• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Interesting 'Facts' 2.0

Jammer

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,568
Location
Blarg.
yea i know. i wonder how much i'd weigh on that planet.:confused:
Jupiter is a gas giant, so it doesn't really have a surface that you could stand on.

Some more interesting Jupiter stuff (all found on Wikipedia):

If Jupiter had more mass, it would actually shrink in size.

Jupiter has rings (like Saturn, but much more faint).

The barycenter of the Sol/Jupiter system lies above Sol's surface.




Size comparison between Jupiter and Earth. Notice the size of Earth in relation to the Great Red Spot.


The Aurora Borealis on Jupiter. Jupiter's magnetosphere is 14 times stronger than Earth's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PIA02863_-_Jupiter_surface_motion_animation.gif
Wind speeds on Jupiter easily reach 360 km/h (224 mph). These are counter-rotating cloud bands.

Well, that's most of the interesting stuff.

EDIT: There are images you don't see in my post because I'm having trouble with Wikipedia. It isn't easily fixable, so sorry.
 

Jammer

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,568
Location
Blarg.
Lethalogica - the inability to remember a certain word
Before someone says it, Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia is not really the fear of long words.

Self-referencing humor it may have, but Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia is a made up word. Translated, it means "the fear of big montrous foot-and-half long words". Which is, of course, a little over the top.
 

Best101

Smash Ace
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
983
Location
Atlanta, GA
Human reaction time is about 1/5 of a second if you're looking at a light or listening for a beep and have to press a button when it lights or beeps.

That's much too slow to dodge a bullet, of course, except for possibly subsonic sniper rounds from very far away (but those would be too inaccurate to hit, anyway).
That's reaction time. I'm talking about the speed of thought. I'm talking about the time it takes for your brain to process what's happening and to send the message. Of course the human body couldn't move that fast

yea i know. i wonder how much i'd weigh on that planet.:confused:
You know I could figure that out for you just as long as you tell me the acceleration caused by gravity on that planet. (Earth is 9.81 m/s/s)
 

Jammer

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,568
Location
Blarg.
That's reaction time. I'm talking about the speed of thought. I'm talking about the time it takes for your brain to process what's happening and to send the message. Of course the human body couldn't move that fast
Okay, I see what you're saying. It is definitely true that reaction time and thinking time would be different.

First of all, I think we can agree that giving thought a "speed" doesn't really make sense.

Let's say that, on average, a human being moves 1 mph constantly. That takes into account walking around, sitting, standing, driving, flying, laying around, etc. So we should multiple 1 mph by the number of humans (6.5 billion) to get the speed of humankind: 6.5 billion mph. And that only counts humans who are alive.

That, of course, is silly. It doesn't make any sense to say that the speed of humankind is 6.5 billion mph.

Same goes with the electric impulses in individual neurons. You don't multiply the speed of electric impulses by the number of neurons to get the speed of thought. It just doesn't make sense.

In fact, there are lots of things that make "the speed of thought" even less meaningful than "the speed of humankind". The first is that you said "the speed of thought" instead of "the speed of electrical impulse-kind". There is little scientific understanding of how "thought" even works. At the very least, billions or trillions of neurons are required to produce a "thought" of the kind you could write down.

I'd write more, but I have a feeling that this is more of a misunderstanding than a difference of opinion. Ask if you have questions, and feel free to call me stupid (but only if you can back that up, of course).
 

SirroMinus1

SiNiStEr MiNiStEr
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
3,502
Location
NEW-YORK-CITY
NNID
Ajarudaru
Ftw

Jupiter is a gas giant, so it doesn't really have a surface that you could stand on.

Some more interesting Jupiter stuff (all found on Wikipedia):

If Jupiter had more mass, it would actually shrink in size.

Jupiter has rings (like Saturn, but much more faint).

The barycenter of the Sol/Jupiter system lies above Sol's surface.




Size comparison between Jupiter and Earth. Notice the size of Earth in relation to the Great Red Spot.


The Aurora Borealis on Jupiter. Jupiter's magnetosphere is 14 times stronger than Earth's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PIA02863_-_Jupiter_surface_motion_animation.gif
Wind speeds on Jupiter easily reach 360 km/h (224 mph). These are counter-rotating cloud bands.

Well, that's most of the interesting stuff.

EDIT: There are images you don't see in my post because I'm having trouble with Wikipedia. It isn't easily fixable, so sorry.
yea i saw that on discovery channel science. if you fall into that planet you go right trough it. you should put the definition of light speed on here.
 

