It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Here's a gem from L. M. Boyd from over twenty-years..

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:49 PM
ago. ...

Which are there more of, square inches in a square mile, or seconds in a century? You can go ahead and factor in the leap years too if you like.

P.S. I hope I'm not in trouble for posting this question in this forum.

[edit on 20-1-2005 by TheManInTheShadows]

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:48 AM
Me stupid, me google instead of think.
How many square inches are there in one mile? (12 in/ft x 12 in/ft x 5280 ft./mile x 5280 ft/mile= 4, 014,489,600 sq. inches)
1 century = 3.1556926 x 10^09 seconds

Was there something that was supposed to happen or something?

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:43 PM
Nygdan --

No, nothing was supposed to happen. I just thought it was a neat sort of question. Most people answer seconds in a century. I guess most people don't think much of the question, judging by the lack of interest.

Thanks 4 the reply!

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:27 PM
60 * 60 * 24 * 364 * 100 = 3,144,960,000
( 5280 * 12 )^2 =. . . . . . . . 4,014,489,600

Maybe people might respond to seconds in a century because a century sounds very long and seconds very tiny and they forget that squaring a number greatly increases it. [we often think about map quantities in squares, ie. one square mile is just one, a single quantity, which makes it seem/sound smaller]

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 09:39 PM
Slank --

Me thinks you're right.

new topics

top topics

log in