Need help

[5hot6un]

I need help with the following. References or method used to calculate is appreciated.

The mass of one carbon atom is X% of the mass all the carbon atoms in a typical human.

The mass of one typical human is X% of the mass of all living humans.

The total mass of all living humans is X% of the total mass off all living things on earth

The total mass of all living things on earth is X% of the total mass of earth.

The total mass of Earth is X% of the total mass of the planets in our solar system

The total mass of all the planets, moons, asteroids, comets and dust (everything but the sun) in our solar system is X% of the mass of the sun.

The mass of our solar system is X% of the mass of all the solar systems in our galaxy.

The mass of all the solar systems in our galaxy is X% the mass of the black hole in the center of our galaxy.

The mass of our galaxy is X% of the mass of all the galaxies in the universe.

The mass of all the galaxies in the universe is X% of all the mass of the universe.

 

[Shpaget]

The mass of one carbon atom is X% of the mass all the carbon atoms in a typical human.

Molar mass of C is 12.0107 g/mol. One mole is 6.0221415*10^23.
That means that one C atom has mass of 1.99442*10^-26 kg.
Divide mass of one C atom with the mass of all C atoms in human body (human body is composed of aprox 18,5% of carbon; an average human is 70 kg -> 70*0,185=13 kg of carbon in a human) you get 1,54*10^-27. Multiply it with 100 to get percentage -> one C atom is 1,54*10^-25% of all carbon in a typical human (by mass).

The mass of one typical human is X% of the mass of all living humans

This one is easy, you don't even need to calculate the masses, just use numbers - > 1/6 800 000 000= 1,47*10^-10 ->
The mass of one typical human is 1,47*10^-8% of the mass of all living humans.

The rest is calculated the same way.
Google the numbers (Wikipedia might also be a good place to start searching) and divide the smaller number by the larger one, multiply with 100 to get percentage and that's it.

Edited: world population increased from 6 800 000 to 6 800 000 000

 

[MeteorWayne]

I need help with the following. References or method used to calculate is appreciated.

The mass of one carbon atom is X% of the mass all the carbon atoms in a typical human.

The mass of one typical human is X% of the mass of all living humans.

The total mass of all living humans is X% of the total mass off all living things on earth

The total mass of all living things on earth is X% of the total mass of earth.

The total mass of Earth is X% of the total mass of the planets in our solar system

The total mass of all the planets, moons, asteroids, comets and dust (everything but the sun) in our solar system is X% of the mass of the sun.

The mass of our solar system is X% of the mass of all the solar systems in our galaxy.

The mass of all the solar systems in our galaxy is X% the mass of the black hole in the center of our galaxy.

The mass of our galaxy is X% of the mass of all the galaxies in the universe.

The mass of all the galaxies in the universe is X% of all the mass of the universe.

And how much are you going to pay us to do your homework?

 

[5hot6un]

This isn't a homework assignment. Just something I want to provoke thought from my kids.

Thanks for the help!

 

[Shpaget]

No problem.
There was an error with world population in my post; corrected it.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

You did provoke one thought in me... From our position you can go macro or micro, and you will not reach the ends. God and by extension the universe is beyond the understanding of us humans.

 

[5hot6un]

You did provoke one thought in me... From our position you can go macro or micro, and you will not reach the ends. God and by extension the universe is beyond the understanding of us humans.

Perhaps at a micro level (one human in one moment of time) you are correct.

But at the macro level ( all humans over the course of all the time humans have and will inhabit the universe) collectively we can understand the universe at all levels.

The progression of understanding is growing exponentially right now. Even this forum is a small example of that.

What benefit is there in believing our race cannot understand it all? Doesn't the evidence seem to suggest that we are on a trajectory to do just that?

Our superstitions and self doubt are our limiting factors, in my humble opinion.

 

[MeteorWayne]

OK, this still does not belong in Physics, so will be moved to Ask the Astronomer.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

You did provoke one thought in me... From our position you can go macro or micro, and you will not reach the ends. God and by extension the universe is beyond the understanding of us humans.

Perhaps at a micro level (one human in one moment of time) you are correct.

But at the macro level ( all humans over the course of all the time humans have and will inhabit the universe) collectively we can understand the universe at all levels.

The progression of understanding is growing exponentially right now. Even this forum is a small example of that.

What benefit is there in believing our race cannot understand it all? Doesn't the evidence seem to suggest that we are on a trajectory to do just that?

Our superstitions and self doubt are our limiting factors, in my humble opinion.

Here is the evidence that I have found so far, so I can answer your question.

At micro level we get to a point that things become so small that the light we need to see what is happening will be so powerful compared to the subject we are viewing that we will change what we look at by simply looking at it. Therefore we will never know what is below a certain size. It would be impossible to DIRECTLY observe quarks because they are far less massive than the light quanta that we would have to fire at them to get a good "scatter."

At macro level we get to a point that things become so big that we don’t have enough time to see what is happening. To see beyond the edge of the universe you will have to go back in time to the beginning, but at the beginning there was no light to see. So it would be impossible to DIRECTLY observe what is outside of our universe because there are no light quanta there that we could use to fire and get a good “scatter”.

By the way by “scatter” I mean the observable by either the eye or equipment. Therefore I am not being superstitious, but simply logical.

 

[5hot6un]

Here is the evidence that I have found so far, so I can answer your question.

At micro level we get to a point that things become so small that the light we need to see what is happening will be so powerful compared to the subject we are viewing that we will change what we look at by simply looking at it. Therefore we will never know what is below a certain size. It would be impossible to DIRECTLY observe quarks because they are far less massive than the light quanta that we would have to fire at them to get a good "scatter."

At macro level we get to a point that things become so big that we don’t have enough time to see what is happening. To see beyond the edge of the universe you will have to go back in time to the beginning, but at the beginning there was no light to see. So it would be impossible to DIRECTLY observe what is outside of our universe because there are no light quanta there that we could use to fire and get a good “scatter”.

By the way by “scatter” I mean the observable by either the eye or equipment. Therefore I am not being superstitious, but simply logical.

You make an excellent point. We are indeed physically limited by the scale at which we exist. But our minds are not limited in this way and it is possible to observe the unobservable implicitly and describe it mathematically.

I think we are dancing around the idea of the "theory of everything" where quantum and astrophysical observations are explained simultaneously.

I prefer to take the optimistic point of view and believe that the TOE will someday be achieved. Considering how far we have come, and how fast we are progressing, it seems plausible to me.

I apologize for implying that you were being superstitious. The God reference put me in that frame of mind.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

No apology needed as I took no offence 5hot6un, I rather enjoy these types of discussions. I sometimes wonder if "our minds are not limited", sometimes I think they may very well be limited.

As for the "theory of everything", I believe that Douglas Adams had it down pat. As to the question of God, the universe, and everything the answer 42 does seem to fit very well. If you don’t believe me just look up “42 (number)” in wiki

All joking aside, to know “everything” is not something I look forward to for myself or my species. I rather enjoy being surprised by the Universe from time to time.

Also don’t let the word God put you out of sorts… I am not religious per se but there certainly does seem to be a pattern to things the more deeply we see.

 

[siriusdogstarone]

so if a human stands for a moment in time and there have been billions here on earth . Say there are approximately
6.5 billion people now then that would be 6.5 billion minutes in all of our earthly existence So .
6.5 billion multiplied by 1,440 minute in a day would be 7,020,000,000,000,000 people represented by minutes on
earth . the numbers so big I had to calculate it on paper. :shock:

 

[5hot6un]

No apology needed as I took no offence 5hot6un, I rather enjoy these types of discussions. I sometimes wonder if "our minds are not limited", sometimes I think they may very well be limited.

As for the "theory of everything", I believe that Douglas Adams had it down pat. As to the question of God, the universe, and everything the answer 42 does seem to fit very well. If you don’t believe me just look up “42 (number)” in wiki

All joking aside, to know “everything” is not something I look forward to for myself or my species. I rather enjoy being surprised by the Universe from time to time.

Also don’t let the word God put you out of sorts… I am not religious per se but there certainly does seem to be a pattern to things the more deeply we see.

My dad used to joke about 42, the hitchhikers guide, and such. It is interesting. And I will turn 42 this year. So I hope it is my answer to everything.

While on wiki I wound up reading this sentence:
"Although the fusion of lighter elements in stars releases energy, production of elements heavier than iron absorbs energy."

It got me to thinking of all kinds of implications. None had anything to do with 42. Surely the transition from producing energy to absorbing it has a profound effect on the life cycle of a star. And I would guess it has a lot to do with stars going supernova. In turn does it explain why our planet has lots of iron while heavier elements are more rare?

Regarding God; If he created the universe, he did such a great job that he hasn't had to do anything since. One super-miracle was all we needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

 

[MeteorWayne]

Iron is exactly why stars go supernova. All reactions up to there release energty, so the outward pressure matches the gravity pulling material in...the delicate balance that is a star. One iron starts to form, with no outward pressure, gravity wins and the star collapses when all kinds of stuff happens