The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Suspend your disbelief for a moment,
If you tied a length of string around the full circumference of the Earth so it was taught, then made it one metre longer so it floated at a uniform height around the whole Earth, how high would it float? Assume the Earth is a perfect sphere 12,756.3km in diameter.
If you can't work it out, take a guess. Remember that it's a piece of string going around the whole Earth - how high off the ground would it be if you made it 1 metre longer?
If you tied a length of string around the full circumference of the Earth so it was taught, then made it one metre longer so it floated at a uniform height around the whole Earth, how high would it float? Assume the Earth is a perfect sphere 12,756.3km in diameter.
If you can't work it out, take a guess. Remember that it's a piece of string going around the whole Earth - how high off the ground would it be if you made it 1 metre longer?
Page:
PsychoticKiller wrote:
> sideshow buzz wrote:
> 15.9045cm ? above the surface of the earth
>
> How are you people Guessing these numbers?
> freaks.
too much math for my brain cells..math is evil
> sideshow buzz wrote:
> 15.9045cm ? above the surface of the earth
>
> How are you people Guessing these numbers?
> freaks.
too much math for my brain cells..math is evil
make the voices stop wrote:
> How are you people Guessing these numbers?
> freaks.
>
> too much math for my brain cells..math is evil
YOU HAVE BRAIN CELLS! :O :O :O
> How are you people Guessing these numbers?
> freaks.
>
> too much math for my brain cells..math is evil
YOU HAVE BRAIN CELLS! :O :O :O
My A-level teacher asked the class this when we were 17 (5 years ago - b****r), so it's probably unfair to ask people any younger. They can still guess though.
We thought the answer was quite suprising, and so did his wife, who refuses to believe it to this day |o/
We thought the answer was quite suprising, and so did his wife, who refuses to believe it to this day |o/
Miserableman wrote:
> My A-level teacher asked the class this when we were 17 (5 years ago -
> b****r), so it's probably unfair to ask people any younger. They can
> still guess though.
>
> We thought the answer was quite suprising, and so did his wife, who
> refuses to believe it to this day |o/
its still very hard to Awnser... can you tell us the formula? :)
> My A-level teacher asked the class this when we were 17 (5 years ago -
> b****r), so it's probably unfair to ask people any younger. They can
> still guess though.
>
> We thought the answer was quite suprising, and so did his wife, who
> refuses to believe it to this day |o/
its still very hard to Awnser... can you tell us the formula? :)
There's a long way to solve this and a short way. By the looks of things, you're all trying the long way and getting muddle somewhere.
bah my maths must be off tonight (might be slightly alcohol related)
Th earth isn't a perfect sphere though... so your question is a bit numb. If what you're running an imaginary string around is a perfect sphere, then it's not actually the earth, hence your question should've been:
"If you took a length of string and wrapped it around a ball then gave it 1m of slack, how high above the ball would it float."
The answer is, it wouldn't float, because there'd be nothing holding it up - so it would drop to the surface of the sphere, and look pretty stupid.
Then if we were to do the same question but for the earth, the answer is similar - it wouldn't float, because it would've snapped, due to 1m being insufficient slack to stretch the string over the numerous mountain ranges on the earth's surface.
*snickers*
"If you took a length of string and wrapped it around a ball then gave it 1m of slack, how high above the ball would it float."
The answer is, it wouldn't float, because there'd be nothing holding it up - so it would drop to the surface of the sphere, and look pretty stupid.
Then if we were to do the same question but for the earth, the answer is similar - it wouldn't float, because it would've snapped, due to 1m being insufficient slack to stretch the string over the numerous mountain ranges on the earth's surface.
*snickers*
Pointless Babble wrote:
> Th earth isn't a perfect sphere though... so your question is a bit
> numb. If what you're running an imaginary string around is a perfect
> sphere, then it's not actually the earth, hence your question
> should've been:
>
> "If you took a length of string and wrapped it around a ball then
> gave it 1m of slack, how high above the ball would it float."
>
> The answer is, it wouldn't float, because there'd be nothing holding
> it up - so it would drop to the surface of the sphere, and look pretty
> stupid.
>
> Then if we were to do the same question but for the earth, the answer
> is similar - it wouldn't float, because it would've snapped, due to 1m
> being insufficient slack to stretch the string over the numerous
> mountain ranges on the earth's surface.
>
> *snickers*
Here is a plan for you:
1. Re-read first line of the original post
2. Remove head from between buttocks
3. Rest of life
You may commence!
> Th earth isn't a perfect sphere though... so your question is a bit
> numb. If what you're running an imaginary string around is a perfect
> sphere, then it's not actually the earth, hence your question
> should've been:
>
> "If you took a length of string and wrapped it around a ball then
> gave it 1m of slack, how high above the ball would it float."
>
> The answer is, it wouldn't float, because there'd be nothing holding
> it up - so it would drop to the surface of the sphere, and look pretty
> stupid.
>
> Then if we were to do the same question but for the earth, the answer
> is similar - it wouldn't float, because it would've snapped, due to 1m
> being insufficient slack to stretch the string over the numerous
> mountain ranges on the earth's surface.
>
> *snickers*
Here is a plan for you:
1. Re-read first line of the original post
2. Remove head from between buttocks
3. Rest of life
You may commence!
Miserableman wrote:
> Here is a plan for you:
>
> 1. Re-read first line of the original post
> 2. Remove head from between buttocks
> 3. Rest of life
>
> You may commence!
There's disbelief, and there's idiocy, what you were proposing was outright idoicy - due to the obvious lacking intellect of whoever thought up the question initially.
So, having addressed "1"...
*Pulls Miserable's head out of his backside*
As for "3", stick in school, and pick up some base knowledge of English grammar. ;)
> Here is a plan for you:
>
> 1. Re-read first line of the original post
> 2. Remove head from between buttocks
> 3. Rest of life
>
> You may commence!
There's disbelief, and there's idiocy, what you were proposing was outright idoicy - due to the obvious lacking intellect of whoever thought up the question initially.
So, having addressed "1"...
*Pulls Miserable's head out of his backside*
As for "3", stick in school, and pick up some base knowledge of English grammar. ;)
I may have to eat humble pie in a second - I only remembered the answer from memory, and working it out on paper now it appears I was a factor of two out and someone here got it (nearly) right. Stay tuned.
And PointlessBabble, pick on someone your own age
And PointlessBabble, pick on someone your own age
Page: