Recent comments in /f/todayilearned

ACoolKoala t1_jbaftd6 wrote

Reply to comment by TheVegabond101 in TIL the largest moon in our solar system, Ganymede, is larger than the planet of Mercury by Jugales

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=115#:~:text=Yes.,objects%20at%20distance%20r%20away.

This might be helpful to you but no it's pretty exact. NASA wouldn't be putting it out as a measurement if it wasn't exact. Also if you don't go through the math of it how do you personally know if it's a guess or not?

This is also from Quora somewhere: To calculate a planet's density, you will need to know its mass and volume. The density of a planet can be calculated using the formula:

Density = Mass / Volume

The mass of a planet can be determined through various methods, such as measuring the gravitational pull on nearby objects or by studying the orbits of its moons. The volume of a planet can be determined by measuring its size and shape, which can be done through observations or by studying the planet's gravity field. Once you have the mass and volume, you can plug them into the density formula to calculate the planet's density.

But also note that density of a planet can definitely change so exact meaning at this point in time.

6

ACoolKoala t1_jbaa4m2 wrote

Reply to comment by TheVegabond101 in TIL the largest moon in our solar system, Ganymede, is larger than the planet of Mercury by Jugales

"If we calculate Mercury's average density by taking its mass and dividing by its volume, we come up with a density of about 5430 kilograms per cubic meter."

Satellites probably and scientists on earth using the data for math.

You can figure out the volume and mass using satellites I assume since nobody has been to or on mercury.

3

bearsnchairs t1_jba05j3 wrote

Reply to comment by Modern_rocko in TIL the largest moon in our solar system, Ganymede, is larger than the planet of Mercury by Jugales

Molecular oxygen, O2 is seen as a marker for biological activity. Molecule oxygen is pretty reactive and over long time scales it will react with mostly anything and form oxides. If it builds up enough for you to detect it, there must be a source to counteract the sink.

Fun fact, oxygen is the most abundant element in earth’s crust.

8

Fake_William_Shatner t1_jb9y5rc wrote

Reply to comment by 96_doomer in TIL "to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps" is an example of an impossible task. The idiom dates at least to 1834, from the Workingman's Advocate: "It is conjectured that Mr. Murphee will now be enabled to hand himself over the Cumberland river or a barn yard fence by the straps of his boots. by meat-juice

Well, there are probably a bunch of theories for "what is time" but I now think I have a few for how time can exist WITHOUT time. In fact, I think it makes better sense of relativity.

Think of time as a gear. Your experience of "speed of light" is the small gear being turned by the large gear of the Universe you exist in. No matter what speed your gear turns at -- the other gear moves relatively faster. We have no idea of how long it takes for the big gear to turn -- but when it does, the clockworks SEEM to be moving always at the same speed RELATIVE to us.

My explanation for TIME however, is that it's ALL the forces. Only, there is more than 4 dimensions. There are 4 dimensions of 4 dimensions and they seem to be the same point in space. They SEEM to have the same rate of time. This is the "local observer" part of relativity.

This is not anyone else's theory. This is my own. The fact that what I think and what current physics might be agreeing with is just that THEY started saying what I've been saying. I don't think there is a new Universe being spawned at every quantum potential. And that has to do with existence itself.

I see time and all laws of physics as the "balancing of the equation." It is NOT forced. It is not the only result. In fact, in my model, all results that can ever possibly be, in every combination were in existence as soon as the Cosmos -- but the Cosmos has no beginning or ending. That doesn't mean anything is predetermined. It's "every state in every location, infinitely."

And so, for a while, It thought of time as an infinite path created by one particle. And where it crosses itself, the closer to one part of the string is to a prior part of a string is the next moment in time. There is no dimension in this realm, but there is length.

However, I think I've improved this model. My latest theory isn't very old on how this works. It came about when learning of how current methods for AI to create works. I was at the same time thinking about how human consciousness works to predict the future and how to throw a spear to meet a moving animal without being any good at math relative to computers that simulate creativity by doing a LOT of math.

And I don't expect this idea to make it easier to understand. But, time is a "connect the dots" game as if done by the most amazing computer ever -- but, nothing needs to be computed - because only one result exists. Every particle and field in our Universe has to be equal and opposite to something else -- the current moment is the zero point resolution. All other potentials, do exist -- but, are not reality. So from the state of the current "closest to zero point" there is another state that is closer, or most close relative to all others at each location for each particle and field. Everything isn't re-created -- it never existed, and for the briefest moment, it is a quantum imbalance passed on to the next location and field.

The thing that makes this a bit harder to think about is that these states only have a location because they are matched up from 16 dimensions and the resultant "agreement" is 3 dimensions and one Time. Any point in space is the null of something that has no position. The wave function of these quantum fields I'm talking about only moves "relative" to the momentary state of position created in our Universe.

It's as if you looked at an infinite TV full of static, and imagined pictures forming from the dust. And then at the same time, think that those random bits had no position except until you imagined the formation of the pictures.

So, each "frame" in the infinite random that solves for zero, moves to the next frame state. Every frame seems like the same time, the same relativity, and following the same rules. The next frame and the next moment are found because nothing else exists. We are NOT computed. We are the internally coherent resolution of infinite wrong values. All other states are cancelled out -- or, just not "reality."

At the same time, there are infinite other groupings going on, having zero interference with each other. But I figure it's 16 dimensional as well (unless their is a greater affinity or a complementary null state based on the prior conditions of the other groupings -- I'm sure these little tiny nothings happen at the small scale all the time). Anyway, Time is the next best structure to create null values with internal coherence at each point in space -- and it creates a point in space. From another point of view -- the Universe is independent pocket universes just passing along imbalances at their edges. It's possible our large Universe does this, but we wouldn't notice it, because the imbalance would be relatively the same throughout the substructure. Think of an ant sitting in a car going up and down a mountain. No worries. Every tiny bit of the Universe acts as if it is the only piece, but collectively, we pass through it, because each piece is passing on the imbalance.

The weird properties of "spooky at a distance", the "uncertainty principle" and quantum tunneling are just peaks through the cracks of this Universe not just 4 dimensions. And the quantum tunneling aspect just started making sense when I was trying to figure out how to travel to a new location be manipulating spacetime. HOW do you know the coordinates? Then I realized -- it's just relativity again. Every position you are in is ZERO. So every other position you could be in is relatively offset from that. So, particles "tunnel" at the small scale, when their current imbalance finds a more close to zero condition nearby than their locality. They just "now exist" where they are closer to the zero point condition no matter where it is. It's a wonder anything stays put and objects don't pass through each other all the time because there is NOTHING there -- because it's all about distortions in spacetime caused by time imbalances. ALL OF IT. All the forces. We have space because we have time. But, there is no time and there is no space in what creates it. But -- that's just a model. The infinite could evolve over time as well. Since it's infinite. Is it changing or has it always been this way and we just participate in a new aspect of it? All answers are equally valid on that question.

Or I could be delusional. There are a lot of other ways I might model this --- but currently, this one seems more right and at least allows for what we experience without relying on any other force.

1