Mr Waas’ Challenge: How Many Years Are There in 100 Trillion Seconds??

“If the pyramids in Egypt are 5,000 years old, there are 155 billion seconds in 5,000 years and 1,000 billion make a trillion. So how many years are there in 100 trillion seconds?”

Here is my calculation and answering the Challenge:

3170979.1983764586504312531709792 Years

or 3,170,979.1984 Years (rounded to the 4th decimal place.)

***This is based on the following:

365 days in one year (Leap years were not taken into account for my calculation.)

1 billion = 1,000,000,000

1 trillion = 1,000,000,000,000

100 trillion = 100,000,000,000,000 

And I’m sure you are ALL wondering how I came up with that right??

Here is the explanation:

There are 60 seconds in 1 minute.

There are 3600 seconds in 1 hour.

There are 86,400 seconds in 1 day.

There are 31,536,000 seconds in 1 (365 day) year.

So if we take 100 trillion, which is 100,000,000,000,000 and divide it by 31,536,000 (number of seconds in one year)

we get the following answer for how many years are in 100 trillion seconds:



If you have come up with a different calculation than I, which may very well be the case if you took leap years into account, then please, oh please, post an explanation!    

 But just for kicks, working the calculation out according to Mr Waas’ clue of information…

155,000,000,000 (155 billion seconds in 5,000 years)

divided by 5,000 = 31,000,000 seconds per year. 

Which makes my calculation off by only 536,000 seconds.

Then if we take 100 trillion seconds and divide it by 31,000,000, we get the following result:

3225806.4516129032258064516129032 Years

So if we look at my calculation based on my own explanation versus the calculation based on Mr. Waas’ information,

3170979.1983764586504312531709792 Years


3225806.4516129032258064516129032 Years

A difference of only 54827.253236444575375198441924226)

 We can observe that both calculations are really very close.  Of course, I believe my figure is more accurate.  🙂  Someone should really get in touch with our dear Mr. Waas!


P.S. I did confirm that my calculation of 157,680,000,000 (billion) is the number of seconds in 5,000 years which coincides with the GitWiz’s calculation… he was tired so we can over look that he said trillion because we know he meant billion! 🙂 Great job GitWiz, you are Awesome and deserve a Treat!!!

And I should get back to work…


10 thoughts on “Mr Waas’ Challenge: How Many Years Are There in 100 Trillion Seconds??

  1. Very good! I’m impressed with your calculations, (but not with Mr Waas’ rather slack parameters), however I have to say that I did mean Trillion because if you look back at my comment I have added an extra 7 into my answer.
    I can’t check back to see whether this was due to a miscalculation, or poor typing when I wrote the comment – because I did it all longhand and then used the same scrap of paper for my shopping list before going to the food store.

    Thank you for the treat BTW…….*i’m sure I used to have that recipe….*

    Just a PS:
    In the UK we still use miles for long distances.
    But rather confusingly, we use the metric system for shorter distance (and spell it metres not meters).

    On vacation in Ireland many years ago, they were in the process of converting from miles to kilometres – most disconcerting to be travelling down a country road and see a sign reading ‘Killarney 8′ then motoring on further and encountering another sign proclaiming that Killarney was now ’10’.
    It was explained to us by a friendly barman at the end of a very confusing journey that half of the road signs were in miles and half in kilometres!
    This had been the case for at least a month, he told us….

  2. I didn’t want to touch this one, since I didn’t know what year everyone was starting their counts on…which could have influenced ‘which’ years were considered Leap Years.

    Reminds me of when I originally did the math out for how long the world existed based on Genesis, given standard accepted translations. With the number of ‘discoveries’ and non-canonical exclusions, I gave up shortly after for a cup of coffee.

    …then I started counting instant granules for the perfect cup. *sighs*

  3. hey John, we weren’t starting at any particular point. One way to avoid figuring in the leap years. Which, for the record, my figure is off from that stand point because it’s ‘a little’ difficult to accurately get a figure if we were to take leap into consideration. Although, the challenge wasn’t meant to really have a starting point in time. I have been contemplating that thought though like you, how far back from the current date would that take us into the past and when exactly are we talking? Perhaps when I have a little extra time I can mess around with some calculations. 🙂

    As for the number of granules, How many is the perfect cup? I really need to know!

  4. Given P=Perfection
    P-1P!=P+1. I would also say that P is theoretically equivalent to the value ∞-1.

    After that I get lost in the fact of infinity being used as a limit by thoughtful thinkers (oh, the nerve!). How CAN there be a limit to infinity?

    Maybe you need to correct my math, if I’m making a mistake better to know now than some meeting I try to use this as a control tactic in banter.

  5. In regards to your comment of the limit of infinity: I must begin by saying that infinity is not a number, it is a concept. So 1 + ∞ = ∞ and not ∞ +1!!!
    We know we can’t reach it, instead we can still try to work out the value of functions that have infinity in them. So, since Infinity cannot be used directly, instead a limit can be used. Basically limit means approaching, which is a mathematical way of saying “we are not talking about when x=∞, but we know as x gets bigger, the answer gets closer and closer to 0”. In fact many infinite limits are actually somewhat easy to work out, especially if you can figure out “which way it is going”. When I think of limits, I always recall that plugging in the different values of x for the function of x (or f(x)), will begin to reveal what value the limit is narrowing in on.

    In other words, certain limits narrow in on a specific value. This often works out nice because there are common values that functions approach, such as zero, infinity one, or a constant, etc. Try messing around with functions that will approach a value that you know, such as a trig function or e (which equals 2.71827). That way you can see that the limit is a way of narrowing in on a value. (I personally always disliked narrowing in on roots because it can be so tedious.)

    I’m going to have to take another look at your perfection formula and give it a couple of test runs and get back to you…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s