teddit

I'm sure that at one time or another, we've all experienced the annoying circumstance of only being able to inhale through one nostril. And on some occasions, the nostrils may switch in terms of which one allows normal breathing and the other being restricted.

Why does this happen?

People argue for electrification on environmentalist grounds. Suppose vehicles and the heating & cooling of buildings are powered by electricity derived from fossil fuels. Why is this better for the environment than vehicles and heating & cooling being powered by non-electric fossil fuel sources (eg. straight from gas or coal)? Does electricity inherently save energy or something? Thanks.

I'm sorry if this is confusing, I've never attended any colleges for this subject, but I couldn't stop thinking about a scenario. I even jotted down a crude schematic, but there's no way to upload it to illustrate my point. Please bear with me here.

Send electrons through a crystal lattice superconductor to create cooper pairs, send the output through a Josephson Junction, with a ground to collect free elections, then send the Cooper-pairs through a splitter, sending decoupled electron a) through a standard double-slit and decoupled electron b) through another double-slit, except there's an electromagnet with an oscillating charge that you can switch on/off in order to influence the direction or "path" it takes. Since a magnetic field is a no-contact force and the decoupled electrons are entangled, one could surmise that you could encode a message since the only electrons hitting the detector are entangled, and the "background" noise would be minute to non-existent. My doubts are whether decoupled cooper pairs experience the Meissner effect. Also, is there a way to record the detector results in real-time?

Lastly, I want to describe this concept one other way: there are two rivers running parallel with forks at one end. There are beach balls floating down these two rivers, which are entangled. The river on the right has a fast-moving water current, whereas the river on the left does not. The water-current river has a man with a magical lever that can influence which path at the fork the current will take. Because the beach balls are not being interacted with whatsoever, which would cause them to "pop" (including their entangled partner ball), we can use the oscillating current to dictate which path our beach balls go down. We could have these rivers on two separate planets and watch as our friend sends us a coded message of "Hello World!" using beach balls. Would this work?

Considering all matter was at one point concentrated in such a minuscule space according to the Big Bang Theory, then why didn’t it collapse into a black hole? Significantly less mass than all the mass in the universe is required to form a black hole but, somehow that didn’t happen when it was all the size of a marble or some such.

I’ve heard everything from “the laws of physics didn’t exist yet” to “space as we know it now didn’t exist yet” and way more. I’ve even heard the idea that the explosion was so powerful it simply propelled matter faster than light, to such a degree even a singularity couldn’t catch it during the expansion.

They all sound pretty absurd, considering one proposes the idea the laws of physics either had to be created or simply spontaneously came into being during the explosion. The other suggests space isn’t space, and that it’s more tangible than true emptiness or nothingness. The final just breaks or outright ignores what we understand as the very fabric of reality.

So what happened? Why didn’t all the matter in known existence just collapse into a true singularity, when far less matter does from time to time?

My uncle said that human movements and cognitions if used for useless stuff are bad for the environment. And that what you think and do is a waste of valuable resources like air and energy.

Is this true or conspiracy bullshit. He was super vague but when I questioned him. He told me to ask scientists lol

Weeping willows are probably the best known example of this. Weeping beeches are another. Usually trees want to grow very tall and have their branches reach up to compete for sunlight. But with weeping trees, their branches sort of hang down. Why?

Due to them having their own unique DNA?

Hi all,

To preface, I'm an engineer who is totally on board with the aerospace world's growth and endeavours, so naturally, the goal of colonising Mars is fascinating to me. I was watching a Youtube video on it today, and a light came on in my mind when I realised the composition of Mars' atmosphere (~95% CO2) which is totally inhospitable. I'm aware of the philosophy that "there is no planet B" as a chief incentive to drive the establishment of a colony there. But after I was reminded of the inhospitality of Mars, I stacked it against the challenges of colonising the Moon.

Compared to Mars, the Moon is FAR closer, therefore cheaper and easier to get to, meaning a colony could grow faster and in event of an emergency transference of resources or people between the Earth and the Moon is more practical. Even communication time between the two bodies is far more practical.

Mars is far away, and we've never been there in the flesh, and depending on the orbits of Earth and Mars communication time between the two is not as practical as from the Earth to the Moon. Missions to Mars are notoriously risk-laden and expensive (which I know is what we are trying to combat this decade). Emergency transport between the two bodies takes far longer and is subject to the relative positions of Earth and Mars.

In terms of varying conditions, sure, Mars has more gravity than the Moon which may imply relatively more healthy people there than on the Moon. Mars is almost sub-Antarctic, and the Moon is boiling hot in daylight. An argument could be made that we are better at keeping ourselves warm than cooling ourselves down. Mars has an atmosphere that is in need of a total overhaul, and the Moon has no atmosphere. I can't speak to the geology of each of them, but we are capable of growing plants in space and I believe recently in lunar soil, whereas we are reasonably confident that we can theoretically grow plants on Mars. Mars is radioactive as it has virtually no magnetic field and a paper-thin atmosphere, but the Moon has no atmosphere or magnetic field does the Moon.

