Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

1.1 History

⁨1446⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨TheOneWithTheHair@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ba4097c3-6b17-45ed-b165-1cf81755ef0d.png

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • qyron@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    So, basically, we don’t know that much on anything besides understanding it’s really complex and difficult to figure out.

    source
    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      This has always been true.

      source
      • qyron@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        To quote someone a lot wiser than myself:

        It’s a shame stupid people carry themselves through life full of certainty while the wise ones suffer a life of doubt.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        No it hasn’t. Many religions and spiritual texts covered all this stuff in just a couple of pages.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Sternout@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        No, before the scientific method was invented, the religious consus was that “All is known”.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • theneverfox@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Not really. It’s all about models - we have for normal stuff, but it breaks apart in extreme situations

      So clearly the model is fundamentally wrong… Which is pretty cool, because it means FTL travel, antigravity, or travel between dimensions could be possible

      But we know now normal shit acts - we have models that work perfectly for 99% of all situations, and we’re probably not going to stop using them. We understand what happens when you throw an object, and it’s a basic equation up until like mock-2 or 3, where our models stop working and we have to switch them out completely

      Can you build a model that works for both? Absolutely. It’ll be closer to the truth even. But it’ll be way more complicated for nearly all practical, human scale situations

      At the end of the day, a model that describes reality exactly is almost useless… Without simplifications to ignore everything not relevant, just trying shit live would be easier than calculating the prediction

      source
      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        What I don’t understand is if the goal is to eventually be able to model everything perfectly, if we achieve that goal, doesn’t that just mean entropy is a lie?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • YoorWeb@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Not really, OP’s image is somewhat misleading. The truty is that we’re constantly trying to improve our understanding of physically and some theories are not completely correct but they often provide a way for future scientists to dig deeper and figure it out. Then with new knowledge, new hypothesis can be suggested creating a gateway to deeper understanding of some concepts.

      source
    • MxM111@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Actually, we know everything there is happening in solar system. What we don’t know requires energies or distances or times incomparable with human life.

      source
      • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Actually, we know everything there is happening in solar system.

        Oh really?

        Then I’m sure you can tell us where we can locate Planet 9, or even if Planet 9 exists.

        …nasa.gov/…/the-case-strengthens-for-planet-9/

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • bleistift2@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        We don’t know why space spawns. We don’t know why the sun’s corona is hotter than its surface. We don’t know why the sun spins faster around its equator than at its poles. We don’t know why shampoo makes strange squiggles when being poured out of its bottle. Just four things off the top of my head.

        source
      • EatYouWell@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        That’s one of the most confidently idiotic things I’ve read in a hot minute. Congratulations.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • Ryan213@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The answer is 42, guys.

    source
    • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yes, yes, I’m quite sure, it’s 42!

      source
      • johnyrocket@feddit.ch ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        The question is if it will still be 42 when we look away.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • maryjayjay@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Unexpected factorial

        source
    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      How many roads must a man walk down?

      source
  • maryjayjay@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I highly recommend the book “We Have No Idea” by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whitesom. Great explanations of what we know about the universe (with hilarious comic illustrations) and a profound message of just how much we don’t know.

    source
    • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Thanks for this recommendation! I love books that show me how little I truly know about anything.

      Any more book recommendations?

      source
      • maryjayjay@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I hope you enjoy it as much as I did! I’ve read it twice, apparently I needed to be reminded of how much I didn’t know. 😉

        source
  • RGB3x3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Tide goes in, tide goes out… You can’t explain that.

    Image

    source
    • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      But if I have to then I’ll do it live!

      source
    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Oh my god why did you have to remind me that this awful creature exists?

      source
  • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Copernicus deserves a mention. Galileo’s problems resulted (in part) from him being a proponent of Copernicism after the church had declared it heresy.

    Heliocentrism was suggested by Copernicus and Galileo built on that, including developing physics to the point where he couldn’t believe otherwise.

    source
    • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The heliocentric models predicted the orbits worse than epicyclic geocentric ones and that is the reason Galileo was told to shut up, the court transcript is like 99% science and then a single subordinate clause saying “it also contradicts the bible”.

      Galileo insisted on circular orbits which was his downfall, ironically “because circles are perfect and god would furnish the universe perfect”: That kind of religious language while also being worse science than what was already established did him in. Kepler, based on Brahe’s data, was the first one to get a heliocentric model right and more accurate than the epicyclic ones.

      Also earth doesn’t revolve around the sun. If anything both revolve around their shared centre of gravity but really it’s a matter of your frame of reference. Paraphrasing Archimedes: Give me a fixed point in the universe and I will move all your models.

      source
  • Hupf@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Relevant alt-text xkcd.com/1489/

    source
    • Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I know I’m stupid but hope do you see the alt text?

      source
      • frank@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        On mobile: long press on the comic itself

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Hupf@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        There’s also m.xkcd.com/1489/ if your browser makes it difficult.

        source
  • spudwart@spudwart.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Image

    source
    • mmcmonster@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Just re-saw this episode a couple nights ago. It’s still the greatest episode of Doctor Who (It’s Season 3, Episode 10, Blink).

