this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
58 points (96.8% liked)

Asklemmy

44903 readers
897 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eponymous_anonymous@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Retinal photosynthesis, also known as the Purple Earth Theory. Colours are weird. Earth plants absorb red and blue light, they look green to us because that’s the wavelength of light that cannot be used by the chloroplasts.

It’s hypothesized that this was advantageous on Earth because blue light goes further into water than the other wavelengths, facilitating the development of photosynthetic algae

Retinal photosynthesis is another viable chemical chain reaction that could be used to create ATP (usable biological energy) from light.

It’s another molecule similar to chlorophyll, but it absorbs green light instead of red/blue - alien planets might be purple!

There’s a viable parallel evolutionary pathway that leads to plants with magenta leaves

[–] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 7 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

When the moon is at its farthest orbit from earth, all of the planets in the solar system can fit in between earth and the moon.

[–] uebquauntbez@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

The label 'homo sapiens' for our species.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

That time passes differently in galaxies with different gravities. One of these galaxies is Mormon heaven.

[–] QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Gravitational time dilation is an effect of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Places with stronger gravity would then have time pass more slowly compared to earth. The opposite is also true.

I think it's the Mormon bit that's being questioned.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 16 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

the implication of einsteins mass-energy equivalence formula is mind-blowing to me. one gram of mass, if perfectly converted to energy, makes 25 GWh. that means half the powerplants in my country could be replaced with this theoretical "mass converter" going through a gram of fuel an hour. that's under 10 kilograms of fuel a year.

a coal plant goes through tons of fuel a day.

energy researchers, get on it

[–] Fluke@lemm.ee 7 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

What do you think fusion research is?

[–] sga@lemmings.world 2 points 9 hours ago

a fun fact: for the most efficient mass energy conversion, you need a huge spin black hole (preferably naked). Then you can get about 42% conversion. (there was a minute physics video about it i think)

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Just a fancier way to spin turbines with steam

Fancier or more efficient?

[–] absGeekNZ 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

No where near perfect mass conversion....

Max theoretical mass-energy conversion efficiency is under 1%

[–] teije9@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

that's still waaayyyy more efficient than coal

[–] absGeekNZ 1 points 5 hours ago

That is a different level entirely.

The mass-energy conversion from chemical processes is extremely small compared to nuclear processes, you can't really compare the in any meaningful way

[–] lime@feddit.nu 3 points 11 hours ago

15 years away from a useful result

[–] Dr_Vindaloo@lemmy.ml 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] bradboimler@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago

For the sake of discussion, let's say on the one hand a magic man intelligently designed life and all that. And on the other hand we have it arise and evolve over the course of billions of years of random atomic interactions and genetic mutations. I honestly find the second one far more amazing, wondrous, amazing, and mind blowing.

[–] hmmm@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago

Infinity and Black Hole

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

The fact that there is no discernable difference between an alive body or a dead body when it comes to chemical makeup.

All the pieces are there. All the atoms and molecules are still in the same places. Yet despite this the body is still dead.

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

To be fair, a perfectly fine but dead body is impossible to observe since the process of dying is usually the result or accumulation of injuries or disfunctions. For this experiment you either have to kill somebody without altering their body in the slightest or instantly conjure a perfectly intact body without any life in it.

[–] teije9@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 hours ago

yes, the same atoms are still there, but all the chemical processes in our body have stopped.

[–] racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml 13 points 15 hours ago

When you say "All the atoms and molecules are still in the same places", I can't say I agree. It is the change of chemical composition that renders our body dead. Or should I say, death is defined to be such a chemical composition.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 69 points 1 day ago (9 children)

There are more hydrogen atoms in a molecule of water than there are stars in the solar system

Not just that, it's twice the amount!

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] spittingimage@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago (7 children)

The fact that planes are kept in the air by the shape of their wings, which forces air to go over at a pace when it can't push down on the wing as hard as it can push up from underneath. It's like discovering an exploitable glitch in a videogame and every time I fly I worry that the universe will get patched while I'm at 10,000 feet.

[–] flubba86@lemmy.world 8 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I remember reading a couple years ago that's not actually how plane wings work. The actual way is much more complicated and hard to explain and hard to teach, so they just teach it this way because its an intuitive mental model that is "close enough" and "seems right", and it really doesn't matter unless you're a plane wing designer.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The basic way an airplane works actually is simple and intuitive: it meets the air at an angle and deflects it downward. The equal and opposite reaction to accelerating that mass of air is an upward force on the wing.

There is, of course a whole lot of finesse on top of that with differences in wing design having huge impacts on the performance and handling of aircraft due to various aerodynamic phenomena which are anything but simple or intuitive. A thin, flat wing will fly though, and balsa wood toy airplanes usually use exactly that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)#Simplified_physical_explanations_of_lift_on_an_airfoil

[–] Fluke@lemm.ee 4 points 13 hours ago

"With a big enough engine you can make a barn door fly."

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί