I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.

10 Quintillion.

That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.

10,000,000,000,000,000,000

I like the way hot young British girls use slang for lots of money and lots of things — "SQUILLIONS" — much more preferable and euphonious than macho-sounding "Bazillions" and goofy-sounding "Gazillions".

I'm just saying.

Le 18/02/2023 à 05:02, Boso deniro a écrit :
>
> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>
> 10 Quintillion.
>
> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>
> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> I like the way hot young British girls use slang for lots of money and lots of things — "SQUILLIONS" — much more preferable and euphonious than macho-sounding "Bazillions" and goofy-sounding "Gazillions".
>
> I'm just saying.

I'm pretty cheesed with this -illions lark. A million, fine, very
familiar, so not a problem. A British billion had twice as many noughts
in it as a million - also fine. But where's the logic in an American
/bi/llion with nine noughts or a /tri/llion with 12 of them?

And so it goes on. /Quinti/llion? Who, apart from hot British girls,
knows how many noughts that is without thinking? Better to use powers.
Just say 10^18, like the characters in a Fred Hoyle novel.

Simples!

Sat, 18 Feb 2023 06:47:15 +0000 / Hibou:

> And so it goes on. /Quinti/llion? Who, apart from hot British girls,
> knows how many noughts that is without thinking? Better to use powers.
> Just say 10^18, like the characters in a Fred Hoyle novel.

“Say” 10^18. Just as you stated, a million looks familiar to most people.
What follows can be put in relation and be compared. As the human specie
appears to lack imagination, we must compare. Compare == Think.

I doubt, though, that a power will have the same potential to explain
differences in scale like that of millions of light years against
hundreds. These cases show that the measure itself makes no sense without
the possibility to *compare*.

To a scientific, a power may be meaningful enough. On my neighbours, only
experience has any impact at all. They know some words, though.

Sat, 18 Feb 2023 07:23:02 -0000 (UTC) / Michael Uplawski:
> To a scientific, a power may be meaningful enough. On my neighbours,
> only experience has any impact at all. They know some words, though.

I do not like my choice of words, above, but thought about it for too
long. PSE have no mercy and give me some hints.

TY.

Le 18/02/2023 à 07:26, Michael Uplawski a écrit :
> Sat, 18 Feb 2023 07:23:02 -0000 (UTC) / Michael Uplawski:
>>
>> To a scientific, a power may be meaningful enough. On my neighbours,
>> only experience has any impact at all. They know some words, though.
>
> I do not like my choice of words, above, but thought about it for too
> long. PSE have no mercy and give me some hints.
>
> TY.

Well, how about: "Powers have meaning to a scientist. My neighbours can
relate only to things at the scale of their experience, though they do
know some words for the larger and the smaller"?

I'd say that ordinary people are exposed to large numbers in the news -
trillions of dollars or pounds, quintillions of insects... - so let me
develop my thesis a little.

First, if one uses the word 'quintillion', one will always have to
explain it, as Boso did. It and its kin are therefore useless words.

Powers, on the other hand, are simple and immediately convey their
magnitude. Moreover, they can be used directly in arithmetic, whereas
'trillion' etc. are symbols akin to Roman numerals, and must be converted.

Very large numbers are better suited to logarithmic than to linear
representation, and powers are logarithmic. Better 10^18 than
1,000,000,000,000,000,000

I'm not suggesting that the bill at the supermarket should be expressed
this way, but perhaps the national debt should be.

It's right that big numbers are better understood at one's own scale.
National_debt / population = my_bit - gulp!

All of which is reminiscent of the Total Perspective Vortex, a machine
in 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', which showed users their true
size in the Universe - and proved to them that the one thing one cannot
afford to have, in a Universe as big as ours, is a sense of proportion.

Boso deniro <bosodediro@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>
> 10 Quintillion.
>
> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>
> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> I like the way hot young British girls use slang for lots of money and
> lots of things — "SQUILLIONS" — much more preferable and euphonious than
> macho-sounding "Bazillions" and goofy-sounding "Gazillions".

The original source for those 'gazillions' and all that
are Donald Duck's nephews, (afaik)

They just know those kinds of things,

Jan

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 12:13:55 AM UTC-8, Hibou wrote:
> Le 18/02/2023 à 07:26, Michael Uplawski a écrit :
> > Sat, 18 Feb 2023 07:23:02 -0000 (UTC) / Michael Uplawski:
> >>
> >> To a scientific, a power may be meaningful enough. On my neighbours,
> >> only experience has any impact at all. They know some words, though.
> >
> > I do not like my choice of words, above, but thought about it for too
> > long. PSE have no mercy and give me some hints.
> >
> > TY.
> Well, how about: "Powers have meaning to a scientist. My neighbours can
> relate only to things at the scale of their experience, though they do
> know some words for the larger and the smaller"?
>
>
> I'd say that ordinary people are exposed to large numbers in the news -
> trillions of dollars or pounds, quintillions of insects... - so let me
> develop my thesis a little.
>
> First, if one uses the word 'quintillion', one will always have to
> explain it, as Boso did. It and its kin are therefore useless words.
>
> Powers, on the other hand, are simple and immediately convey their
> magnitude. Moreover, they can be used directly in arithmetic, whereas
> 'trillion' etc. are symbols akin to Roman numerals, and must be converted..
>
> Very large numbers are better suited to logarithmic than to linear
> representation, and powers are logarithmic. Better 10^18 than
> 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
>
> I'm not suggesting that the bill at the supermarket should be expressed
> this way, but perhaps the national debt should be.
>
> It's right that big numbers are better understood at one's own scale.
> National_debt / population = my_bit - gulp!
>
>
> All of which is reminiscent of the Total Perspective Vortex, a machine
> in 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', which showed users their true
> size in the Universe - and proved to them that the one thing one cannot
> afford to have, in a Universe as big as ours, is a sense of proportion.

Bed bug infestation. I got one. Never-ending. So the question of magnitude is not meaningless or trivial. Blame the banning of DDT. Bed bugs virtually disappeared before DDT was banned. I thought raising the nomenclature for something like one quintillion (or 1 x 10 to the 18th power) was a pretty big number and was going to double down and ask how much a quintillion quintillion is, and then discovered it's really a pretty small number because it's just 10 to the 18th times 10 to the 18th or 10 to the 324th, and according to Wikipedia there are actually naming rights for shit like that, which at the high end equals 10 X 10 to the 18th times 10 to the 18th (3n + 3) = 1010100)

Which is pretty meaningless to try to display here because you can't actually see the "superscripts" raised one power number to the next because the superscripts don't actually show up in print one above the other.

But when it does show up in print is still a pretty small number and it has a "name" — WAIT FOR IT!— SURPRISE! — Here it is — a Googolplex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers

Ooops, I just saw a new message from J J Lodder and I betcha he just beat me to it.

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 2:27:26 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Boso deniro <bosod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
> >
> > 10 Quintillion.
> >
> > That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
> >
> > 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
> >
> > I like the way hot young British girls use slang for lots of money and
> > lots of things — "SQUILLIONS" — much more preferable and euphonious than
> > macho-sounding "Bazillions" and goofy-sounding "Gazillions".
> The original source for those 'gazillions' and all that
> are Donald Duck's nephews, (afaik)
>
> They just know those kinds of things,
>
> Jan

It's sort of like taking a damp rag to a hard synthetic surface and counting the detritus you can pick up. It's a big huge number but it is finite and comes to an end. But if the surface you take the rag to is soil itself, then the rag will be so overcome with detritus that the counting process itself becomes meaningless.

On 18/02/2023 06:02, Boso deniro wrote:
> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>
> 10 Quintillion.
>
> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>
> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>

Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless. It's like saying:
"the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how large
Wales is.

On 2023-02-18 12:28:40 +0000, occam said:

> On 18/02/2023 06:02, Boso deniro wrote:
>> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>>
>> 10 Quintillion.
>>
>> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>>
>> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>
>
> Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
> mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
> number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
> universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless. It's like saying:
> "the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how large
> Wales is.

