Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

Wheelspinner

I'm intrigued that any of you think General Relativity, the Big Bang Theory, and metaphysical discussions on the existence or otherwise of (a) god are considered "seemingly trivial".

rolf_f

The need for another "seemingly trivial" thread......

chris_bass

Pinno wrote:

God's creation of the world has been replaced by... a Big Bang; another creation theory.
Western theories of the Universe have a beginning, a middle and an end. Mirroring Christian beliefs.
Far Eastern/Asian theories of the Universe are cyclical. Mirroring...

that isn't true - the big bang is when time began, that doesn't mean that the universe had a beginning and i'm not sure of may theories that say the universe has an end? and if there is no end can there be a middle?

just to be picky

rjsterry

Wheelspinner wrote:

I'm intrigued that any of you think General Relativity, the Big Bang Theory, and metaphysical discussions on the existence or otherwise of (a) god are considered "seemingly trivial".

Good point. Although the title does imply that the things are not in fact trivial.

pinno

Chris Bass wrote:

Pinno wrote:

God's creation of the world has been replaced by... a Big Bang; another creation theory.
Western theories of the Universe have a beginning, a middle and an end. Mirroring Christian beliefs.
Far Eastern/Asian theories of the Universe are cyclical. Mirroring...

that isn't true - the big bang is when time began, that doesn't mean that the universe had a beginning and i'm not sure of may theories that say the universe has an end? and if there is no end can there be a middle?

just to be picky

Stuff existed before time began?! Time has a beginning?!

Allen Sandage, 1957: "Stars in the cluster NGC 188 are at least 24 billion years old."
1962 - first Big Bang theory: But to stay consistent with the theory, NGC 188 can only be 18 billion years old.
1983: We must now consider that the Big Bang theory is a fact that occurred 15 billion years ago. Better amend the age of our oldest stars to 14 billion years.
1999: The Universe began 12 billion years ago and therefore NGC 188 has lost 50% of it's age in 42 years!

We are intrinsically limited (given our organic being) to entertaining infinite thoughts.
When they come up with AI that organically evolves, we could present to it some very interesting theorem (providing we fill it full of the right information).

kingstongraham

Try and conceptualise "nothing". In order to do that, you need to have an image - as soon as you do that, it is no longer nothing, but is something.

This is why the concept of nothing, or a "before time", is impossible to conceptualise, or articulate. Our brains aren't equipped to think of "nothing" - we have to think about it in terms of physical dimensions, which "nothing" doesn't have.

Is that off topic enough?

keef66

Shirley Basso wrote:

This is covered in Sapiens a bit. Is why humankind is so powerful. Because we are capable of belief and imagination to tie different tribes together (religion, companies, football supporters) as well as the concept of foregoing something today to get more of it tomorrow. No animal does that (maybe squirrels)

This reminds me I was given Sapiens as a Christmas present; must get round to reading it...

Often science is impeded when a particular theory becomes entrenched. It's hard to be the lone voice saying hang on, I have some results which suggest we've had it wrong all these years.

Whoever said that says science advances one funeral at a time had it about right.

pinno

KingstonGraham wrote:

Try and conceptualise "nothing". In order to do that, you need to have an image - as soon as you do that, it is no longer nothing, but is something.

This is why the concept of nothing, or a "before time", is impossible to conceptualise, or articulate. Our brains aren't equipped to think of "nothing" - we have to think about it in terms of physical dimensions, which "nothing" doesn't have.

Is that off topic enough?

Summed up beautifully. This is the off topic part of the forum after all.

What I find intriguing is the beginning of life on the planet (but) this state (the primordial soup) and the state of single cell organisms existed for millions of years.
From a combination of chemicals to simple heterotroph's.

pinno

keef66 wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

This is covered in Sapiens a bit. Is why humankind is so powerful. Because we are capable of belief and imagination to tie different tribes together (religion, companies, football supporters) as well as the concept of foregoing something today to get more of it tomorrow. No animal does that (maybe squirrels)

This reminds me I was given Sapiens as a Christmas present; must get round to reading it...

Often science is impeded when a particular theory becomes entrenched. It's hard to be the lone voice saying hang on, I have some results which suggest we've had it wrong all these years.

Whoever said that says science advances one funeral at a time had it about right.

It is true. We can talk also about cosmological heresy: Universities in the US who support the Big Bang theory as fact are more likely to get funding than Universities that treat the Big Bang as simply another theory in the midst of multiple theories.
In the media, we get presented with the scientists who beleive in the Big bang theory and when anything regarding space exploration is presented, it's with the usual "Where we came from and when the Universe began" etc etc and no longer are the words big and bang followed by theory.
The big bang theory is simply an extension of the arrogance of man. It assures his place in a linear trajectory. Why the protagonists don't get a penis extension instead, I don't know.

step83

Pross wrote:

That a Subway can run out of bread, all types not just one, by lunchtime. It's not like it is a minor item in their stock.

