What are some commonly known facts that are too bizarre for you to believe to be true?
For me it is the fact that our blood contains iron. I earlier used to believe the word stood for some 'organic element' since I couldn't accept we had metal flowing through our supposed carbon-based bodies, till I realized that is where the taste and smell of blood comes from.
A day on Venus is longer than a year on Venus. One day takes 243 Earth days, while a year takes 225.
Maybe it's not "well known", but still interesting in my opinion.
I mentioned this one to my friends the other day and it took so much convincing before they actually believed me! Definitely an interesting one. Venus also spins the opposite direction to all the other planets in the solar system, meaning the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
I get people telling me "no, that's impossible" every time I mention this fact.
"Search your feelings, you know it to be true"
Wouldn't spinning in the opposite direction indicate that it's axial tilt is flipped or something?
The leading theory is a moon sized object hit it with enough force to spin it backwards.
Ok hold up so the way I'm understanding this is that its tilt (day) is slower than it's rotation around the sun (year). Is that right or am I way off?
Yep, and as a result, the 'movement' of the sun across the Venusian sky during a day seems to change direction (I think?)
You're close. Not the tilt of its axis, but its rotation around its axis (day) is slower than its rotation around the sun (year).
Earth's axis is tilted at about 23 degrees, which causes the seasons. Venus, by contrast, is tilted only about 2.6 degrees, and thus basically doesn't have seasons in a comparable way.
Earth's axis does very slowly wobble around (precession). Over long enough time scales, this affects the seasons, and it means the North Star has not always been aligned with Earth's North - once, North pointed at a patch of black sky and the North Star was just another star appearing to rotate around that arbitrary point.
I'd imagine Venus's axis might also wobble at least somewhat, but I haven't actually looked into this at all.
Thinking about this sent me down a rabbit hole because the day and year lengths are so extremely close to each other, and Venus rotates around its axis clockwise (unlike the other planets) while spinning around the sun clockwise, and its tilt is so slight... so as it spins around the sun, it rotates just enough to keep one side facing the sun almost all the time. I ended up googling whether it was tidally locked, like the moon is to Earth (such that we only ever see one side and it never changes) - and apparently it would be, but its atmosphere is so wild that it prevents tidal locking. But it almost is. It kinda has a dark side, and a light side, like the moon, but there's just enough mismatch between the yearly rotation the axial rotation that the side facing the sun changes slowly. This is the first article I found.
From that article, it seems like the daylight hours you'd experience standing on the surface of Venus would be 117 Earth days of light, before it got dark again. So the sun would rise, and then you'd have about half a Venus year (aka about half a Venus day, too) of daylight before you'd see night again. And then it'd be night for the rest of the year. But still scorching hot because atmosphere.
Anyway this is blowing my mind a bit. I feel like I should have known this - I used to be obsessed with astronomy when I was little. Maybe I knew it once and forgot. I don't know. But dayum. Planets are cool.
Yeah the Venus makes a lap around the sun in less time than it does a rotation around itself relative to said sun's position in its sky.
I've seen this fact somewhere before, but I still am unable to grasp it in my mind
Short: It completes a full 360° of the sun before the planet itself does a full 360° spin.
A few sentences longer:
In planet Earth human terms, we have defined one day as "how long it takes the planet to do a full 360 degree rotation". Example: You spin a basketball on your finger and it does one full rotation.
A year to us is "how long it takes the planet to go around the sun". Example: You hold a basketball out in front of you and you do one full rotation.
Now, to confuse people further, read about the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.
Planets and stars and galaxies are there. You can see them because they're right over there. Like, the moon is a big fucking rock flying around the earth. Jupiter is even bigger. I see it through a telescope and think "wow that's pretty," but every once in a while I let it hit me that I'm looking at an unimaginably large ball of gas, and it's, like, over there. Same as the building across the street, just a bit farther.
The stars, too. Bit farther than Jupiter, even, but they're right there. I can point at one and say "look at that pretty star" and right now, a long distance away, it's just a giant ball of plasma and our sun is just another point of light in its sky. And then I think about if there's life around those stars, and if our star captivates Albireoans the same way their star captivates me.
And then I think about those distant galaxies, the ones we send multi-billion dollar telescopes up to space to take pictures of. It's over there too, just a bit farther than any of the balls of plasma visible to our eyes. Do the people living in those galaxies point their telescopes at us and marvel at how distant we are? Do they point their telescopes in the opposite direction and see galaxies another universe away from us? Are there infinite distant galaxies?
Anyway I should get back to work so I can make rent this month
If I point my finger at one of those galaxies, there's more gas and shit between us within a hundred miles of me than there is in the rest of the space between us combined
What's even more fascinating is that most of the stars we see in the sky are afterimages of primitive stars that died out long ago yet they shine as bright as the stars alive today
That doesn't seem right. The galaxy is only 100,000 light years across (give or take) and the life span of stars is measured in billions of years.
Most of the stars we see are in our galaxy, so at most, we are seeing them as they were 100,000 years ago, which means that the vast majority of them will still be around, and looking much the same as they did 100,000 years ago.
I seem to have made a mistake then. Thank you for correcting it.
Thinking about it further, if we're talking about stars that we can see with telescopes, Hubble, James Webb etc, then you're on the money. Stars in remote galaxies far outnumber the ones in our galaxy and show us glimpses of the early stages of the universe. And many of those stars are long gone
I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
You should try Space Engine. It's a program to explore the universe, based on real telescope data. It also has the ability to procedurally generate galaxies, planets, and stars in unobserved parts of the universe.
I can really relate to this. I remember a weird night in my teens where I must've spent at least an hour staring out of my bedroom window at the moon, because really for the first time I'd had the exact same thought. It's right there. It's so easy to get desensitised to that and to just think of it all as an image projected on the sky. The thought has never really left me and even now I still linger on the moon every time I see it and try to acknowledge that it is a 3 dimensional object lol.
The fact that the moon is tidally locked probably doesn't help, if it rotated it would be easier to see it as a sphere instead of an image
In the same vein, I like to remind myself that every field in physics is literally happening all around me, right now, and it always has been, in fact, I've never seen anything without these invisible fields in it and for some reason, that really makes me super aware of our place in the order of magnitudes.
