RetroFed Forums
Your home away from modern life.
2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it.
Post Reply
AuthorMessage
Lasherz
lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world
Joined: 2023-09-29
Posted:   Subject: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote

518   Original
expatriado
lemmy.world
expatriado@lemmy.world
Joined: 2023-06-18
#2 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

lol a material that dense and that small would just blow up

125
essell
lemmy.world
essell@lemmy.world
Joined: 2024-03-28
#3 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

lol a material that dense and that small would just blow up

Small can syndrome

6
1hitsong
lemmy.ml

1hitsong@lemmy.ml
Joined: 2023-06-04
#4 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Today on Fansville...

3
SeeMarkFly
lemmy.ml

SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml
Joined: 2024-02-02
#5 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

I use metric to hold papers down on my desk.

If I have 10 papers, I add another metric.

5
Lasherz
lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world
Joined: 2023-09-29
#6 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

lol a material that dense and that small would just blow up

True, quick math that's 4225x heavier than pure uranium, but still 666x lighter than neutron star soup. No material holds together at that density without a stars worth of gravity

100
wuffah
lemmy.world
wuffah@lemmy.world
Joined: 2025-03-12
#7 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

True, quick math that's 4225x heavier than pure uranium, but still 666x lighter than neutron star soup. No material holds together at that density without a stars worth of gravity

Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding. Could you express that in approximate number of cans of Dr. Pepper?

65
WhyIHateTheInternet
lemmy.world
WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world
Joined: 2025-06-17
#8 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding. Could you express that in approximate number of cans of Dr. Pepper?

Metric fuckton

3
expatriado
lemmy.world
expatriado@lemmy.world
Joined: 2023-06-18
#9 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding. Could you express that in approximate number of cans of Dr. Pepper?

you need the gravity of a star like Taylor Swift to hold a mass as small as Marco Rubio but as dense as R.F. Kennedy Jr.

103
ryper
lemmy.ca
ryper@lemmy.ca
Joined: 2023-07-07
#10 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Most people probably know how big a pop can is, and understand that even baby elephants are pretty heavy. It gets the point across better than "A meteor with a volume of approximately one third of a litre and a mass of approximately 350 kilograms".

3
Town
lemmy.zip
Town@lemmy.zip
Joined: 2026-03-03
#11 Posted: · edited   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

lol a material that dense and that small would just blow up

NASA originally published that it was around 1000 pounds and two feet across. Then Jpost sensationalized it. A ball of iron that size would be about 1800 pounds.

https://www.jpost.com/science/article-732223

37
Lasherz
lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world
Joined: 2023-09-29
#12 Posted: · edited   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Sorry, I’m having trouble understanding. Could you express that in approximate number of cans of Dr. Pepper?

It's the size of a dr. Pepper and the weight of 3 baby elephants.

It's also the size of a baby elephant foot and the weight of 728 cans of dr. Pepper.

18
Ariselas
piefed.ca
Ariselas@piefed.ca
Joined: 2026-03-14
#13 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

heavy would imply weight wouldn't it? if they are all in orbit wouldn't 10,000 baby elephants weigh the same as 3, the same weight as a football field, or an Olympic sized swimming pool, and the same as a single can of Dr Pepper?

6
Rhaedas
fedia.io

Rhaedas@fedia.io
Joined: 2024-03-03
#14 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

I'm confused.

Not from the mass or size.

But from exactly what it is doing to Mars?

10
davidgro
lemmy.world
davidgro@lemmy.world
Joined: 2023-06-13
#15 Posted: · edited   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

It's not "Meteor the size of a Dr Pepper" but "A meteor The size of Dr Pepper" as in the whole company.

3
deadowl
lemmy.world
deadowl@lemmy.world
Joined: 2026-09-19
#16 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Product placement getting the bills paid without being excessively obnoxious--rare.

8
just2look
lemmy.zip
just2look@lemmy.zip
Joined: 2025-06-14
#17 Posted: · edited   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

heavy would imply weight wouldn't it? if they are all in orbit wouldn't 10,000 baby elephants weigh the same as 3, the same weight as a football field, or an Olympic sized swimming pool, and the same as a single can of Dr Pepper?

It could also imply mass which doesn't change regardless of gravity.

Also being in orbit doesn't significantly reduce the amount of gravity impacting the object. The reason astronauts feel weightless is because bring in orbit means they are moving fast enough to keep missing the object they are orbiting. So it isn't a lack of gravity, it is constant free fall.

