The diameter of the Earth is ~8 miles (rounding up for simplicity’s sake). The highest mountain on Earth is ~6 miles high (again, rounding up for simplicity’s sake).
If someone were to make a perfect scale model of the Earth, the size of, say, a bowling ball, where Mean Seal Level is represented by the surface of the ball, would I be able to feel Mt. Everest if I ran my hand over the ball? Would it be visible to the naked eye?
Errr, how about 8000 miles.
A random piece of trivia I heard from a grade school teacher was that if the Earth were the size of a basketball, Mt Everest would be the size of one of the little bumps on it. I’m not sure if that’s true, but if it is, I’d say, you’d be able to see it and barely be able to feel it if it were alone and probably neither amongst everything else that’s scaled down with it.
Yeah, good point. WTF? :smack:
Assuming a bowling ball is 1 ft diameter then your ratio is:
8000 * 5280 feet : 1, or roughly 42M:1
Thus your Everest would be sticking up 6 * 5280/42 million above the ball’s surface. Which is about 0.009 of an inch.
So, no.
According to Wikipedia, a bowling ball is about 8.6 inches across. So a Bowling Everest would be about 6 mils tall, or about a 6th of a millimeter. I’m pretty sure you could feel that, but it would be slight.
Basketballs aren’t even twice as wide as bowling balls, and those little bumps are easily a millimeter tall, so either Joey P’s teacher was not correct, or I screwed up on the math somewhere.
If we keep it simple and reduce it to a sphere 1 foot in diameter, the mountain would be ~1/100 inch, or 0.2 mm. I think that would be tough to see. Maybe you could feel it?
ETA: OK, I’m a little slow. What they said ^
Since 6 miles is the height of MT Everest and the Marianas Trench is about 7 miles deep then the difference is 13 miles. The diameter of the Earth is 8000 miles. That means the ratio between the two is .001625. If you assumed a ball one foot in diameter then the difference between the highest point of Earth and the lowest point on Earth is .0195 inches.
Isaac Asimov once wrote that if the earth were modeled by a sphere of, say, aluminum, the size of a bowling ball, and that if you breathed once on it…the moisture on the ball would be, proportionally, as much water as all the earth’s seas.
You’d only really want to feel for that once. For quite a short time period.
The scale involved is not explained well to the lay person.
When I was a boy, I had a relief globe and the mountains were definitely ‘tall’.
As an adult, when I learned the scales involved, I was rather irritated at the people who created that lying globe.
Harrumph!!
It’s entirely possibly he wasn’t right. I’m sure he just picked it up from some random place as well. This was at least 15 years ago. It wasn’t as easy to just hop on the internet and double check that kind of stuff as it is now. In fact, before I made that comment, I looked it up and came up with a few different answers. Some saying Mt Everest would be as thick as a piece of paper, some saying that your bowling ball sized earth would be smoother then an actual bowling ball.
Isn’t that a hidden Diablo stage?
WHOOSH…that went right over my head.
Sorry, didn’t see your join date. It’s an old board joke caused by a coding error in this thread.
All these responses assume that Mt. Everest begins at sea level. For real, it only rises about 13,600 feet above its base. Mauna Kea would be a larger bump (33,500 feet from the bottom of the ocean surrounding it).
I get 3.2 in[SUP]3[/SUP] for the volume of the earth’s oceans. Since that would be liquid water, that seems to be more than a breath can hold. It might be the same as the amount of the earth’s atmosphere, maybe. I could be wrong, though. Here’s my math:
Vol_earth/Vol_ocean = Vol_bowlingball/x
(1,083,210,000,000 km[SUP]3[/SUP])/(1,300,000,000 km[SUP]3[/SUP]) = (2,664 in[SUP]3[/SUP])/x)
x = (2,664 in[SUP]3[/SUP] × 1,300,000,000)/1,083,210,000,000 = 3.2 in[SUP]3[/SUP]
Would you be able to feel the course of that river that lies between Texas and Mexico, twisting through the dusty land?
Stop that or I’ll shoot you with some kind of energy transference device from the last century.
End hijack: we’re meant to be talking about a model of the Earth. A scalar one.
Oh, ruddy! The odds that Asimov miscalculated are vastly less than the likelihood I misremembered what he wrote… Now I’ve gotter go back and re-read him till I find the reference! Um…that’s a good thing! Thanks!
I seem to recall Asimov saying something about the amount of *fresh *water in the world. That may be it.