It's wild we can see so much further down than up.
First time I saw Jupiter through a telescope I got hit hard by the feeling: "Oh shit, that giant monster is real".
Samesies. You aren't alone. We have a support group.
"Just a bit farther" is quite the understatement!
There's a giant ball of extremely hot plasma in the sky and we aren't supposed to look at it. What is it hiding? Surely if someone managed to look at it long enough, they would see the truth!
I often used to look at it as a child, however the adults wouldn't let me. I knew there was some ulterior motive behind it.
“You look unhealthy! You should go stand in that really large room and absorb the radiation from that gigantic space-based fusion reactor more!”
You’re right, that sounds like a great idea.
I've seen some of its secrets during the eclipse. It's an angry, writhing tentacled thing. Be thankful it's so far away.
I had the same thought so I looked directly at it everyday during an hour at sunset for a year, it was intense and an interesting feeling, it is called sungazing.
Scientists look at it. That’s where they get all their sciencing from. The forbidden knowledges comes from the sun.
Time relativity always boggles my brain, I accept the fact but I find crazy that if I strap my twin and his atomic clock to a rocket and send them out to the stratosphere at the speed of light, when they return he'll be younger than me and his clock will be running behind mine. Crazy
It's even crazier because you don't need to reach the speed of light. It'll happen in a smaller degree for any speed. Even in mundane conditions.
For example, if your twin spent four days in a 300km/h bullet train, for you it would be four days plus a second.
Usually this difference is negligible, but for satellites (that run at rather high speeds, for a lot of time, and require precision), if you don't take time dilation into account they misbehave.
(For anyone wanting to mess with the maths, the formula is Δt' = Δt / √[1 - v²/c²]. Δt = variation of time for the observer (you), Δt' = variation of time for the moving entity (your twin), v = the moving entity's speed, c = speed of light. Just make sure that "v" and "c" use the same units.)
Yes I knew about that and I'm glad that doesn't make it crazier for me, instead it makes it easier to accept. If it were something that happened only after hitting some arbitrary speed value I'd be a lot more mentally damaged
To be fair the only ones that don't get mentally damaged at all with this stuff are theoretical physicists. After all being crazy makes you immune to further madness.
I wonder how long it would have taken for us to figure out time dilation in Einstein hadn't predicted it. I wonder if it would have taken until we observed it with satellites.
Without Einstein, I think that the discovery of time dilation would be delayed by only a few years. There were a lot of people working in theoretical physics already back then; someone else would inevitably dig through Lorentz' and Poincaré's papers, connect the dots, and say "waitaminute time might be relative". From that, time dilation is a consequence.
In special I wouldn't doubt that Max Planck would discover it.
I'm saying that because, in both science and engineering, often you see almost concurrent discoveries or developments of the same thing, because the "spirit of a time" makes people look at that aspect of reality or that challenge and work with it. The discovery of helium and the development of aeroplanes are examples of that.
IIRC the orbit of Mercure doesn't work with Newton Model, and astronomers were predicted the discovery of Vulcain a small planet between Mercure and the Sun. So a new model had to be invented since Vulcain couldn't be found.
Here's something I just ran into looking stuff up for my comment: GN-z11 is one of the farthest galaxies we've ever seen. Thanks to the expansion of the universe, at a distance of over 30 billion light-years, it has to be moving away from us at over twice the speed of light.
What the fuck does that mean, temporally? Like, forget the speed of light, time dilation has to do with space and relative speeds. If I'm moving at near the speed of light relative to you, then my clock will physically tick more slowly. What happens if I'm moving over twice the speed of light? Is the real life GN-z11 in our reference frame moving backwards in time at over twice the rate we're moving forward?
From my understanding, this is caused by the universe itself expanding between the 2 objects, not that the object itself is moving that speed relative to us. It's still completely insane to think about, either way.
I can't find any reference that says it's moving away from us at twice the speed of light, which would violate Relativity. The fact that it is further away from us in light years than the age of the universe in years, is due to the fact that the space itself is expanding.
The thing is, it's moving that fast because of the expansion of space. ≈30 billion light-years over ≈14 billion years equates to over twice the speed of light. Does that mean there's no crazy relativistic time dilation, and time is moving normally for them in our frame of reference, since they aren't physically moving, it's space that's expanding? That's just as wild to my brain
Relativity only applies to local reference frames and not to the recession rates of cosmologically distant objects.
The part that I understand in the intellectual sense, because I know or at least used to know how it follows from the math, but which just doesn't feel like it should be the case, is the whole "relativity of simultaneity" aspect of it. That there isn't an objectively true order in which events happen in, if the events in question aren't linked by cause and effect. That is to say, it is possible for one person to see an event A happen before another event B, a second person to see the two happen at exactly the same time, and a third to see event B happen first and then event A, and for all three of them to be equally right. It just feels like, on some level, there ought to be one objectively true order to time, a single valid timeline that all events can be placed in relative to eachother, and for time not to work that way feels so absurd as to not even be able to articulate why the idea feels wrong.
From what I understand, you are always travelling at the speed of light through space/time, but when you move at high speeds through space that shifts the proportion of your speed out of the time dimension. And a photon travels only through space, experiencing no time between the time it was emitted and the time it was absorbed. What I just can't wrap my head around is the concept of travelling at some speed without involving the time dimension at all.
Probably one of the most memorable and pivotal moments in my life was when my college professor showed us the origins of relativity and how Einstein came to the conclusion that E = mc^2
It's a proof that only took about 10 minutes to explain, and the mathematics really aren't that difficult to understand by most people. The geniuses in the fact that Einstein started by explaining how calculating relative motion meant that time had to be a variable that could be different depending on who the observer was. This in itself is an incredible observation, but you can take this to the extent to literally prove that mass and energy are directly related to each other. It's absolutely wild and one of the most sublime equations ever made.
Not exactly bizarre, but it’s fun to learn that the delicious fragrance of shrimps and crabs when cooked comes from chitin, and chitin is also why sautéed mushrooms smell/taste like shrimps.
And since fungi are mostly chitin, plants have evolved defenses against fungi by producing enzymes that destroy chitin, which is how some plants eventually evolved the ability to digest insects.