9
Wildmimic
anarchist.nexus

Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus
Joined: 2025-09-05
#18 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

NASA originally published that it was around 1000 pounds and two feet across. Then Jpost sensationalized it. A ball of iron that size would be about 1800 pounds. https://www.jpost.com/science/article-732223

Somethings amiss here, the article talks about a meteorite that broke up in earths atmosphere, and above there's talk about mars

3
saltesc
lemmy.world
saltesc@lemmy.world
Joined: 2023-07-01
#19 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

It's the size of a dr. Pepper and the weight of 3 baby elephants. It's also the size of a baby elephant foot and the weight of 728 cans of dr. Pepper.

Now do Empire State buildings and football fields.

3
shalafi
lemmy.world

shalafi@lemmy.world
Joined: 2023-07-22
#20 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Most people probably know how big a pop can is, and understand that even baby elephants are pretty heavy. It gets the point across better than "A meteor with a volume of approximately one third of a litre and a mass of approximately 350 kilograms".

But it's so ludicrous it doesn't pass even the most basic smell test.

What's a baby elephant weight? 100lbs., right out my butt. (Google says 200 at birth.) You can't pack 300lbs. of anything into a pop can. Nothing in this solar system.

7
curbstickle
anarchist.nexus
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
Joined: 2025-08-25
#21 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

you need the gravity of a star like Taylor Swift to hold a mass as small as Marco Rubio but as dense as R.F. Kennedy Jr.

Perfection.

13
Potato Lover 💾 No brain found
lemmy.sdf.org

user224@lemmy.sdf.org
Joined: 2023-06-17
#22 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Yesterday I searched for how much an acre is, only to find this: https://www.wagrown.com/what-does-an-acre-look-like

1,584 potatoes
The amount of potatoes needed to make a line from one end to the other end of an acre.

And Wikipedia made it sound even funnier to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre

It is traditionally defined as the area of one chain by one furlong (66 by 660 feet), which is exactly equal to 10 square chains, 1⁄640 of a square mile, 4,840 square yards, or 43,560 square feet, and approximately 4,047 m2, or about 40% of a hectare.

Or with rods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(unit)

The 'perfect acre' is a rectangular area of 43,560 square feet, bounded by sides 660 feet (a furlong) long and 66 feet (a chain) wide (220 yards by 22 yards) or, equivalently, 40 rods by 4 rods. An acre is therefore 160 square rods or 10 square chains.

6
remotelove
lemmy.ca

remotelove@lemmy.ca
Joined: 2023-08-15
#23 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Somethings amiss here, the article talks about a meteorite that broke up in earths atmosphere, and above there's talk about mars

The meme is fake. It's one of those "breaking news" generated images and the "Channel 23" logo is just slapped on.

10
Okokimup
lemmy.world

Okokimup@lemmy.world
Joined: 2023-06-24
#24 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Alex Horne wrote this.

12
iatenine
piefed.social
iatenine@piefed.social
Joined: 2025-08-12
#25 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Obvious product placement by the baby elephant lobby

31
HugeNerd
lemmy.ca
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
Joined: 2025-03-06
#26 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Is it coming at us at 28 times the speed of light?

4
Girl Named ZERO
piefed.zeromedia.vip

girlnamedzero@piefed.zeromedia.vip
Joined: 2026-07-29
#27 Posted: · edited   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

I'm confused. Not from the mass or size. But from exactly what it is doing to Mars?

What, you’ve never obitited something?

2
heartSagan5
lemmy.zip
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip
Joined: 2026-05-27
#28 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

So, 12oz can contains 355mL, which is 355cm^3

Okay so how much force is 3 baby elephants?

Yes, I’d try to estimate the density.

4
heartSagan5
lemmy.zip
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip
Joined: 2026-05-27
#29 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

lol a material that dense and that small would just blow up

Or turn into a blackhole?

1
nosuchanon
lemmy.world
nosuchanon@lemmy.world
Joined: 2025-06-11
#30 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Y’all failed to realize that Americans are math, science, and just regular plain sorts of illiterate. So if you want them to understand anything, you have to give it to them in units they can physically see or common household objects.

Just think of it as trying to explain a difficult concept to a toddler or maybe at best a six-year-old. That’s what it feels like talking to the American public.

0
excral
feddit.org
excral@feddit.org
Joined: 2024-06-25
#31 Posted: · edited   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

So, 12oz can contains 355mL, which is 355cm^3 Okay so how much force is 3 baby elephants? Yes, I’d try to estimate the density.

