Art_Vandelay_Jr_ t1_j4w6x2b wrote
I love reading interesting facts like this
A_1337_Canadian OP t1_j4w818q wrote
Same! I guess if you think about it logically, if you pick any spot on the globe, there's a 30% chance it's land. Thus, there's probably a 30% chance that the spot on the opposite side is land (just thinking in terms of a homogenous surface). Multiply those together and you get a 9% chance of land-on-land action.
So I guess 3-4% as estimated isn't crazy, but it's only half as likely as we would expect it to be.
Meurs0 t1_j4wlkyh wrote
That half as likely probably comes from most of the land area being in the Northern hemisphere
LegoRobinHood t1_j4wpw5p wrote
Ah, thank you! So the land and thus the probabilities are not distributed evenly. That makes sense.
shannister t1_j4we8gu wrote
My statistics are rusty - why is it there isn't a 96% chance to arrive in a sea?
A_1337_Canadian OP t1_j4wgmtb wrote
It's 4% is land-to-land, meaning 96% isn't land-to-land. But that 96% could still be land-to-water, or water-to-land, or water-to-water.
Tiny_Fractures t1_j4xfavu wrote
I figure if earth is 70% water, then 20% of that 70% must be opposite land, taking the 30% down to 10%.
For the remaining 10%, 50% chance the opposite is land. 50% water. Thats about 5%.
(I know this math is wrong lol).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments