Under normal circumstances; you feel feedback from your actions. Kick something, and you’ll immediately, before you’ve finished applying force, feel pain in your foot. That pain causes you to reduce the amount of force you’re applying, both to end the pain and to prevent damage. This is an automatic subconscious reaction.
Add in a shot of a adrenaline though, and that pain feedback is heavily subdued. Your brain doesn’t register the signal to pullback, so you follow through with more force than you otherwise would be able to before self preservation kicks in.
the messed up thing about getting old is that you can start hurting yourself doing things that used to be “easy”. like lifting heavy weight or gripping something tight (like opening a jar). all of a sudden it feels like your muscles are breaking your joints and damaging your tendons/ligaments. its the muscle memory that gets you into trouble. good times, good times.
It really is. I once broke my foot running up some stairs. It was an emergency and as I was running I caught the edge of one step with just two toes(I did have shoes on) the ball of foot missed the stairs completely. Instead of slowing down or trying again I just pushed hard throwing my weight forward. Find out later that I had a radial fracture of my second metatarsal. The crazy thing is I spent the next few hours walking on a broken foot and didn’t feel it at all.
I did feel it the next day though. Fuck that hurt .
If you mean matter with strange quarks, to the best of my knowledge it’s still very hypothetical. There is no hard proof that it exists, or that it would behave in certain ways.
On the other hand, the law of entropy stands undefeated so far. I would not worry too much until there is some actual evidence that strange matter is real.
There are other reasons besides it being apocalyptic that climate scientists might consider the model less useful than others. This video rebuttal to the video you posted explains some of those reasons quite well. The rebuttal is from Dr. Adam Levy who is a climate scientist. I mention this only because Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder, the maker of your video, actually has a degree in physics, not climate science. One should be very cautious when considering opinions of people who are speaking outside their field of expertise. While she may be an expert in her own field, she is not a climate scientist.
First it goes into the water, then it goes to the ground, which normally filters it very well. BUT if this is generally a polluted area, and also depending on the composition of the earth, it may not filter it at all. We assume that there’s some filtering though.
Now it gets really country-dependent. Some countries filter the tap water very well, some adds chlorine to ‘cleanse’ it, and some may not do a very good job entirely.
I’m no expert in which countries around the world do what, but it’s probably something you can look up for your area.
Generally though, it’s worse for you to inhale (unless the water is just polluted in other ways)
Thanks! You’re right that I wasn’t thinking about chlorine which does get added to the water where I live. I suppose that doesn’t entirely kill all germs and pollution going into the water, but it helps getting rid of it.
Also, yeah. When I am out breathing pollution, it feels really bad for me
It would logically have to end up on the ground. If it gets into the water would have to do with solubility, and most combustion products aren’t very soluble, so you’re probably not drinking too much smog.
I don’t actually know where they ultimately end up and to what degree they can make you sick except through inhalation. Somebody has to have studied it, though, right?
Ah, interesting. I should hope not all pollutants dissolve into water, but I wonder: wouldn’t they still be bad when ingested even if not dissolved into water?
AFAIK it ends up on the ground, and in the ground water. Which means that it could contaminate drinking water if it’s not treated properly. It will enter rivers and lakes, and snow and everywhere else that water gets.
Yup. Raindrops originate from water vapor collecting around a particle in the air. When the rain falls, it pulls those air pollutants to the ground, where they either enter the ground or run down to rivers, lakes, or the ocean.
The rain that is falling today doesn’t end up in drinking water for a good while, depending on where you are. In the meantime it gets filtered by the soil it flows through.
On top of that not everything that’s unhealthy to breathe is unhealthy to eat/drink. Think about coal dust for example, very bad for your lungs but also a common medicine against diarrhea when compressed into a pill.
Just to give some perspective and lift you up a bit ;)
Just a non-scientifc opinion: I think it binds to the rain/the humidity and does go into the ground, yes. Depending on where your water comes from, it might not seep into that, I think. And stuff in your lungs may be worse than the same stuff in your stomach, depending on the stuff, I guess.
What I really came to say: the only long term solution is guillotines
I suppose guillotines help in a variety of situations, though I would have not imagined them as an extreme way of filtering the lack of actions by politicians and corporations towards the environment 🤔
Write it how? Seeing as Rayo’s number is defined as the smallest number bigger than what can be written in first order set theory with a googol symbols, you could probably write down the number with, say, googol+1 symbols. Or let’s just say 2*googol symbols, that should certainly be enough. It would not take Rayo’s number amount of seconds to write down 2 * googol symbols.