EDIT: a previous version of this post mistakenly confused chitin with keratin (which our fingernails are made of). Thanks to sndrtj for the correction!
Chitin is not produced by mammals.
Fingernails are composed primarily out of keratin (same as hair and skin).
Oops! I stand corrected.
Wow I didn't know this and I've never felt a similarity between seafood and mushrooms either in flavour or smell. But, still a cool fact.
Huh. Oddly I am allergic to shrimp and lobster, but love mushrooms. To me they don't smell the same though. Though this fact probably explains why veg oyster sauce is mushrooms.
There are only 24 episodes of the initial run of The Jetsons and only 25 of Scooby Doo. They got aired as reruns for decades before more episodes were made. There are only 15 episodes of Mr. Bean.
This one startled me.
Speaking as someone who grew up in the 1980s...
Micro-SD cards almost don't make sense to me. I'm not saying I don't believe in them, because of course I have a few of them. Obviously they exist and they work. But. They're the size of a fingernail and can hold billions of characters of data. I uwve a camera that ive put a 128 GB microSD card in. A quick tap on the calculator tells me that's over 91,000 3.5" floppy disks. Assuming they're 3mm thick, that's a stack of disks 273 meters tall. But this card is so tiny that I have to be careful not to lose it.
How about the new 2Tb m.2 drives? Not only vastly larger yet still, transfer speeds are also insane. I once had a computer with a 20Mb hard drive, current drives transfer 600-1200mb per second.
Not so impressive, of course its faster when its smaller. The data have to travel shorter.
Jk, it is damn impressive!
Actually, that's true! It's not significant enough to affect the throughput directly, but when you transmit data on parallel leads, they have to be roughly the same length in order to keep the signals synchronised with the time frames when they are received. Otherwise part of the data might not arrive in time. The higher the throughput (and shorter the frames), the greater the leads' lengths affect the timing. This is why you often see long squiggly leads on circuit boards - they extend the shorter leads to roughly the same lengths.
I saw 1tb microsd cards for sale at the shops the other day and had a bit of a 'what the fuck...' moment
I remember my parents talking about some thing or other in star trek that would be impossible because you'd need "terabytes of storage, and that's probably not possible". And now you can go buy 1 tb of storage and lose it in your couch cushions.
Poor Keanu Reaves gave up his childhood memories in Johnny Mnemonic to store something like 100GB of data in his brain. I don't remember the Star Trek storage callout cause they were generally pretty good about just fabricating their own units for stuff (future sci-fi writers should take note, it's always easier to make up units then deal with pedantic people on the internet).
indeed, most of their references to quantities of information use quads; there are a few using bytes though.
I lost a 1tb flash drive with ventoy and a bunch of files and I'm still mad, but I had a backup lol
The latest SDUC standard allows for up to 128 TB.
And the price of that 128 gb sd card? €10-15, 512 gb cards are even crazier right now at like €35 a piece, that's €0,068 per gigabyte
It gets better. The size of the SD card isn't the storage area. Look carefully at the back of an SD card and you should see how a tiny square area in the middle is a bit 'thicker' than the rest; that's the actual chip, that tiny bump!
Also fun, they rely on quantum mechanics.
Individual "bits" on a SD card are electron buckets that are either "full" (they have an electron) or not. 8 bits to a byte ~1 trillion bytes to a terabyte.
What’s a floppy disk?
That's just another name for the save icon.
I've got a 1tb microsd and it's crazy to see the difference between a 60MB harddisk and it
There is about 8.1 billion people in the world. Assuming romantic cliches to be true and that we all have exactly one soulmate out there, we would have a very hard time sifting them out. If you were to use exactly one second at meeting a person it would take you 257 years to meet everyone alive on earth at this moment, which due to human life span being significantly shorter and the influx of new people makes the task essentially impossible without a spoonful of luck. Moral of the story: If you believe you have found your soul mate, be extra kind to them today.
Soul mates are made, not found. You get with someone compatible to you, and through the sharing of experiences and affection, if nothing goes excessively wrong, they become unique for you.
Definitely agree and beautifully put :)
That catch is, you need to find that someone in the first place, and that takes a bit of looking around. So in effect, soul mates are found.
You find a partner, who then MAY become a soul mate
It gets much easier once you factor in that you, yourself, aren't static and constant. The task isn't to find someone capable of becoming perfect for you, it's finding someone whose compatibility and willingness when taken into account with your own offers a fair chance to grow into a symbiotic relationship.
Well said!
Sounds like a terrible sorting algorithm /jk
I mean, you should be extra kind to most people most of the time. Comunism begins at home.
Let's stick with the iron in your hemoglobin for some more weirdness. The body knows iron is hard to uptake, so when you bleed a lot under your skin and get a bruise, the body re-uptakes everything it can. Those color changes as the bruise goes away is part of the synthesis of compounds to get the good stuff back into the body, and send the rest away as waste.
In the other direction, coronaviruses can denature the iron from your hemoglobin. So some covid patients end up with terrible oxygen levels because the virus is dumping iron product in the blood, no longer able to take in oxygen. I am a paramedic and didn't believe this second one either, but on researching it explained to me why these patients were having so much trouble breathing on low concentration oxygen... the oxygen was there, but the transport system had lost the ability to carry it.
I had to take iron supplements in the past because my periods were so bad that I would lose my vision and pass out from loss of blood.
I don't have iron issues so I haven't completely fact checked this, but I have read in various places that using cast iron skillets to cook with does add more iron to your foods to help supplement.
There are also iron "fish", or fish shaped blocks of iron, that can be used while cooking which do the same thing!
Before using cast iron daily, when I donated blood my iron levels were regularly at the lowest allowable limit or sometimes too low to donate. Once I started cooking with cast iron, I started getting comments about how great my iron levels are every time I donate.
The sun could've gone nova 8 minutes ago and we wouldn't know for another 20 seconds or so.
Interesting fact: the sun becomes 1 million tons lighter every second.
Diet specialists hate this trick.
It's simply burning calories.
Well, we'd know by now
37 minutes later...still here.
Any moment now! Hopefully...
I might be misremembering but I believe our sun can't go nova, it's too small. It will, however, expand and swallow the Earth towards the end of its life.
When exactly would that be? I gotta add it to my calendar.
