UTMC

Soon enough, I'll be turning 33.
I got to thinking today, and realized that that means I've traveled 19,273,949,211 miles around the sun.

My granddad managed 53,733,434,164 miles.

The Earth's orbit is just about 584,059,067 miles.

How far have YOU traveled?

14,484,664,862

Plus some miles on foot, bike, van, car, skateboard, and truck.

What if you could find out your personal mileage?

24,530,480,814

Give or take.

No wonder we're so fucking tired...

Too early for math, but these numbers don't count our movement through the galaxy, or the galaxy hurtling through space at some ridiculous speed.

In about two weeks time, it'll be 17.521.772.010,00000 orbital miles. Which also doesn't take into account rotation of the earth around it's own axis, which would depend on whatever latitude you'd be on...I suppose you could work out an average on that based on your permanent residence or so and so many years spent at whatever latitude.

Also, is that number for the orbit based on the earth's distance from the sun? Because, what distance? There are no circular orbits in the solar system, it's all ellipses (believe it or not, we are closer to the sun when it's winter in the northern hemisphere than we are when it's summer there).

While we are on the subject of the seasons, because the earth's landmass is mostly in the northern hemisphere, and hence most trees are in the northern hemisphere, the annual shedding of the leaves at the beginning of northern hemisphere winter reduces the earth's polar moment of intertia and increases it's rate of rotation (like an ice-skater pulling her arms in to speed up), which would affect the numbers for the rotation of the earth around it's own axis.

WeAintFoundShit wrote:Soon enough, I'll be turning 33.

Fuck you.


That's how far I've traveled.

Zer0 wrote:

WeAintFoundShit wrote:Soon enough, I'll be turning 33.

Fuck you.


That's how far I've traveled.

Best answer yet.


In other news, I've already contemplated the total distance traveled in a specific time frame, relative to the theoretical center of the universe at great length (only it applied to one fifteen minute period where I could not force myself to return to my shitty job; but that's another story). I very quickly realized that I don't know enough math or physics to really tackle it. Hence, the reference frame for this question being specifically relative to the sun.

The orbit I calculated is based on one astronomical unit (92,955,807.27 miles), which is roughly the mean average radius of Earth's elliptical orbit.

It is kind of cool to think about age in those terms, however, because once you get up into those kinds of numbers, it really loses all personal significance. None of us can really comprehend the actual immensity of anything that is listed in the billions.

If you compare my 33 to my grandfather's 92, or better yet, Zer0's "fuck you," you would say "Holy crap, that's a HUGE difference."
However, if you were to compare the difference between my 19,273,949,211, my grandfather's 53,733,434,164, and Zer0's numbers, which I assume to be at least four orders of magnitude larger, the distinctions blur.

That line of thinking, for me anyway, sort of removes one more imaginary, socially based barrier between me, you, and the rest of humanity.
We're all just copies of the same, walking talking sack of meat, whose atoms and particles will all move on when we're finished with them to be dirt, or a rock, or some grass.

We might as well get to know one another while we're here.

WeAintFoundShit wrote:However, if you were to compare the difference between my 19,273,949,211, my grandfather's 53,733,434,164, and Zer0's numbers, which I assume to be at least four orders of magnitude larger, the distinctions blur.

You keep this shit up, Shit, and the distinctions won't be the only thing that's a blur fopr ypou.

Healthy young punkass kid. Keep it up, and I'lll give you some what for yet.

Tarnation.

Zer0 wrote:

WeAintFoundShit wrote:However, if you were to compare the difference between my 19,273,949,211, my grandfather's 53,733,434,164, and Zer0's numbers, which I assume to be at least four orders of magnitude larger, the distinctions blur.

You keep this shit up, Shit, and the distinctions won't be the only thing that's a blur fopr ypou.

What, you mean your typos?

WeAintFoundShit wrote:

Zer0 wrote:

WeAintFoundShit wrote:However, if you were to compare the difference between my 19,273,949,211, my grandfather's 53,733,434,164, and Zer0's numbers, which I assume to be at least four orders of magnitude larger, the distinctions blur.