A baby elephant weighs about 90 to 120 kg at birth. So the density would be in the ballpark of almost 1000 g/cm³, while the densest element on earth is osmium at 22.570 g/cm³. Seems odd to me

20
squirrel
cake.kobel.fyi

squirrel@cake.kobel.fyi
Joined: 2026-04-19
#32 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

!anythingbutmetric@discuss.tchncs.de

7
rants_unnecessarily
piefed.social
rants_unnecessarily@piefed.social
Joined: 2026-02-03
#33 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Most people probably know how big a pop can is, and understand that even baby elephants are pretty heavy. It gets the point across better than "A meteor with a volume of approximately one third of a litre and a mass of approximately 350 kilograms".

No.

33cm3 and 350kg would be much better.

Shows how American you are if you think baby elephants is better.

2
Texas_Hangover
lemmy.radio
Texas_Hangover@lemmy.radio
Joined: 2024-11-09
#34 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Y’all failed to realize that Americans are math, science, and just regular plain sorts of illiterate. So if you want them to understand anything, you have to give it to them in units they can physically see or common household objects. Just think of it as trying to explain a difficult concept to a toddler or maybe at best a six-year-old. That’s what it feels like talking to the American public.

Motherfucker, how often do you think we encounter baby elephants?

4
datavoid
sh.itjust.works
datavoid@sh.itjust.works
Joined: 2023-07-02
#35 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

A baby elephant weighs about 90 to 120 kg at birth. So the density would be in the ballpark of almost 1000 g/cm³, while the densest element on earth is osmium at 22.570 g/cm³. Seems odd to me

I have a theory that is a jumbo sized Dr pepper

6
Someonelol
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Joined: 2023-06-16
#36 Posted: · edited   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Metric is scientific, media units are relatable. 355 CC's with a mass of roughly 360 kgs is hardly easy to visualize compared to 3 elephants on a scale next to a can of Dr Pepper.

-1
SpongyAneurysm
feddit.org
SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org
Joined: 2025-06-29
#37 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Y’all failed to realize that Americans are math, science, and just regular plain sorts of illiterate. So if you want them to understand anything, you have to give it to them in units they can physically see or common household objects. Just think of it as trying to explain a difficult concept to a toddler or maybe at best a six-year-old. That’s what it feels like talking to the American public.

To be fair, that's the level of education, that mainstream media outlets expect of the general population elsewhere, as well.

Here in Germany, they reference things in bathtubs, football fields (read: soccer), and Saarlands.

5
SpongyAneurysm
feddit.org
SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org
Joined: 2025-06-29
#38 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

It's the size of a dr. Pepper and the weight of 3 baby elephants. It's also the size of a baby elephant foot and the weight of 728 cans of dr. Pepper.

That's fine and dandy, but what I really wanna know now is, to the size of how many Dr. Pepper cans can I compress 3 baby elephants and have that hold together?

2
StumblingWasabi
lemmy.today
StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today
Joined: 2026-04-27
#39 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

No. 33cm3 and 350kg would be much better. Shows how American you are if you think baby elephants is better.

If they did that, how would they get dr pepper to give them advertising money?

1
StumblingWasabi
lemmy.today
StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today
Joined: 2026-04-27
#40 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

I have a theory that is a jumbo sized Dr pepper

Maybe some of the baby elephants are balloon animals?

1
rumba
lemmy.zip
rumba@lemmy.zip
Joined: 2024-09-24
#41 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

A baby elephant weighs about 90 to 120 kg at birth. So the density would be in the ballpark of almost 1000 g/cm³, while the densest element on earth is osmium at 22.570 g/cm³. Seems odd to me

Yeah, somebody fucked up the game of telephone.

hey AP, we found a super dense chunk of rock orbiting mars.

Channel 23 tim: hey I just saw a feed they had a super desnse chunk of rock orbiting Mars!

Channel 23 Fred: God DMANNIT timmy, I done tol you that our viewers ain't gonna put up with no science bullshit. Now you tell me straight up, how this is important. Is it big? Is it heavy? is it comin for earth?

Channel 23 tim: it's not very big, but it's pretty heavy and it's not coming for earth

Channel 23 Fred: I ain't wastin no time on in then. If you can't give me a size I can understant and tell me how heavy it is so I know why it matters, you can't post it.

Channel 23 tim: It's like a small car, and it weighs as much as a motorcycle.

Channel 23 Fred: That ain't gonna get people to watch shit, here, it's the size of a pop can, and weighs as much as a F-250..

Channel 23 Sally: You can't just say it weighs as much as a Ford, they're not sponsors. Let's say it's an elepnant.

Channel 23 Fred: naw, too fucking big they won't get it

Channel 23 Sally: a baby elephant

Channel 23 Fred: you gotta think bigger call it 3...

Channel 23 tim: shipping it

11
Johanno
feddit.org
Johanno@feddit.org
Joined: 2024-06-23
#42 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Metric is scientific, media units are relatable. 355 CC's with a mass of roughly 360 kgs is hardly easy to visualize compared to 3 elephants on a scale next to a can of Dr Pepper.

While this is probably the reason they do this, I hate that they don't mention the correct number before giving a "relatable" example.

I know what 355 cm^3 is roughly. And I know how much sth. Weighs in kg.

I don't know how heavy a elephant baby is. Wtf?

6
rants_unnecessarily
piefed.social
rants_unnecessarily@piefed.social
Joined: 2026-02-03
#43 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

If they did that, how would they get dr pepper to give them advertising money?

Fair enough.

Greedy cunts.

2
🌸𝓯𝓵𝓸𝔀𝓮𝓻🌸
sh.itjust.works
Flower@sh.itjust.works
Joined: 2026-04-29
#44 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

That's fine and dandy, but what I really wanna know now is, to the size of how many Dr. Pepper cans can I compress 3 baby elephants and have that hold together?

3 baby elephants, each about 100 kg is 300 kilogram. Round to density of water, so say 300 liter and ignore the chunks. One can is 0.355 liter. Round to ⅓ liter. That makes 900 cans. About one pallet low stacked pallet.

4
idk (she/her)
szmer.info

Tiger_Man_@szmer.info
Joined: 2025-08-06
#45 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

how is that possible, isnt the densest element like 22g/cm^3? i dont know how much 3 baby elephants weight but its definitely more

28
schema
lemmy.world
schema@lemmy.world
Joined: 2023-06-14
#46 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

While this is probably the reason they do this, I hate that they don't mention the correct number before giving a "relatable" example. I know what 355 cm^3 is roughly. And I know how much sth. Weighs in kg. I don't know how heavy a elephant baby is. Wtf?

Yes. And "baby elephant" is also a vague term to begin with. I imagine a 1 week old elefant weighs a lot less than a 20 week old one. How long is an elephant considered a baby? I have no idea.

5
DrunkenDuckling
lemmus.org
DrunkenDuckling@lemmus.org
Joined: 2026-08-12
#47 Posted: · edited   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Metric is scientific, media units are relatable. 355 CC's with a mass of roughly 360 kgs is hardly easy to visualize compared to 3 elephants on a scale next to a can of Dr Pepper.

Metric is perfectly relatable for anyone growing up using it. This is just you outing yourself as USAmerican.

P.S. We would use Litres, which everyone has a concept of (Everyone has seen a 1 litre carton of milk) and is easily converted to/ from cubic cm (1000 cm^3 = 1 L = 1000 mL).

7
darkmogool
feddit.org
darkmogool@feddit.org
Joined: 2024-08-03
#48 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

How old are the baby elephants used to measure this? And which species?

11
addie
feddit.uk

addie@feddit.uk
Joined: 2023-06-14
#49 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

Yesterday I searched for how much an acre is, only to find this: https://www.wagrown.com/what-does-an-acre-look-like 1,584 potatoes The amount of potatoes needed to make a line from one end to the other end of an acre. And Wikipedia made it sound even funnier to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre It is traditionally defined as the area of one chain by one furlong (66 by 660 feet), which is ...

If you've ever played or watched cricket, which is a very imperial kind of game, then the pitch (the distance between the wickets) is exactly one chain, and the field (the whole playing ground) is typically one acre although it isn't standardised.

Cricket ball is leather, about the size of your fist, and surprisingly heavy. A chain is about as far as you can throw such a ball over-arm, and an acre is about the circle of how far you can smack such a ball with a bat before it touches the ground.

1
DrSoap
lemmy.world
DrSoap@lemmy.world
Joined: 2023-07-16
#50 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

How old are the baby elephants used to measure this? And which species?

They're chocolate elephants that you get from the grocery store on Easter

9
SpongyAneurysm
feddit.org
SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org
Joined: 2025-06-29
#51 Posted:   Subject: Re: 2 sliding scales of interpretation, just how we like it. Quote Reply

3 baby elephants, each about 100 kg is 300 kilogram. Round to density of water, so say 300 liter and ignore the chunks. One can is 0.355 liter. Round to ⅓ liter. That makes 900 cans. About one pallet low stacked pallet.

Thanks for spelling that out, but maybe I need to be more specific about the assignment.
In your example the elephants still consist of elephant matter. I wanna know what happens, if we're allowed to change that on a nuclear level, so shift some protons, neutrons (and whatever other particles, that I know nothing about) around. How many Dr. Pepper cans is the currently known limit of physics here?

1
Post Reply Page 1   Next