What are some funny counter-intuitive facts from physics?When you have a Bugatti or something or that chinese electric car, when it cranks up the speed from 480 kmh to 490 km, that takes about as much energy as going from 0 kmh to 100 kmh. And this is without taking air resistance into account. Funny how it works that way.
>>16794167I don't know about Physics, but a funny counter-intuitive fact is that Julian Casablancas from The Strokes and Kim Jong-Un went to the same high school (a Swiss boarding school). Or I think that's a fact.
Isaac newton was a bible loving ultra incel autist.He once pushed a needle in his eye to find out how vision works. He hated to be around people and didn't want to publish any of his papers. Once, when he was introduced to some other scientists at a meeting, he just turned around without saying a word and walked home. He had more religious books at home then scientific ones. He stayed inside his home whenever possible and didn't liked leaving his room.
There are only 10 types of people that understand binary.
>>16794167interesting why bugatti and chinese electric cars are built that way
>>16794258>makes maths joke in physiks threadNgmi
>>16794167solve((x+10)^2 - x^2 = 100^2)[x=495]At that speed does it feel like getting a MRI or TMS?
>>16794167over its lifetime the average microwave uses more energy running the clock than cooking food
>>16794474That is bullshit. Cooking easily uses 1000 times more power than a LED clock. You have to use the microwave only 2 mins a day to beat that.
>>16795087On average, he could be right. Sometimes i don't use my microwave for days.
>>16794474The clock in the microwave uses a puny tiny miniscule amount of energy that's literally zero joules for all practical intents and purposes. For example, the energy of one single use of the microwave (2 mins to heat a hamburger or whatever) would be enough energy to power an analog clock for something like 20 years.800 watts for two minutes is equal to 96000 joules. One AA battery is 14400 joules and my analog wall clock has lasted at least three years with the same battery. Divide 96000 by 14400 and multiply by three years and you get 20 years. Sure there's no analog clock in the microwave oven but I refuse to believe that a digital clock would require so much more energy compared to the analog one that the 96000 joules would be used up in a day or a week or something that would have to be the case if the clock were to use more energy than the microwaving.
>>16795155Why do you convert to energy when you can compare powers.The power used by the time-keeping chip is negligible, but you have a LED display which consumes around 100mW. Then you have a DC power supply which could be super inefficient in idle, but that shouldn't be the case in a modern device.
>>16794258my sidesI'm off to tell my friends this joke, as well as try it out on some strangersit will be both amusing and educational
>>16794167Of course. The closer one gets to the speed of light, the more energy is required for the same amount of speed increase.
>>16794258No, you completely fucked that joke up, there are 10 types of people: those who understand binary and those who don't.
>>16795767At this low speeds you don't feel backround radiation at all.
The maximum temperature in the universe is 1,4168×10times32 kelvin. After this spacetime breaks.Most people think that at 0 kelvin (absolute zero), it's so cold that atoms stop moving. This is wrong. Heisenbergs uncertainity forbids it. The atoms are still moving a little bit. It's just the point atoms have the lowest possible energy.
>>16795767To double the speed increase, energy must be quadrupled. That's the reason why 10 kmh increase in higher speeds uses the same energy as 100 kmh increase in lower speeds. But it no longer works that way (accurately) as you approach the speed of light because we all know that if you go 60% of the speed of light, it doesn't matter if you quadruple or gigaruple or gorillion to the power of six million times the energy, the speed is never going to double into 120% the speed of light.
>>16795767>>16796258Since when do we drive cars in vacuum?
>>16794215casablancas went to le rosey but not kj-u; he was said to have gone to international school but it turned out he went to liebefeld steinhölzli public schoolcasablancas didn't even finish high school, tho so
>>16796281Jeremy Clarkson once stated that Bugatti told him the Veyron uses about 200hp to get to 200mph but because of air drag and other losses it took the rest of the 787hp to get to 250mph.