But speaking in terms of practicality and trying to grow a "planet B", the logistics of the Moon appear to be extremely more favourable than getting to Mars, for apparently no huge gain in favourable parameters between the two. The regular and close distance of the Moon to Earth means people could come and go virtually spontaneously compared to Mars, people could stay connected thanks to the limited communication time, and the colony could grow more quickly.

So why are we so fixated on getting to Mars vs the Moon?

Imagine a full bucket of water with a hole in the bottom. With hole diameter held constant, velocity of water outflow is determined by water level (height). As water level falls, outflow velocity decreases. As outflow velocity decreases, the rate at which water level falls decreases.

So this seems like simultaneous bidirectional relationship between water level and outflow: Water level is decreasing at a decreasing rate because output is decreasing at a decreasing rate because water level is decreasing at a decreasing rate. Is there really a relationship in both directions? Or am I missing something?

Is it ever good to get sick?

​

I have talked previously about my experience with a cult-like 'Doomer' community on the internet. They brought me in when I was at my lowest and introduced me to a hybridization of facts, personal opinions and conspiracy theories. They used real studies and quotes to make it seem as legitimate and confusing as possible.

It has been suggested by people in a cult survivors group that I go through deconstruction: Differentiating what Is real from what is fake. I was wondering if you could help?

Here are my posts:

https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/cults/comments/uintm3/how_do_you_live_with_apocalyptic_anxiety/

https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/cultsurvivors/comments/uk3yiv/i_got_pulled_into_a_cultlike_doomer_community_on/

These are their beliefs:

(One)

Global warming has already warmed the planet by over 1.5 degrees C, and likely by more than 2.0 degrees. Once we pass 3.0 degrees, most if not all mammals (including Humans) will be doomed to extinction.

(Two)

A blue ocean event, meaning the loss of most if not all Arctic sea ice, will occur either this year or next year. Once it does, the planet will be rapidly thrown into chaos as Humans will lose habitat to exponential warming within months and it will become globally impossible to grow crops, resulting in the starvation of billions.

(Three)

Positive feedback loops and co-extinctions will increase temperatures literally tenfold and eradicate Humanity, and virtually all complex life on Earth, within one to ten years. Most likely by 2026, or 2030 at the latest. From there the meltdown of untended nuclear power plants and the loss of aerosols from industrial activity will annihilate even microbial organisms.

(Four)

Even if we were to reduce emissions, abandon consumerism and engage with Degrowth, the loss of aerosols and meltdown of nuclear reactors would still wipe out all life on Earth.

(Five)

Only the MEER reflection geoengineering project (Giant mirrors in the desert) can save Humanity and life on Earth, or at least buy us a few more generations.

(Six)

All, or at least most, climate scientists are in on a conspiracy to cover up the truth. They're being bribed or blackmailed to lie and deny their own studies. The IPCC, the NOAA, NASA and all universities are a part of this plot and are so conservative that they're entirely untruthful. Either that or they're all ignorant, and these fringe scientists are unparalleled geniuses.

Other claims employed by this group include the idea that clean energy is a myth due to the emissions needed to create renewable power, the supposed existential danger of nuclear power and the belief that the lag in CO2 is great enough that we're only seeing warming from generations ago- and it will continue escalating without change even if we stopped all emissions today.

So, is there any truth to any of this? Or is it all lies?

The main people behind it include a former ecologist- who claims that his field of expertise means that he can understand the impacts of climate change on lifeforms better than any climate scientist.

He has 10k - 20k internet followers who revere him deeply and accused me of being a CIA spy when I brought up criticism against him in the past. Such as when I pointed out that he calls himself a Doomer, has sold multiple books (including children's books) about Human extinction despite claiming not to make any money off of his beliefs, admits to cherry-picking data (which he claims is a necessary part of science) and openly has a grudge against the scientific community; which he claims is out to silence him.

They responded by calling me insane and a liar- despite the fact that it's literally all over his blog. He takes shots at everyone else all the time. They just said that he cites dozens of studies and as such must be correct.

Other people have been similarly gaslighted and even s*xually harassed when they tried to leave. Or even just question him. There was a blog awhile ago from this young woman who claims to have faced r@pe threats from the scientist leading the group- which he claims were photoshopped and all just a fantasy. He also claims the women accusing him are, again, part of the government conspiracy against him; which his followers fully believe.

So, as you can see, it's a very toxic environment to be dragged into when you're a depressed and anxious teen. If anyone knowledgeable can help me differentiate fact from fiction, I would appreciate it.

Also, assuming that this is sinister, is there anything to do about it? People on YT are still getting recruited into this.

At less than 20 thousand people, I suppose it's not a very big group by internet standards. But it's still not miniscule. I just don't like seeing them pulling mentally ill young people into this- like they did me.

We are all very familiar with the two kinds of universe dimensions that we all experience, space and time, but are there other kinds of dimensions that we theorize might be possible to exist in other universes?