this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
395 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

234 readers
29 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 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 49 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Also angles

Would love to hear how mass is measured in seconds though

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 27 points 2 months ago

Angle: seconds

[–] uis@lemm.ee 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Mass in seconds? How? I get mass in Joules, but seconds?

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 7 points 2 months ago

I measure the mass of my stool by seconds it takes to discharge

[–] Eiri@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There are two possibilities I can think of:

  • Orbit duration can be used to calculate mass
  • The diameter of a star or the parallax distance on the sky (in arcseconds) can also be used to evaluate mass
[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Size doesn't say much about mass though.

[–] Eiri@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I thought stars of similar masses were also of similar sizes. They're not?

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago

I'm no astrologer but from what I've learned, we also need to look at the color to glassify stars into categories. It varies a bit though in each category so it's a blunt tool.

Then there are other objects like gas clouds and even galaxies. For those, we have no idea of the density distribution, so radial size gives us even less info.

[–] tiredofsametab@fedia.io 14 points 2 months ago

I'm hungry for more; may I have seconds?

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wait, how do you measure mass in seconds?

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

As a theoretical physicist, units are for chumps

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's easy to remember c and ℏ if they're both 1...

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago

Constance? Never heard of her

[–] drail@fedia.io 11 points 2 months ago

Everything should just be in eV. Particle physics natural units are the best.

[–] observantTrapezium@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago

That may be relativists (they would actually measure anything in units of mass, with everything else defined through G = c = 1). Astrophysicists commonly measure mass in solar masses, long distances in parsec (or kiloparsec, megaparsec), short distances in solar radii or AU, and time in whatever is relevant to their problem (could be seconds or gigayears)

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] uis@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Rads. But radians are fine too.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Tau (τ). A full circle is just 1τ instead of 2π.

[–] HeurtisticAlgorithm9@feddit.uk 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, but everything else is more annoying. 1+e^i(0.5τ)=0 just doesn't hit the same

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Euler's identity with tau simplifies to:

e^iτ^ = 1

So it's actually simpler. See: https://tauday.com/tau-manifesto#sec-euler_s_identity

[–] HeurtisticAlgorithm9@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago

Sure, it's simpler; but it's less elegant

[–] montechristo@feddit.org 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If you ever find yourself among theoretical physicists and/or astrophysicists and need a conversation starter, just ask about unit systems or unitless/natural measurement systems. There is no other profession that is more obsessed about that topic.

Just to put this here:

ħ=1

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

all the same thing anyway

[–] EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

Please Sir, can I have some more?

Lash him! Ridicule him! This boy wants seconds!

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Don't they measure distance and time by redshift (ie colour)

[–] Generous1146 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What even is color if not seconds^-1?

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah true, but I think they actually use wavelength of red shift, which is distance.... traveled by light in the time it takes to make a full cycle. So I guess we're back to seconds again.

I think they use this for distance and time because at scales being dealt with they have the same implications.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They normally use parallax-seconds, i.e. parsecs, for long distance objects.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think you need to be more specific than 'long distance', yes they use parsecs for 'long distances' but I believe only for intra-galactic objects. I think other galaxies are too distant for parallax seconds to be useful.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago

Fair!

Thanks for this bit of clarification

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 2 months ago

I know some people that should measure their weight in mass per second.

[–] Hjalamanger@feddit.nu 3 points 2 months ago

Can I get a conversation table?

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago

Shouldn't m = F/a so n/s^2?

[–] justme@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

I don't know anybody using just seconds. I use natural units and my simulation buddies use their funny cgs units.