nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I bet you didnt know that

Cartouche

As people here work in various jobs / professions they might know things from work or study no one here knows yet. this is what this topic is about.

what do you know that we have never heard of?

Eg: you don't need to be great at maths to be an architect

this is obvious to me but everyone says to me "i wanted to be an architect but i was bad at math,i can barely add"

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

the purple tin

keano_afc wrote: »

I was sitting in the Salt House in Galway one evening and we were talking to the bar staff about the bottle of TNP they had behind the counter. While we were mid-conversation, an American tourist came in and bought it. He went straight to the bar, offered €70 and away he went. I always wondered what kind of evening he had after.

They probably hauled him out of the river the next morning.:(

Fourier

cdeb wrote: »

We Have No Idea is a fun book which contains a far more detailed and better explanation of the above in comic form with cats.

I just had a read of a good portion of that book. Unfortunately it repeats very common errors like:

We Have No Idea wrote:

Also, according to quantum physics, particles can pop into existence and back out again from the energy of otherwise empty space.

I never really understand why authors say this. I think it is much simpler to say empty space is empty, it's what most people think already and what quantum mechanics actually says. Other things include saying gravity comes from space being bent (p. 103), where as really it comes from time(lines) being bent.

It might seem harsh, but I just think if one is charging people money these mistakes shouldn't be present.

RIGOLO

Fourier wrote: »

I think it is much simpler to say empty space is empty, it's what most people think already and what quantum mechanics actually says.

Is there really such a thing as EMPTY space, I didnt think was, even on a quantum level. Perhaps theoretical.

And for that matter (pun in tended) whats does 100% FULL Space look like.
Feynman was always amazed at the idea you could keep cramming more and more radio waves signals into a cube without ever filling it up.

ps I defer to your undoubted superior expertise on this matter (pun intended again).

Fourier

RIGOLO wrote: »

Is there really such a thing as EMPTY space, I didnt think was, even on a quantum level. Perhaps theoretical.

Well even in intergalactic space there's bits of hydrogen dust and most likely dark energy (whatever that turns out to be), but that's about it. No matter popping in and out of existence.

RIGOLO

Fourier wrote: »

Well even in intergalactic space there's bits of hydrogen dust and most likely dark energy (whatever that turns out to be), but that's about it. No matter popping in and out of existence.

so its empty except for the dark energy and hydrogen dust. or in scientific speak its emptyish

Fourier

RIGOLO wrote: »

Is there really such a thing as EMPTY space, I didnt think was, even on a quantum level. Perhaps theoretical.

RIGOLO wrote: »

so its empty except for the dark energy and hydrogen dust. or in scientific speak its emptyish

A more detailed answer.

It's not empty on a large scale, but is on a small scale.

It is hard to say if dark energy "takes up" space or exactly how it fills space as we know little about it. As I said there is hydrogen (and more rarely helium etc) dust in intergalactic space. This dust is essentially isolated atoms, so between those atoms there is empty space. There's no scientific principle preventing empty space. Even on Earth in the upper atmosphere the regions between molecules would be empty.

This book and many others claim particles pop in and out of existence from empty (or even filled) space. This is false.

RiderOnTheStorm

The speed of light is constant. This doesn't mean its aleays the same speed , it means it always looks the same, regardless of your speed. EG light moving thru water is much slower.

For the cars ..... Nothing in this scenario is actually moving faster than light. But what does it look like to each other? Each sees the other as going ftl.

RIGOLO

Fourier wrote: »

A more detailed answer.

It's not empty on a large scale, but is on a small scale.

It is hard to say if dark energy "takes up" space or exactly how it fills space as we know little about it. As I said there is hydrogen (and more rarely helium etc) dust in intergalactic space. This dust is essentially isolated atoms, so between those atoms there is empty space. There's no scientific principle preventing empty space. Even on Earth in the upper atmosphere the regions between molecules would be empty.

This book and many others claim particles pop in and out of existence from empty (or even filled) space. This is false.

I was never debating this point 'This book and many others claim particles pop in and out of existence from empty (or even filled) space. This is false.'

but empty space Im not convinced ... as even within the regions between molecules time still exists ..so how can it be called empty space ...

New Home

Fourier

Ha! Sorry New Home, I'll stop!

RIGOLO wrote: »

but empty space Im not convinced ... as even within the regions between molecules time still exists ..so how can it be called empty space ...

