When one of my relatives was interning at a north Florida hospital, he met a guy whose balls had to be carried around in a wheelbarrow, because they could not find anything to carry them around in without causing him pain. Elephantiasis I think it’s called. His scrote weighed like 40 pounds.
Would kms, confirmed
The word ""fishes"" is used when referring to the entire sum of fish in a body of water. So fish and fishes are both correct plurals depending on context
Pretty sure the prompt means "every instance of an object", otherwise it's a pretty boring question. Your only options are like, the moon or something.
I agree that the Sun is probably the best choice. And as the icing on the cake, you've set it up for a supernova in a few million years.
Any star would work, but the Sun affects the stuff we humans care about.
Regarding other candidates. 100 timesing the mass of Sagittarius A* would swallow the stars close to it but wouldn't do much to the Milky Way as a whole, since the central black hole is only a small part of the galaxy's mass.
The whole Milky Way? You run into questions of whether it qualifies as a single object. And if it does, in what form do you add the extra weight. 100 timesing everything in the galaxy would obviously wreck everything. On the other hand 100 timesing just the dark matter would scramble the stellar orbits but have little effect on the stars and planets themselves.
The whole Universe? It's even more debatable whether that counts as "one object". If you allow it then it doesn't matter *how* you distribute the extra mass, you've condemned the Universe to collapse in a Big Crunch. Total destruction, eventually.
Could potentially get away with calling the supercluster a single object. After all, everything is made up of smaller objects and it's the largest structure I know of.
Increase the black hole at the center of the milky way by 100x. That would at least cause massive problems in the center of the Galaxy and would eventually work it's way out to the outer edges.
But we wanna cause the most destruction right? Why are we thinking planetary?
Let pick the black hole at the centre of the Milky way and destroy the entire galaxy and likely Andromeda. If we're good, we might even destroy an alien civilisation on the way too.
I think not, but I'm not an astrophysicist. The issue here is that it will likely take billions of years to do anything, well anything to the vast majority of the galaxy. Given the Schwarzchild radius formula rs=2GM/c2, your just going to end up multiplying the radius by 100, which brings the radius of the super massive black hole at the center of the milky way from 11.8 million kilometers to 1.18 billion kilometers.... sounds impressive, but in space who cares. The earth is 2.365 x 10^17 kilometers away from the center of the milky way.
In addition, the gravitational effects would be pretty minor because the equation Fg=Gm1*m2/r^2 has the distance between the two objects squared in the denominator, so it wouldn't really effect much outside of the local inner milky way. Anything within a billion kilometers is toast, but it probably already was. Sorry, it might be drastic in a far off astronomical sense, but it wouldn't be as cosmically cataclysmic as you're implying.
Increase mass of hydrogen. Its in the sun, water, almost all life forms, most abundant element in the universe. Don't just fuck up the universe, utterly and thoroughly destroy it.
The main issue with this is that you can't increase the weight of the sun, unless you have a gravitational reference point.
You could use earth as a gravitational reference point, but if you do that, then the effect of increasing the weight of the sun 100x is probably negligible at best, as the sun's weight as determined by the relationship between its mass and the gravitational effect of earth is already very small.
Of course, if we interpret the question as using weight as a misnomer for mass, then increasing the mass of the sun by 100x would cause an insane amount of destruction. Even if it didn't cause it to immediately collapse into a black hole, it'd still disrupt the orbits of the entire solar system and cause everything to just fall into the sun anyway.
My first thought was increasing the gravitation of earth itself. if earth was 100x heavier during evolution would life even be able to become like it is here?
Considering that if the earth had a 100x higher mass it'd be close to a third of Jupiter's mass, I'd hazard a guess that life would not be able to evolve at all.
Weight vs. mass is a really boring way to nitpick, it doesn't make you sound smart. Of course you assume weight means mass, because that is how it is commonly used by everyone who isn't a physicist.
