4 ms·

I believe we have Ronald Reagan to thank for cancelling our efforts from the 70s.

by anonporridge 4y ago

krallja 4y ago
A ronna-Reagan is 10^27 Reagans.
- jerf 4y ago
  One ronna-reagan is approximately 4% of the sun's mass: https://www.google.com/search?q=%28185+pounds%29+*+10%5E27+%2F+solar+mass&ei=9MB3Y-vUOuylptQPufCdiA0&ved=0ahUKEwjrnqfgoLj7AhXskokEHTl4B9EQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%28185+pounds%29+*+10%5E27+%2F+solar+mass https://www.google.com/search?q=%28185+pounds%29+*+10%5E27+%... At least if I have that right. A single Reagan's mass is from: https://www.celebheights.com/s/Ronald-Reagan-1750.html https://www.celebheights.com/s/Ronald-Reagan-1750.html Or, if you prefer, our sun as about 25 ronna-Reagans.
  - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
    weird question for anyone with the relevant knowledge, would 25 ronna-Reagans in one place behave differently than our sun? I know that mass would be mostly oxygen, but at that scale does it matter?
    - smueller1234 4y ago
      You should ask Randall Munroe! :) http://what-if.xkcd.com http://what-if.xkcd.com
      - jerf 4y ago
        He did something pretty close early on: https://what-if.xkcd.com/4/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/4/ Upping the mass to the sun size would cause some interesting additional wrinkles because now we're talking about being large enough to have "problems" with the pressures in the middle being sufficient to start causing atoms to squish together, but it would take an astronomer to be clear on what happens next. My gut and layman's understanding says you might get a pretty big boom in a couple hundred thousand years or so, because you'd basically be building a sun that would be fairly far along its fuel consumption cycle.
    - nkrisc 4y ago
      Are you asking in terms of gravitation or as a star? By mass, the sun is 71% Hydrogen and 27.1% Helium, the last 1.9% or so being heavier elements (much of that being oxygen. I’m no expert, but I suspect a mass of 25 ronna-Reagans would not make a very good star. I imagine it might collapse into a dense Oxygen and Carbon rich sphere, and in that environment various chemical reactions might turn it into some other kind of material. But maybe I’m way off.
  - saltcured 4y ago
    And 1 ronna-mcdonald's is over 9.9e37 served!
horsawlarway 4y ago
[flagged]
- coliveira 4y ago
  Raegan was a complete walking disgrace. But the media was very kind to him, if you don't investigate carefully what he was doing you'll believe that he was a great president. The only explanation I see is that he was fantastic for the war industry and gave everything the very rich were expecting in terms of fiscal policy.

I believe we have Ronald Reagan to thank for cancelling our efforts from the 70s.

krallja 4y ago

A ronna-Reagan is 10^27 Reagans.

jerf 4y ago
One ronna-reagan is approximately 4% of the sun's mass: https://www.google.com/search?q=%28185+pounds%29+*+10%5E27+%2F+solar+mass&ei=9MB3Y-vUOuylptQPufCdiA0&ved=0ahUKEwjrnqfgoLj7AhXskokEHTl4B9EQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%28185+pounds%29+*+10%5E27+%2F+solar+mass https://www.google.com/search?q=%28185+pounds%29+*+10%5E27+%... At least if I have that right. A single Reagan's mass is from: https://www.celebheights.com/s/Ronald-Reagan-1750.html https://www.celebheights.com/s/Ronald-Reagan-1750.html Or, if you prefer, our sun as about 25 ronna-Reagans.
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  weird question for anyone with the relevant knowledge, would 25 ronna-Reagans in one place behave differently than our sun? I know that mass would be mostly oxygen, but at that scale does it matter?
  - smueller1234 4y ago
    You should ask Randall Munroe! :) http://what-if.xkcd.com http://what-if.xkcd.com
    - jerf 4y ago
      He did something pretty close early on: https://what-if.xkcd.com/4/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/4/ Upping the mass to the sun size would cause some interesting additional wrinkles because now we're talking about being large enough to have "problems" with the pressures in the middle being sufficient to start causing atoms to squish together, but it would take an astronomer to be clear on what happens next. My gut and layman's understanding says you might get a pretty big boom in a couple hundred thousand years or so, because you'd basically be building a sun that would be fairly far along its fuel consumption cycle.
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    Are you asking in terms of gravitation or as a star? By mass, the sun is 71% Hydrogen and 27.1% Helium, the last 1.9% or so being heavier elements (much of that being oxygen. I’m no expert, but I suspect a mass of 25 ronna-Reagans would not make a very good star. I imagine it might collapse into a dense Oxygen and Carbon rich sphere, and in that environment various chemical reactions might turn it into some other kind of material. But maybe I’m way off.
- saltcured 4y ago
  And 1 ronna-mcdonald's is over 9.9e37 served!

horsawlarway 4y ago

[flagged]

coliveira 4y ago
Raegan was a complete walking disgrace. But the media was very kind to him, if you don't investigate carefully what he was doing you'll believe that he was a great president. The only explanation I see is that he was fantastic for the war industry and gave everything the very rich were expecting in terms of fiscal policy.