• leanleft@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      i would speculate that [mild?] hypo vs hyper may have different advantages/disadvantages at various stages of life.
      but idk. #dyr #factcheck

  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you’re on a truck traveling at 60mph, and throw a ball forward at 60mph, that ball is moving at 120mph.

    But if you replace the ball with a flashlight, then the light isn’t moving at the speed of light plus 60mph. Instead, it slows down so as not to exceed the speed of light.

    It’s like if you threw that ball at 60mph and it went flying forward, but at 10mph, no matter how hard you throw.

    • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Uhh, relativity, fun. This gets a lot more mind boggling, imagine 3 people, A and B are in a train and C is an observer outside. From C point of view, B will pass him first, then A. This train is going at 50% the speed of light and it’s very long, A and B are 1 second light apart, i.e the distance that light takes 1 second to travel.

      If A shines a flashlight B will see it 1 second later. However from C point of view since the light was shone the train moved forward 0.5 light seconds. So the light has to travel 1.5 light seconds distance, and it does so in exactly 1.5 seconds. So the observers disagree on the distance the light travel, but also disagree on the time it took, but they agree on the speed of light.

      This makes things weird, because both A and B say that 1 second passed, but C says that 1.5 seconds passed. This means that people moving faster experience time slower. Which means that if you take two twins, put one on a fast moving ship, e.g. 80% speed of light, by the time he comes back only a few minutes would have passed for him, but years would pass for the other.

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        There was once an experiment where a particle traveling at 99.999…% the speed of light aged 1 second in 5 minutes. Conclusively, next to lightspeed moves time 300x faster than our speed in universe + gravitation dent.

        Question: is even faster time possible in a huge enough gravitation dent (neutron star)?

        • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          It all depends on the amount of 9s.

          At 99% speed of light you age 8.5 seconds per every minute. At 99.9% it’s 2.7 At 99.99% it’s 0.85 At 99.999% it’s 0.27

          At 99.99944444% it approximates what you described, with 1 second becoming 5 minutes. But you can keep adding 9s, at 99.99999% one second becomes over half an hour, and at 99.99999999999999% it becomes over 2 years.

          So on and so forth, so at 99.999…% like you said it’s essentially 0 seconds vs infinite time.

          You can play around with this calculator to get the numbers https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/time-dilation

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you’re on a truck traveling at 60mph, and throw a ball forward at 60mph, that ball is moving at 120mph.

      Technically it would be moving at something like 119.99999999km/h and that discrepancy slowly increases the closer you get to the speed of light

    • Canopyflyer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I had the Relativity conversation with my 16 year old this past weekend, as he is taking AP Physics.

      Yeah, he couldn’t wrap his mind around it. Honestly, I can’t say I understand it very well. I get that C (speed of light) is C in all reference frames. What I do not understand is for a spaceship traveling at C, the forces being transmitted between the atoms from stern to bow are unable to catch up to the next forward atoms. Hence time dilation, at least for those forces being transmitted “forward” in the ship’s reference frame.

      However, what happens to those forces being transmitted bow to stern or “backward” in the ship’s reference frame? Would those forces be “dead stopped” in an external reference frame? Yet travel at C from bow to stern in the ship’s reference frame? What does that mean for the ship if those forces are only being transmitted one way?

      Or, as I very much suspect, do I just not have a clue as to how it really works. I always thought that “time dilation” was simply the inability of forces being transmitted from atom to atom. As those forces are limited to C and they are attempting to catch up to another atom also traveling at C. With that said, those forces are transmitted in multiple directions, not just the vector the ship is on.

      Ok, another one of my very few brain cells just committed suicide and I’m not drinking anything, so I’ll stop now.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        My understanding is that it’s impossible for a spaceship or anything else with mass to actually reach the speed of light. It can only approach it. Only massless energetic waves like light and radiation can travel at the speed of light.

        • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Your understanding is correct.
          Relativistic mass increases the faster the moving object gets. That in turn means more energy is required to accelerate an object the closer it gets to the speed of light.

