Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)CR
Posts
0
Comments
462
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • For every argument why Israel is worse than Palestine, it is possible to find one why Palestine is worse than Israel.

    Israel is committing genocide. That is why it is worse. That is what everyone except you can see, and that is why you've lost this argument.

  • It's only the US and Canada that use "aluminum" though isn't it? The rest of the world and most languages have it as "-ium".
    Humphrey Davey actually changed his mind and changed it to "-ium" shortly after discovering it.
    Also, IUPAC has "Aluminium" as the primary spelling, though both are acceptable.

  • First past the post has to go. I believe it's the most important issue in our country right now, because it's stopping us from dealing with the actually important issues. To wit: we're debating sending 100 refugees or less a year to Rwanda as a matter of the utmost urgency while the world is catching fire, in any metaphorical sense you care to mention. Geographical concentration of voters should no longer confer political power where the open internet exists.

    There are two problems with the urgent need to change this broken broken system though: 1. I don't know what better to replace it with, and 2. I don't have enough faith in the British public anymore to actually agree on the more important issues once it's gone.

    Side note: the argument doing the rounds about "but the far right will get in" is irrelevant because our last two home secretaries have been irreconcilable, despicable far-right headbangers. They're already in.

  • No. But even if 100% of the population of Gaza supported Hamas and even the Al Aqsa Flood, that's still no excuse to kill civilians.
    However the Israeli government has given no straight answers, fabricated evidence, and muddied the waters continuously since the 7th of October. It uses every opportunity to distract from and distort the truth. It will also take this as just such an opportunity.

  • It's still possible to be unfair to idiots, though.
    If an idiot believes he can face down a speeding freight train, but only if it's yellow then, in his eyes, it's just not cricket if the one that turns him into jam is in fact blue.

  • Absolutely. I am completely convinced of the fact that there is knowledge that we can never possess simply because our minds aren't capable of understanding it. I mean nobody understands quantum theory. Some people can do the maths and make the right predictions etc, but they have absolutely no idea what's really going on. I think that's at the boundary of our understanding. Which means there's other stuff being the boundary, and other stuff way way beyond the boundary. But, I think that in the same way you can explain general relativity to a child in simple terms, if we produce AI that can grasp higher concepts, it could explain it to us.

  • It's the same for the beginnings of life. We know loads about the conditions before in happened and after it happened, but nothing about that all important instant when it happened.

    Fur the big bang's genesis, I like the thinking that small pockets of potential started to form, since a pair of opposed charges is sort of the same as nothing. But that does go along the lines of "nature abhors a vacuum" type of thinking, which has been comprehensively proven wrong since it was popular. Also it doesn't explain one of physics greatest mysteries: why is there so much matter and no antimatter. If things came into existence in opposing pairs, we should see equal amounts of both

  • The Wikipedia page is a good start. In a nutshell:

    Since the surface area of a sphere (which is 4πr2) is proportional to the square of the radius, as the emitted radiation gets farther from the source, it is spread out over an area that is increasing in proportion to the square of the distance from the source. Hence, the intensity of radiation passing through any unit area (directly facing the point source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the point source.

    There's a good visualisation of that explanation which is the banner picture on the Wikipedia page.

    I don't have any better theories than the existing ones, for sure! But there is an underlying pattern that goes deeper even than that law - the principle that physical objects follow the path of least resistance links these laws and many many others.

  • You're absolutely right, I see that. It's why I used to eagerly lecture all of my friends about physics when I was studying it, but now I pretty much never really talk about it except on clear nights when I can name stars and talk a bit about them.

  • Well that's lovely, thank you 😊 So Newton's law of universal gravitation is:

    F= G×M×m/r^2
    which is simple enough to be able to say it in a sentence: "the force of gravity F on two masses M and m is proportional to their masses and square of the distance between them, r " so the heavier and closer planets/suns/black holes are, the greater the gravitationnel pull.
    Coulomb's law is:

    F= k×Q×q/r^2
    which is pretty much exactly the same as you have probably noticed: "the force of electrical attraction F on two charged particles Q and q is proportional to their charges and the square of the distance between them, r "
    So the exact same rule applies to planets and atoms. Their behaviour can be explained in the same way. It's called an "inverse square law", it's got a name because they happen everywhere. And it's just, like... Why? Why does the universe work that way? You're not really encouraged to ask that sort of question as a science student, because it "goes nowhere" and doesn't lead to actionable results. But I think it quite spooky. There are loads of weird results like that in science and maths (see quantum theory for abundant examples!) but it's unusual to be able to sit and think about it. There is, for the inverse square law, a pretty elegant mathematical explanation for why they're so common, but it doesn't quite scratch the itch for me, it just raises more questions

    Edit sorry for text wall. This is probably why I shouldn't do this!

  • The sad reason for that is that it's a conversation killer. I would love to go back and forth for hours on things like the uncanny similarity between universal gravitation and Coulomb's law. But, when I speak to someone with a similar background to mine it's all...work-work-work-how-is-it-applied??, and when I speak to someone without that background it's all yawns. It's a shame because in either case I think science is the most interesting topic. It's just as edifying to dive casually into the philosophy as it is to dive rigourously into the maths. I learn more per unit time from either type of conversation than from studying papers. And, it's a passion, but one whose expression is stymied either by explaining it in terms of football fields per dolphin or by making it marketable. Interaction with other minds is the most valuable type of learning.
    I feel like I may come off as a bit of an elitist writing this, but the problem really is the opposite: I wish more people would get involved!
    Edit: the responses to this have made my day you guys. This is why I left Reddit.