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

Asklemmy

44906 readers
1233 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_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

I dunno whether it counts: but that science has effectively cured AIDS.

In 2004, 2.1m people died from it. Twenty years later that figure was a little over a quarter at 630k. The goal for 2025 is 250k. I think that's absolutely remarkable.

As a child in the 80s I was terrified of AIDS. It made me low-key scared of gay men because the news made it sound like I could I could get it from any one of them. And here we now are, able to provide a medication that can almost completely ensure that you will never be infected by HIV.

Astonishing, really.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago

The label 'homo sapiens' for our species.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago

Infinity and Black Hole

[–] [email protected] 10 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago

Kolob is a planet or star where God resides. Time moves very slowly there. Hence the high gravitational field. Probably because God is massive. I don't know. I'm not a Christian scientist.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 16 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 20 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 19 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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 20 hours ago (2 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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

If mass can convert into energy that easily then we’re all in a lot of trouble…

[–] [email protected] 9 points 18 hours ago (5 children)

What do you think fusion research is?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 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)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

No where near perfect mass conversion....

Max theoretical mass-energy conversion efficiency is under 1%

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

that's still waaayyyy more efficient than coal

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

yes you can. coal costs ~32 cent per kWh, and uranium ~$0.0015 per kWh

[–] [email protected] 3 points 16 hours ago

15 years away from a useful result

[–] [email protected] 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Just a fancier way to spin turbines with steam

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago

Fancier or more efficient?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 17 hours ago

Existing nuclear energy, too.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί