But the answer from Squink that you referenced appears to be about how many sand-grain sized pieces the entire Earth could be broken up into, which is different again (and by several orders of magnitude, surely).
By the way, Measure for Measure, I think you are forgetting that plenty of coastline is devoid of beach. My WAG is that that alone would be enough to cut your number by about half. Also, do you have any basis for that 64 cubic meters per meter assumption?
Maybe, but the standard scientific view these days is that it isn’t infinite.
Certainly the observable universe is not infinite.
On the other hand, if you tried to add up up all the stars in an infinite universe, you might (apparently) discover that there was only , actually, minus one twelfth of a star there. :eek:
Yes. I took that to mean, ‘I don’t know the answer to your question, but theoretically if we turned the entire Earth into sand then this would be the upper limit of the number of grains.’
Yes, Johnny, it was an overestimate that no one would dispute being an overestimate.
But much of the substance of the Earth couldn’t be broken up into sand, or even sand-sized mineral fragments: the oceans and polar ice, for example, and the iron core would leave you with iron filings, not sand. (If you posed the question as “How many grains of sand would there be in an Earth-sized spheroid of sand…”)
All that means is that we can impose a much tighter upper bound. A figure like Squink gave is intended to start the conversation, not to end it.
At least that’s the way I like to think of it.
“Like sands through the hourglass… so are the Days of Our Lives.”
Days of our Lives aired its 10,000th episode on February 21, 2005, so there are definitely more stars than episodes.