You keep this shit up, Shit, and the distinctions won't be the only thing that's a blur fopr ypou.

What, you mean your typos?

[cranky crooked back old coot with pants hitched halfway up to his armpits waving gnarled hickory cane at cackling smartass punk college kid with pants hanging halfway down his ass]

DerGolgo wrote:While we are on the subject of the seasons, because the earth's landmass is mostly in the northern hemisphere, and hence most trees are in the northern hemisphere, the annual shedding of the leaves at the beginning of northern hemisphere winter reduces the earth's polar moment of intertia and increases it's rate of rotation (like an ice-skater pulling her arms in to speed up), which would affect the numbers for the rotation of the earth around it's own axis.

Actually, Dr Spock, if this idea of yours were indeed correct, when the leaves fall to the ground the rotation would increase, the leaves having fallen closer to the geographic center of the planet.

Sisyphus wrote:

DerGolgo wrote:While we are on the subject of the seasons, because the earth's landmass is mostly in the northern hemisphere, and hence most trees are in the northern hemisphere, the annual shedding of the leaves at the beginning of northern hemisphere winter reduces the earth's polar moment of intertia and increases it's rate of rotation (like an ice-skater pulling her arms in to speed up), which would affect the numbers for the rotation of the earth around it's own axis.

Actually, Dr Spock, if this idea of yours were indeed correct, when the leaves fall to the ground the rotation would increase, the leaves having fallen closer to the geographic center of the planet.

Yeah, that's what HE said.

(No really, that's what he just said... Quick... Edit! Edit!)

DerGolgo wrote:In about two weeks time, it'll be 17.521.772.010,00000 orbital miles. Which also doesn't take into account rotation of the earth around it's own axis, which would depend on whatever latitude you'd be on...I suppose you could work out an average on that based on your permanent residence or so and so many years spent at whatever latitude.

Also, is that number for the orbit based on the earth's distance from the sun? Because, what distance? There are no circular orbits in the solar system, it's all ellipses (believe it or not, we are closer to the sun when it's winter in the northern hemisphere than we are when it's summer there).

While we are on the subject of the seasons, because the earth's landmass is mostly in the northern hemisphere, and hence most trees are in the northern hemisphere, the annual shedding of the leaves at the beginning of northern hemisphere winter reduces the earth's polar moment of intertia and increases it's rate of rotation (like an ice-skater pulling her arms in to speed up), which would affect the numbers for the rotation of the earth around it's own axis.

In thinking about this, you would also have to take into account the rate of deforestation/urban sprawl over the course of one's lifetime in order to get a time average of the Earth's angular acceleration as a function of human development.
More people means less trees, which means less of a change in inertia. Then again, how many skyscrapers went up, and how much of that previously foliage based biomass has now become people.

I think that asking those questions might just be nerd sniping, though.

In a bit of self nerd sniping, that line of thinking leads to the fact that your atoms have been spinning around this rock since its formation, billions of years ago, and will continue to do so until the Vogons come to build the freeway.

Sisyphus wrote:

DerGolgo wrote:While we are on the subject of the seasons, because the earth's landmass is mostly in the northern hemisphere, and hence most trees are in the northern hemisphere, the annual shedding of the leaves at the beginning of northern hemisphere winter reduces the earth's polar moment of intertia and increases it's rate of rotation (like an ice-skater pulling her arms in to speed up), which would affect the numbers for the rotation of the earth around it's own axis.

Actually, Dr Spock, if this idea of yours were indeed correct, when the leaves fall to the ground the rotation would increase, the leaves having fallen closer to the geographic center of the planet.

I would imagine that a living leaf would weigh more than a dry, dead leaf, making Herr Golgo's theory valid.

Mind you, I studied music and am quite adept at counting to 4, so what would I know?

Perhaps, I can see your reasoning but the water vapor will have returned to the atmosphere. The mass of the planet will have gained the weight of the dead leaves.

