this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
348 points (99.2% liked)

Science Memes

15605 readers
1090 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
 
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Test or One-Day?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

But what species is the cricket?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I feel like parentheses don't belong in explaining math if they aren't used appropriately.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

30 chirps + (added to) 40 = 70

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Wow.

It's zero degrees here in June.

Weird.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Hello fellow southernhemispherian, how does it feel bring safe from nuclear winter?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

How did you hear negative chirps?

Can I learn this power?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago
[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Using the metric version you can get zero with no chirps. The method doesn't work at all for the current temperature though, you can't get -1°C any way

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

That’s but how math works, doesn’t matter if you use the American or metric formula

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Nope,, 0 / 3 = 0 -> 0 + 4 = 4°C

Division/Multiplication always goes before Addition/Subtraction.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Glad to know it's America and crickets that find fahrenheit more convenient for temperature.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think that's how we got fahrenheit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Actually it was originally based on the freezing temperature of a brine and human body temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Really it was "find something that is different to the reseller scales"

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

It was actually based on an existing scale called the Rømer scale

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ah, so 32° is when an unknown concentration of human brine freezes, and 98.6° is the average human temperature

What am I even reading any more

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

I think the brine probably froze at 0° F, which ended up correlating to 32° F for regular water. And the body temperature at 100° F ended up correlating to 212° F for water to boil. That's the way I understand it anyway.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What the hell was the brine that it required it to be 32° below the freezing point of water? Even salt water would have frozen by that point.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Far fewer people know that 0° and 100° in Fahrenheit also correspond to specific real-world values. 0°F corresponds to a temperature where a brine is made of equal parts ice, water, and ammonium chloride. Such a brine, interestingly, is a frigorific mixture, meaning that it stabilizes to a specific temperature regardless of the temperature that each component started at. Thus, it makes for a really nice laboratory-stable definition of a temperature. Similarly, 100°F was initially set at "blood heat" temperature, or the human body temperature. While not super precise, it was a fairly stable value. As good as anything in the early 1700s.

Source from a quick Google search: https://gregable.com/2014/06/temperature-scales.html

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Fahrenheit temperature scale, scale based on 32° for the freezing point of water and 212° for the boiling point of water, the interval between the two being divided into 180 equal parts. The 18th-century physicist Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit originally took as the zero of his scale the temperature of an equal ice-salt mixture and selected the values of 30° and 90° for the freezing point of water and normal body temperature, respectively; these later were revised to 32° and 96°, but the final scale required an adjustment to 98.6° for the latter value.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

No I'm pretty sure it was crickets.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Assuming one spherical cricket in a vacuum

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Ignoring air resistance?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You can't hear a cricket chirp in a vacuum.

The motor is too loud.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

How do you count just one cricket's chirps? There are usually tons of them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Everyone counts their own crickets and then you add the results together.

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

Count faster.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I guess Summer's over, it's 4 degrees celsius where I currently am.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How did you count negative chirps?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Negative occurrences are imaginary numbers, and reading about crickets caused me to imagine hearing them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

How many crickets did you imagine? I want to make sure the maths works out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

...I will accept this explanation.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

...or count the chirps in 8 seconds and add 4.

Why am I taking 25seconds and dividing by 3? Accuracy?

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

My guess would be better approximation as you avoid a "fluke", as 8 second is a very short time where nothing could easily happen even with crickets being present

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago

I'm just bothered they chose divide by 3, instead of 16 seconds divide by 2 which is wayyy easier

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

If you count only for 8 seconds, it will be inaccurate, you need to count for 8 and 1/3 seconds!

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

I was expecting some kind of Duckworth-Lewis formula.

[–] [email protected] 84 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 weeks ago

metric is great until you need to do anything practical with it like converting cricket chirps to degrees ^/s^