Yes, but it can still be illuminating (and surprising), to say, for
example, that the Universe is much smaller on the scale of the Earth
than the Earth is on the scale of a bacterial cell (talking about mass,
of course; volume is another matter).

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Sat, 18 Feb 2023 13:28:40 +0100 / occam:

> Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
> mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
> number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
> universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless. It's like saying:
> "the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how large
> Wales is.

I get your point, but when I suggested, above, that comparison is
necessary to make those big numbers useful, I meant comparison of things
known, or between things that you know already to those that you are about
to contemplate for the first time or similar.

The better astronomical comparisons allow you to grasp the magnitudes,
rather than the exact numbers, by comparisons with what is considered (was
considered) general knowledge. I know that we live in strange times and we
risk again to burn on the stake for knowing stuff.

Cheerio.
Michael

Sat, 18 Feb 2023 13:36:32 +0100 / Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> Yes, but it can still be illuminating (and surprising), to say, for
> example, that the Universe is much smaller on the scale of the Earth
> than the Earth is on the scale of a bacterial cell (talking about mass,
> of course; volume is another matter).

YES! Thank you. ;)

On 2023-02-18 12:36:32 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:

> On 2023-02-18 12:28:40 +0000, occam said:
>
>> On 18/02/2023 06:02, Boso deniro wrote:
>>> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>>>
>>> 10 Quintillion.
>>>
>>> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>>>
>>> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>>
>>
>> Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
>> mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
>> number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
>> universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless. It's like saying:
>> "the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how large
>> Wales is.
>
> Yes, but it can still be illuminating (and surprising), to say, for
> example, that the Universe is much smaller on the scale of the Earth
> than the Earth is on the scale of a bacterial cell (talking about mass,
> of course; volume is another matter).

To be precise:

Universe: 3 x 10^52 kg
Earth: 6 x 10^24 kg (10 times Avogadro constant of kg*)
E. coli: 2 x 10^-15 kg

*A useful mnemonic for people who know how big the Avogadro constant
(known, when I were a lad, as Avogadro's number) is.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 12:39:37 -0000 (UTC)
Michael Uplawski <michael.uplawski@uplawski.eu> wrote:

> Sat, 18 Feb 2023 13:28:40 +0100 / occam:
>
> > Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
> > mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
> > number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
> > universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless. It's like saying:
> > "the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how large
> > Wales is.
>
Off by lots error! 366 is nearer the true mark!

Australia is about 90 times the size of Austria ; it (Australia!) is ~10%
smaller than Brazil.

There's actually a charity at
https://sizeofwales.org.uk/
(counteracting deforestation)

> I get your point, but when I suggested, above, that comparison is
> necessary to make those big numbers useful, I meant comparison of things
> known, or between things that you know already to those that you are about
> to contemplate for the first time or similar.
>
> The better astronomical comparisons allow you to grasp the magnitudes,
> rather than the exact numbers, by comparisons with what is considered (was
> considered) general knowledge. I know that we live in strange times and we
> risk again to burn on the stake for knowing stuff.
>

True.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 18/02/2023 06:47, Hibou wrote:
> Le 18/02/2023 à 05:02, Boso deniro a écrit :
>>
>> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>>
>> 10 Quintillion.
>>
>> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>>
>> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>
>> I like the way hot young British girls use slang for lots of money and
>> lots of things — "SQUILLIONS" — much more preferable and euphonious
>> than macho-sounding "Bazillions" and goofy-sounding "Gazillions".
>>
>> I'm just saying.
>
> I'm pretty cheesed with this -illions lark. A million, fine, very
> familiar, so not a problem. A British billion had twice as many noughts
> in it as a million - also fine. But where's the logic in an American
> /bi/llion with nine noughts or a /tri/llion with 12 of them?
>
> And so it goes on. /Quinti/llion? Who, apart from hot British girls,
> knows how many noughts that is without thinking? Better to use powers.
> Just say 10^18, like the characters in a Fred Hoyle novel.
>
> Simples!
>