Perhaps I’m not understanding the question, but first and foremost, science is specifically not a belief system. My professors emphasized the fact that we were not to believe anything but rather accept or reject hypotheses based on evidence. Science is a tool. It’s a system of observing, recording, hypothesizing, testing, analyzing, and refining. If you’re asking when we will have refined everything to the point that there are no more questions, I don’t think that will ever happen. What I’ve found is the more questions you answer, the more questions you have.
Just an amateur opinion: If we think of science as a beliefsystem (a system to arrive at a close approximation of truth), it is much more adaptive than any other explanatory system. I think for that reason alone it will ‘win’ in the long run, but emotional systems will carry on/blossom in some form or another as societal breakdowns occurs, or if Science incentives gets compromised by ideology/money, thereby resulting in less trust.
If we look at what science already know, some Physicists, (carrol etc) believe we already have an ‘engineering corpus’ of everything we see on a daily basis, but as soon as we look at the edges of non-human scales/focus there’s a lot to find yet.
Even if we ever find a theory of everything and know all the primary forces, we still need to learn all the ways these forces can be combined, and we cant readily predict ‘interesting phenomenons’ down the line from an algorithm, so exploring will continue in our current reductionist exploration, but will perhaps pivot to a more holistic exploration. Steven Wolframs ‘ruliad’ is supposed to contain all possible combinations of everything and all their derivations (forgot the def. ;) ), and he talks about theoretical science realms that we will have a hard time even seeing/understanding. Some argue that the primary forces also varies across the universe. Chaos theory argue that it will take endless energy to collect endless dynamic data - even if we compress it into math/axioms etc. All exploration of chaotic space will take time to compute. Also, If we want to utilize our knowledge we need to either store/retrieve, or compute based on data/algorithms. In Billions of years this use/pursuit of knowledge will cost a lot of energy.
There’s a lot to think about in such a question, but it’s interesting how we can send shit to other planets, but we completely lack the knowledge/technology to manage a large ecosystem, or organize our self in a way where we don’t harm each other or our habitat. The first is very easy compared dynamic systems. I don’t think we’ve even scratched the surface of what our dynamic systems can do for us if we learn to tame them.
Anyway, in the long now, thousands of years, I think the system of Science will evolve, improve, but we will not reach 42. There will always (billions of years) be combinations of forces that we cant predict easily and some we have to explore/create to discover/enjoy.
When Science ceases to be useful as a method to discover and explain things.
But on a more specific note, that’s impossible to answer, because you would have to know what that finite set of “knowledge of everything” is, if it is indeed finite. Since we can’t know what the upper limit of “what is knowable” is, it’s impossible to even roughly project when we might know almost everything.
To complicate matters, you can’t even break the problem down. How about half of everything? A third of everything? One-tenth of everything? How much do we currently know compared to those subsets? We simply don’t know.
And what if we discover other dimensions? Or what about another universe? What if there’s infinite universes to discover? Knowledge is emergent as a result of doing science, so as long as there’s something we don’t know, we’ll have scientists out there doing science (or whatever its successor is).
I remember reading an article (can’t find it right now) from a PHD dropout who was doing research in string theory. One of reasons he dropped out is his frustration at how abstract and disconnected from reality his work was. His advisor (and his colleagues) didn’t have that problem, because to him, the math behind string theory was an ends in itself. There’s beauty in math, regardless of whether it has any practical application. If string theory turns out to be an accurate model of reality, then that would be a nice bonus, but that’s not why his advisor studied it.
So to answer your question, if we somehow reach the point where everything that can be feasibly discovered has been discovered, then theoretical scientists would make up their own models and study those.
The connection of mind amd matter. We will join it with other frameworks as a complete system of intelligence and human wisdom. Understanding true nature and its inherit empty nature is but a step to letting go of desire and freedom from suffering.
It joins spirituality and helps make it a lifestyle. Activating the PNS rest and digest is at the heart of all spirituality I see, from chanting to singing to silent prayer to whirling dervishes to yoga to the 112 ways of Shiva to Janisism to Gnosticism to teachings of love to Chakras to Mongolian throat singing and even shoalin.
Everything we do can be processed on the ANS fight or flight or PNS rest and digest. History has shown many people attaining great wisdom by pure reflection inward working a full balanced human system.
askscience
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.