• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    20
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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

    • @HonoraryMancunian
      link
      English
      6
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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

    • @Hule
      link
      0
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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

        • @Hule
          link
          17 months ago

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

        • @Hule
          link
          17 months ago

          You’re right…