Why do people even make up BS like this?

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:43 AM

http://za.news.yahoo...-041526925.html

$1,000,000,000 / 0.05 = 20,000,000,000 nickels

1 nickel takes up 688.98 cubic mm, http://www.usmint.go..._specifications

20b nickels will take up 20b * 688.98 cubic mm which is 13,779,600,000,000 cubic mm or 13,779.6 cubic meters.

An A380's maximum cargo volume is 176 cubic meters, see the problem?  You need over 78 fully loaded A380's.

I am slightly bored

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 07:18 AM

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:12 AM

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:18 AM

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:24 AM

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:47 AM

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:00 PM

pyruvate, on 29 August 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Wait how much volume do they take up then?  I did ignore the fact that I was taking cylindrical volume and not rectangular containers, in which case you would they will take up 17,637.888 cubic meters I think.

I couldn't find the specs for the weight cargo capacity of the A380.

Anyways, the point is that the claims were ridiculous.

Well, yeah, as they're cylinders, they won't tessellate in a space-filling way. I dunno how to work out the true volume, but since you can't pack an A380 full of nickels, weight is the only relevant factor.

And indeed, it was to demonstrate the ridiculous-ness of the claim, but you were out by a factor of 10

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:06 PM

Chief_Bean, on 29 August 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Well, yeah, as they're cylinders, they won't tessellate in a space-filling way. I dunno how to work out the true volume, but since you can't pack an A380 full of nickels, weight is the only relevant factor.

And indeed, it was to demonstrate the ridiculous-ness of the claim, but you were out by a factor of 10

I make factor of 10 mistakes often .  Thanks for the correction though, so is it a factor of +10 or -10?  If it's +10, the claim is even more ridiculous than I calculated

Wait, calculating again you need 78,293,181.818 A380's?  ######, I guess this is what happens when you haven't had a Math class for over 6 months.

Edited by pyruvate, 29 August 2012 - 12:14 PM.

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:16 PM

pyruvate, on 29 August 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

I make factor of 10 mistakes often .  Thanks for the correction though, so is it a factor of +10 or -10?  If it's +10, the claim is even more ridiculous than I calculated

Wait, calculating again you need 78,293,181.818 A380's?  ######, I guess this is what happens when you haven't had a Math class for over 6 months.

I calculated based on weight (since a full weight payload is nowhere near full volume capacity by my guesswork), and the figure came out at 700-odd A380Fs (assuming loaded to MZFW).

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:22 PM

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:34 PM

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:41 PM

Mohammad, on 29 August 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

The people who made this story up should be hired by wikipedia - the mother of all disinformation.

That's somewhat unsubstantiated

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:45 PM

Mohammad, on 29 August 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

The people who made this story up should be hired by wikipedia - the mother of all disinformation.

Wikipedia isn't that bad, last semester I used it in organic chemistry labs for values of chemical and physical properties and they were always on par with the gigantic data books in the lab.

These monsters

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:47 PM

Chief_Bean, on 29 August 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

That's somewhat unsubstantiated

Do not vandalize what I just wrote!

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:48 PM

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:50 PM

Chief_Bean, on 29 August 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

Eh?

You didn't get it.

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:51 PM

Mohammad, on 29 August 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

You didn't get it.

Well, I understand that would form the basis of your argument for Wikipedia being 'the mother of...disinformation', but didn't see the relevance to my post

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:57 PM

pyruvate, on 29 August 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Wikipedia isn't that bad, last semester I used it in organic chemistry labs for values of chemical and physical properties and they were always on par with the gigantic data books in the lab.

These monsters

I use it for medicine all the time too. But it's got problems with vandalism and people who have their own agendas. Wouldn't surprise me if the hoax started from someone who edited the wikinews page related to that story and then some lazy journalist read it and decided to spread the word in hope for getting a promotion.

Chief_Bean, on 29 August 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Well, I understand that would form the basis of your argument for Wikipedia being 'the mother of...disinformation', but didn't see the relevance to my post

Mate let's just leave it there. The joke was ruined.

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:01 PM

Mohammad, on 29 August 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

I use it for medicine all the time too. But it's got problems with vandalism and people who have their own agendas. Wouldn't surprise me if the hoax started from someone who edited the wikinews page related to that story and then some lazy journalist read it and decided to spread the word in hope for getting a promotion.

I actually saw it on fb (someone else posted it) and others were believing it so I just furious that these people at a world's top University just believe ###### thrown at them and had to retaliate ASAP.

• Back to top

Posted 29 August 2012 - 02:14 PM

• Back to top