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.

    • @blackbrook@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      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?

      • Caveman
        link
        fedilink
        02 years ago
        • Moon pulls the earth.
        • Earth pulls away from moon due to centrifugal force.
        • In the center of the earth it pulls the earth with the exact same force as the centrifugal force.
        • On the side closer to the moon the gravity is more than centrifugal force.
        • So water get’s pulled towards the moon or “upwards” from earth’s perspective.
        • That’s high tide.
        • On the other side centrifugal force is more than gravity.
        • On the other side it’s the same thing except gets pulled away from the moon.

        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.

        • @boatswain@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I understand how tides work; the source of my confusion is the person I replied to both stating that they don’t exist and explaining how they work, which is mutually contradictory: if they don’t exist, how can they work at all?

  • @evatronic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    422 years ago

    The sun could’ve gone nova 8 minutes ago and we wouldn’t know for another 20 seconds or so.

  • glibg10b
    link
    fedilink
    192 years ago

    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

    • @usrtrv@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      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.

      • @Eranziel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        Iron would be a terrible metal for coinage, since it would shed rust all over everything after being handled. Some coins might be cast from iron (if it’s cheaper than alternatives, idk) but plated in other metals to prevent that.

  • @ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    422 years ago

    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.

  • ColorcodedResistor
    link
    fedilink
    222 years ago

    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.

  • @rtxn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    212 years ago

    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.

    • @KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      142 years ago

      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.

      • @blackbrook@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        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”.

      • @rahmad@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        The apple was never whole… it was simply tightly grouped and a subgroup has been severed from another

      • @menturi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        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.

        • @Eranziel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          That analogy relies on the reader having any idea what wire EDM manufacturing is. ;) Not exactly an everyday topic.

  • @Selmafudd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    382 years ago

    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…

      • @SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        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.

    • @kozel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      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.

      • @MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        And the Lord spake, saying, “First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to four, no more, no less. Four shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be four. Five shalt thou not count, neither count thou three, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Six is right out. Once the number four, being the fourth number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.”

  • @purahna@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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

    • @zirzedolta@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      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.

      • @Moghul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        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.

        • @triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          huh, thank you for leading me to find out about organocobalt compounds, and complicate my understanding of organic/inorganic chemistry. I still that fits the simple definition of “organic” = “contains carbon” that most chemists would use, though.

  • @Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    682 years ago

    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

    • @starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      112 years ago

      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?

      • SgtSuckaFree
        link
        fedilink
        English
        112 years ago

        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.

    • Lvxferre
      link
      fedilink
      25
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.)

      • @Mothra@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        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

        • Lvxferre
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          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.

    • @Skanky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      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.

    • @zirzedolta@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      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.

    • z500
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      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.

  • JoYo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    312 years ago

    there’s people that don’t like music.

    • @galloog1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      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.

      • JoYo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        that just makes it easier to make a playlist with all their favorite songs.

    • @zirzedolta@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      As a person who was born liking music, I indeed find it too bizarre to believe to be true.

    • @UtiAnimi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      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.

      • ColorcodedResistor
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        I love music so much that i can admit that Silence speaks Volumes…i find the worst culprit to be advertisements. they play ‘classic hits’ when they really mean the top5 songs without consideration for any other of the artists 2nd or third tier bangers.

        Honestly so much music is lost to the aether because soliciting has used it so much that a lot of people generally attach that relationship to music

    • ColorcodedResistor
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      How disappointing… Music can make you feel any which way you want, it’s like the perfect drug. once you find that one banger, you can’t stop. I spend a huge amount of my time on Music Discovery. It’s the same thrill you’d get from say, eating those jelly beans in harry potter; a lot of them are bad tasting but oooh boy when you find that magical flavor that hits you right in the feels? magnifico!

      I know people that don’t have necessarily poor taste in music, but certainly underdeveloped. there is a reason most talented musicians will at one point make a ‘parody’ piece that will skyrocket to the charts. a lot of classical music pieces were made to be cheeky and ‘dumb’ but, people liked those songs so much it was a case of ‘the customer is always right’.

  • Random_Character_A
    link
    fedilink
    122 years ago

    Concepts coming from quantium mechanics take you into a rabbit hole. 2022 Nobel winning experiment that proved universe is not locally real.

    • @whileloop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      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?

      • Random_Character_A
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

    • @zirzedolta@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      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…

  • @whileloop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    792 years ago

    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!

    • @dudinax@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      I’ve seen some of its secrets during the eclipse. It’s an angry, writhing tentacled thing. Be thankful it’s so far away.

    • @vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      152 years ago

      “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.

    • @zirzedolta@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      192 years ago

      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.

    • visnudeva
      link
      fedilink
      92 years ago

      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.

    • @andlewis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      Scientists look at it. That’s where they get all their sciencing from. The forbidden knowledges comes from the sun.

  • @alokir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    15
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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.

    • @Still@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      92 years ago

      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

    • @thepreciousboar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      The most difficult part lf stanrting a car is gettinf the pistons to move, if your engine still has inertia (if you are going downhill for example) you can completely cut the fuel injection and it can starts again because the pistons that are still moving will compress the gas (and for diesel engine that’s enough to ignite given enough temperature in the block, for gasoline the spark plugs will work as usual).

      Of course if the engine has low inertia (it’s spinning too slowly) the car will stall, but probably the electronic injection will compensate.

      If you drive manual you can go down a hill without burning a single drop of fuel, not sure if automatic are smart enough to do it.

    • @Fallenwout@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      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.

    • setVeryLoud(true);
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      And don’t engine brake a two-stroke engine, as fuel is mixed with oil. No fuel, no oil… No more engine for you.

  • @starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    85
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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

    • @SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      82 years ago

      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.

    • @whileloop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      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.

    • @zirzedolta@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      13
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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

      • Ada
        link
        fedilink
        English
        162 years ago

        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.

          • Ada
            link
            fedilink
            62 years ago

            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

        • @LostGuide@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Not too sure where you got that number from. From what I can find, the radius of the observable universe is estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years.

          Edit: I see now that you are talking Galaxy. That’s different.

          • Ada
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            The original comment was about stars we can see in the sky, so I was assuming naked eye

    • @dudinax@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      First time I saw Jupiter through a telescope I got hit hard by the feeling: “Oh shit, that giant monster is real”.

    • @jpeps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      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.