1. Forum
  2. FidoNet
  3. rec.arts.sf.written

  • xkcd: Chemical Formula

    From Lynn McGuire@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, January 28, 2026 14:47:21
    xkcd: Chemical Formula
    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:
    https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/3200:_Chemical_Formula

    Lynn


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Mark Jackson@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, January 28, 2026 16:09:32
    On 1/28/2026 3:47 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    xkcd: Chemical Formula
    ÿÿ 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.

    --
    Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
    I'd rather find boring things interesting
    than find interesting things boring. - Frazz (Jef Mallett)

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Lynn McGuire@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, January 28, 2026 19:07:12
    On 1/28/2026 3:09 PM, Mark Jackson wrote:
    On 1/28/2026 3:47 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    xkcd: Chemical Formula
    ÿÿÿ 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 ?

    Lynn


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Robert Woodward@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, January 28, 2026 22:03:03
    In article <10lebs1$ukmu$2@dont-email.me>,
    Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 1/28/2026 3:09 PM, Mark Jackson wrote:
    On 1/28/2026 3:47 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    xkcd: Chemical Formula
    ÿÿÿ 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 ?


    You start with an estimate of the total mass of the universe. Then you
    convert that into an estimate of the total number of Hydrogen atoms.

    --
    "We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
    Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_. ?-----------------------------------------------------
    Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Bobbie Sellers@3:633/10 to All on Wednesday, January 28, 2026 22:33:34


    On 1/28/26 12:47, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    xkcd: Chemical Formula
    ÿÿ 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:
    ÿÿ https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/3200:_Chemical_Formula

    Lynn


    It 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 But
    given the whole
    thing would take up pages of space and says nothing about Dark Matter
    then so
    it would be inaccurate.

    bliss

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Lynn McGuire@3:633/10 to All on Thursday, January 29, 2026 03:11:23
    On 1/29/2026 12:33 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:


    On 1/28/26 12:47, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    xkcd: Chemical Formula
    ÿÿÿ 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:
    ÿÿÿ https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/3200:_Chemical_Formula

    Lynn


    ÿÿÿÿIt 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 libÿ But
    given the whole
    thing would take up pages of space and says nothing about Dark Matter
    then so
    it would be inaccurate.

    ÿÿÿÿbliss

    Here is the entire formula from the xkcd explanation page:
    https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/3200:_Chemical_Formula

    "The formula as it appears in the comic is truncated. The complete
    formula of the universe in this style (but arranged in order of
    abundance after carbon) would be C???? H???? He???? O???? Ne???? N????
    Mg???? Si???? Ar???? Fe???? S???? Ni???? Ca???? Al???? B???? Be????
    Na???? As???ý Br???ý Li???ý Cr???? Ti???? Mn???? P???? K???? V????
    Cl???? F???? Sc???ý Co???? Cu???ý Zn???? Ga???ý Ge???? Se???ý Kr???ý
    Rb???ý Sr???ý Y???? Zr???ý Nb???? Mo???? Tc??? Ru???? Rh???? Pd????
    Ag???? Cd???? In???? Sn???? Sb???? Te???ý I???? Xe???ý Cs???? Ba???ý
    La???? Ce???ý Pr???? Nd???ý Pm??? Sm???? Eu???? Gd???? Tb???? Dy????
    Ho???? Er???? Tm???? Yb???? Lu???? Hf???? Ta???? W???? Re???? Os????
    Ir???? Pt???? Au???? Hg???? Tl???? Pb???ý Bi???? Po??? At??? Rn??? Fr???
    Ra??? Ac??? Th???? Pa??? U???? Np??? Pu??? Am??? Cm??? Bk??? Cf??? Es???
    Fm??? Md??? No??? Lr??? Rf??? Db??? Sg??? Bh??? Hs??? Mt??? Ds??? Rg???
    Cn??? Nh??? Fl??? Mc??? Lv??? Ts??? Og??? according to estimates of abundance."
    https://ptable.com/#Properties/Abundance/Universe

    Lynn


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Cryptoengineer@3:633/10 to All on Thursday, January 29, 2026 12:39:53
    On 1/29/2026 1:33 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:


    On 1/28/26 12:47, Lynn McGuire wrote:
    xkcd: Chemical Formula
    ÿÿÿ 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:
    ÿÿÿ https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/3200:_Chemical_Formula

    Lynn


    ÿÿÿÿIt 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 libÿ But
    given the whole
    thing would take up pages of space and says nothing about Dark Matter
    then so
    it would be inaccurate.