Well that's current understanding based on current theories, there is little more I can say. If it helps all I can say is time doesn't fill space (I'm not even really sure what that would mean), it's a different thing. The region between molecules in the upper atmosphere is empty because there is no matter there. That's what current theories say.

New Home

No, not at all... I can just stop reading (I can't focus on anything at the moment). I'm sure plenty other people can follow you lot, or there wouldn't be such a lively discussion.

RIGOLO

Fourier wrote: »

Ha! Sorry New Home, I'll stop!

Well that's current understanding based on current theories, there is little more I can say. If it helps all I can say is time doesn't fill space (I'm not even really sure what that would mean), it's a different thing. The region between molecules in the upper atmosphere is empty because there is no matter there. That's what current theories say.

This thread has standards to up hold.
In this day and age of 'fact truth alternate post truth pseudo blah blah '
we need some bastion of fact we can all retire to for respite...We must maintain the credibility of 'I bet you didnt know that'

My good man we cant go have people posting outlandish claims like ' empty space is empty' without challenge.
Before we know it people will start believing that stuff and ignore the prescence of time, gravitational tug, quantum vacumn fluctioations, Wheelers quantum foam among other things all swirling around in this 'empty' space...nothing empty about it dear boy..

Realt Dearg Sec

Time doesn't take up space. No more than length takes up width.

Working class heroes

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Time doesn't take up space. No more than length takes up width.

You've added an interesting dimension to the discussion....

Carry

RIGOLO wrote: »

This thread has standards to up hold.

uphold, btw. Who defines the standards? The contributors, not one man.

RIGOLO wrote: »

In this day and age of 'fact truth alternate post truth pseudo blah blah '
we need some bastion of fact we can all retire to for respite...We must maintain the credibility of 'I bet you didnt know that'

I wish you would hold up that standard in the politics forum, too.:rolleyes:
The credibility of this thread is high as far as most contributors are concerned. As is the fun factor.
Fourier's contributions are always highly interesting. I would believe him/her anything as he/she proved to be extremely knowledgeable and reasonable.

RIGOLO wrote: »

My good man we cant go have people posting outlandish claims like ' empty space is empty' without challenge.
Before we know it people will start believing that stuff and ignore the prescence of time, gravitational tug, quantum vacumn fluctioations, Wheelers quantum foam among other things all swirling around in this 'empty' space...nothing empty about it dear boy..

I strongly disapprove of your condescending tone and the associated arrogance. Please do not spoil this thread with suggestions that some contributions don't belong here. In the big scheme of things we know nothing, but we learn a little more in this thread and have fun with it.

I'm sorry to be so off-topic, I won't do it again, promise. And I won't reply to any discussion Rigolo might start about it. Contribute with interesting facts, discuss them, but refrain from taking over this thread by chosing who is allowed to say what, according to your "standards".
Thank you.

Fourier

RIGOLO wrote: »

My good man we cant go have people posting outlandish claims like ' empty space is empty' without challenge.
Before we know it people will start believing that stuff and ignore the prescence of time, gravitational tug, quantum vacumn fluctioations, Wheelers quantum foam among other things all swirling around in this 'empty' space...nothing empty about it dear boy..

Look PM me if you want more details. Wheeler's foam was an idea that has no proof, gravity isn't something that fills up empty space (it's related to time, see #7673) and the point of my initial posts is that vacuum fluctuations don't fill up empty space with matter, that's a common misunderstanding. According to current scientific understanding empty space is empty. PM me for details and I can give you quotes from textbooks.

NewHome wrote:

No, not at all... I can just stop reading (I can't focus on anything at the moment). I'm sure plenty other people can follow you lot, or there wouldn't be such a lively discussion.

Ah no worries! I knew you were messing.

To change the topic, in ancient China it was thought that the dead could sue the living. Xi Mu (303 - 373) was an official to the Han emperor fell on hard times when his wife died. He claims he found out his uncle had been sued in the afterlife by a soldier he had executed and the court had determined his living relatives had to suffer.

Also everything you were buried with was replicated on the other side. The tomb of Lady Dai (~168 BC), wife of a marquis who had helped the Han gain the Imperial Throne, contained 48 suitcases of stuff she wanted to bring.

Decapitation was very rare for this reason in the Han Empire as it was thought to leave you as a head with no body in the afterlife.