Jammer

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,568
Location
Blarg.
you should put the definition of light speed on here.
Um...okay. Light speed is the speed of light. It's exactly 299,792,458 m/s (670,616,629 mph) in a vacuum. In fact, the speed of light defines a meter: a meter is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

It takes 8 minutes for light to travel from the sun to Earth and about 1.2 seconds for light to travel from the earth to the moon.

The speed of light is usually denoted algebraically as c (an italicized, lowercase c).

Now for the typical Jammer twist:

Light doesn't always travel at the speed of light. It travels slightly slower in denser mediums. The amount in the change of the speed of light in a material is directly related to its refractive index.

But even more interesting, light doesn't really travel at 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum. This has to do with quantum mechanics: a single photon can take any path and go at all speeds. The straight path at the speed of light is by far the most likely path for it to take, so it's the one we always see. However, over very, very short distances, like within an atom, bent paths with different speeds become more and more likely. You can see a photon travel up to 30% faster or slower than the speed of light if you measure it going across a small atom.
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
The speed of thought is about 50 billion miles per second (I forgot the exact number)
Big FALSE!!!

That's not really a fact: It's just a silly number that doesn't make any real sense.

The speed of electric impulses in axons covered with Myelin sheaths reaches about 200 miles per hour, I believe. Regular impulses travel about 15 mph. Don't quote me on that, though.
Jammer is correct; an action potential travels at speeds of around 200+ mph. Likewise, I would assume "the speed of thought" (whatever that means) would be similar; how do you measure the speed of thought? Through action potentials? Sequential firing of hundreds, perhaps thousands or hundreds of thousands of neurons in various patterns are what form thought.

Also, "50 billion miles per second" is just a ridiculously large number; the speed of light in a vacuum is roughly 186,400 miles per second. I'm not sure where you heard this "speed of thought" thing Best101, but I'll tell you with absolute certainty: it's false.




Also, kudos to Jammer on all the intellectuality!
 

Jammer

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,568
Location
Blarg.
GoldShadow, I specifically said not to quote me on that, and what did you just do?

Just kidding, I don't really care because it turns out I'm right (according to you at least).

Also, thanks for complimenting me on my intellectuality, GoldShadow. I'm an intellectual guy, you know? But have you fact-checked the other things I said?

Every Seinfeld episode has a superman reference
Not always a "reference" per se, but there's always some kind of Superman appearance. In most episodes, you see Superman in a picture in Jerry's apartment, I believe.

Things like that happen in many TV shows. Maybe sometime I'll compile a list and post it here.
 

Jammer

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,568
Location
Blarg.
As I was reading in Genesis I found that in the story of Noah's Ark the Earth was done drying on my birthday. Feb. 27 the twenty and seventh day of the second month.
Sorry, mate, but months in the Old Testament are very different from months we use nowadays.

en.wikipedia.org said:
The months were originally referred to in the Bible by number rather than name. For example, in the story of Noah and the Flood (Genesis, 7:11, 8:4, :5, :13, :14), the months are referred to by a number. One should note that there is a hint that the months are of 30 days duration. [1] There is no indication as to how many months are in the annual cycle, but there are least ten mentioned. One should also note that this is a pre-Jewish calendar, and no indication that the same cycles were in use at the time of Sinai.
I haven't read that passage in the Bible, but it looks like the Earth was done drying on the 27th day of the second month, which is Iyyar. The Hebrew calendar could get several weeks off schedule from the actual position of Earth relative to the sun; they would fix it by adding another month seven out of 19 years. So we don't know how accurate the calendar was during that year compared to the one we use today.

Also, the first month of the Hebrew calendar, Nisan, is 30 days long. January (the first month of the Gregorian calendar) has 31 days. So " the twenty and seventh day of the second month" is really February 26th, not 27th.

Wasn't that interesting?
 

Jammer

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,568
Location
Blarg.
Well, George Harrisson is the only Beatle who's mother didn't die when he was a child.
You mean he was the only Beatle who's mother didn't die when he was a child. He died on November 31, 2001, at the age of 57 years old.

Sorry, I guess I must find a fault with everything you say in this thread, Pustulio.

Also, it's "whose", not "who's". Man, I can be an annoying jerk sometimes. I guess I'm fair game for getting flamed for my grammar, now (not that I'm suggesting you flame me).

Okay, another fun fact:

What do you think "spermology" means? No need to snicker; it's the study or collection of trivia (it's also the name for the study of seeds). So everyone here is a spermologist.

Also, your appendix isn't useless like you've no doubt been told. While you can be perfectly healthy without one, your appendix does good things for your immune system. It contains a ton of lymphocytes (a type of white blood cell), produces hormones during fetal development and infancy, and releases antigens which help to train the immune system. Plus, you can use it to rebuild a bladder or sphincter, should your old one break.

