this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024
500 points (97.2% liked)

Science Memes

11961 readers
2094 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 245 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Can't see the other side- if it's a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional object in can still be accurate because of perspective.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 2 months ago (4 children)

There's a third dimension now?

[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not really, but it's a useful assumption for lots of different types of maths.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

As long as everything you imagine in 3D space is spherical

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Quaternions make a whole lot more sense when you imagine a third spatial axis and use them to rotate a hypothetical 3D object.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

This is madness!!!

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes, time is the third dimension.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Always has been

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Yes, and now some bozos are even discussing a 4th dimension. Something to do with chess, I think.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago

My thoughts precisely, they are just assumimg this is just a 2D circle, when in reality it's more likely to be a 3D sphere. They aren't accounting for the area of a 3D object, we don't even know the thickness of the "slices" that are flying.

[–] [email protected] 99 points 2 months ago

Sphere vs circle

[–] [email protected] 93 points 2 months ago

Generally explosions do in fact involve an object suddenly increasing in volume (with corresponding decrease in density)

Said objects typically become partially gaseous, but if the rest of it is porous then it's not unusual at all for that to increase in volume also.

Easy example: popcorn.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago

Neither does popcorn.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why assume it started off as a sphere? Everything makes sense if it started off as an irregular blob.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago

It might well have started our as a sphere. But you also need to rotate pieces in the third dimension of you want to pay the sphere back together.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago

I mean, its representing a 3 dimensional object, so a lot of those "areas" are actually volumes which can stack "behind" one another

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 months ago

Sphere looks like circle. Chop sphere in half, lay flat, looks like two circles. BOOM, Banach-Tarski!

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Only if you assume the object was round. I mean it was almost certainly meant to be round, but it could be right ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If it was round it wouldn't have blown up!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Right? Round isn't what I'd think to call "a funny shape." Maybe some folks do though.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago

Do you people hate the SAUCE? What sort of savagery is this?

Here: https://ottawa.place/@MichaelPorter/113566528132723718

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

Sure it does, it's just not round.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Clearly the artist believes in the axiom of choice

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago

It just means the explosion had so much energy some of it was converted to mass. As you cannot determine what kind of explosion that is, this explanation cannot be disproven in general terms.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

That symbol must be very triggering for Superman

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

On a similar note, I don't know which doofus created the cancerogenic warning symbol. It's so stupid that I didn't understand it when I first saw it and thought it meant that it irritates breathing or something. Truly stupid.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Could you link to the symbol? It's not on the Wikipedia list of hazard symbols

It's the middle bottom one here, isn't it

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yes, it's the middle bottom one. Looks like a guy's chest is exploding for some reason. 🙃

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Assumed it's a shitpost. But it isn't!! This is serious.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Conservation of area is not a law of nature.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I wonder who's the artist behind the symbol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Looks almost like a human heart.