The Sun is not a big enough star to ever go nova. Neither are any of our close neighbors. We’re pretty safe from that kind of disaster.
Earth is just gonna slowly cook to a cinder and probably get swallowed when the Sun starts expanding in a couple billion years.
Fine! Geez.
Space aliens could teleport in next to sun, fling a bunch of Star Trek red matter at it like Spock did to the Romulan star, destabilize the star, and cause a, I think it was a black hole? where the star was. And we wouldn't know for 8-ish minutes.
That "I" am pretty much just the construct of electrons flying around my brain.
That you need to lay down K.O. for many hours every day, otherwise you get insane.
That we are always only 2min or so away from death, if we stopped breathing.
That everything I eat actually gets digested into mousse and bacteria are in my body, digest it and I get the elements into my blood.
That our world is so big, but you could also walk to China
Japanfrom the EU, if you had enough time. But also its crazy how huge our common trade routes are.That a weird minicomputer in my pocket can store 128GB of information, access a wireless network from across the whole planet, and can remember so much more than my brain
Walking through the Sea of Japan is a bit of a challenge, though.
Haha okay there is some water thats true.
Between Japan and the EU, there is an ocean. You also need to swim, not only walk.
Swimming is walking in water /s
That's not true though. You need REM sleep. Sleeping doesn't mean you're K.O. You're processing things and regenerating. That's like the exact opposite of being K.O.
But you're out. That processing is so intense you have to de-link nearly all environmental inputs.
It's necessary to clean out all the lactic acid buildup from thinking.
Ive suffered insomnia. It's wild how after long enough you stop developing short term memory. Which; when experienced, translates to; it's 10am. You just got done cleaning the garage cuz...cuz. You're drinking coffee watching clips from the today show on yr phone. You look up. It's 9pm and dark outside. You're sitting on the couch. You felt no time pass in between. You ask yr wife about dinner with her grandparents that you were supposed to go to. Oh. You did go. And you drove (wait....WHAT). Apparently you were as charming as ever. No memories of it.
It's like someone else is living your life.
That's when I went to the Dr. for sleep meds. I trust myself to be myself... but naw fam, life's too short. I never blanked out work so fuck that
Okay true, but you also need deep sleep a lot otherwise you dont regenerate. Also the body is fully K.O. which may make more sense
It's even weirder than that. "You" are a story that your brain tells itself so that you can explain your needs to other people. Without other people, or at least the pretend image of other people, there's nothing like what we think of as a human personality.
If you get into mindfulness meditation a little bit, the concept of self in general shifts in really weird ways. Like I know that I am an individual entity in the world, but the sense of an individual actor or driver within my consciousness has faded somewhat. When you recognize that the thoughts or feelings that manifest in consciousness are about as much under your control as whether the wind is blowing or what the people across the room are talking about, it gives you a new perspective on life.
Calcium is a metal. We have metal bones.
From Wikipedia on bones:
So the statement is a bit faulty, not only because of the relative low amount of calcium in our bones, but also because it appears as a mineral. We distinguish between salts and metals because of their chemical properties being quite different (solubility, reflectiveness, electrical conductivity, maleability and so on).
Edit: I do realize the point of the comment was not to be entirely factual, so if I am allowed as well I would say science is pretty metal.
We also distinguish between metals and non-metals by field of study. Ask an astronomer which elements are metals sometime.
Thanks for the reality injection!
The statement was glib but even the partial truth of it made me wonder when I first learned it.
Oh my... I refuse to accept this as reality
We're all organically powered metal meat machines? 😭
In the same sense that we contain a massive volume of gas, because there is a lot of hydrogen in our bodies. Yes, hydrogen is a gas, and yes, there is a lot of it on our body. But it's bound, so it doesn't count.
It would be more accurate to call it stone than metal, because the calcium in our bones is also bound to other elements, which means it does not exhibit its usual metal characteristics.
The meat is suffused with more metal throughout it
They’re made out of meat.
By the sound mine make I would have thought free jazz.
Queuing theory can have some fun surprises.
Can you elaborate on the math here? (I believe you, I just want to understand the simulation parameters better).
Not OP, but this website should explain everything.
Thanks! This article really clears up a lot of the details that help the simulation make sense.
Assume the bank opens up to a long line and it makes sense.
there's people that don't like music.
I used to be like this, but with movies. When I first met my wife, she was utterly baffled at the concept of somebody not enjoying movies, and she made it her mission to make me enjoy them.
Come to think of it, she actually doesn't like music much. I've failed to change her opinion on that though because my taste in music is shit (and I'm proud of it.)
As a person who was born liking music, I indeed find it too bizarre to believe to be true.
I thought my significant other was one of these to a certain extent. It does weird things to me as a DJ. Turns out that she just likes the limited music that she likes and cannot stand most everything else.
For me it's not like I don't like music, but there are large stretches of time, where I do not care so much for it. I would guess that I haven't actively choosen to hear music for weaks, possibly months, now. Obviously excluding the music you can't avoid, like background music in movies and video games etc.
The mitochondria in all but your blood cells are a different species than us with their own separate DNA.
You mean the power house of the cell?
i love my powerful little friends
They have their own separate genetic code, yes, but that doesn't make them a separate species, because they aren't a distinct organism at all. They don't exist in the absence of our cells.
Maybe it is semantics as you are correct but others do consider them a separate species that just happen to live in our cells. https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-anatomy/mitochondria-what-are-they-and-why-do-we-have-them#:~:text=Two%20separate%20species%20became%20one,in%20every%20other%20human%20alive.
Wait what?
A book that I love that covers this in an accessible manner is "Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochrondria and the Meaning of Life" by Nick Lane
Basically, it looks like a single cell, predatory amoeba of some sort engulfed a parasitic bacterium that was the ancestor to mitochondria, and instead of being digested, it ended up living inside the amoeba, helping to produce energy.
This is a big deal because the way that cells harness energy is by doing some cool biochemistry across a membrane. When a cell has to rely on its main, cell membrane to do this, then the energy production is proportional to the cell's surface area, which means that it's proportional to the cell's radius squared (E ∝ r^2 ) . However, the energy requirements of the cell are determined by its volume, which means that energy requirements are proportional to cell radius cubed ( E ∝ r^3 ). For small numbers the difference between r^3 and r^2 isn't much, but as radius increases, the cell volume far outstrips its surface area, which means that there was an upper ceiling on how big a cell could get while still fulfilling its energy requirements.