EDIT: ArtieBoy, I'm not sure what you mean by calling me a "FALLEN ROCK". I am neither a rock, nor have I fallen, at least lately.
 

Pustulio

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
864
Location
Probably out eating some dirt or something.
You took exactly what I said. Stated he was the only Beatle whose mother didn't die when he was a child. Read through buddy. Yeah I said who's but you gotta ' read it.

Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are the 2 living ones. You look for so much fault you seem to read over things Jammer.
 

SirroMinus1

SiNiStEr MiNiStEr
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
3,502
Location
NEW-YORK-CITY
NNID
Ajarudaru
You mean he was the only Beatle who's mother didn't die when he was a child. He died on November 31, 2001, at the age of 57 years old.

Sorry, I guess I must find a fault with everything you say in this thread, Pustulio.

Also, it's "whose", not "who's". Man, I can be an annoying jerk sometimes. I guess I'm fair game for getting flamed for my grammar, now (not that I'm suggesting you flame me).

Okay, another fun fact:

What do you think "spermology" means? No need to snicker; it's the study or collection of trivia (it's also the name for the study of seeds). So everyone here is a spermologist.

Also, your appendix isn't useless like you've no doubt been told. While you can be perfectly healthy without one, your appendix does good things for your immune system. It contains a ton of lymphocytes (a type of white blood cell), produces hormones during fetal development and infancy, and releases antigens which help to train the immune system. Plus, you can use it to rebuild a bladder or sphincter, should your old one break.

EDIT: ArtieBoy, I'm not sure what you mean by calling me a "FALLEN ROCK". I am neither a rock, nor have I fallen, at least lately.
Lol i did not call you a fallen rock i said you fcken rock. but i should of put a ! at the end of your name.
its a complement. XD A fallen rock:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
What do you think "spermology" means? No need to snicker; it's the study or collection of trivia (it's also the name for the study of seeds). So everyone here is a spermologist.
Hm... I could not find "spermology" in my (paperback) dictionary, nor in Univ of Texas's BioTech biology dictionary or for that matter, Biology-Online.org's dictionary, yet I did find it listed as "study of seeds" in the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) online. The only place listing it as "study of trivia" were trivia sites and Wikipedia... neither of which I believe! The lack of entries for the word in most large dictionaries makes me not want to use this as an actual word, until more dictionaries start carrying it!
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search.html
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary.asp
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry...gy&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50233033se26

Also, your appendix isn't useless like you've no doubt been told. While you can be perfectly healthy without one, your appendix does good things for your immune system. It contains a ton of lymphocytes (a type of white blood cell), produces hormones during fetal development and infancy, and releases antigens which help to train the immune system. Plus, you can use it to rebuild a bladder or sphincter, should your old one break.
True. Pretty cool stuff. There's a Scientific American page on it:
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7
 

Zook

Perpetual Lazy Bum
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
5,178
Location
Stamping your library books.
Most cartoon characters have 4 fingers.

Kirby has made an appearence in a certain Zelda game (whose name I forget right now) as 'Anti-Kirby.'

Kirby's Sword outfit is based off of Link.

In 'The Great Cave Offensive,' a game in Kirby Super Star, the Triforce was an item.

Ninja Kirby needs to be in another game.
 

Wave⁂

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
11,870
Hemophobia, Hemaphobia or Hematophobia are all words for "fear of blood"
 

Pustulio

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
864
Location
Probably out eating some dirt or something.
George Harrisson was aslo the youngest Beatle.

Tony Bennett is still performing and he is approaching the age of 81 this year.

Pustulio is the most hypnotic zit.

The Niekro brothers have more wins than any brother pitching combonation ever.

Eddie Cicotte although great and creditted with inventing the knuckleball is not in the hall of fame because he was part of the black sox scandal.
 

Jammer

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,568
Location
Blarg.
Okay, you can talk about the glass, as long as no one says it's a liquid.

The general consensus among scientists is that it's an amorphous solid.
 

Best101

Smash Ace
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
983
Location
Atlanta, GA
Okay, I see what you're saying. It is definitely true that reaction time and thinking time would be different.

First of all, I think we can agree that giving thought a "speed" doesn't really make sense.

Let's say that, on average, a human being moves 1 mph constantly. That takes into account walking around, sitting, standing, driving, flying, laying around, etc. So we should multiple 1 mph by the number of humans (6.5 billion) to get the speed of humankind: 6.5 billion mph. And that only counts humans who are alive.

That, of course, is silly. It doesn't make any sense to say that the speed of humankind is 6.5 billion mph.