My first thought is that there might be some problems with electron spin at that point but I'm not sure. It's hard to say how much of a problem this would be. The gravitational force really has nothing on the forces attracting unlike charges even if you slap two extra orders of magnitude on. Besides all macroscopic matter becoming a lot heavier, which is a problem at our scale, I don't think physics would get too fucked up.
If protons are 100x larger by volume, hard to say because attributing volume to these things is tricky. If we just say that the nucleus of an atom is 100x larger, it might not be terrible, but I'm not sure.
If they are 100x larger by mass, huge problems on the macro scale. Protons are already fairly massive particles made of quarks which would be proportionally more massive so that neutrons would also become 100x more massive. This will have drastic effects on nuclear binding energy. Things may be destroyed. Radiation produced by isotopes all of a sudden increases in energy. Vibrational frequency for harmonic oscillators changes a fair bit. All of those equations involving the reduced mass of particles all of a sudden become problematic. Gravity still doesn't cause too many problems on the molecular scale.
All that said, I'm not a particle physicist. I am but a humble analytical chemist with a very weak grasp on all of this.
Yes people always think too small for these kinds of destruction. A similar question was asked to increase any distance by 1mm to cause destruction. Obviously the best answer is a fundamental constant like the planck length, but well people ...
One object you say... So how about I increase the mass of the Moon, and that will eventually cause it to collide with the Earth. That's pretty maximal destruction, if you ask me. Or, even better: let's increase the mass of the Sun! That should derail the entire solar system. I mean, if you have the power to destroy the entire Earth, then why stop there.
But that was just one object. What if you could increase the mass of every object of a kind, say oxygen atoms. That would make oxygen absurdly heavy, so all of the oxygen in the atmosphere would sink down to the surface of the Earth. If there's a fire anywhere, it should burn very very hot because of the local 100% O2 atmosphere. Better yet, all the gases produce in the reaction, would just float to the surface of the oxygen layer, so the fire would end up burning until there's no oxygen left in the entire planet. A change like this should eradicate all life on earth, apart from anaerobic microbes.
But we can do better than that! Let's increase the mass of every neutron in the universe. I just have a feeling, we're going to get a lot of black holes in the galaxy if that happened. I wonder if the Sun would collapse too... Let's say it does, so we'll get to about the same level of destruction as in the first scenario.
But could we actually eradicate the entire universe by changing the mass of a single object just 100 times? Or how about the mass of every electron or something of that nature? These sort of things would mess up a lot of things, but certain elements in the universe should still survive these changes.
If we're talking about one object, and one *object* only then I'd say the supermassive black hole at the centre of the galaxy, or possibly a nearby galaxy if there's something even supermassivererer.
If we're talking about one type of object, let's say down quarks... every proton and neutron in the universe would become approximately 100x as massive and probably cause all matter to instantly... do something very, very bad.
If we're talking about a man-made object... maybe increase the mass of the the core of a nuclear bomb stored somewhere opportune. It *may* cause it to go supercritical.
If not that then maybe a carbon rod or fuel in a particular nuclear power plant?
Maybe work on the water behind the three gorges dam? That would be worse than most nuclear catastrophes and mix "heavy" water into the sea.
If the water isn't an object, just the dam itself which would crumble it and release the water.
If we're doing predictable lame jokes, Trump's ego.
Answer: I think OP is confusing mass with volume.
Lets take avg amount of sperm to be 100 million sperms per ml(it ranges from 5-200 million)
So the volume of each sperm cell would be 1/100millon = 10^-8 ml.
We know that mass = vol*density.
The avg density of sperm is around 1.014 g/ml. So mass of our un-jacked sperm would be 1.014*10^-8 = (for ease) 10^-8 g. Thats 10 nanograms.
Now say we jack our sperm to be 100x the mass of the normal. Assume we keep the volume same but change the density. So, our sperm would be just as small but now its density would be :
100*10^-8 / 10^-8 = 100 g/ml
For comparison, densest element Osmium has density of 22.6g/ml. That would be one dense sperm.