I remember a KFC ran out of chicken, they stayed open offering basically bread and fizzy pop. Quite why they stayed open is beyond me.

shirley_basso

That was a nationwide issue, caused by a change of delivery service, if I recall.

step83

Shirley Basso wrote:

That was a nationwide issue, caused by a change of delivery service, if I recall.

Oh no this was before that, when they swapped to DHL they ended up raiding the local supermarkets for chicken because the local football team was playing an they needed the sales

rick_chasey

Step83 wrote:

Pross wrote:

That a Subway can run out of bread, all types not just one, by lunchtime. It's not like it is a minor item in their stock.

I remember a KFC ran out of chicken, they stayed open offering basically bread and fizzy pop. Quite why they stayed open is beyond me.

Franchise model. The restaurant owners need the income.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Step83 wrote:

Pross wrote:

That a Subway can run out of bread, all types not just one, by lunchtime. It's not like it is a minor item in their stock.

I remember a KFC ran out of chicken, they stayed open offering basically bread and fizzy pop. Quite why they stayed open is beyond me.

Franchise model. The restaurant owners need the income.

And the profit margins on soft drinks are enough to make the business viable on their own.

step83

KingstonGraham wrote:

Try and conceptualise "nothing". In order to do that, you need to have an image - as soon as you do that, it is no longer nothing, but is something.

This is why the concept of nothing, or a "before time", is impossible to conceptualise, or articulate. Our brains aren't equipped to think of "nothing" - we have to think about it in terms of physical dimensions, which "nothing" doesn't have.

Is that off topic enough?

Pretty much spot on, because we cant get our head around there being nothing theories pop up So things like the big bang, big bounce, the White hole theory or the one where we are already in a black hole. Even the theory there was nothing as you said immediately means you've put something there, you can't even describe is as by doing so it becomes something

I would say it would make sense for "something" to have occurred to trigger the big bang but as it currently predates our conceivable existence its going to remain out of reach.

rolf_f

I am intrigued as to how so many MPs seem unable to use their credit cards correctly. I have what is known as a "Government Procurement Card" - which is probably what these MPs are misusing. It has the Royal coat of arms on it and I have never accidentally or deliberately used it to buy any personal items. It's not difficult; if, for reasons entirely beyond me, I wanted an Amazon Prime subscription I wouldn't look at the cards and think "hmmm, should I use the work card for this personal item or a personal card?" I use the blue card for my stuff and the black one with the coat of arms on it to buy the work related stuff.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -suspended

capt_slog

I've noticed that on mornings when it's dull and wet, and nearly all the cars are using lights as they should, the exceptions are usually cars which are grey. So the vehicles which would most benefit from using lights are the least visible. I find it intriguing.

rolf_f

Capt Slog wrote:

I've noticed that on mornings when it's dull and wet, and nearly all the cars are using lights as they should, the exceptions are usually cars which are grey. So the vehicles which would most benefit from using lights are the least visible. I find it intriguing.

Nearly all cars are grey though so nearly all cars cannot be using lights (look at any car park from above; you'll see the truth of what I say!).

keef66

Rolf F wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

I've noticed that on mornings when it's dull and wet, and nearly all the cars are using lights as they should, the exceptions are usually cars which are grey. So the vehicles which would most benefit from using lights are the least visible. I find it intriguing.

Nearly all cars are grey though so nearly all cars cannot be using lights (look at any car park from above; you'll see the truth of what I say!).

I'm often struck by that as I take off and look down on the airport car parks. All those lovely paint colours to choose from, yet the vast majority are black, white, silver or grey.

Mine's one of the grey ones

But it's got automatic lights

surrey_commuter

Rolf F wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

I've noticed that on mornings when it's dull and wet, and nearly all the cars are using lights as they should, the exceptions are usually cars which are grey. So the vehicles which would most benefit from using lights are the least visible. I find it intriguing.

Nearly all cars are grey though so nearly all cars cannot be using lights (look at any car park from above; you'll see the truth of what I say!).

what a load of old twaddle I thought but was intrigued enough to consult Google. And whilst only 21% of new cars are grey it is the top selling colour so will give you a moral victory.

chris_bass

that no matter how bad phone signal gets someone saying "can you hear me now?" is always crystal clear

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

I've noticed that on mornings when it's dull and wet, and nearly all the cars are using lights as they should, the exceptions are usually cars which are grey. So the vehicles which would most benefit from using lights are the least visible. I find it intriguing.

Nearly all cars are grey though so nearly all cars cannot be using lights (look at any car park from above; you'll see the truth of what I say!).

what a load of old twaddle I thought but was intrigued enough to consult Google. And whilst only 21% of new cars are grey it is the top selling colour so will give you a moral victory.

I read somewhere in the economist that there is a correlation between macro economic performance and the popularity of brightly painted cars.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... -sentiment

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

I've noticed that on mornings when it's dull and wet, and nearly all the cars are using lights as they should, the exceptions are usually cars which are grey. So the vehicles which would most benefit from using lights are the least visible. I find it intriguing.