      Great science fiction. Great closed-loop time travel. Great horror. Everything that makes Doctor Who great.

      source
  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    And gravitational stuff. We kinda know it does it, but not how to do anything about it.

    source
    • arken@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Surely that’s “heavy stuff”?

      source
      • Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        And maybe also “big stuff”. I suppose those two overlap quite a lot?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I thought that meant black holes

        source
    • mmcmonster@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      How about something simple: Why does gravity feel the same as acceleration?

      source
      • applebusch@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You can’t feel gravity. What we feel really is acceleration, the acceleration of the earth pushing us up against gravity.

        source
      • Natanael@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Because of relativistic frames of reference.

        Standing on a surface in a gravity well means you’re being constantly pushed out of an inertial frame, by not allowing you to follow a geodesic path in spacetime, and the same effect happens under acceleration.

        youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU

        source
  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I can’t wrap my head around time being anything other than the measurement of movement, and until someone can prove otherwise, that’s where I’ll be.

    source
    • brenticus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      A definition I saw recently that I like is that time is the direction of entropy. You follow time one direction and you get the big bang where everything is chaotic and happening, and in the other direction you get the heat death of the universe, where everything has settled into a base state and nothing’s happening.

      source
      • sulsaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Do you mean, like reverse time? From my understanding of the concept of entropy, it strives to a maximum, meaning maximum disorder, by your definition the big bang.

        Or maybe do you have link where I can look into it? Sounds interesting

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        entropy

        To me that’s more of an emergent property of large numbers of particles moving from higher to lower energy states. Like temperature is just the velocity of an atom when you have lots of atoms moving and interacting.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • DeathbringerThoctar@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I’m going to take your definition just a step further and say it’s a measurement of causality specifically.

      source
      • NoiseColor@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Isn’t literally everything a measurement of causality?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That is the scientific definition as well is it not? Time didn’t exist before movement.

      source
      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        If it did, how could you tell?

        source
  • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think high level degree holders know a lot more than the average man thinks we know, in fact I doubt the majority of people even know US High school level stuff like that we’ve discovered a gravitational constant and about the inverse square law as it applies to gravity.

    source
    • crapwittyname@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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!

      source
      • Pseudonaut@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I’m a person without that background and I’ll talk about it. What’s the uncanny similarity you mentioned?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I get it…but at the same time I also get why you’re not going to be the life of the party with material like that.

        I think a big part of this is because it’s already a super, super niche topic, but then you’re adding the extra layer of wanting to stick to a largely theoretical/conceptual tone of discussion, ruling out most of what few were still interested when you started into the topic. And once you’re that far down the rabbit hole, I feel like there’s going to be hyper specific topics that dominate, and unless your conversation partner not only has that knowledge but also wants to have that conversation…well the conversation isn’t really going to happen at all.

        It’s also a very brain-power intense set of topics for a leisure time get together where most people have the goal of not having to think too hard on anything.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Fuck it bro I’ll listen. I don’t have a degree or anything so I probably won’t understand much though.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • barsoap@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I dunno, it’s an inverse square. Are we going to get excited each time something has a linear relationship to another thing? What makes the inverse square so special?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • MightyGalhupo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    This is from science abridged beyond the point of usefulness right? I have that book.

    Edit: yes it is

    source
  • EmoBean@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Shit’s on fire, yo. But does that fire only produce positive vibes or are there like 90% bad vibes, you know, bro?

    source
  • mumblerfish@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think we got the fast stuff we got under control (special relativity), when you mix it it with like small stuff (quantum field theory), and I guess big stuff (general relativity), it is also OK, but mixing it with anything more than that causes a problem.

    source
  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Also half magnet stuff is still AWOL

    source
  • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Motion is indeed, tricky. - Zeno of Elea

    source
    • Capricorn_Geriatric@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      He was just obsessed with cutting things in half

      source
  • Cowars@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I have been thinking that is impossible for ANYTHING to understand EVERYTHING. Because ANYTHING will always be a part of EVERYTHING, and you need EVERYTHING to understand EVERYTHING.

    Any system will always be a sub-system of some other system.

    Also I’ve been thinking about something I read: “The more close or deep we see, the more it seems to be nothing there”. I think it was related to subatomic particles, which seems to be just fields of energy instead of matter or something like that.

    I’d appreciate if someone wants to share a few comments or thoughts about this with me.

    source
    • Enekk@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      …wikipedia.org/…/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

      source
    • knightly@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      From Statistics (commonly attributed to George Box):

      “All models are wrong, but some models are useful.”

      Our models for how everything works are generally more useful than they are wrong for “normal” conditions, and more wrong than useful at the extremes.

      source
  • covert_czar@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Can’t explain better than this🤯 Repost in !science_memes@mander.xyz

    source