Some people are just more comfortable with good old familiar units like baby elephants per corgi. What do they even use for that in the metric system? Millihectares per decilitre or something? Whatever.
post
Is nobody bothered about how un-corgi-sized the meteor on the picture is?
Had to check that it's actually plausible.
Assuming a corgi is 0.4m long, 0.3m tall and 0.2m wide and that a baby elephant weighs 120kg that gives the meteor a density of 20000kg/m³.
There are only a few elements denser than that, but it's possible.
The meteor was, according to NASA, about 2 feet across and weighed 1000 pounds. So their baby elephants are on the lighter side and their corgis are fairly normal size.
I'm going to assume a sphere, 60 centimeters in diameter, and a weight of 450 kg. Volume of the sphere is 113000cm^3^, which gives us a density of 3,9g/cm^3^. That's heavier than most rocks (silicon at 2.3), but much lighter than iron (7.9).
Wouldn’t it just be iron?
Possibly, astrophysics is usually about order of magnitude and while iron is only 8000kg/m³ it's within error margins.
And of course, it depends on how chubby the corgi is.
And how malnourished the baby elephants are. I mean, there are 4 of them, that's a big litter for an elephant. Perhaps they aren't all suckling as much as is normal because the mother elephant isn't producing enough milk for 4. Maybe the mother elephant is sickly, after such a difficult birth. God, what if she even died?! The poor things will starve!
I assumed a very rectangular shape.
Corgis (adult) are pretty much one size, but are we talking newborn or year-old baby elephants? At what age does "baby" graduate to "toddler" in a species that stands and walks within an hour of birth?
20,000kg/m³ is 20g/cm³, and only a couple of elements are that dense. But it's not reasonable that a meteor is solid uranium, platinum, gold or osmium.
It's probably mostly iron. But, but that would mean only 2 baby elephants per corgi, not 4.
Mixing units of measurement here; corgis are metric dogs.
I need a banana for scale.
According to some searching a banana is 100 - 150 cubic centimeters, while this meteor was .012 cubic meters, meaning roughly the volume of 80 - 120 average bananas (mashed). The meteor weighed 400kg while an (again, perfectly average) banana weighs 100 - 130g. This means that the weight of the meteor is between 3076 - 4000 bananas. So let's call it the weight of 3500 bananas in the space of 100, or roughly 35x the density of your average earth banana. (Lemmy bananaticians or bananologists, please correct me if I did bad math.)
You know well that Americans have only a very loose grip on units and reality. That's why they use imperial and "elephants per football field" like units.
This is apparently from The Jerusalem Post.
So like America?
A headline created by an Israeli media outlet, aimed culturally at Britons, and run on various European sites? Much American.
No you see, everyone else in the world exclusively describes the world in accurate SI units, only Americans are dumbfuck enough to measure things in bullets per cheeseburger. Nobody else in the entire world will casually say "it's the size of a medium dog" because America bad.
You mean you can fit 4 baby elephants inside a corgy? Damn...
If you try hard enough you can fit anything inside a Corgi.
Americans will measure anything except use metric 😂
That clipping is from a European publisher. Lol
idk how you know that but even so, the news is from Texas which means they're probably just relaying a report from a US agency.
I know it because this was circulated around the internet like 5 years ago when it happened, but the actual article was linked instead of just an image captcha. This is old news and an old "Americans will use pretty much anything but the metric system" type response.
Americans can work as editors for European publishers 🤷🏻
So that's, what, around 7 loaves of Wonder Bread weighing the same as one and a half gorillas?
So if a baby elephant weighs 250 lbs (middle of the 200-300 lb range Google gave me) and a corgi is 11 inches tall (and that the extra corgi length is compensated for by the fact that we are assuming that this corgi is spherical), that's 1.43 lb/in^3. I've run out of time to do conversations, but this meteor was apparent at least part neutron star.
IDK, I'm metric all the way, but this is pretty helpful for illustration, and I don't think 0.2m³ and 500kg would necessarily tell me something that corgis and elephants don't.
Amerikkkans (well, Tekkkans) will do anything but use the Metric system.
People clown on these kinds of headlines as if the average metric user has an intuitive feeling of what size 0.012 cubic meters is.
That’s 12 liters, or about 3 gallons.
To be fair, if you pick your scales such that the numbers read ridiculous, nothing has an intuitive feeling. There's nothing much intuitive about a plane flying at an altitude of 16 thousand feet either, no matter how much they closetedly fetishise footstuff, in just about the same way there's nothing much intuitive about measuring the size of a star in meters.
Listen, I was raised on the banana scale so all this talk is foreign to me!
Several Texan articles I found about this meteorite used the metric system.
What the fuck is that thing made off?
Yeah, how would anything be that dense?
I thought the same, ~500kg of mass in the volume of a Corgi, about 0.015 m^3, is around 33.3g/cm^3 (4 times the density of iron, 3 times that of lead, and 1.5 times that of gold). But after going to the article they say the 'diameter' was the length of a corgi so it would be 0.113 m^3, with a density of 4.4g/cm^3. Which is what you could expect of something made of iron and rock.
Must be made of government officials
Do all Americans have a good sense of how much a baby elephant weighs? My impression is just a vague “it’s heavy, though less so than an adult elephant, which is really heavy”
Four baby elephants? How many baby elephants does it take to make one adult elephant? This leaves me with more questions than answers..
The meteor was approximately the size of 2,419 jack rabbit heads, and weighed in at just under 9,071 used condoms.
all 74 comments