xkcd: Chemical Formula
-a-a https://www.xkcd.com/3200/
I think that Randall is off by a few million orders of magnitude.
On 1/28/2026 3:47 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
xkcd: Chemical Formula
-a-a-a https://www.xkcd.com/3200/
I think that Randall is off by a few million orders of magnitude.
Looks defensible to me, and certainly not off by a factor of 10^(10^6). Estimates of the total number of atoms in the universe generally fall in
the 10^78 to 10^82 range.
On 1/28/2026 3:09 PM, Mark Jackson wrote:
On 1/28/2026 3:47 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
xkcd: Chemical Formula
-a-a-a https://www.xkcd.com/3200/
I think that Randall is off by a few million orders of magnitude.
Looks defensible to me, and certainly not off by a factor of 10^(10^6). Estimates of the total number of atoms in the universe generally fall in the 10^78 to 10^82 range.
How can you know the number of atoms in this universe if you do not know
the number of stars in the Milky Way or the number of galaxies in the universe ?
xkcd: Chemical Formula
-a-a https://www.xkcd.com/3200/
I think that Randall is off by a few million orders of magnitude.
However, this may be the chemical formula for the Solar System.
Explained at:
-a-a https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/3200:_Chemical_Formula
Lynn
On 1/28/26 12:47, Lynn McGuire wrote:
xkcd: Chemical Formula
-a-a-a https://www.xkcd.com/3200/
I think that Randall is off by a few million orders of magnitude.
However, this may be the chemical formula for the Solar System.
Explained at:
-a-a-a https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/3200:_Chemical_Formula
Lynn
-a-a-a-aIt cannot be because it includes no iron. Fe (iron) is the end product of solar transmutation and essential to formation of livable planets. We have an Iron core
which is rotating inside the crust and around which the rest of the
planet may
have accumulated. It also misses Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc. ad lib-a But
given the whole
thing would take up pages of space and says nothing about Dark Matter
then so
it would be inaccurate.
-a-a-a-abliss
On 1/28/26 12:47, Lynn McGuire wrote:
xkcd: Chemical Formula
-a-a-a https://www.xkcd.com/3200/
I think that Randall is off by a few million orders of magnitude.
However, this may be the chemical formula for the Solar System.
Explained at:
-a-a-a https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/3200:_Chemical_Formula
Lynn
-a-a-a-aIt cannot be because it includes no iron. Fe (iron) is the end product of solar transmutation and essential to formation of livable planets. We have an Iron core
which is rotating inside the crust and around which the rest of the
planet may
have accumulated. It also misses Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc. ad lib-a But
given the whole
thing would take up pages of space and says nothing about Dark Matter
then so
it would be inaccurate.
-a-a-a-abliss
On 1/29/2026 1:33 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:[...]
On 1/28/26 12:47, Lynn McGuire wrote:
xkcd: Chemical Formula
-a-a-a https://www.xkcd.com/3200/
I think that Randall is off by a few million orders of magnitude.
However, this may be the chemical formula for the Solar System.
The list has Carbon, Hydrogen, and then the rest of the elements in alphabetical order of their symbols. This is the conventional ordering
for organic molecules.
What I was to know is Munro's definition of 'the Universe'. Is it
actually the universe observable from Earth? After all there
may be plenty of universe more than 93 billion lightyears
away, but unobservable to us.
On 29/01/2026 17:39, Cryptoengineer wrote:I would thing the triumph of the Big Bang over the Steady State pretty
On 1/29/2026 1:33 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:[...]
On 1/28/26 12:47, Lynn McGuire wrote:
xkcd: Chemical Formula
aaa https://www.xkcd.com/3200/
I think that Randall is off by a few million orders of magnitude.
However, this may be the chemical formula for the Solar System.
The list has Carbon, Hydrogen, and then the rest of the elements in
alphabetical order of their symbols. This is the conventional ordering
for organic molecules.
What I was to know is Munro's definition of 'the Universe'. Is it
actually the universe observable from Earth? After all there
may be plenty of universe more than 93 billion lightyears
away, but unobservable to us.
10^80 hydrogen atoms is a good estimate for the observable universe. Of >course we don't know whether the universe is finite or not..
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 07:03:16 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 29/01/2026 17:39, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 1/29/2026 1:33 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:[...]
On 1/28/26 12:47, Lynn McGuire wrote:
xkcd: Chemical Formula
-a-a-a https://www.xkcd.com/3200/
I think that Randall is off by a few million orders of magnitude.
However, this may be the chemical formula for the Solar System.
The list has Carbon, Hydrogen, and then the rest of the elements in
alphabetical order of their symbols. This is the conventional ordering
for organic molecules.
What I was to know is Munro's definition of 'the Universe'. Is it
actually the universe observable from Earth? After all there
may be plenty of universe more than 93 billion lightyears
away, but unobservable to us.
10^80 hydrogen atoms is a good estimate for the observable universe. Of
course we don't know whether the universe is finite or not..
I would thing the triumph of the Big Bang over the Steady State pretty
much implies a finite universe.
Keeping in mind the mathematical nature of "infinite".
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 07:03:16 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
10^80 hydrogen atoms is a good estimate for the observable universe. Of
course we don't know whether the universe is finite or not..
I would thing the triumph of the Big Bang over the Steady State pretty
much implies a finite universe.
Keeping in mind the mathematical nature of "infinite".From the Latin finitus: "without end, bound or limit"
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:How, indeed?
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 07:03:16 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
10^80 hydrogen atoms is a good estimate for the observable universe. Of
course we don't know whether the universe is finite or not..
I would thing the triumph of the Big Bang over the Steady State pretty
much implies a finite universe.
Big Bang doesn't change anything as far as the finiteness of the
universe goes.
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole" >universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very
much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the
rest of it .. how can we be sure?
But that presupposes many universes ... does that remind you of >quantum-ness?I would agree that the scientific issues will not be setted until the
If you think a helium-filled party balloon has an infinite amount ofKeeping in mind the mathematical nature of "infinite".From the Latin finitus: "without end, bound or limit"
That may be confusing: the universe may be boundless but finite.
Eg perhaps it wraps around on itself like the surface of a balloon - it
has no boundaries but it has an actual size. Or it may be infinite,
without bounds, ends or limits, and talking about a measure of its size
is meaningless, as it is limitless.
Mathematically, it can mean either without limit, without bound, orThis is getting too esoteric, but I do not dispute it.
without end, depending what part of maths (or physics) you are working in.
Or informally, larger than any number.
On 1/30/2026 9:03 AM, Paul S Person wrote:There are exactly as many points in the Real Number line between 0 and
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 07:03:16 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 29/01/2026 17:39, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 1/29/2026 1:33 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:[...]
On 1/28/26 12:47, Lynn McGuire wrote:
xkcd: Chemical Formula
aaa https://www.xkcd.com/3200/
I think that Randall is off by a few million orders of magnitude.
However, this may be the chemical formula for the Solar System.
The list has Carbon, Hydrogen, and then the rest of the elements in
alphabetical order of their symbols. This is the conventional ordering >>>> for organic molecules.
What I was to know is Munro's definition of 'the Universe'. Is it
actually the universe observable from Earth? After all there
may be plenty of universe more than 93 billion lightyears
away, but unobservable to us.
10^80 hydrogen atoms is a good estimate for the observable universe. Of
course we don't know whether the universe is finite or not..
I would thing the triumph of the Big Bang over the Steady State pretty
much implies a finite universe.
Keeping in mind the mathematical nature of "infinite".
It's really, really big?
Of course we don't know whether the universe is finite or not..
On 1/30/2026 9:03 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
Keeping in mind the mathematical nature of "infinite".
It's really, really big?
There are arbitrarily many of what mathematicians prefer to call rCLtransfiniterCY numbers.
You may might say, they are all infinite, but some are more infinite
than others.
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole" >>universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very >>much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the >>rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.comics.strips.]Ah ... you are falling into the trap of believing that you can set
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole" >>>universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very >>>much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the >>>rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-knowing, >all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.comics.strips.]
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole"
universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very
much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the
rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-knowing, all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
-is
On 2/12/2026 9:53 AM, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.comics.strips.]
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole"
universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very >>>> much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the >>>> rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-
knowing,
all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
-a-a-a-a-is
On 2/12/2026 2:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/12/2026 9:53 AM, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.comics.strips.]
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole" >>>>> universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely
very
much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the >>>>> rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-
knowing,
all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
-a-a-a-a-is
This assumes that God lives in the same universe that we do.-a Robert
Sawyer espoused in his excellent book "Calculating God" that God must
expend great effort to actually do anything in our universe.
-a-a https://www.amazon.com/Calculating-God-Robert-J-Sawyer/dp/0812580354
Lynn
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.comics.strips.]You appear to believe that you can set limits to what God can do.
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole" >>>universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very >>>much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the >>>rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-knowing, >all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
On 2/12/2026 2:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:Which was viciously attacked by the "scientific investigators of the paranormal" in /Skeptical Inquirer/ in the late 90s for /daring/ to
On 2/12/2026 9:53 AM, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.comics.strips.]
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole" >>>>> universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very >>>>> much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the >>>>> rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-
knowing,
all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
aaaa-is
This assumes that God lives in the same universe that we do.a Robert
Sawyer espoused in his excellent book "Calculating God" that God must
expend great effort to actually do anything in our universe.
aa https://www.amazon.com/Calculating-God-Robert-J-Sawyer/dp/0812580354
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 07:03:16 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
10^80 hydrogen atoms is a good estimate for the observable universe. Of >>>> course we don't know whether the universe is finite or not..
I would thing the triumph of the Big Bang over the Steady State pretty
much implies a finite universe.
Big Bang doesn't change anything as far as the finiteness of the
universe goes.
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole"
universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very
much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the
rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at least
one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a fundamentalist church.
Paul S Person wrote:
y.
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
Mohammad Abdus Salam was a believing Ahmadi Muslim who quoted the Koran
in his Nobel acceptance speech.-a His headstone once read "First Muslim
Nobel Laureate", but as Pakistan has declared the Ahmadis to not be
Muslim, that word has been removed.
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at least
one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a fundamentalist
church.
As did Faraday.
Then there was Philip Gosse.-a Despite the failure of his "Omphalos"
idea, there is no doubt that he was a very successful natural scientist
as well as a fundamentalist Christian.
George MacReady Price was able to recruit a sting of Physicists and
Chemists to his creationist foundation.-a All of them were serious Christians and were initially prepared to believe that those evil
biologists were lying through their teeth about evolution.
Alas for Price, when these scientists actually looked at the evidence
for an old earth and evolution, they were convinced by it, and left
Price's organization.
They remained Christian, though.-a IIRC several became theistic evolutionists.
Many scientists are indeed atheist or agnostic.-a But I don't believe I
have ever worked in a department which was without some believers.
On 2/13/26 2:47 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
y.
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
Mohammad Abdus Salam was a believing Ahmadi Muslim who quoted the
Koran in his Nobel acceptance speech.-a His headstone once read "First
Muslim
Nobel Laureate", but as Pakistan has declared the Ahmadis to not be
Muslim, that word has been removed.
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at least
one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a fundamentalist
church.
As did Faraday.
Then there was Philip Gosse.-a Despite the failure of his "Omphalos"
idea, there is no doubt that he was a very successful natural scientist
as well as a fundamentalist Christian.
George MacReady Price was able to recruit a sting of Physicists and
Chemists to his creationist foundation.-a All of them were serious
Christians and were initially prepared to believe that those evil
biologists were lying through their teeth about evolution.
Alas for Price, when these scientists actually looked at the evidence
for an old earth and evolution, they were convinced by it, and left
Price's organization.
They remained Christian, though.-a IIRC several became theistic
evolutionists.
Many scientists are indeed atheist or agnostic.-a But I don't believe I
have ever worked in a department which was without some believers.
Newton was a devout Christian, of the monotheistic variety, yes?[1]
Tony
[1] Iirc, he did not believe in the Trinity.
Tony Nance wrote:
On 2/13/26 2:47 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
y.
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
Mohammad Abdus Salam was a believing Ahmadi Muslim who quoted the
Koran in his Nobel acceptance speech.-a His headstone once read "First
Muslim
Nobel Laureate", but as Pakistan has declared the Ahmadis to not be
Muslim, that word has been removed.
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at
least one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a
fundamentalist church.
As did Faraday.
Then there was Philip Gosse.-a Despite the failure of his "Omphalos"
idea, there is no doubt that he was a very successful natural scientist
as well as a fundamentalist Christian.
George MacReady Price was able to recruit a sting of Physicists and
Chemists to his creationist foundation.-a All of them were serious
Christians and were initially prepared to believe that those evil
biologists were lying through their teeth about evolution.
Alas for Price, when these scientists actually looked at the evidence
for an old earth and evolution, they were convinced by it, and left
Price's organization.
They remained Christian, though.-a IIRC several became theistic
evolutionists.
Many scientists are indeed atheist or agnostic.-a But I don't believe
I have ever worked in a department which was without some believers.
Newton was a devout Christian, of the monotheistic variety, yes?[1]
Tony
[1] Iirc, he did not believe in the Trinity.
Yes, he was an Arian.-a Dedicated a million or two words on the topic,
which were studiously ignored until the last century.-a He took this work just as seriously as work on physics, mathematics, or alchemy.
I didn't want to cite older scientists, though, since at one point
everyone was either a Christian or pretended to be (we know of some
atheists through Pepys' diaries.-a Without this source we'd call them Christian).
I didn't want to cite older scientists, though, since at one point
everyone was either a Christian or pretended to be (we know of some
atheists through Pepys' diaries. Without this source we'd call them >Christian).
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at least
one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a fundamentalist church.
Shockley certainly did. There may have been others. Shockley was also a racist ass. (You could argue he wasn't really a scientist but an engineer though.)
It's hard being human. You want to be a logical creature as if made in
God's image but it doesn't always work out that way.
Paul S Person wrote:
y.
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
Mohammad Abdus Salam was a believing Ahmadi Muslim who quoted the Koran
in his Nobel acceptance speech.-a His headstone once read "First Muslim
Nobel Laureate", but as Pakistan has declared the Ahmadis to not be
Muslim, that word has been removed.
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at least
one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a fundamentalist
church.
As did Faraday.
Then there was Philip Gosse.-a Despite the failure of his "Omphalos"
idea, there is no doubt that he was a very successful natural scientist
as well as a fundamentalist Christian.
George MacReady Price was able to recruit a sting of Physicists and
Chemists to his creationist foundation.-a All of them were serious Christians and were initially prepared to believe that those evil
biologists were lying through their teeth about evolution.
Alas for Price, when these scientists actually looked at the evidence
for an old earth and evolution, they were convinced by it, and left
Price's organization.
They remained Christian, though.-a IIRC several became theistic evolutionists.
Many scientists are indeed atheist or agnostic.-a But I don't believe I
have ever worked in a department which was without some believers.
William Hyde
Paul S Person wrote:<snippo counterexamples>
y.
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:15:18 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 197,305 |