The Open Empire, Valerie Hansen (2000)

New Home

Now, that I can follow! BTW, wasn't that the reason why the terracotta soldiers were made and buried?

Kat1170

Platypus don't have nipples. The female Platypus secretes milk from pores along her stomach and the young lap it up.

DEFTLEFTHAND

It's customary when visiting the historic Green Mount Cemetery in Baltimore, Maryland to leave a Lincoln penny on the top of John Wilkes Booth headstone.

The only problem is Wilkes doesn't have a headstone, he's buried in an unmarked grave directly behind the obelisk in the centre of the plot. The only place his name appears is on a list of family members interred in the plot which is inscribed into the obelisk.

The headstone people leave the Lincoln pennies on is in fact the footstone of his sister Asia's grave. Unfortunately Asia falls foul of another Baltimore tradition, When people think they're taking a leak on JWB they're in fact taking it on her grave.

pleas advice

ah, don't go changing topics when i was just about to ask how do you explain the Casimir effect or Hawking Radiation...

pleas advice

Kat1170 wrote: »

Platypus don't have nipples....

hmm... so I had to look up the plural of platypus.
platypus comes from the Greek word πλατύπους (platupous), "flat-footed"

Scientists generally use "platypuses" or simply "platypus". Colloquially, the term "platypi" is also used for the plural, although this is technically incorrect and a form of pseudo-Latin; the correct Greek plural would be "platypodes".

so, its like octopus / octopodes

mzungu

Calvin Klein's Obsession is known to stimulate the curiosity of cheetahs and jaguars. It is used by field biologists to attract them to heat-and-motion sensitive cameras.

New Home

I could have understood it if it had been Lynx....

Kat1170

pleas advice wrote: »

hmm... so I had to look up the plural of platypus.
platypus comes from the Greek word πλατύπους (platupous), "flat-footed"

Scientists generally use "platypuses" or simply "platypus". Colloquially, the term "platypi" is also used for the plural, although this is technically incorrect and a form of pseudo-Latin; the correct Greek plural would be "platypodes".

so, its like octopus / octopodes

I had a quick look when typing the post into the plural and decided, nope, not going there

Ipso

New Home wrote: »

I could understand it if it had been Lynx....

Or Sex Panther!

Kat1170

New Home wrote: »

I could understand it if it had been Lynx....

Ipso wrote: »

Or Sex Panther!

Or even a Cougar

Carry

mzungu wrote: »

Calvin Klein's Obsession is known to stimulate the curiosity of Cheetahs and Jaguars. It is used by field biologists to attract them to heat-and-motion sensitive cameras.

:eek: I'll never wear that perfume outdoors so (still have a bottle). Who knows, I might attract cheetahs or jaguars....

The perfume contains civet, a musk, that's being "harvested" from the perineal or anal glands of the animal called civet, which is the stuff that attracts other wild cats.

Civet, or musk, is chemically a pheromone with allegedly aphrodisiac properties. It's been used in perfume since perfume exists.

However, today (I think since the end of the nineties) the industry uses artificial musk/civet since the killing or torturing of animals just for their sexual secretion is unethical and frowned-upon.

I'm not sure if the big cats react the same to artificial civet.

Obsession is not the only perfume containing (artificial) civet. Some of the more famous perfumes are Coco by Chanel, Chanel No.5, Shalimar by Guerlain, Magie Noire by Lancome, Diorissimo by Dior, Noir by Tom Ford, Must the Cartier, Aramis among others.

Obsession though is a real strong scent. Whoever uses it should do it carefully and sparingly.

Carry

Forgot to add: On the picture is Obsession for men, which usually contains more of the skunky stuff (for "animalic attraction" or such like).

I was talking about Obsession for women which has a bit less civet but still enough to attract, ehm, at least my sofa tiger.

gozunda

mzungu wrote: »

Calvin Klein's Obsession is known to stimulate the curiosity of Cheetahs and Jaguars. It is used by field biologists to attract them to heat-and-motion sensitive cameras.

What's wrong with usual eau de herbivore
and the normal bog standard leg of Zebra? Them must be some fancy pants studies ...

Carry

gozunda wrote: »

What's wrong with usual eau de herbivore
and the normal bog standard leg of Zebra? Them must be some fancy pants studies ...

Well, it's like with men: Give them the choice of a burger or a sexual encounter - most will glance shortly at the burger and head for the sex