Mitochrondria allow cells to break this size limit by decoupling energy production from cell size, because scaling up energy production is as simple as having more Mitochrondria. Mitochrondria have their own independent genome - in the years since the endosymbiotic event, the mitochrondrial genome has shrunk a lot, because it's sort of like moving in with a friend who already has a house full of furniture - no sense in having duplicates.
That’s so rad. Thanks!
It still weirds me out how ancient organisms could pick up biochemical mechanisms like Kiryu learns fighting styles. "That's rad!" and now we have mitochondria.
Yeah mitochondrial RNA is separately inherited and only from the mother, because the egg cell has mitochondria whereas the sperm does not.
The birthday paradox
If you get 23 people in a room the odds of two of them sharing a birthday are 50%
it's not part of the paradox, but there are also days when people tend to have more sex
like new years, valentines, christmas etc. (in the west at least)
so you tend to get more people born 9 months after those days
Relevant
This seems like a logistical nightmare for all systems related to pregnancy and childcare if it were to actually become a popular thing, like damn, just pay people for having kids its not that hard
In high school my graduating class was 38. The one before us was 21, the one after 18.
Coincidently there was a massive blizzard that snowed everybody into their house for a week about 9 months before my birthday.
Yeah that's why so many people have birthdays in September
Blows my mind how this by its bare bones is just simple statistics and combinations but is a totally different story when described in English. I'm sure there are similar facts like this that are mathematically logical but to a layman is confusing and inconceivable.
communism
Don't know if it's bizarre but I was shocked when I found out I'd been lied to my whole life... a leap year isn't every 4 years.
So leap years happen when the year is divisible by 4, but not when the year is divisible by 100 but then they do again when the year is divisible by 400.
So the year 2000 is a perfect example of the exception to the exception. Divisible by 100 so no leap year, but divisible by 400 so leap year back on..
No one (!) alive today experienced a year divisible by 4 that was not a leap year. The oldest living person was born in 1907.
Also when the leap years were introduced, the priests (who were to take care of the calendar) didn't understand what dis "every four years" mean, and used to put a leap year every three years.
Alaska is simultaneously the northernmost, westernmost, and easternmost US state.
How is Alaska easternmost?
Its Western most point crosses the international date line and is therefore technically "really far east" instead of "really far west".
What would happen if you were to put both of yours legs in these westernmost and the easternmost parts?
Your legs would glitch around the whole circumference of the Earth.
You would have both legs in Alaska.
You'd probably drown.
Likewise, the closest US state to Africa is Maine.
The hell that giving birth can be.
A lot of women endure having a baby...and holy. shit. No.
Their bodies produce chemicals that cause them to forget how bad childbirth was.
Exactly. I was there and saw my wife having the worst pain of her life. Really without exaggeration. It was incredibly hard and painful.
Then, 10 minutes after it's all over, she looks at me and says "Well, that wasn't so bad".
I suppose it is for the best, but nonetheless I find it uncomfortable how our bodies have the ability to manipulate our brains' memories and our consciousness residing in the same place cannot do anything about it
Oh, it's worse than that, the consciousness is in on it.
These chemicals are our memories. They aren't manipulating it. It's just how it works.
On another note: the body produces opioids when you're in great pain
I always thought it interesting that every time we talk about when our kids were born, I remember all these details and my wife's like huh, weird, can't remember a thing.
The hormones really carry you through. Lol. And at least it's relatively short with a positive end goal.
Every time that comes up, I think to myself "Something I've gone through must be more painful, right? I've gone through some pretty hellish things, and you're trying to tell me something MORE painful exists? Not just a little more, but dramatically more? For my own sanity, I'm gonna have to live in denial of that."
That the first civilian hot air balloon was perceived as a flying monster by rural French onlookers who tried to bring it down before beating it with sticks.
Makes the whole Hartlepool monkey story seem sane.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=U-hiS4YObes
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Quantum superpositioning. Schrödinger was right, it's absolutely ridiculous and the cat can't be alive and dead at the same time, box or not.
The problem is it provably does work that way, or at least in a way that is indistinguishable from it, ridiculous or not, and we don't really know why. We've learnt many of the rules, managed to trap particles in superimposed states, even discovered that plants take advantage of it to transport energy more efficiently, and it's just a thing that happens, an apparently fundamental rule of existence. And it doesn't make any fucking sense.
I’ve kind of always assumed it was a problem of observation, which is what a lot of folks talk about re Schrödinger’s Cat. The cat knows if it’s alive (obv won’t know if it’s dead), but from the outside it’s unobservable.
A lot of quantum mechanics (to my understanding) is impossible for us to understand because we can’t observe it without impacting its behavior. But if it had consciousness, it would know what state it’s in.
This is super armchair headcannon shit, but it’s what I’ve taken from everything I’ve read on the subject.
Observation in quantum physics isn't about a consciousness being able to see it happen, but about it interacting with the universe in a way that could potentially be measured. There doesn't need to be a physical observer, just a theoretically measurable result of it interacting with something.
Consciousness has nothing to do with it, observe in this case means "affected something we can measure".
Something that's important to note though, is that the Cat example isn't a great way to envision this phenomenon in general. Schrodinger's Cat was actually made as an argument against this interpretation, by blowing the behavior up to a macro scale, where it seemed absurd. While you can draw analogues and all that, I'd recommend against really thinking that macro scale objects are in a multitude of obviously different states at once, all the time. It's a path to some of the really kooky fake-science "quantum" stuff that get's repeated.
Like, you're never going to see a physicist argue that a person is both alive and dead in another room, because of the technical chance that they tunneled halfway through the wall.
There's about 25 blimps in the world, and only 40-50 pilots.
doesn't really fit the thread, but i was surprised when i learned that the empire state building has a blimp docking station
They really thought blimps were gonna be a thing.
this is super cool.
That looks like sea creatures mating
There’s no such thing as tides. Gravity holds the water as the earth rotates
You mean in the same way that there is no centrifugal force?