Sisyphus wrote:Perhaps, I can see your reasoning but the water vapor will have returned to the atmosphere. The mass of the planet will have gained the weight of the dead leaves.

The dead leaves were part of the planet's mass to begin with, they were attached to it, weren't they?

Here's the concept:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/us6CCWJPp3c?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/us6CCWJPp3c?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

You change the moment of intertia and the only way that angular momentum can be conserved is by a change in rotational speed.

Also, somebody went and crunched the numbers:
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2 ... to-me.html

Wait, the earth's speed changes by one part in 2,000,000,000,000,000,? Who fucking cares, then? I don't think they can base this on leaves falling off of trees, though. I think they're asking the wrong question (like the chicken or the egg). Maybe they should ask the question, "Why does the earth's speed change with the fall?"
How do they know that the earth's change in speed doesn't correllate with deforestation of the rainforests in the southern hemisphere, or the desertification of other landmasses around the world in both?

I think that since we ride motorbikes this video is a more accurate description:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9fudxt7Pek4?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9fudxt7Pek4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Sisyphus wrote:Wait, the earth's speed changes by one part in 2,000,000,000,000,000,? Who fucking cares, then? I don't think they can base this on leaves falling off of trees, though. I think they're asking the wrong question (like the chicken or the egg). Maybe they should ask the question, "Why does the earth's speed change with the fall?"
How do they know that the earth's change in speed doesn't correllate with deforestation of the rainforests in the southern hemisphere, or the desertification of other landmasses around the world in both?

They weren't asking "why does the earth's speed of rotation change?", they were asking "what effect on the earth's rotation would falling leafs have?".

Bah. I'm not convinced it's falling leaves.

Sisyphus wrote:Bah. I'm not convinced it's falling leaves.

You're not convinced falling leafs is what, exactly? Where was the idea put forward that one specifically observed change in the earth's rotation was caused by falling leafs
The physical mechanism of the leafs falling must, according to the principles of classical mechanics, which apply here, have a calculable effect on the earth's speed of rotation, that is all that was said.

The battle of the dorks. Love it.


Falling leaves.

No need to get all pointy about it.

I was just playing devil's advocate. It just seemed like a self-fulfilling quest to say, "Hey, I bet that the leaves falling speed up the earth's rotation, so let's find the math to prove it." Rather, it should have been, "Hey, I noticed the earth's rotation speeds up sometimes, let's find out why." I've yet to find a counter to the speeding up question, like does the earth's rotation slow down again, by how much and why.

Not that any of it matters.

Sisyphus wrote:No need to get all pointy about it.

I was just playing devil's advocate. It just seemed like a self-fulfilling quest to say, "Hey, I bet that the leaves falling speed up the earth's rotation, so let's find the math to prove it." Rather, it should have been, "Hey, I noticed the earth's rotation speeds up sometimes, let's find out why." I've yet to find a counter to the speeding up question, like does the earth's rotation slow down again, by how much and why.

Not that any of it matters.

That is actually a brilliant question...the trees absorb carbon from atmorspheric carbon dioxide, add water, new leafs.
The water cycles through the atmosphere and ground, evaporates from the leafs for some part, etc., so I don't that'll have a slowing-down effect in the spring. But the atmospheric carbon...weather depends in part of the earth's rotation, I believe, so if mass is taken from the atmosphere and fixed in place ... it's not moving outward again until it decomposes and is returned to the atmosphere, which, barring fire or human involvement can take donkeys years.
I don't think the earth will be speeding up much in the spring, will it?

I hope not. Things are moving fast enough as it is.

What the fuck are you all talking about?

The earth, and everything else, revolves around me. You're all old as fuck, and that's that.

Why is a mouse when it spins?

piccini9 wrote:Why is a mouse when it spins?

Only if it claps. Duh.

dozer wrote:What the fuck are you all talking about?

The earth, and everything else, revolves around me. You're all old as fuck, and that's that.