Sheer coincidence, I've just become aware of the yottalillion, which is,
it seems, 10^3000000000000000000000003. The only context in which it's
been used, AFAICS, is for Zimbabwean banknotes:

<https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284588993375>

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:47:19 AM UTC-5, Hibou wrote:
> Le 18/02/2023 à 05:02, Boso deniro a écrit :
> >
> > I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
> >
> > 10 Quintillion.
> >
> > That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
> >
> > 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
> >
> > I like the way hot young British girls use slang for lots of money and lots of things — "SQUILLIONS" — much more preferable and euphonious than macho-sounding "Bazillions" and goofy-sounding "Gazillions".
> >
> > I'm just saying.
> I'm pretty cheesed with this -illions lark. A million, fine, very
> familiar, so not a problem. A British billion had twice as many noughts
> in it as a million - also fine. But where's the logic in an American
> /bi/llion with nine noughts or a /tri/llion with 12 of them?

It's far simpler to know that each comma'ed group of three zeros
(or other digits, if you're being difficult) causes the -illion to go up
by one count.
1,000,000 million
1,000,000,000 billion
1,000,000,000,000 trillion
1,000,000,000,000,000 quadrillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 quintillion ...
and so on as far as you know your Latin numbers.

On 18/02/23 23:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-02-18 12:36:32 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>
>> On 2023-02-18 12:28:40 +0000, occam said:
>>
>>> On 18/02/2023 06:02, Boso deniro wrote:
>>>> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>>>>
>>>> 10 Quintillion.
>>>>
>>>> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>>>>
>>>> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
>>> mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
>>> number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
>>> universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless. It's like saying:
>>> "the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how large
>>> Wales is.
>>
>> Yes, but it can still be illuminating (and surprising), to say, for
>> example, that the Universe is much smaller on the scale of the Earth
>> than the Earth is on the scale of a bacterial cell (talking about
>> mass, of course; volume is another matter).
>
> To be precise:
>
> Universe: 3 x 10^52 kg
> Earth: 6 x 10^24 kg (10 times Avogadro constant of kg*)
> E. coli: 2 x 10^-15 kg
>
> *A useful mnemonic for people who know how big the Avogadro constant
> (known, when I were a lad, as Avogadro's number) is.

Thank you. The universe is smaller than I thought.

Do we have an estimate of the amount of hydrogen in the universe, and
the amount of stupidity?

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> wrote:

> On 18/02/2023 06:47, Hibou wrote:
> > Le 18/02/2023 à 05:02, Boso deniro a écrit :
> >>
> >> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
> >>
> >> 10 Quintillion.
> >>
> >> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
> >>
> >> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
> >>
> >> I like the way hot young British girls use slang for lots of money and
> >> lots of things — "SQUILLIONS" — much more preferable and euphonious
> >> than macho-sounding "Bazillions" and goofy-sounding "Gazillions".
> >>
> >> I'm just saying.
> >
> > I'm pretty cheesed with this -illions lark. A million, fine, very
> > familiar, so not a problem. A British billion had twice as many noughts
> > in it as a million - also fine. But where's the logic in an American
> > /bi/llion with nine noughts or a /tri/llion with 12 of them?
> >
> > And so it goes on. /Quinti/llion? Who, apart from hot British girls,
> > knows how many noughts that is without thinking? Better to use powers.
> > Just say 10^18, like the characters in a Fred Hoyle novel.
> >
> > Simples!
> >
>
> Sheer coincidence, I've just become aware of the yottalillion, which is,
> it seems, 10^3000000000000000000000003. The only context in which it's
> been used, AFAICS, is for Zimbabwean banknotes:
>
> <https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284588993375>

Quite wrong. The yotta... ect. things belong with units,
and only units. (Oh well, it was Zimbabwe)
For numbers 10^30 is nonillion,