Technically right, but doesn't matter if you are in the rotating frame of reference.
But aren't the tides caused by external gravitational forces (the moon?)
They’re saying the same thing, just backwards.
The moon holds the water up.
Tides are a phenomenon where the height of the edge of a body of water shifts relative to the shore. A phenomenon is a thing. Why should explaining its cause in those terms have any effect on that?
I'm confused: you say there's no such thing as tides, and then explain what tides are?
Your bones are made of calcium, which is also a metal. You've got a metal frame inside your body.
Hate to burst your bubble, but the calcium inside your bones is not in a metallic form but as calciumphosphate. So no metal frame but one made of a salt I guess.
Your bones are not dead rocks! They are living organs that happen to have a lot of sturdy calcium structures in them. They do a lot of other stuff besides hold your body up. They store minerals for all the other stuff your body needs minerals for; that's why osteoporosis is even a possible failure mode. Your bone marrow produces white blood cells for your immune system, too.
Your asswhole can stretch up to 8 inches without permanent deformation.
Also an adult raccoon can fit into a 4.5 inch hole.
Do with that info as you wish
Well, ill be having a fun evening.
Armageddon!!
Here's one: Iron doesn't have a smell. It acts as a catalyst in the reaction of bodily fluids or skin oils, which is why you can't smell coins after washing them
A solid that isn't undergoing any sort of chemical reaction isn't going to smell because there isn't anything to smell. You need a molecule to enter your nose to smell. That's my basic understanding, someone smarter than I can explain it better.
Also I'm not sure any country still uses iron for coins.
We can't touch objects, ever. Most of the space "occupied" by an atom is emptiness (which is another rabbit hole I'm not willing to go down), and when we "touch" an object, it's just a force field pushing the atoms apart. It's the same reason why we don't fall apart into atoms - some invisible force just really wants our atoms to stay together.
That's just semantics. For any real definition of "touch", we do touch objects.
"to put the hand, finger, etc., on or into contact with (something) to feel it"
The electromagnetic fields of your hand come in contact with those of the object, and you feel it.
It's taking semantics from one frame of reference and trying to apply them in the frame of reference of an entirely different scale, realizing that it doesn't work the same way, and then claiming that it is therefore "wrong".
So how does cutting an apple in half work? The knife must be touching the apple to cut it, right?
You can kind of visualize it as wire EDM manufacturing. Although not a fully accurate depiction, but it fractures the connection between the two sides.
That analogy relies on the reader having any idea what wire EDM manufacturing is. ;) Not exactly an everyday topic.
The combustion engine. I know technically it's not but ultimately we as humans found a way to harness the power of explosions and make them do our bidding. honestly, one of humanity's finer achievements. yes, it's not without its barbs like emissions, but that's a small price to pay for the workload any vehicle can provide.
As a fully qualified mechanic who's built engines and understands every part and how they work... it's still magic to me
The speed of advancement from the industrial revolution to present.
The relatively short time humanity has been around
The universe is finite but expanding
The Monty Hall problem
The absolute scale of devastation created by humanity
I may be wrong but I thought it was generally believed that the Universe is infinite (or at least that that was the most common belief among those that are qualified in the field)
Edit: I mean infinite in Space, of course it hasn't existed forever
Edit2: I quickly read this article https://www.swinburne.edu.au/news/2021/08/Is-space-infinite-we-asked-5-experts/ where the 3 astronomers answered maybe, yes, and yes. Whereas the two non-astronomers answered no. Since this seems to agree with me I will believe that this is correct and not investigate further
The funny thing is that sounds exactly like what he would say.
We humans are roughly as big compared to atoms and subatomic particles as we are small compared to the largest structures of the observable universe
That stuff about metal is really counterintuitive, because normally when we talk about iron, gold, copper, nickel, zinc, magnesium, aluminium etc it’s usually about the element in its metallic form. However, when you study chemistry a bit more, you’ll come to realize metals can be dissolved in water and they can be a part of a completely different compound too.
Calcium, sodium and potassium are basically the exact opposite in this regard. Normally when people talk about these metals, they are referring to various compounds that obviously aren’t metallic at all. This leads to people thinking of these elements as non-metallic, but it is possible to purify them to such an extent that you are left with nothing but the metal.
In the case of Ca, Na and K, the resulting metal is highly reactive in our aggressive atmosphere, so that’s why we rarely see these elements in a metallic form. Our atmosphere contains water and oxygen, which makes it an incredibly hostile environment for metals like this. Imagine, we’re breathing this stuff that attacks so many elements mercilessly.
Hydrogen and oxygen and very reactive, which is exactly why they are so necessary for survival. Our bodies function off of chemical reactions, it makes sense to power that off of the most reactive elements it can easily find.
Yo OP. We're carbon based, which you accept. Diamond is stronger than almost all metal, and it's pure carbon. Why wouldn't we have metal in our veins? We atomically won that round before inflation was even over.
I'm just playin, carbon under high enough pressure is metal too.
Twice over, my favorite fact is that humanity has only existed during the time frames that the moon and the sun have been the same size in our sky, this allowing total eclipse - which is so obviously ridiculously rare I don't see the point in quantifying with maths.
I think it's bizarre to think we have free will. Everywhere around us, in all our tech, tools, toys we see the realities of determinism. Cause and effect. To think that our minds are somehow not governed by this in a universe that unequivocally is is beyond Babel levels of arrogance.
Beyond that, the idea that's gaining ground about shared consciousness I find really intriguing. Rather fascinating stuff.
Consciousness is the biggest mystery of the all, after all.
I'm mostly with you except for the determinism. Not only do we KNOW that the universe is fundamentally probabilistic and not deterministic, all our technology works extremely hard to combat random errors because small electronics are absolutely not deterministic, they are just engineered to have a low enough randomness so we can counteract it.
Did something change? Last time I checked we didn't know whether in the grand scale the universe is or isn't deterministic.
That we know that the universe isn't (seemingly) deterministic locally doesn't change anything about that.
