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.
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.
How does this affect its gravity?
It doesn't. Gravity is related to its mass, not it's orbit or rotational velocity.
The others already said the core aspect, but to get specific: the difference between your weight on the pole and your weight on the equator differs only by like .5% or something like that. This is the difference between spinning and not spinning (centrifugal force and no centrifugal force). (And also the difference in radius, since the Earth's rotation makes it a tiny bit flatter than a perfect sphere would be)
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 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!
"I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
A moon isn't that strange, our moon is.
First, it is massive compared to Earth. The mass of the Moon is so large that it messed with definitions of planets and plutinos.
Second, the Moon's size and distance from Earth is a near match for the Sun's, which is really rare.
And for a strange fact, the Moon is about as reflective as worn asphalt. The Moon looks white in photos of just itself, but it is a dark grey when in photos with Earth.
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
Also the idea that light is both a particle and a wave always messed with my head because I wanted to know why does it decide to change and when? And the answer is that light is always a particle and always a wave at the exact same time.
It is a wave particle.
And it is possible from light alone to build both an electron and a positron as demonstrated in a 1999 laser science experiment in New York.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
I wish we could test this out with only simple apparatus. Unfortunately the common people do not have access to satellites or nonstop bullet trains.
We can and do. GPS satellites need to be regularly calibrated to Earth clock signals or they'll start to drift their calibration by meters per day.
Please dont do that
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.
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.
it would take you 257 years to meet everyone alive on earth at this moment
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.
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
Well I don't need to meet everybody. There's no need to meet anyone who doesn't match my sexual preferences, so that's half right there. Then we can also cut everyone who's sexual preferences I don't meet, as well as anyone outside of a given age range (most of the people on earth are much younger than me and would be inappropriate for me to date). We can probably get that down to about 50-60 years. (At one second per person).
The thought experiment was just an attempt to show how hard it is to wrap our minds around big numbers. Even a tangible number such as the amount of people in the world.
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.
I saw 1tb microsd cards for sale at the shops the other day and had a bit of a 'what the fuck...' moment
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!
SD cards make sense to me. Hard Drives... Now there is some spooky technology.
The reader head on a hard drive changes direction so fast, that it experiences accelerations like that of a bullet being fired, hundreds of times a second.
The "Fly height" or distance a reader floats above the platter is so tiny, that it would crash into a thumbprint.
The actual magnetic media that stores your data is a layer of iron a few atoms thick deposited on to a ceramic or glass platter, with a single atom layer of a protective metal coating (typically rhodium) in top of it.
Despite these incredible tolerances, they damn things are dirt cheap, and surprisingly reliable.
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
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.
I've got a 1tb microsd and it's crazy to see the difference between a 60MB harddisk and it
What’s a floppy disk?
That's just another name for the save icon.
I really get the feeling that this question isn't being asked seriously but here goes.
Floppy disks are an older removable storage format for a computer. The media inside the disks was flexible like a piece of paper, hence the term "floppy". There were three different common sizes, there was an 8", a 5.25", and a 3.5". The 8" and 5.25" had the flexible media in a sort of heavy fabric and plastic sheath that was itself flexible, amd the 3.5" disks had a hard plastic cover on the outside, with a sliding metal door, and some people erroneously called these "hard disks".
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.
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 Japan from 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.
Duh! Just wait for low tide!
Between Japan and the EU, there is an ocean. You also need to swim, not only walk.
Swimming is walking in water /s
Maybe he plans to wear a weight belt.
That you need to lay down K.O. for many hours every day, otherwise you get insane.
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.
That “I” am pretty much just the construct of electrons flying around my brain.
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.
That "I" am pretty much just the construct of electrons flying around my brain.
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.
The sun could've gone nova 8 minutes ago and we wouldn't know for another 20 seconds or so.
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.
Calcium is a metal. We have metal bones.
From Wikipedia on bones:
Bone matrix is 90 to 95% composed of elastic collagen fibers, also known as ossein,[5] and the remainder is ground substance.[6] The elasticity of collagen improves fracture resistance.[7] The matrix is hardened by the binding of inorganic mineral salt, calcium phosphate, in a chemical arrangement known as bone mineral, a form of calcium apatite.[9]
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.
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
By the sound mine make I would have thought free jazz.
They sure don't feel metal.
Nigel?
Queuing theory can have some fun surprises.
Suppose a small bank has only one teller. Customers take an average of 10 minutes to serve and they arrive at the rate of 5.8 per hour. With only one teller, customers will have to wait nearly five hours on average before they are served. If you add a second teller the average wait becomes 3 minutes.
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 ∝ r2 ) . However, the energy requirements of the cell are determined by its volume, which means that energy requirements are proportional to cell radius *cubed* ( E ∝ r3 ). For small numbers the difference between r3 and r2 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.
Yeah mitochondrial RNA is separately inherited and only from the mother, because the egg cell has mitochondria whereas the sperm does not.