Nearly all cars are grey though so nearly all cars cannot be using lights (look at any car park from above; you'll see the truth of what I say!).

what a load of old twaddle I thought but was intrigued enough to consult Google. And whilst only 21% of new cars are grey it is the top selling colour so will give you a moral victory.

I read somewhere in the economist that there is a correlation between macro economic performance and the popularity of brightly painted cars.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... -sentiment

I guess my kids Polo should give us all hope then.

Although to Slog's point, most new/newish cars have daytime 'running' lights which you can't turn off while the engine is running.

veronese68

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

I've noticed that on mornings when it's dull and wet, and nearly all the cars are using lights as they should, the exceptions are usually cars which are grey. So the vehicles which would most benefit from using lights are the least visible. I find it intriguing.

Nearly all cars are grey though so nearly all cars cannot be using lights (look at any car park from above; you'll see the truth of what I say!).

what a load of old twaddle I thought but was intrigued enough to consult Google. And whilst only 21% of new cars are grey it is the top selling colour so will give you a moral victory.

What percentage were silver or graphite?
Many many years ago I worked at a Renault dealer and they dropped the electric blue colour on the 5 Turbo in favour of tungsten grey. The guy that ran one as his demonstrator took to driving around with his headlights on because people kept pulling out in front of him because it was effectively road coloured. That would have been about 1989 I reckon, the fashion for variations of grey hasn't gone away.

kingstongraham

Veronese68 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

I've noticed that on mornings when it's dull and wet, and nearly all the cars are using lights as they should, the exceptions are usually cars which are grey. So the vehicles which would most benefit from using lights are the least visible. I find it intriguing.

Nearly all cars are grey though so nearly all cars cannot be using lights (look at any car park from above; you'll see the truth of what I say!).

what a load of old twaddle I thought but was intrigued enough to consult Google. And whilst only 21% of new cars are grey it is the top selling colour so will give you a moral victory.

What percentage were silver or graphite?
Many many years ago I worked at a Renault dealer and they dropped the electric blue colour on the 5 Turbo in favour of tungsten grey. The guy that ran one as his demonstrator took to driving around with his headlights on because people kept pulling out in front of him because it was effectively road coloured. That would have been about 1989 I reckon, the fashion for variations of grey hasn't gone away.

Silver is another 10%

surrey_commuter

Veronese68 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

I've noticed that on mornings when it's dull and wet, and nearly all the cars are using lights as they should, the exceptions are usually cars which are grey. So the vehicles which would most benefit from using lights are the least visible. I find it intriguing.

Nearly all cars are grey though so nearly all cars cannot be using lights (look at any car park from above; you'll see the truth of what I say!).

what a load of old twaddle I thought but was intrigued enough to consult Google. And whilst only 21% of new cars are grey it is the top selling colour so will give you a moral victory.

What percentage were silver or graphite?
Many many years ago I worked at a Renault dealer and they dropped the electric blue colour on the 5 Turbo in favour of tungsten grey. The guy that ran one as his demonstrator took to driving around with his headlights on because people kept pulling out in front of him because it was effectively road coloured. That would have been about 1989 I reckon, the fashion for variations of grey hasn't gone away.

https://www.whatcar.com/advice/buying/b ... -uk/n18819

FocusZing

How Liverpool scored four goals against Barcelona and managed to keep a clean sheet.

keef66

Veronese68 wrote:

Many many years ago I worked at a Renault dealer and they dropped the electric blue colour on the 5 Turbo in favour of tungsten grey. The guy that ran one as his demonstrator took to driving around with his headlights on because people kept pulling out in front of him because it was effectively road coloured. That would have been about 1989 I reckon, the fashion for variations of grey hasn't gone away.

Mine is a dark metallic grey, so also effectively road coloured. Luckily it has bright LED daytime running lights all the time, and auto headlights when it thinks it's anything less than broad daylight. People still pull out in front of me.

The main benefit of a dark grey car is it's also road grime coloured, so I don't need to clean it very often

veronese68

keef66 wrote:

Mine is a dark metallic grey, so also effectively road coloured. Luckily it has bright LED daytime running lights all the time, and auto headlights when it thinks it's anything less than broad daylight. People still pull out in front of me.
The main benefit of a dark grey car is it's also road grime coloured, so I don't need to clean it very often

Same here on both counts.
Buying certain types of car used and there is very little choice in colour. Try to find a 10 year old people carrier type thing in anything other than a variety of grey, silver or black. There are some, but not many in comparison.

robert88

KingstonGraham wrote:

Try and conceptualise "nothing". In order to do that, you need to have an image - as soon as you do that, it is no longer nothing, but is something.

This is why the concept of nothing, or a "before time", is impossible to conceptualise, or articulate. Our brains aren't equipped to think of "nothing" - we have to think about it in terms of physical dimensions, which "nothing" doesn't have.

Is that off topic enough?

Maybe we are equipped to think of nothing but just can't describe it?