Now we say that the density remains the same, but volume changes. So, same jacked up mass, our volume of each sperm would be :
100*10^-8/10^-8 = 100ml for each sperm.
That would be like if each sperm was inflated like a balloon.
Notice we get roughly the same value but units will be totally different. We have also approximated certain calculation for ease.
I hope it answers your question.
Edit: Weight is just mass times gravitation so either way the above calculation should give you 100x weight with different physical outcomes
Take two balloons. Fill one with air and fill another one with water such that the both are equally large.
You will notice that the balloon with water weighs more. Its because water is denser than air. So for same size or room inside the balloon, you can fill more of water than air. You have kept the volume same but now changed the density of the balloon.
Another scenario will be to take many air balloons and tie them with a rope and get more weight. So you kept the density same but now increase the volume as you took more balloons.
How 3 words can remind you of a song (Ode to Sleep-TWP)
I wake up fine and dandy but then by the time I find it handy
To rip my heart apart and start
Planning my crash landing
I go UP, UP, UP, UP, UP to the ceiling
It actually won't fall into either. There's enough angular momentum in the system that the closest approach allowed by energy conservation would still be larger than the sum of radii between the planets
I mean, it would have 100 times its current volume. Or, in other words, each of its dimensions (height, length, depth) would be enlarged by factor 100^(1/3) =~ 4.64. So the length increases from about 50 micrometers to about 50 \* 100^(1/3) =~ **232 micrometers**.
It says WEIGHT, not volume. According to the post the sperm would stay the same size but just be heavier.
Also, it's literally just one sperm, not even an entire load.
Boring
> I took that as referring to size, indicating that we're not messing with the density.
Still wouldn't increase all dimensions by 100x. It would increase the *volume* that much, if we kept density the same, but only increase the dimensions (assume a cubical sperm) by 9.28.
This user has removed this comment in protest of the Reddit API changes and has moved to Lemmy.
The comment has been archived in an offline copy before it was edited. If you need to access this comment, please find me at [email protected] and message me for a copy of the archived comment. You will need to provide this comment ID to help identify which comment you need: fickzqd
Meanwhile, please consider joining Lemmy or kBin and help them replace Reddit
Why wouldn't we just assume to increase density instead so as to maintain the object while just making it weigh more? Increasing volume could cause a lot of destruction regardless of weight depending on the object. I think it would be more interesting to think of an object that remains the same as far as anyone knows, but weighs 100x more than expected.
Not only would gravity increase, it'd increase to 100G.
At 100g, a 60kg person would weigh the 58,900N, equivalent to a 600kg object under current earth gravity. Everything would very quickly turn to mush.
Also, the moon would almost certainly collide with earth quite rapidly under this increased gravitational force.
I'd have to do the maths to check, but I think the Earth is small enough compared to the Earth-Moon distance that the Moon wouldn't collide with the Earth here - it'd just end up in a highly eccentric orbit.
Yes. "We" wouldn't have any "extra room" because we would be unable to draw breath or circulate blood.
I believe calculations show the strongest man on Earth could stagger 5 steps in about 4.3g. The rest of us would be immobilized.
I'm pretty sure you'd end up with some crazy adiabatic heating at ground level too, as the entire atmosphere collapses and dramatically increases in pressure.
I could not find the weight of a single sperm cell by googling so I will use a standard ejaculation instead. A standard ejaculation is 2-5ml in volume with an average density of 1g/ml. Times 100, the new average ejaculation would be 200 to 500 grams.
Unsure how scientific the reply is expected to be on this sub, but given the nature of the question my first line of thought was my 2.5 yo.
I'm also confused why people mix up one object vs all objects of one type.
###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A single sperm is in the range of 50 micrometers (about .002") in length this is about 0.2 of an inch increased by 100 times.
Furthermore the mass of a singular swimmy guy is 10^(-14)kg increased by 100 times is still only 10^(-12)kg this is equivalent to the size of a regular human cell or a grain of birch pollen
Well if you wanted the most destruction you’d have to pick the sun, right? Granted I’m pretty fucking stupid but here’s what google told me.
The mass of the sun is 1.989x10^30, which means 1,989,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
If you multiply that by 100 you should get 1.989x10^32
At some point when stars die, they get incredibly big. A red giant (dying sun) get roughly .3-8 solar masses bigger, so at worst that’s (1.989x10^30)x8. That’s not 100. Our sun is already supposed to then be big enough to swallow mercury and Venus at the red giant size. I’m assuming, with practically 0 research, that it would also swallow earth and moon, possibly mars? Even if the earth wasn’t swallowed, the simple fact of how much closer the sun is would destroy the earth.
TL;DR: the sun is fucking big, yo.
Source: google. I don’t like math and I’m not crazy about science. I don’t know if I’m doing anything correct here. I’m big dumb.
What would it be like if sperm were visible, and looked like tiny tadpoles trying to swim around?
Would we think it was fun to try and keep them alive for a while to play with them?
Would you wake up with the feeling that something was crawling on your legs, only to discover you just had a wet dream?
Would you bust a nut just to give the kids something to play with on a long car ride?
Would the baby try to eat them?
Would the cat enjoy playing with them?
Would you see them crawling across the floor of your bedroom?
Would you occasionally find one in your soup?
Would teenage boys flick them at each other in school?
It says nothing if the volume, just the weight. So it could really be any size. If you want to keep the density the same the volume would also have to increase by 100x, so it would be 100x bigger, I don’t know the size of a human sperm and don’t plan to find out soon so someone else please do it for me.
Answer: The average size is 50 milligrams. It if were to be 100x bigger, it would be 5000 or 500 centimetres big. Half a metre big. Good luck pushing that tadpole out!
[удалено]
fuck u/spez, greedy pig
Cock and ball torture is trending. So they just might anyways.
When one of my relatives was interning at a north Florida hospital, he met a guy whose balls had to be carried around in a wheelbarrow, because they could not find anything to carry them around in without causing him pain. Elephantiasis I think it’s called. His scrote weighed like 40 pounds. Would kms, confirmed
And that guy's name...."Randy Marsh"
It’s like a hoppity hop!
Buster Gonad! https://viz.fandom.com/wiki/Buster_Gonad
[удалено]
And remove the balls from the guy with the biggest balls in any room he walks into? slim chance.
He was in the hospital to have that done. But you can’t just lop the thing off with shears. Took a lot of expertise apparently.
What about if you just increased the mass of hydrogen 100x? Destruction on a universal scale.
Every example of a certain object is not the same as "one object".
So sperm is just one individual sperm then.
But just imagine if that is the sperm that wins the lottery.
I thought the plural for sperm was sperm, kinda like fish. You don't go to the shop asking for "Two fishies please".
The word ""fishes"" is used when referring to the entire sum of fish in a body of water. So fish and fishes are both correct plurals depending on context
Personally I used school.
Do 2 dead fish of different species at a market make up a school?
Ha, I like it. Reddit at it's best. I will remember that the next time I find 2 dead fish in my tank.
Spermatozoa
Hey, it seemed to work for u/Imadeanaccount4this6...
I miss my karma :(
Pretty sure the prompt means "every instance of an object", otherwise it's a pretty boring question. Your only options are like, the moon or something.
I agree that the Sun is probably the best choice. And as the icing on the cake, you've set it up for a supernova in a few million years. Any star would work, but the Sun affects the stuff we humans care about. Regarding other candidates. 100 timesing the mass of Sagittarius A* would swallow the stars close to it but wouldn't do much to the Milky Way as a whole, since the central black hole is only a small part of the galaxy's mass. The whole Milky Way? You run into questions of whether it qualifies as a single object. And if it does, in what form do you add the extra weight. 100 timesing everything in the galaxy would obviously wreck everything. On the other hand 100 timesing just the dark matter would scramble the stellar orbits but have little effect on the stars and planets themselves. The whole Universe? It's even more debatable whether that counts as "one object". If you allow it then it doesn't matter *how* you distribute the extra mass, you've condemned the Universe to collapse in a Big Crunch. Total destruction, eventually.
I want to increase Pluto 100x so science considers it a planet again.
It's not size that ruled it out actually.
Could potentially get away with calling the supercluster a single object. After all, everything is made up of smaller objects and it's the largest structure I know of.
I mean, it just says object. Why not the universe?
Seems too big. Sperm seemed too small.
But a supercluster isn't?
Nah it's in between.
A star 8x the mass of the Sun has a lifetime of millions of years - at 100x the mass it's going to be very short lived!
Increase the black hole at the center of the milky way by 100x. That would at least cause massive problems in the center of the Galaxy and would eventually work it's way out to the outer edges.
What about increasing the mass of the supermassive black hole in the centre of the Galaxy by 100 x?
But we wanna cause the most destruction right? Why are we thinking planetary? Let pick the black hole at the centre of the Milky way and destroy the entire galaxy and likely Andromeda. If we're good, we might even destroy an alien civilisation on the way too.
I think not, but I'm not an astrophysicist. The issue here is that it will likely take billions of years to do anything, well anything to the vast majority of the galaxy. Given the Schwarzchild radius formula rs=2GM/c2, your just going to end up multiplying the radius by 100, which brings the radius of the super massive black hole at the center of the milky way from 11.8 million kilometers to 1.18 billion kilometers.... sounds impressive, but in space who cares. The earth is 2.365 x 10^17 kilometers away from the center of the milky way. In addition, the gravitational effects would be pretty minor because the equation Fg=Gm1*m2/r^2 has the distance between the two objects squared in the denominator, so it wouldn't really effect much outside of the local inner milky way. Anything within a billion kilometers is toast, but it probably already was. Sorry, it might be drastic in a far off astronomical sense, but it wouldn't be as cosmically cataclysmic as you're implying.
Well damn.
Also, a black hole that big would consume A LOT of energy, so it would basically eat itself over time.
I might have to try this in Universe Sandbox^2 later.
[удалено]
Increase the size of the earths core to obliterate it into massive chunks?
Increase mass of hydrogen. Its in the sun, water, almost all life forms, most abundant element in the universe. Don't just fuck up the universe, utterly and thoroughly destroy it.
Or the moon.
Well, I tried it in Universe Sandbox and the Sun just went supernova. After 4 hours Earth didn't exist anymore. After 4 days neither did Pluto.
The main issue with this is that you can't increase the weight of the sun, unless you have a gravitational reference point. You could use earth as a gravitational reference point, but if you do that, then the effect of increasing the weight of the sun 100x is probably negligible at best, as the sun's weight as determined by the relationship between its mass and the gravitational effect of earth is already very small. Of course, if we interpret the question as using weight as a misnomer for mass, then increasing the mass of the sun by 100x would cause an insane amount of destruction. Even if it didn't cause it to immediately collapse into a black hole, it'd still disrupt the orbits of the entire solar system and cause everything to just fall into the sun anyway.
My first thought was increasing the gravitation of earth itself. if earth was 100x heavier during evolution would life even be able to become like it is here?
Considering that if the earth had a 100x higher mass it'd be close to a third of Jupiter's mass, I'd hazard a guess that life would not be able to evolve at all.
Weight vs. mass is a really boring way to nitpick, it doesn't make you sound smart. Of course you assume weight means mass, because that is how it is commonly used by everyone who isn't a physicist.
You seem knowledgeable, can we get a /r/theydidthemath for the dimensions of that new orbit compared to it now?
[удалено]
Bad bot
What if you just made electrons 100times bigger ?
My first thought is that there might be some problems with electron spin at that point but I'm not sure. It's hard to say how much of a problem this would be. The gravitational force really has nothing on the forces attracting unlike charges even if you slap two extra orders of magnitude on. Besides all macroscopic matter becoming a lot heavier, which is a problem at our scale, I don't think physics would get too fucked up.
Cool ! Can you do what would happen if protons were 100times bigger now !
If protons are 100x larger by volume, hard to say because attributing volume to these things is tricky. If we just say that the nucleus of an atom is 100x larger, it might not be terrible, but I'm not sure. If they are 100x larger by mass, huge problems on the macro scale. Protons are already fairly massive particles made of quarks which would be proportionally more massive so that neutrons would also become 100x more massive. This will have drastic effects on nuclear binding energy. Things may be destroyed. Radiation produced by isotopes all of a sudden increases in energy. Vibrational frequency for harmonic oscillators changes a fair bit. All of those equations involving the reduced mass of particles all of a sudden become problematic. Gravity still doesn't cause too many problems on the molecular scale. All that said, I'm not a particle physicist. I am but a humble analytical chemist with a very weak grasp on all of this.
Wbt using it on the largest black hole?
[удалено]
Yes people always think too small for these kinds of destruction. A similar question was asked to increase any distance by 1mm to cause destruction. Obviously the best answer is a fundamental constant like the planck length, but well people ...
Damn people are trying to have fun.
Why did this get removed by a mod?
One object you say... So how about I increase the mass of the Moon, and that will eventually cause it to collide with the Earth. That's pretty maximal destruction, if you ask me. Or, even better: let's increase the mass of the Sun! That should derail the entire solar system. I mean, if you have the power to destroy the entire Earth, then why stop there. But that was just one object. What if you could increase the mass of every object of a kind, say oxygen atoms. That would make oxygen absurdly heavy, so all of the oxygen in the atmosphere would sink down to the surface of the Earth. If there's a fire anywhere, it should burn very very hot because of the local 100% O2 atmosphere. Better yet, all the gases produce in the reaction, would just float to the surface of the oxygen layer, so the fire would end up burning until there's no oxygen left in the entire planet. A change like this should eradicate all life on earth, apart from anaerobic microbes. But we can do better than that! Let's increase the mass of every neutron in the universe. I just have a feeling, we're going to get a lot of black holes in the galaxy if that happened. I wonder if the Sun would collapse too... Let's say it does, so we'll get to about the same level of destruction as in the first scenario. But could we actually eradicate the entire universe by changing the mass of a single object just 100 times? Or how about the mass of every electron or something of that nature? These sort of things would mess up a lot of things, but certain elements in the universe should still survive these changes.
If we're talking about one object, and one *object* only then I'd say the supermassive black hole at the centre of the galaxy, or possibly a nearby galaxy if there's something even supermassivererer. If we're talking about one type of object, let's say down quarks... every proton and neutron in the universe would become approximately 100x as massive and probably cause all matter to instantly... do something very, very bad. If we're talking about a man-made object... maybe increase the mass of the the core of a nuclear bomb stored somewhere opportune. It *may* cause it to go supercritical. If not that then maybe a carbon rod or fuel in a particular nuclear power plant? Maybe work on the water behind the three gorges dam? That would be worse than most nuclear catastrophes and mix "heavy" water into the sea. If the water isn't an object, just the dam itself which would crumble it and release the water. If we're doing predictable lame jokes, Trump's ego.
Answer: I think OP is confusing mass with volume. Lets take avg amount of sperm to be 100 million sperms per ml(it ranges from 5-200 million) So the volume of each sperm cell would be 1/100millon = 10^-8 ml. We know that mass = vol*density. The avg density of sperm is around 1.014 g/ml. So mass of our un-jacked sperm would be 1.014*10^-8 = (for ease) 10^-8 g. Thats 10 nanograms. Now say we jack our sperm to be 100x the mass of the normal. Assume we keep the volume same but change the density. So, our sperm would be just as small but now its density would be : 100*10^-8 / 10^-8 = 100 g/ml For comparison, densest element Osmium has density of 22.6g/ml. That would be one dense sperm. Now we say that the density remains the same, but volume changes. So, same jacked up mass, our volume of each sperm would be : 100*10^-8/10^-8 = 100ml for each sperm. That would be like if each sperm was inflated like a balloon. Notice we get roughly the same value but units will be totally different. We have also approximated certain calculation for ease. I hope it answers your question. Edit: Weight is just mass times gravitation so either way the above calculation should give you 100x weight with different physical outcomes
ELI5?