I'm pretty sure it is essentially that any propensity the macro-scale universe has for the appearance of determinism is an illusion since the fundamental scales of the universe and everything it is built on are probabilistic. Nothing built on probabilistic foundations can be deterministic. It can appear to be. In large enough samples the law of large numbers smooths all the chaos out, but that is all our world is. Mathematically smoothed chaos. We as a species have known that for a very long time, but it has only begun to permeate the social zeitgeist in recent years and there is still a lot of pushback from certain sections of society.
The best theories are non-deterministic, but of course we don't know if they are the last word about reality. To put it another way, we don't know why the math is non-deterministic in our best equations.
The old equations were deterministic, but they turned out to be wrong. Something similar may happen here.
We don't know whether the universe is deterministic, though. That's the only slimmer of hope for free will we can have.
The fun thing is, even if we assume our consciousness isn't entirely deterministic, the most reasonable alternative would be pure randomness.
Which, in the end, makes absolutely no difference in the free will argument.
Huh, I always thought of us having free will in response to cause and efect, not in place of it. But maybe I'm understanding free will differently?
Except the universe is full of non-determinism that we work hard to keep quiet in our toys.
How would our minds not being governed by this universe imply free will?
If anything, I'd assume the you don't have free will if your actions weren't chosen from experience, but were controlled by a supernatural ghost.
We do have metal in our veins. Blood has metallic taste precisely because of iron, which carries oxygen through our body.
The USA has 157 million workers, shuffling 140,000 years of work a day. One in 4 has an idea. One in five of those is a good idea. Two thousand stakeholders can make it an innovative idea. So, they can pump 3.5 years of brute force innovation into the world every single day. That's well over a thousand years of advancement per year.
Critical mass populations that can keep up with their own development are a serious creative force to be reckoned with. And human evolution has been exceeded by innovation, dramatically.
you sound like someone gave chatgpt a prompt about shoving the word innovation into a meaningless set of sentences as many times as possible.
But thousands of years of experience die off every day too.
Using engine brakes can cause your car to not use fuel in some cases.
I've read and heard this from different sources (even driving instructors) and I don't get how it's possible. Your engine is still running, doesn't it use at least as much as it does while it's idling?
Edit: thank you all for your answers. I knew how the engine brake effect worked, my confusion was about exactly why the engine didn't consume fuel in the process. I now understand so thanks all.
Usually your engine uses fuel to turn your wheels.
When you engine brake, your wheels turn your engine.
the inertia from the cars current speed is used to spin the engine rather than the engine spinning the wheels, the resistances of the engine is what causes the slowing effect
modern cars with fuel injection can complete disable injecting fuel when not needed and can also adjust the timing of the injections for maximum efficiency
For the car to be "running" in those cases, the engine just needs to be turning to keep the alternator and potentially the power steering pump going. When engine braking, the rotation of the tires is locked to the rotation of the engine, so the inertia of the car keeps the engine turning without needing to use fuel.
Depends on the ignition system and everything of course, but it can be true.
And don't engine brake a two-stroke engine, as fuel is mixed with oil. No fuel, no oil... No more engine for you.
It's not putting fuel into the cylinders. So it's spinning, but there are no explosions.
The fuel injectors are off when engine braking. It is the momentum of the car that keeps the engine running/rotating. That is why you are slowing down more rapidly because you're losing momentum into the engine.
If you take an engine out of a car and try to spin it by turning the crank shaft, it will be hard to turn because the cylinders need to compress air (it's required before adding fuel and spark to explode that compressed air so it expands).
When that engine is in the car, and you don't add fuel and spark, then the cars wheels have to turn the engine and compress that air, thousands of times per minute. That force that the wheels have to send to the engine to spin that engine slows you down.
I'm thinking you think the engine itself has a brake on it.. No.
Of course not. I know it's not an actual brake but it comes from the engine's resistance to spin on higher rpms, so when you shift to a lower grear the rpm goes up, which "activates" this resistance.
What I'm confused about is the relation between idling and engine brakes.
Even without giving it additional gas the engine is still idling, so on a level road you could travel with a certain speed without pressing the gas pedal.
So what happens when you're going downhill, you don't press the gas pedal and the engine brake effect kicks in? Does idling not consume fuel anymore?
I think I'm missing some information that would put everything in its place for me.
When you're engine braking—like when you downshift and let off the gas—the ECU often cuts off fuel to the cylinders. The throttle valve is also closed. In this scenario, your RPMs are maintained by the car's forward motion, which is connected through the drivetrain back to the engine.
So yeah, you're not using any fuel in that case, but you're still turning the engine over. The wheels are essentially driving the engine instead of the other way around. That's how you can have RPMs but no fuel flow during engine braking. The energy to keep the engine turning is coming from the car's inertia.
A common example would be going downhill. You downshift to a lower gear, take your foot off the gas, and let the engine do the work to help slow you down. You'll see the tachometer showing RPMs, but fuel flow is minimal or even cut off, thanks to our friend the ECU.
Women have orgasms
reported for misinfo
Cows are evolutionarily closer to whales than horses.
How?!
I don't think that counts as "commonly known"
The fact that things are able to float, despite of gravity pulling all objects towards the big mass of Earth. You would think that the push of gravity should be more than enough to overcome the slight fluid displacement that allows balloons and boats to push away from the Earth's surface.
So when your rowboat is floating, it can displace a certain volume of water and if it displaces more than that volume the water spills over the sides and it sinks. We talk about how many tons of water it’s displacing because that tells us what the total weight of the boat, you, cooler, beers, tackle and oars can be before the boat sinks.
You already knew that though. What might not be clear is what that weight measurement actually is.
Weight is the acceleration due to gravity that an object experiences. So if your rowboat is able to displace a volume of water that experiences more acceleration due to gravity than it and all it’s contents do, it will stay on top of the water in a state we call floating even though it and some of the contents may be more dense than water!
Now your rowboat is different than the balls in that floating glass ball thermometer your aunt bought out of sharper image in one very unique way: it can’t function when submerged! Those little suckers will go up and down all day, but once water starts coming in over your gunwales you gotta get rid of it or the boat sinks and won’t come up.
So there’s a point of no return where your boat can’t stay afloat any more.
When it displaces a volume of water that experiences less acceleration due to gravity than it and all its contents do, it and all its contents are pulled under the surface of the water. At that point, density determines what happens to the boat and it’s cargo. The boat itself may be denser than an equivalent volume of water and sink, but the beers and cooler are less dense than water and they float. You may be more dense than water, but instead of sinking you tread water and push your head up above the surface.