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.)
I am still like this with movies and TV.
It just doesn't appeal to me. I've seen a handful of movies/shows that I'd call "not boring as shit" ever, and even then, its not something I'd choose to do myself, but is fine if I'm, like, chillin and chatting with people or whatever.
Might be my neurodivergence, might also just be how much of a reader I am. Movies are just so slow compared to reading.
As a person who was born liking music, I indeed find it too bizarre to believe to be true.
I have since changed my tune.
Ba-dum tsh
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.
If you get 23 people in a room the odds of two of them sharing a birthday are 50%
The birthday paradox is a veridical paradox: it seems wrong at first glance but is, in fact, true. While it may seem surprising that only 23 individuals are required to reach a 50% probability of a shared birthday, this result is made more intuitive by considering that the birthday comparisons will be made between every possible pair of individuals. With 23 individuals, there are (23 × 22)/2 = 253 pairs to consider, far more than half the number of days in a year.
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
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.
I'm sure there are similar facts like this that are
mathematically logicalmaterially sound but to anlaymanamerican it's confusing and inconceivable
communism
So not really then. I've always heard this but not seen it explained. But what you're saying is that with every interaction the likely hood of finding a match goes up. But realistically, probabilities like that are just fun quirks of math, not representations of reality. Probabilities are doing the math on events, but these are events discussing concrete and unchanging dates. Every person paired up isn't given a random date in every interaction. They have a set date from the outset, you just don't know it. There's not a random number generator picking a number from a set every time. Unless you're in a simulation and none of this is real and birthdays don't exist and the computer you're plugged into has to make up a random birthday every time you interact.
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..
It's amazing that they calculated it down to that detail in the 1700s. Before that they were just a hares breath off for 1000 years (Julian calender -> Gregorian calender). It became a real issue for the church that the start of spring didn't align with the calendar anymore, and they needed to know exactly when Easter was to be held.
It why George Washington is credited with 2 birthdays, depends on which calender you're going by. I think Russia was the last major country to adopt it.
But the earth is flat and pyramids=aliens. Uh huh. Yup.
No one (!) alive today experienced a year divisible by 4 that was not a leap year. The oldest living person was born in 1907.
quite a few people alive today might be around to experience 2100, though
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.
It's interesting that the following centuries all calculate correctly, maybe fixed along with y2k
But basic math means that those are the exact same thing. Divisible by 4 means multiples of 4 means every 4 years, right? It seems more likely that they "happen when the year is divisible by 4" came about after they said "let's do it every four years, but we have to phrase it more officially when we write it down."
Not really. 1896 was a leap year, but 1900 was not.
The leap year after 2096 will be 2104.
Edit: an interesting way to put this is, 2000 was the only year in 4 centuries where the year starting the century was a leap year. Next such occurrence will be in 2400
You haven't read the other rules
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.
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."
Alaska is simultaneously the northernmost, westernmost, and easternmost US state.
Likewise, the closest US state to Africa is Maine.
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.
I need to go to bed, I misread that as "Ahsoka is simultaneously the northernmost, westernmost, *and" easternmost US state."
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.
There's about 25 blimps in the world, and only 40-50 pilots.
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.
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.
That bomb detecting thing is absolutely crazy, I think it's one of those things most people have heard of but consigned to the bin of things that couldn't possibly be true
It makes a lot more sense if you stop believing in the fiction of objects. There are no objects. Particles are a fiction, waves are a fiction. There is a single process, that we call the universe, and every single thing we refer to is a portion of that process from a subjective perspective. Once you give up on objects the idea that a process can be observed to produce subjective experiences that appear to violate expectations of object-oriented conceptual frameworks becomes less difficult to grasp.
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.
The fact that calcium is a metal is the reason why bones can be detected in X-rays.
(I'm pulling this out of my ass and I'm too lazy to look it up to see if it's actually true.)
It's true!
Source: my ass too!
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.
the tides stay in the same place relative to the moon and the earth spins below the tidal bulges (earth spins faster than the moon orbits, is the basic thing)
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?
So since it's pulled on both sides of the earth water is essentially "lighter" and on the sides it's "heavier" if that makes sense. The water flows from the heavier places to the lighter places like down a small slope due to gravity.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/dBwNadry-TU?si=DHVVrrJl2uSpeX7-
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
:Bill-Oreilly-shining:
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.
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
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
The funny thing is that sounds exactly like what he would say.
The speed of advancement from the industrial revolution to present.
The telescoping nature of progress
The speed of advancement from the industrial revolution to present.
This one makes Fermi's Paradox far more confusing and terrifying to me. The time it took to go from agriculture to the steam engine is nothing compared to the age of the universe, absolutely nothing, and from the steam engine to modern technology is fuck ton nothing.
An intelligent species could go from stone age technology to nuclear weapons in the blink of an eye.