    ÿÿÿÿbliss

    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.

    pt

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Peter Fairbrother@3:633/10 to All on Friday, January 30, 2026 07:03:16
    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
    ÿÿÿ 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..

    Peter Fairbrother


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Paul S Person@3:633/10 to All on Friday, January 30, 2026 09:03:42
    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
    ??? 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".
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.8
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Dimensional Traveler@3:633/10 to All on Friday, January 30, 2026 17:27:58
    On 1/30/2026 9:03 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
    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
    ÿÿÿ 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?

    --
    I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
    dirty old man.

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.8
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Peter Fairbrother@3:633/10 to All on Saturday, January 31, 2026 06:25:57
    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?

    And perhaps we can't ever know whether the universe is finite.

    There may be clues in the flatness of the observable universe, but then
    there is no particular reason why the rest if it should have the same curvature.

    That said, there may be a reason we don't yet know why the observable
    universe is so very nearly flat.

    Inflation may (partly) account for how, but the weak anthropomorphic
    principle is probably the best theory we have so far for why - universes
    which are not nearly flat can't support thinking life, either because
    they don't last long enough or because they aren't complex enough; so if
    we posit thinking life, and cogito ergo sum, then the universe the
    thinking life is supported by must be nearly flat.

    But that presupposes many universes ... does that remind you of
    quantum-ness?


    Keeping 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, or
    without end, depending what part of maths (or physics) you are working in.

    Or informally, larger than any number.

    Peter Fairbrother


    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.8
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Paul S Person@3:633/10 to All on Saturday, January 31, 2026 08:40:27
    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? Or at least ancient philosophy, which also posited that
    there was more than we could see. Just beyond and hidden by the Sphere
    of Stars.

    <snippo further religious stuff>

    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
    GUT appears. Or, if more is needed, the TOE.

    Keeping 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.

    If you think a helium-filled party balloon has an infinite amount of
    gas in it, you are cuckoo. And it doesn't matter how few edges the
    balloon has.

    Mathematically, it can mean either without limit, without bound, or
    without end, depending what part of maths (or physics) you are working
    in.

    Or informally, larger than any number.

    This is getting too esoteric, but I do not dispute it.

    It is typical of working with infinity that really strange stuff pops
    up, from time to time.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.8
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Paul S Person@3:633/10 to All on Saturday, January 31, 2026 08:48:18
    On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 17:27:58 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
    <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

    On 1/30/2026 9:03 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
    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
    ??? 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?

    There are exactly as many points in the Real Number line between 0 and
    1 as there are on the entire line itself. In each case, there are an uncountably infinite number of points.

    "Infinite" does not mean "very large". It is a very weird concept.
    With very odd consequences.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.8
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Lawrence D?Oliveiro@3:633/10 to All on Monday, February 02, 2026 01:21:43
    On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 07:03:16 +0000, Peter Fairbrother wrote:

    Of course we don't know whether the universe is finite or not..

    There are hints of more than one Big Bang, which may point to the
    Universe being detectably larger than all the directly-observable
    stars, galaxies etc.

    By the way, an infinite Universe cannot have a nonzero mass density,
    otherwise it will just collapse. So the mass distribution would have
    to be fractal, with a Hausdorff dimension of (I think) 2 or less.
    This would still allow for infinite total mass.

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.10
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Lawrence D?Oliveiro@3:633/10 to All on Monday, February 02, 2026 01:22:45
    On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 17:27:58 -0800, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

    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
    ?transfinite? numbers.

    You may might say, they are all infinite, but some are more infinite
    than others.

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.10
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)