I'm not convinced that weighs 500 tons, that's the same as at least 65 of the largest African elephants or 2.5 of the largest blue whales
After some googling, some of the heavier rock types are 3g/cm^3, which is 3000kg/m^3
If we use the person as a rough ruler of 1.6m, the rock is about 5 person wide, and 3 person high (eye measure), give or take. And if we say it's 3 person deep, then it has a rough mass of 5*3*3*1.6*3000 = 216 000 kg, which is in the same order of magnitude.
Close enough to check out, I'd say.
Edit: I realized since the actual ruler we use is 1.6m (assumed), it should be multiplied by 1.6 three times (one for each dimension/length), not just once. If we do that, we end up with 921 600 kg instead, putting 500 000 kg well within the range of possibilities from a quick calculation.
Edit 2: as pointed out below, the actual correct estimation would be 553 tons
Your edit is correct except I get 553 tons! I'm still shocked it'd easily tip the scales vs 2 large blue whales
Edit: ahh you accidentally did 5x5x3 instead of 5x3x3
I'm still shocked it'd easily tip the scales vs 2 large blue whales
Rocks are dense and blubber not so much, I suppose
Oh, whoops, I did make a mistake! Thanks for the correction
You got me confused.
5*3*3*1.6*3000
is the same as
[(5*1.6) + (3*1.6) + (3*1.6)]*3000
5*3*3*1.6 is not the same as (5*1.6)*(3*1.6)*(3*1.6), however
The reason we multiply with 1.6 on every dimension is because the ruler we use is 1.6m long. We effectively create a new unit, and have to convert. If a length is 5 person wide, then in reality it's 5*1.6 = 8 meters long, where 1.6 is the conversion ratio from the unit of 'person' to the unit of 'meter'. And this applies for every individual measurement.
Also, 5*3*3*1.6 is not the same as (5*1.6)+(3*1.6)+(3*1.6) in the first place
Yes, i must have been sleeping while looking at the numbers :)
I'm not convinced that weighs 500 tons, that's the same as at least 65 of the largest African elephants or 2.5 of the largest blue whales
After some googling, some of the heavier rock types are 3g/cm^3, which is 3000kg/m^3
If we use the person as a rough ruler of 1.6m, the rock is about 5 person wide, and 3 person high (eye measure), give or take. And if we say it's 3 person deep, then it has a rough mass of 5*3*3*1.6*3000 = 216 000 kg, which is in the same order of magnitude.
Close enough to check out, I'd say.
Edit: I realized since the actual ruler we use is 1.6m (assumed), it should be multiplied by 1.6 three times (one for each dimension/length), not just once. If we do that, we end up with 921 600 kg instead, putting 500 000 kg well within the range of possibilities from a quick calculation.
Edit 2: as pointed out below, the actual correct estimation would be 553 tons
Your edit is correct except I get 553 tons! I'm still shocked it'd easily tip the scales vs 2 large blue whales
Edit: ahh you accidentally did 5x5x3 instead of 5x3x3
Rocks are dense and blubber not so much, I suppose
Oh, whoops, I did make a mistake! Thanks for the correction
You got me confused.
is the same as
[(5*1.6) + (3*1.6) + (3*1.6)]*3000
5*3*3*1.6 is not the same as (5*1.6)*(3*1.6)*(3*1.6), however
The reason we multiply with 1.6 on every dimension is because the ruler we use is 1.6m long. We effectively create a new unit, and have to convert. If a length is 5 person wide, then in reality it's 5*1.6 = 8 meters long, where 1.6 is the conversion ratio from the unit of 'person' to the unit of 'meter'. And this applies for every individual measurement.
Also, 5*3*3*1.6 is not the same as (5*1.6)+(3*1.6)+(3*1.6) in the first place
Yes, i must have been sleeping while looking at the numbers :)
Useless. We all want something standard. Like how many pygmy marmosets that is.
Morning, yes, I'll have 65 of your largest African elephants please.