• don
    link
    fedilink
    221 year ago

    Calling an asteroid a stone, while technically true, is akin to calling the planet it struck a rock-covered ball bearing.

    • @FilthyShrooms
      link
      161 year ago

      A “rock-covered ball bearing” is much more accurate than what a lot if people call it. Better than a pebble in space

      • don
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        That I’ve met as many people as I have who assume it’s solid rock and that we can drill completely through it is… disconcerting.

    • Gormadt
      link
      fedilink
      12
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, the planet is likely smoother than a lot of ball bearings

      The highest point and the lowest point aren’t very far deviated. Less than 6 miles up and less than 6 miles down. Basically a little less than 0.001% deviation.

      Edit: After doing a bit of digging it looks like Earth would be comparable to a 1 inch grade 1000 ball bearing. Grade 1000 are not remotely close to the highest grade, in fact it’s one of the lowest grades of ball bearings.

      mobile link, sorry

      God damn ball bearings get down to some crazy tolerances at the really high grades.

      I’m happy I dig some digging into it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        New ball bearings are still likely significantly smoother than the earth. Old worn out ball bearings might be rougher.

        • Gormadt
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          After doing a bit of digging it looks like Earth would be comparable to a 1 inch grade 1000 ball bearing.

          mobile link, sorry

          God damn ball bearings get down to some crazy high tolerances.

          I’m happy I dig some digging into it.

          Edit: Grade 1000 is a really low grade ball bearing, thought I should clarify that.

      • autokludge
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        It’s only natural that it would be rougher than most grades of ball bearings – as we already established its covered in rocks!

      • don
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        So you’re saying the earth is a very smooth ball bearing. This despite being classified as an oblate spheroid.

        • @Deuces
          link
          51 year ago

          I’m guessing smoothness doesn’t consider the non-spherical shape of the planet, just the bumpiness of it. But I’m also some random on the Internet, so who knows

          • don
            link
            fedilink
            51 year ago

            I think I’m missing what the smoothness of the planet has to do with it being basically an iron-nickel ball covered by a bit of rock, but being a meat popsicle, I tend to miss a lot of things.

        • Gormadt
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The difference in diameter between the pole and the equator is only about 26 miles.

          7926 miles vs 7900 miles

          So a difference of about 0.03%

          Yeah I’d say that’s pretty spherical

          Edit: Rereading this it comes of a bit rougher than I intended. Basically what I’m saying is something can be spherical without being a perfect sphere, infact if to be a sphere (in common usage of the word) only applied to perfect examples of a sphere than nothing would be a sphere. Definitions are pretty wishy-washy a lot of the times, especially when it comes to describing the world as it is.

          Earth is an oblique spheroid, technically. But calling it a sphere is true enough to observers that I’d say it still counts.

    • ElPussyKangaroo
      link
      21 year ago

      The metallic core is a testament to your description.