          Fun fact: the speed of light is not as absolute as it might seem when looking at relativistic effects. In media with a refraction index above 1 (only perfect vacuum has a refractiom index of 1), the speed of light equals 1/(refraction index).
          For light moving in water that results in a speed of light of around 3/4 the speed of light in vacuum.

  • BruceTwarzen@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I watched a video about the development of the line, that ridiculous building project in the dessert. I see glacier basically melting in front of my eyes but never felt as doomed as watching this shit developing for some reason. Just the sheer amount of manpower, diesel and money wated on the viggest pile of shit i have ever seen while the planet around them is dying.

  • ace_garp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    That certain tribes who live in a jungle setting can discern and have names for about 40 different shades of green, where a city dweller would see them all as being exactly the same shade.

    • paddirn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think I’ve read before that our eyes are most sensitive to the color green out of any other color, something about it that wavelength of light is absorbed more readily by the cones in our eyes. Being exposed to it daily and maybe having their survival dependent on it probably helps them develop that ability.

      • Justas🇱🇹@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes, I paint in free time and getting the right shade of green to make natural scenes look realistic is extremely difficult.

        • 0ops@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Nah, people are always confusing orange, red-orange, and red

      • niktemadur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Another one is how Eskimos have 53 words for “snow”, not just “powder” and “slush”, but everything in between and beyond.

        Fun fact: if we could see through the intensity of sunlight to pick up its’ color, it turns out green light is the most prevalent photon wavelength.
        Surely this and phenomena like photosynthesis are directly related.

      • Paragone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Linux Journal was interviewing a guy who’d worked on OS/2 at IBM…

        He said that we’ve got 2x the sensitivity to green as to red, & 2x the sensitivity to red as to blue.

        Basically, we’ve got 1-bit more sensitivity to green than to red, & 1-bit more sensitivity to red than to blue.


        I’ve read in linguistics stuff that tribes that have 2 words for color have 1 word which means bright & 1 word which means dark,

        tribes with 3 words have a word for blood-color, as well…

        green doesn’t seem to be as significant in the words-for-it department of tribal life, from what I’ve read.

        _ /\ _

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Do you have a source? There is a common myth that innuits have 100+ words for snow, which is stretch beyond any reasonable sense, I’m afraid this might be similar.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I feel that just living in America, my mind is boggled on a daily basis, and not in a good way.

        • Bondrewd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Ah so not America but the Internet rather. If its the Internet, Im fine with it. I intentionally avoid news sites and ragebait. Think of it logically. It wont really do anything to your life really. No need to keep reading these.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    That only 600,000 people globally are starving. 95% of which are in Gaza right now because of the current shit going on.

    It is just counting starving people with specific parameters that define “starving,” but still; I thought that number would be much higher.

  • xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    Recent as in the last couple years but when I was diagnosed with ADHD, I realized that most people dont have an interest driven brain. They can just do boring stuff just as easily as fun and engaging tasks.

  • qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    That if there are infinite universes out there in the multiverse then there are infinite amount of universes exactly like this one. Which means we’re stuck living this exact life across infinite universe and we’ll never be able to escape it. So that’s kind of depressing but mind blowing I guess

    • TehBamski@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Perhaps. But infinite universes is still just a theory. So why let such a astronomical ‘what if,’ get you down?

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yep, if there’s an infinite number of parallel universes then there’s an infinite number where nothing is different. Maybe the only difference between the universes was the position of a mote of dust on an uninhabited planet in a galaxy on the other side of the universe.

    • midnight@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      If the many worlds interpretation is correct, that would mean that there’s not really an infinite number of discrete realities, but more of a continuum. So there are infinite other realities in the same way that there are infinite points on a line, but this exact reality is still unique.

    • Albbi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      That’s not right at all by my thinking.

      Infinite multiverse means infinite exact same universe as ours, yes. But it also means there are also infinite different universes. But you can use comparisons to see that there would likely be more universes that are different than ours because of small permutations in history causing larger effects in the future. So I like to think there are both many exact universes, and many very different universes.