When the swamped boat sinks, it experiences more acceleration due to gravity than the water around it and pushes that water aside on its way to the bottom of the lake. The beers experience less acceleration due to gravity than the water around them so the water is pulled underneath them and they float. The air pocket inside each can also lends some displacement to the cause.
So the volume of fluid displaced isn’t “slight”. It’s exactly what gravity itself requires for objects to sink or float!
Wow, a reply that goes above and beyond, have some Lemmy Silver 🥈
Gravity likes water even more than it likes boats.
It's actually interesting because when you consider the four fundamental forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, weak nuclear) gravity is by far the weakest one. It's not intuitive because gravity is the one we interact with most day to day and it has connotations of large objects like planets and stars. But it's only a significant force when you have such large objects. Two magnets technically are gravitationally attracted to each other (like all things that have mass) but it pales in comparison to the magnetic forces.
Gravity is pretty weak, all things considered. A tiny magnet can easily overcome the entire Earth's gravity on a small metal object.
Your comment has made me realise I don't understand how floating works.
The cool thing is that they're floating because of gravity. Specially, the thing they're floating in is heavier than they are, so the float medium gets pulled underneath the object.
To be fair, the single iron atoms are surrounded by a lot of carbony goodness. There's a few metals that have minor biological uses in humans like that, and even sodium and potassium are metals in pure form.
It's hella weird to me how we suddenly developed democracy and industrialisation after thousands of years of kind of the same thing. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation; right now I'm playing with Lanchester's laws as a theory.
How would Lanchester's law apply? I admittedly never heard of it before, but I don't see equivalents for army size and damage ratio here...
Anyway, the answer to your question is probably just population growth. We needed a critical mass of "useless" people not preoccupied with subsistence for science-y stuff to gain enough traction and spread.
There were democracies before industrialisation by the way, e.g. in ancient Greece.
Concepts coming from quantium mechanics take you into a rabbit hole. 2022 Nobel winning experiment that proved universe is not locally real.
Can you elaborate on what that means? "Universe is not locally real"? How do we know what is real? What precisely does 'local' mean? Real relative to what?
In quantum mechanics, the concept of "locality" and "realism" are often discussed in the context of the EPR paradox and Bell's theorem. In a "locally real" theory, the properties of particles are well-defined independently of measurement (realism), and no influences can propagate faster than the speed of light (locality).
Realism: In a "realistic" theory, the properties of a system exist independently of observation. For example, if you have an electron, the idea is that it has a definite spin direction whether or not you measure it.
Locality: The principle of "locality" holds that physical processes occurring at one place do not depend on the properties of objects at another place that is spacelike separated, which would require information or influence to travel faster than the speed of light.
However, quantum mechanics challenges these intuitive notions. Experiments with entangled particles suggest that the properties of one particle can instantaneously affect the properties of another distant particle, seemingly violating locality. Meanwhile, the superposition principle suggests that particles don't have definite properties until measured, challenging realism.
In my opinion, the breakdown of "local realism" is one of the most unsettling and fascinating aspects of quantum mechanics. It forces us to reconsider our intuitive understanding of reality and has implications for fields like quantum computing and quantum cryptography.
— ChatGPT4
As physicists, I can confirm, this is not bad explanation.
To piggy back on your "bizarre fact", the same type of iron can be found added to cereal.
I remember several times in school we'd do a science demonstration where we'd smash up Cheerio (or a knock off) brand ceral, mix the powder with water and slowly drag a magnet through the slurry. Every time the magnet would be pulled out of the mix, there'd be more and more tiny iron bits.
We did the same but with Special K in a blender, and held a magnet to the side of the blender's cup.
There's iron particles in your cereal. Shit's been living rent free in my head since I saw a video on it many years ago where some dude extracted filings from corn flakes.
Everything is illegal in the DPRK except if you are the current Supreme Leader, in which case everything is legal.
That Brace saw a monkey on a boat in Long Island.
that cis people exist. I’m trans and nonbinary, it’s genuinely bizarre to me that not everyone questions the gender assigned to them at birth by the government lol
Sorry you have two dinguses explaining gender to you lmao
Edit: ❤️Mods
Wow the mods are amazing, they removed the comments before I even saw them.
yes frankly everyone should at least question it
A lot of people question it and just go "this is well enough for me". I've wondered about it plenty butI think for my (completely personal) purposes it would be hair-splitting at best to object to being called a guy because my body is my body and society is organized in a gender binary. I despise the social construction of gender, but I also dislike the English language and yet here I am using it to participate in society in a relatively frictionless way, and for me personally it's kind of the same thing.
I can totally see finding it weird as a nonbinary person how people can feel fine as a binary gender, cis or trans.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit, if it turned out that the most common gender ID is actually non-binary.
Like, my spouse and I pretty much consider ourselves "cis" but ... but not for any particular reason other than, "well, its good enough to get the point across." We don't really "feel" any particularly strong emotions about it.
I understand your perspective on questioning the gender assigned at birth, and it's a valid point of view. However, it's important to remember that the concept of gender is multifaceted, involving biological, social, and cultural elements that have existed long before modern governments. For a significant number of people, their gender identity aligns naturally with their biological sex and the societal roles they've been assigned. For these individuals, there may not be a pressing need to question their gender, as they feel a sense of congruence. The experience of gender is complex and varies from person to person, but it's not surprising that some people don't find it necessary to question their assigned roles.
Downvoting because of "by the government". Your biological sex is assigned by luck, depending on what chromosomes you get. Your gender on your birth certificate defaults to the way the "majority" of people are. But you're not the majority. No single person is the majority. In fact, the only trait we are certainly sharing with a majority of people is the fact that we're all unique (and the fact we're all human).
Questioning doesn't mean you have to come to a different conclusion. I'm cis-het(ish) and don't just take that for granted. I've thought about my gender identity and sexuality and done the introspection. I'm definitely more of a gender abolitionist, so I don't necessarily follow the loosely ascribed gender traits consistently, but I'm not trans. Questioning and defying social norms does not make one not cis. And that government comment is weird. Society assigns them to us. The government just writes it down.