Same goes with the electric impulses in individual neurons. You don't multiply the speed of electric impulses by the number of neurons to get the speed of thought. It just doesn't make sense.

In fact, there are lots of things that make "the speed of thought" even less meaningful than "the speed of humankind". The first is that you said "the speed of thought" instead of "the speed of electrical impulse-kind". There is little scientific understanding of how "thought" even works. At the very least, billions or trillions of neurons are required to produce a "thought" of the kind you could write down.

I'd write more, but I have a feeling that this is more of a misunderstanding than a difference of opinion. Ask if you have questions, and feel free to call me stupid (but only if you can back that up, of course).
And no I won't call you stupid (I wouldn't call anyone stupid), and I agree that this is more of an misunderstanding
And about the underlined bold text, that's not what I was talking about, I'm not multiplying the number of thoughts we have times some number to get its speed. And I don't know how to explain this further so I'll end this right now and give you guys some more interesting facts.

Interesting Fact 1: The number of atoms in the universe are 10 Octillion (1.0 x 10^27)
Interesting Fact 2: The diameter of the universe is 75 Qunitillion miles (7.5 x 10^15)
Interesting Fact 3: The Earth weighs 6 Sextillion Tons (6.0 x 10^21)
Interesting Fact 4: Mercury is 36 million miles from the sun


That's all for now :)
 

Haruka's DNA

Smash Cadet
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Messages
43
Location
Phoenix, AZ
(AltF4 still avoiding his 1000th post. Expect it soon. It's gonna be cool)

Dude, Best:

-The number of atoms in the universe is always estimated as being around 10^80. Not even close to 10^27. Even the wikipedia page for atoms has 10^80, but try NASA or somewhere else too.

-Calculating the weight of the Earth is kind of silly. In space it has no weight. It weighs zero tons. But you could say something like "if it were in a gravitational field one 1 g" maybe. But that doesn't mean that's how much it weighs

-Similarly for the diameter of the universe. You're assuming it's a 3 dimensional sphere that has edges, which it's not. So it has no diameter. Some studies come out and give really rough estimates, but they always also say that ultimately it's incorrect to even think of the universe in those terms. They're just kind of for fun. It's certainly not a 'fact' at all.

-Mercury has a highly eccentric orbit that ranges from around 46 million miles to 70 million miles depending on what time of its year it is. I have no idea where you got the number 36 million, and even then it's wrong because the distance is constantly changing.
 

Jammer

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,568
Location
Blarg.
-Calculating the weight of the Earth is kind of silly. In space it has no weight. It weighs zero tons. But you could say something like "if it were in a gravitational field one 1 g" maybe. But that doesn't mean that's how much it weighs
Aw, he at least gets that one. We all know that he's talking about mass, not weight.
 

Haruka's DNA

Smash Cadet
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Messages
43
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I would agree except the number he gave is in Tons, which is a measure of force (weight) and not mass. He clearly meant weight.

Nice tries though.
 

Jammer

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
1,568
Location
Blarg.
Aw, that's still not his fault. I doubt he knows SI unit for mass. The only thing he's familiar with is tons. I guess the important thing is that it's the correct number, which it is.
 

Agenie04991

Smash Cadet
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
46
This fact is quite unchecked, but I think it's pretty funny if it is true.

Taking lots of laxatives when you are young prevents your sphincter from developing, thus you can suffer from massive constipation when you're older because you are physically not strong enough to poop.
 

.::Link::.

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
161
Location
Hickville, Wisconsin
The fear of long words is Sesquipedalophobia.
(So...If one has this phobia and wants to know what then name of their phobia is, they will scare themselves when they find out? xD)

I suppose I am not one to make fun of those with odd phobias considering I have Coulrophobia, the fear of clowns.

-Link-
 

.::Link::.

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
161
Location
Hickville, Wisconsin
Everyone only has fear of clowns because they are unusual and different.

I am talking a severe fear. A fear that hinders my ability to 'function' when I know a clown is even in the same area as me. I stupidly watched the movie 'It' last year, when I was 14, because my friends who put the tape in said it was about a sea monster (they know of my fear). I had nightmares and was flinchy for about 3-4 months after the incident. Everyone may have the fear, F&V, but not the way I do.

ON TASK: Fact-Nicole Kidman has a morbid fear of butterflies.

-Link-
 

Falco&Victory

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
2,544
Location
South Hill, Washinton
ooh, discover magazine

a 10-billion light year wide void spot has been discovered in the universe, void of mass or most forms of energy

(old, but still cool)- new tattoos using pigments easily broken are now permanent 'erasable tattoos'....ines
 
Top Bottom