And that's just life as we understand it. We have no idea if we're the equivalent of Flatland in a higher spatial dimension or something. There could be stars with entire civilizations of plasma-based intelligent life churning inside of them. There could be intelligent civilizations lurking in each and every single subatomic particle.
It's possible no matter how far out or far in we look, we just keep finding more universe, more space for something to inhabit, forever...
As they said on
, if we look everywhere and we're the only intelligent species anywhere in this universe ... well that would be weirder than if life is hiding all over the universe.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
If the universe is deterministic, it means that every particle has an infinitely predictable path. And our body and brain are full of particles which could only ever move in the predetermined way. And because our thoughts are only movements of neurone, which in turn, as everything, are made of particles, every action of ours would be predetermined and we could never decide otherwise than we did.
sometimes your brain will decide something independently of conscious thought, and then invent a compelling narrative for why you are about to do what your brain already decided you were going to do
This kind of effect can be seen when a split brain person reacts to textual commands, like "stand up" seen on a computer screen in front of them only one eye can see by standing up, but when asked verbally why they stood up they just make up some shit on the fly like "I was tired of sitting and wanted to stretch my legs"
We're just narrative machines (no, not like ChatGPT)
It could be asserted that none of our decisions are ever actually real, and its all just a series of these 'decisions' that are just invented by your brain to explain why you're doing what you were always going to do, and thus you don't have free will you just tell yourself that you do as a nice story.
I don't believe that, I think that assertion is a bit like last tuesdayism and I dislike the unfalsifiablity of it, but yeah I get the argument
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.
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.
Women have orgasms
reported for misinfo
Jesus Christ people it's a joke
It would be less funny if there were no downvotes
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.
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.
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).
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.
Ok. I'm gonna give an example that will be slightly wrong if we nitpick, but it will give you an idea.
Lets take the old philosophical idea "if a tree falls in a forrest and theres nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?" and modify it for this example.
"If you are not there to observe will the tree in the forest fall?"
If you are not there to observe the tree will be in all possible states. Two notable states being "it has fallen" and "it is still standing" that exist simultaneously.
If you go in to the forest and observe, one of the states will randomly become your reality according to certain probability amplitude.
You don't necessarily have to go in to the forest to observe the tree. You can send your buddy who will then tell you the state.
As your friend is returning back from his observation, there's actually two friends walking back to you. He is "entangled" with the tree. When he opens his mouth, one of them is randomly selected as your reality.
Entity checking the state of the tree does not have to be a living consciousness. It can be a particle, that interacts with a particle, that interacts with a particle, that interacts with you. You are not conscious of the trees state, but the information is delivered to you and for you there is now only one state for the tree.
So quantium level information is constantly delivered to you and your reality is weaving itself around you through this "decoherence"
now you see how my first two examples were false. Quantium decoherence is so much faster than you or your buddy, that you can only catch this mechanism at work on quantium level.
...and "local" basicly just means that the experiments result is true, as long as nothing can transfer information faster than light. So far nothing has.
Marcus Chown's book is a good primer on quantum theory, but it will make your head spin.
(you'll understand the dad joke after you've read the book)
Heard about it. I initially thought the universe should exist regardless whether someone is there to observe it or not...
...but then I also studied quantum mechanics, so I am not really in a position to say anything...
Well, let’s start with definition what “exists” means…
Similar metal in the human body one, Vitamin B12 has cobalt in it. Absolutely wild. I guess that's not really commonly known but it's still worth mentioning
May I ask what is special about cobalt in B12 specifically? I've come to realize there are numerous inorganic substances inside my body like copper, gold etc. so cobalt by itself doesn't really stand out anymore.
I think your idea of what is organic or inorganic is a little off. Organic things can and do involve metals and gases in various forms. According to wikipedia, "About 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus." These are elements that also appear in minerals and other rocks, but that doesn't mean the same elements can't be in organic compounds. Everything is made of all the same stuff on the periodic table, organic or inorganic.
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.
As a cis by default person it is weird to me when I talk to people and they have strong feelings about their gender. But if we were normal we wouldn't be posting on this part of the internet
Although "commonly accepted" may be pushing it, i can't imagine a finite universe(, i.e., 'with a positive curvature'/spherical), with the old question : what happens at the edge if i push it with a stick ?
(I.i.r.c., the answer is that the edge is expanding faster than the speed of light or sthg)
(And, kinda unrelated, fractal universes piling upon each other may make sense)
You're probably picturing the inside 3D sphere, but it would actually be the surface of a 4D sphere. Just like how Earth doesn't have an "edge", if you walk in a straight line you just end up where you started, so there's nothing to "push" at all
Yep, just read some stuff on Quora about 4D spheres, and still don't get it 🤷♂️
You have an edge on the Earth, both above and below, i can't imagine the material part of the All circling upon itself, how would you visualise from outside ?
I still see an edge with an hypersphere, well, w/e, thanks for the answer anyway :) !
Humans can smell rain better than a shark can smell blood.