this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025

1221 points (98.0% liked)

Science Memes

14336 readers

2699 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

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

1221

Water (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

139 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

"You are technically correct, the best kind of correct."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Also interesting: If you were to take your nerves out and lay them end on end you would die.

Actually interesting fact

Your height is closer in scale to a light second than the size of an atom. And yet atoms seem more approachable than light seconds. Fascinating stuff!

[–] ChairmanMeow 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

How do you define "closer" here? I'm about 1.8m removed from the size of an atom but well over 299 thousand kilometers from a light second.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Woah!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Ok I had to think about this for a second.

[–] mspencer712 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I couldn’t find the clip, but first thing that came to mind was the StarTalk Live with Buzz Aldrin and John Hodgman.

Hodgman: “maybe they’ll find H 2 2 2 2 O!”

Edit: crap, I have to call myself out. I failed to read completely, thought the screenshotted poster accidentally changed one part of the comparison, instead of deliberately changing both parts. If the original was molecules in a cubic inch of water vs stars in the observable universe, I read this post as atoms in a molecule vs stars in the observable universe.

Apologies, I discovered I was a fool and was excited to share my discovery.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

This is especially true for blind people.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Reminds me of the time someone on Xitter said that there are more trees on Earth than there are stars in our Galaxy. They got ratio’d pretty damn hard for it. -_-

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Going by the top Duck duck go results for "how many stars in our galaxy" and "how many trees in the world":
"According to Jos de Bruijne, a scientist at the European Space Agency (ESA), the current estimate is between 100 to 400 billion stars."
and
"There are an estimated 3.04 trillion trees in the world."

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

There might even be more hydrogen atoms in one molecule of water, than there are universes we live in!

load more comments