HIPOO violation? 172.68.142.171 22:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alternatively, it may refer to violation of Hippocratic Oath which include provision to respect patients' privacy Aufa (talk)
"But, counting every body of water on the planet, this works out as around 400 (unique) waves per square meter" - Can we get a source for this information? 108.162.221.20 11:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article "Earth", in the section "Surface", says that the area of the oceans is 361.13 million sq km (their source: CIA's World Factbook). If so, then 850 trillion waves would average out to 2.354 million waves per sq km, or 2.354 waves per square meter.--172.70.110.172 12:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- But… is “area“ referring to the actual surface area of the world’s oceans, which are three-dimensional, or the are they assuming a flat surface within the perimeter? Not only that, is this value determined based on the mean value between tides? Finally, of course, if we are looking at the true surface area, including the undulations, that would be a remarkably much larger number then that calculated by merely looking at a flat surface within a perimeter. I’ll hang up and listen for the answer.Dhugot (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I inserted the '(unique)' to the edit, among other things (I thought presuming stormy waters was overkill), taking on trust the number-per had been worked out accurately ahead of time. Maybe the original author of that had accounted for how many square metres a wave might cover (and thus combine with other waves nominally belonging to other ²m units).
- Assuming the 2ish waves value is correct (for one thing, assuming it's a US Trillion, which is likely; but the alternative can't account for the factor of ~175, regardless) then do change it, but any significant wave does exist in a greater area than 1m² both in width and between pairs of troughs, so two waves or ripples assigned to one area (prob. crossing paths) will probably also be mixed up with 'other square's waves'.
- Naturally, I presume the actual figure given is a ridiculously made-up one, but if we're justifying/highlighting this belief then these are the considerations I'd give to the matter. Even if the maths isn't perfect. 141.101.99.161 13:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
From the title-text: "Some random guess will get cited everywhere and become the universally quoted value." This might be a reference to Citogenesis? 172.68.132.147 15:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Side note: the title text talks about waves *in* the ocean, not *on* the ocean. This means that localized, sub-surface waves should also be considered as well as any waves caused by even small seismic events. Cwallenpoole (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
