this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
899 points (99.4% liked)

Science Memes

11086 readers
2666 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 105 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

One of the bigger reasons has to do with the square cube law - as the size of something increases, surface area increases by a factor of 2 but mass increases by a factor of 3, so little fishes have a surface area-to-mass ratio that is quite a bit higher than a larger fish, and they're more susceptible to abrupt changes in temperature.

Kinda like how an ice cube will melt a lot faster than a big slab of ice, the core temperature of some small fish like a goldfish is gonna change more rapidly than the core temperature of a big fish like a trout so they tend to be a lot more finnicky in regard to significant and instantaneous changes to temperature and stuff. A larger fish might shrug off a significant change because it affects them more slowly, but that might be a totally wild an overwhelming experience for a little fish to go through

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 minutes ago

I'm confused though. Don't people use this to talk about how small things like bugs can fall from a large height and be uninjured, but large things like a human or elephant will be injured if falling from a height? I feel like what you're saying is backwards to what the internet has told me.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The math actually works, and is quite simple. Just assume the fish is a sphere

[–] [email protected] 26 points 16 hours ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 12 hours ago

As opposed to the high friction vacuums we are used to.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 15 hours ago

IMMA YEET THEM SO FAR

[–] [email protected] 48 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

something i love about Lemmy is that on the drop of a hat someone is willing to calculate the "surface area to fish ratio"

[–] [email protected] 29 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Problem is, you almost never know if that's actually true or complete bullshit.

It seems plausible, but killing virgins for rain also seemed plausible back then in the 70s.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

"But it has rained, hasn't it?" Smug look

An example of why arguing with idiots is impossible to win.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 14 hours ago

The 70s was a wild time.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

And in a similar but completely different way, the fish are being added to massive bodies of water. Home aquariums are minute in comparison, so they can't balance out chemical swings as easily and are much more prone to higher levels of nitrites and other toxic chemicals. The larger the body of water, the more stable the water quality.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

So what I hear you saying is I need a bigger aquarium...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You could probably air drop one goldfish into a 100 gallon tank and it'd be fine (assuming it survived the fall).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 16 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 17 hours ago

And a bigger fish

[–] [email protected] 24 points 18 hours ago

You always need a bigger aquarium