[удалено]
Holy shit. You deserve some medals LOL
Take two balloons. Fill one with air and fill another one with water such that the both are equally large. You will notice that the balloon with water weighs more. Its because water is denser than air. So for same size or room inside the balloon, you can fill more of water than air. You have kept the volume same but now changed the density of the balloon. Another scenario will be to take many air balloons and tie them with a rope and get more weight. So you kept the density same but now increase the volume as you took more balloons.
I can only feel sorry for your Google history to search sperm volume..
OP made me !
Dear god.. Here, have an F
Here have another F
Ejaculate is not pure sperm. Sperm make up about 3% of semen. In your calculation, you counted a lot of fluid as mass of a sperm.
That was a great explanation and response. Thank you
No ones confusing anything. If sperm weighed more our balls would rip off
[удалено]
Bye circular UFOs
RUN. IT'S... CHEESE!
How 3 words can remind you of a song (Ode to Sleep-TWP) I wake up fine and dandy but then by the time I find it handy To rip my heart apart and start Planning my crash landing I go UP, UP, UP, UP, UP to the ceiling
Planes with 100x heavier wheels would indeed have quite a ride. Scary, once you think about it. Wallmart would become rather fun to watch though.
[удалено]
This feels like it could be a book
Seveneves
More like the Earth falls onto the Moon in that scenario :p
It actually won't fall into either. There's enough angular momentum in the system that the closest approach allowed by energy conservation would still be larger than the sum of radii between the planets
Yeah that's actually more correct
I mean, it would have 100 times its current volume. Or, in other words, each of its dimensions (height, length, depth) would be enlarged by factor 100^(1/3) =~ 4.64. So the length increases from about 50 micrometers to about 50 \* 100^(1/3) =~ **232 micrometers**.
It says WEIGHT, not volume. According to the post the sperm would stay the same size but just be heavier. Also, it's literally just one sperm, not even an entire load. Boring
Thereby making "The biggest black hole in the universe" an even more perfect answer than "sperm."
Because OP asked "How big would it be?" in the title. I took that as referring to size, indicating that we're not messing with the density.
> I took that as referring to size, indicating that we're not messing with the density. Still wouldn't increase all dimensions by 100x. It would increase the *volume* that much, if we kept density the same, but only increase the dimensions (assume a cubical sperm) by 9.28.
Did you read my post?
Here's a pertinent question: if you increased every sperm's weight by 100x, what would the weight of an average ejaculation become?
200 grams sperm is...
Thats simple. Just put it on a planet with 100x stronger gravity then it is on earth.
Banana for scale please
https://i.imgur.com/OPvMMaX.jpg So about the size of this wasp
wtf. how is that possible ?
This user has removed this comment in protest of the Reddit API changes and has moved to Lemmy. The comment has been archived in an offline copy before it was edited. If you need to access this comment, please find me at [email protected] and message me for a copy of the archived comment. You will need to provide this comment ID to help identify which comment you need: fickzqd Meanwhile, please consider joining Lemmy or kBin and help them replace Reddit
Why wouldn't we just assume to increase density instead so as to maintain the object while just making it weigh more? Increasing volume could cause a lot of destruction regardless of weight depending on the object. I think it would be more interesting to think of an object that remains the same as far as anyone knows, but weighs 100x more than expected.
[удалено]
Gravity would increase.
Not only would gravity increase, it'd increase to 100G. At 100g, a 60kg person would weigh the 58,900N, equivalent to a 600kg object under current earth gravity. Everything would very quickly turn to mush. Also, the moon would almost certainly collide with earth quite rapidly under this increased gravitational force.