>>16796199neither of those are true and you have no way of proving either, you only choose to believe they are true because you enjoy the narcissistic pleasure of claiming some sort of superior knowledge
>>16794167Everything works this way.E.g. in CS when you want to go from 99% to 99.9% e.g. uptime or whatever. It takes 10x for the .9 than it did for the whole thing.That's what brainlets don't get about AI and what means it has peaked.You need 10x all the effort and resources you have put in so far for a tiny improvement.
not even gravity is fast enough to escape from a black hole
>>16796539Can you show me your proof for that claim?
>>16794167Most of the stars in the night sky that are visible to the unaided eye are so not because they're very nearby, but because they're extraordinarily luminous, massive, and short-lived rarities. It's also very difficult to intuitively appreciate the effect of how volume to surface area ratio scales: If one could say the sun had a metabolic rate, it would be a small fraction of a crocodile's, preposterous as that sounds.
Human brainwaves are measurable and manipulable, but we think of them separately from such things as radio or random EM interference.What if it isn't, and some of it is the result of an emitter somewhere quite distant, maybe
And what if the matter isn't finding enough sympathetic or resonant frequencies but simply enough to amplify the signal
>>16796782This is not to mention the ridiculous disproportion between the time since the Big Bang and the longevity of most stars, most of which are red dwarves. 13 billion years isn't much compared to a trillion.
>>16796789All of it is the result of distant emitters radiating light and sound and pressure to be received by brains.
>>16794240He was a volcel, not an incel
>>16796782>If one could say the sun had a metabolic rate, it would be a small fraction of a crocodile's, preposterous as that sounds.The absolute state of imperial units.
>>16796522If it takes that much power to pump extra 50 mph from 200 mph, imagine the power it takes to still pump another 58 mph when the speed is already 250 mph. That's what the chinese electric car achieved.
>>16797112It's about 3,000 horsepower but what is interesting to me is that a pro stock road legal drag car with 3000hp can go 230mph in 6.5secs thats 1/4Mi drag. Sure it's not same type of vehicle or experience but sorta tells me that the weight of the batteries/EV is severely limiting.
>>16796782Yeah, for example Betelgeuse is 151 times farther away than the closest known star other than the sun, Proxima Centauri. But Betelgeuse is one of the brightest stars on the sky whereas Proxima Centauri you literally cannot see with a naked eye.
A pebble and a boulder fall at the same rate in a vacuum.
>>16794167Braess' paradox
>>16794240I do not like traveling, I do not like meeting people, and I like staying at home, if I didn't have to go to work and buy groceries I would probably never leave the house.
>>16797112>>16797360The fact that your average eletric car has faster acceleration than most top of the line sports cars (maybe not the ultra super cars like veyron or the most powerful lamborgini) is actually hilarious.
>>16798463No what is actually hilarious is most turbo civic builds under $10k are faster in the 1/4 than most million dollar EVs.
>>16798516These aren't viable, after such a modification you can't really it as a normal commuter car anymore.
>>16798067It's no longer so counter-intuitive when you realize that every driver wants to take the shortest route which means that it no longer remains as the quickest route due to traffic jam. When that road is removed, they will instead take random smaller roards which are longer, but at the same time they are quicker because they're not jammed.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiauQXIKs3U
>>16798701>It's no longer so counter-intuitive for me, subjectively, because I've rationalized this obviously counter-intuitive result
>>16794167>What are some funny counter-intuitive facts from physics?wider tires don't create more friction or "grip"if say the tire's contact area with ground is doubled the force over area stays the same because force per area has been cut in half but area has doubled. it cancels out.also spinning/slipping tires on the pavement doesn't contribute to acceleration at allslamming on the gas until the tires smoke will accelerate a vehicle just as fast as if there were no slippage/smoke
>>16798768Static friction is greater than sliding friction so I would imagine that in order to maximize acceleration, the tires should not be slipping but they would have to be right on the edge of slipping/skidding.
>>16794167https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(wind-powered_vehicle)
>>16798534I drive my EM1 K24 hub city AWD to work all the time runs faster than world record Tesla to 150.
>>16794167Math has a bunch of books for counterexamples, fallacies, and other fun stuff. I wish physics were like that.