Jan

On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 08:53:24 +1100, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 18/02/23 23:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-02-18 12:36:32 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>>
>>> On 2023-02-18 12:28:40 +0000, occam said:
>>>
>>>> On 18/02/2023 06:02, Boso deniro wrote:
>>>>> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>>>>>
>>>>> 10 Quintillion.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>>>>>
>>>>> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
>>>> mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
>>>> number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
>>>> universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless. It's like saying:
>>>> "the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how large
>>>> Wales is.
>>>
>>> Yes, but it can still be illuminating (and surprising), to say, for
>>> example, that the Universe is much smaller on the scale of the Earth
>>> than the Earth is on the scale of a bacterial cell (talking about
>>> mass, of course; volume is another matter).
>>
>> To be precise:
>>
>> Universe: 3 x 10^52 kg
>> Earth: 6 x 10^24 kg (10 times Avogadro constant of kg*)
>> E. coli: 2 x 10^-15 kg
>>
>> *A useful mnemonic for people who know how big the Avogadro constant
>> (known, when I were a lad, as Avogadro's number) is.
>
>Thank you. The universe is smaller than I thought.
>
>Do we have an estimate of the amount of hydrogen in the universe, and
>the amount of stupidity?

There have been some news stories on the subject of the amount of
hydrogen:

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel

While this article is about hydrogen discovered by diggers, one not
dig deeply to find vast amounts of stupidity. A shovel might be
handy, though.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 11:47:19 PM UTC-7, Hibou wrote:
> Le 18/02/2023 à 05:02, Boso deniro a écrit :
> >
> > I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
> >
> > 10 Quintillion.
> >
> > That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
> >
> > 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
> >
> > I like the way hot young British girls use slang for lots of money and lots of things — "SQUILLIONS" — much more preferable and euphonious than macho-sounding "Bazillions" and goofy-sounding "Gazillions".
> >
> > I'm just saying.

> I'm pretty cheesed with this -illions lark. A million, fine, very
> familiar, so not a problem. A British billion had twice as many noughts
> in it as a million - also fine. But where's the logic in an American
> /bi/llion with nine noughts or a /tri/llion with 12 of them?

Multiply 1,000 by 1,000 once, multiply it by 1,000 twice, multiply it by 1,000
three times...

(Not that the "m" in "million" has anything to do with "mono-".)

I assume nobody refers to 10^15 as a billiard?

> And so it goes on. /Quinti/llion? Who, apart from hot British girls,
> knows how many noughts that is without thinking?

The same number of people in both systems.

> Better to use powers.
> Just say 10^18, like the characters in a Fred Hoyle novel.

There's a lot to be said for that.
> Simples!

Next: the metric prefixes.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 18/02/2023 22:53, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 18/02/23 23:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-02-18 12:36:32 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>>
>>> On 2023-02-18 12:28:40 +0000, occam said:
>>>
>>>> On 18/02/2023 06:02, Boso deniro wrote:
>>>>> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>>>>>
>>>>> 10 Quintillion.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>>>>>
>>>>> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
>>>> mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
>>>> number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
>>>> universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless.  It's like
>>>> saying:
>>>> "the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how
>>>> large
>>>> Wales is.
>>>
>>> Yes, but it can still be illuminating (and surprising), to say, for
>>> example, that the Universe is much smaller on the scale of the Earth
>>> than the Earth is on the scale of a bacterial cell (talking about
>>> mass, of course; volume is another matter).
>>
>> To be precise:
>>
>> Universe: 3 x 10^52 kg
>> Earth:    6 x 10^24 kg (10 times Avogadro constant of kg*)
>> E. coli:  2 x 10^-15 kg
>>
>> *A useful mnemonic for people who know how big the Avogadro constant
>> (known, when I were a lad, as Avogadro's number) is.
>
> Thank you. The universe is smaller than I thought.
>
> Do we have an estimate of the amount of hydrogen in the universe, and
> the amount of stupidity?
>

If you and I can agree on a unit of stupidity, I'll give it a go.

I suspect stupidity is a bit like entropy. In a closed system, the
overall level of stupidity is always increasing.