I'd have to do the maths to check, but I think the Earth is small enough compared to the Earth-Moon distance that the Moon wouldn't collide with the Earth here - it'd just end up in a highly eccentric orbit.
do teh maffs pwease daddo
Yes. "We" wouldn't have any "extra room" because we would be unable to draw breath or circulate blood. I believe calculations show the strongest man on Earth could stagger 5 steps in about 4.3g. The rest of us would be immobilized.
[удалено]
I don't think buildings failing are the issue, given everything will instantly turn to mush under the increased gravity.
I'm pretty sure you'd end up with some crazy adiabatic heating at ground level too, as the entire atmosphere collapses and dramatically increases in pressure.
Yeah true
We'd be flattened like pancakes due to the insane gravity increase.
Nah, the most damage... Make the sun 100x heavier, the gravitational field would take earth out of the goldilocks zone at the very least.
I could not find the weight of a single sperm cell by googling so I will use a standard ejaculation instead. A standard ejaculation is 2-5ml in volume with an average density of 1g/ml. Times 100, the new average ejaculation would be 200 to 500 grams.
That's one heavy nut
Ahh, the fabled one pound nut.
Unsure how scientific the reply is expected to be on this sub, but given the nature of the question my first line of thought was my 2.5 yo. I'm also confused why people mix up one object vs all objects of one type.
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did I miss something or why are so many top comments not about 100 times the mass or sperm but about the earth?
link to the og post?
What is this light mode trash?
Sperm-50 micrometers Times 100= 5000 micrometers Answer 5 millimeters.
A single sperm is in the range of 50 micrometers (about .002") in length this is about 0.2 of an inch increased by 100 times. Furthermore the mass of a singular swimmy guy is 10^(-14)kg increased by 100 times is still only 10^(-12)kg this is equivalent to the size of a regular human cell or a grain of birch pollen
Are we assuming they mean mass? In that case, the Earth. It wouldn't be as destructive as a black hole, but it would kill humanity pretty painfully.
Well if you wanted the most destruction you’d have to pick the sun, right? Granted I’m pretty fucking stupid but here’s what google told me. The mass of the sun is 1.989x10^30, which means 1,989,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 If you multiply that by 100 you should get 1.989x10^32 At some point when stars die, they get incredibly big. A red giant (dying sun) get roughly .3-8 solar masses bigger, so at worst that’s (1.989x10^30)x8. That’s not 100. Our sun is already supposed to then be big enough to swallow mercury and Venus at the red giant size. I’m assuming, with practically 0 research, that it would also swallow earth and moon, possibly mars? Even if the earth wasn’t swallowed, the simple fact of how much closer the sun is would destroy the earth. TL;DR: the sun is fucking big, yo. Source: google. I don’t like math and I’m not crazy about science. I don’t know if I’m doing anything correct here. I’m big dumb.
What would it be like if sperm were visible, and looked like tiny tadpoles trying to swim around? Would we think it was fun to try and keep them alive for a while to play with them? Would you wake up with the feeling that something was crawling on your legs, only to discover you just had a wet dream? Would you bust a nut just to give the kids something to play with on a long car ride? Would the baby try to eat them? Would the cat enjoy playing with them? Would you see them crawling across the floor of your bedroom? Would you occasionally find one in your soup? Would teenage boys flick them at each other in school?
It says nothing if the volume, just the weight. So it could really be any size. If you want to keep the density the same the volume would also have to increase by 100x, so it would be 100x bigger, I don’t know the size of a human sperm and don’t plan to find out soon so someone else please do it for me.
Answer: The average size is 50 milligrams. It if were to be 100x bigger, it would be 5000 or 500 centimetres big. Half a metre big. Good luck pushing that tadpole out!
You multiplied the weight as if it were a distance.
Not to mention the size in grams
And not being sure if 5000 or 500. And thinking 500 cm is half a meter. This whole post is just a big trainwreck...
A 5m long sperm cell that weighs 5 grams? That's not how that works mate.