Editing Talk:2471: Hippo Attacks
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
: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 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) | ::But… is “area“ referring to the actual surface area of the world’s oceans, which are three-dimensional, or 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'. | ||