On 18-Feb-23 23:45, occam wrote:
> On 18/02/2023 22:53, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 18/02/23 23:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-18 12:36:32 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-02-18 12:28:40 +0000, occam said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 18/02/2023 06:02, Boso deniro wrote:
>>>>>> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10 Quintillion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
>>>>> mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
>>>>> number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
>>>>> universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless.  It's like
>>>>> saying:
>>>>> "the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how
>>>>> large
>>>>> Wales is.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but it can still be illuminating (and surprising), to say, for
>>>> example, that the Universe is much smaller on the scale of the Earth
>>>> than the Earth is on the scale of a bacterial cell (talking about
>>>> mass, of course; volume is another matter).
>>>
>>> To be precise:
>>>
>>> Universe: 3 x 10^52 kg
>>> Earth:    6 x 10^24 kg (10 times Avogadro constant of kg*)
>>> E. coli:  2 x 10^-15 kg
>>>
>>> *A useful mnemonic for people who know how big the Avogadro constant
>>> (known, when I were a lad, as Avogadro's number) is.
>>
>> Thank you. The universe is smaller than I thought.
>>
>> Do we have an estimate of the amount of hydrogen in the universe, and
>> the amount of stupidity?
>>
>
> If you and I can agree on a unit of stupidity, I'll give it a go.
>
> I suspect stupidity is a bit like entropy. In a closed system, the
> overall level of stupidity is always increasing.

If there is now less Darwinian winnowing of the stupid end of the bell
curve, you are probably correct.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 4:28:45 AM UTC-8, occam wrote:
> On 18/02/2023 06:02, Boso deniro wrote:
> > I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
> >
> > 10 Quintillion.
> >
> > That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
> >
> > 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
> >
> Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
> mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
> number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
> universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless. It's like saying:
> "the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how large
> Wales is.

For a while, decades ago, I liked to measure fluid volumes in terms of the amount
of water in a standard Olympic-sized swimming pool. Nowadays I don't much care.

bill

On 2023-02-18 21:53:24 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 18/02/23 23:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-02-18 12:36:32 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>>
>>> On 2023-02-18 12:28:40 +0000, occam said:
>>>
>>>> On 18/02/2023 06:02, Boso deniro wrote:
>>>>> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>>>>>
>>>>> 10 Quintillion.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>>>>>
>>>>> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
>>>> mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
>>>> number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
>>>> universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless. It's like saying:
>>>> "the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how large
>>>> Wales is.
>>>
>>> Yes, but it can still be illuminating (and surprising), to say, for
>>> example, that the Universe is much smaller on the scale of the Earth
>>> than the Earth is on the scale of a bacterial cell (talking about
>>> mass, of course; volume is another matter).
>>
>> To be precise:
>>
>> Universe: 3 x 10^52 kg
>> Earth: 6 x 10^24 kg (10 times Avogadro constant of kg*)
>> E. coli: 2 x 10^-15 kg
>>
>> *A useful mnemonic for people who know how big the Avogadro constant
>> (known, when I were a lad, as Avogadro's number) is.
>
> Thank you. The universe is smaller than I thought.
>
> Do we have an estimate of the amount of hydrogen in the universe, and
> the amount of stupidity?

From what I recall, most of the 10^79 atoms are H atoms.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On 19/02/2023 07:29, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 4:28:45 AM UTC-8, occam wrote:
>> On 18/02/2023 06:02, Boso deniro wrote:
>>> I just asked Google for how many insects on the planet.
>>>
>>> 10 Quintillion.
>>>
>>> That's 10 followed by 18 zeros.
>>>
>>> 10,000,000,000,000,000,000
>>>
>> Even so, I doubt most people - except astronomers perhaps - have a good
>> mental grasp of the extent of the number. Giving comparisons like "The
>> number of synapses in the brain" or "the number of atoms in the
>> universe" are some comfort, but nevertheless useless. It's like saying:
>> "the size of Australia is 7x that Wales" when you have no idea how large
>> Wales is.
>
> For a while, decades ago, I liked to measure fluid volumes in terms of the amount
> of water in a standard Olympic-sized swimming pool. Nowadays I don't much care.
>

That is, at least, a graspable concept. As is measuring areas (or
lengths) in terms of football pitches. I do think however that it is a
big ask of the brain to comprehend something in terms of the number of
synapses that make up its own structure.