pics

19788 readers

496 users here now

Rules:

1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer

2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.

3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.

4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.

5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.

Photo of the Week Rule(s):

1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.

2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.

Weeks 2023

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

617

Kummakivi is a 500.000 kg rock in Finland that has been balancing on another rock for 11.000 years (files.catbox.moe)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kummakivi

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Oh, whoops, I did make a mistake! Thanks for the correction

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

You got me confused.

5*3*3*1.6*3000

is the same as

[(5*1.6) + (3*1.6) + (3*1.6)]*3000

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Yes, i must have been sleeping while looking at the numbers :)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

Useless. We all want something standard. Like how many pygmy marmosets that is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Morning, yes, I'll have 65 of your largest African elephants please.