Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

12467…447

Comments

  • crumbschief
    crumbschief Posts: 3,399
    Robert88 wrote:
    HaydenM wrote:
    The thought which my brain decided was very important at 1am, why don't we use the metric system for time?

    Also, to what extent was the 'Blitz Spirit' just propaganda? If it was, why do people bang on about it now? A friend of mine did his dissertation on it but I didn't read it.

    There should be a dodgy vodka called 'Blitz Spirit'. Maybe there is?

    I have tried Blithe Spirit and that was fun.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,488
    You've tried lots of things CC.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • crumbschief
    crumbschief Posts: 3,399
    Pinno wrote:
    You've tried lots of things CC.

    Indeed,yet i still search.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,479
    Why do people use basins in a perfectly useable sink?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,488
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Why do people use basins in a perfectly useable sink?

    Plastic is a bit more forgiving than metal or ceramic surely and it's generally too big?
    I can 'chuck' a mug in a plastic washing up bowl.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,479
    Pinno wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Why do people use basins in a perfectly useable sink?

    Plastic is a bit more forgiving than metal or ceramic surely and it's generally too big?
    I can 'chuck' a mug in a plastic washing up bowl.
    For clumsy folk then? :wink:
    Currently in rented accommodation and the plates do not fit in the basin. Useless waste of plastic.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    Pinno wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Why do people use basins in a perfectly useable sink?

    Plastic is a bit more forgiving than metal or ceramic surely and it's generally too big?
    I can 'chuck' a mug in a plastic washing up bowl.

    Plus with a washing up bowl (surely a basin is what you wash your hands in in the bathroom?) in a larger sink you have a space for rinsing your soapy dishes before putting them on the drainer, without diluting your washing up water.


    Or have I been doing it wrong all these years?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,479
    rjsterry wrote:
    Pinno wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Why do people use basins in a perfectly useable sink?

    Plastic is a bit more forgiving than metal or ceramic surely and it's generally too big?
    I can 'chuck' a mug in a plastic washing up bowl.

    Plus with a washing up bowl (surely a basin is what you wash your hands in in the bathroom?) in a larger sink you have a space for rinsing your soapy dishes before putting them on the drainer, without diluting your washing up water.


    Or have I been doing it wrong all these years?
    There is a small secondary sink for those purposes.

    While I am on the subject, shelves and/or deep mirrors placed directly above bathroom sinks (or hand basins if you prefer).
    A high enough potential for a head injury to make the simple act of face washing/shave rinsing extremely awkward.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Why do people use basins in a perfectly useable sink?
    Should that not be why do people use bowls in a perfectly useable sink. As basin is another way of saying sink.
    Any way I find washing ceramics in a ceramic sink makes me anxious as the noise of the item being washed when it knocks against the sink, sounds like one them is about to break in to numerous pieces.
  • bonk_king
    bonk_king Posts: 277
    We've all heard the phrase that, "there's more stars in the universe than grains of sand on the entire earth". I'm intrigued how anyone can even start to do some kind of calculation that would end with them coming out with such a statement. And even more intrigued that no one seems to argue against it!! Granted, the universe is a fair old expanse but grains of sand? on every beach in the world? How intriguing.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,479
    Webboo wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    Why do people use basins in a perfectly useable sink?
    Should that not be why do people use bowls in a perfectly useable sink. As basin is another way of saying sink...
    Geographical language differences, basin, short for wash basin; and another pedant already beat you to it. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basin
    Plus, shouldn't there be a question mark in there?
    FYI - Plastic bowl/basin/wash basin in a stainless steel sink.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    People still have stainless steel sinks. I guess you mean at work.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    bonk king wrote:
    We've all heard the phrase that, "there's more stars in the universe than grains of sand on the entire earth". I'm intrigued how anyone can even start to do some kind of calculation that would end with them coming out with such a statement. And even more intrigued that no one seems to argue against it!! Granted, the universe is a fair old expanse but grains of sand? on every beach in the world? How intriguing.
    I think that is the point. If you think that you have an idea how big the universe is then you are probably wrong: it is much bigger than that. Even just our own solar system is so big that it is practically impossible to produce an accurate scale drawing of it i.e. with the orbits and the planets to the same scale.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    rjsterry wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    We've all heard the phrase that, "there's more stars in the universe than grains of sand on the entire earth". I'm intrigued how anyone can even start to do some kind of calculation that would end with them coming out with such a statement. And even more intrigued that no one seems to argue against it!! Granted, the universe is a fair old expanse but grains of sand? on every beach in the world? How intriguing.
    I think that is the point. If you think that you have an idea how big the universe is then you are probably wrong: it is much bigger than that. Even just our own solar system is so big that it is practically impossible to produce an accurate scale drawing of it i.e. with the orbits and the planets to the same scale.


    "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

    or to put it another way

    "No one knows exactly how big space is. The difficulty arises because of what we can see in our detectors. We measure long distances in space in "light-years," representing the distance it takes for light to travel in a year (roughly 5.8 trillion miles, or 9.3 trillion kilometers)."

    So the end of space will never be visible because the light can't get here quick enough for us to be able to see it.
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,488
    Robert88 wrote:
    ...the end of space...

    Oh really? On what premis? :D

    Maybe if you left earth in what you would presume is a straight line, eventually you will come back to earth.

    Maybe each galaxy is a cluster of electrons which are inside the molecules of a gnat and we are infinitesimally small...
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 17,427
    bonk king wrote:
    We've all heard the phrase that, "there's more stars in the universe than grains of sand on the entire earth". I'm intrigued how anyone can even start to do some kind of calculation that would end with them coming out with such a statement. And even more intrigued that no one seems to argue against it!! Granted, the universe is a fair old expanse but grains of sand? on every beach in the world? How intriguing.
    in the observable* universe, the number of stars is estimated based upon the available imaging from hst, herschel etc. and models for composition based upon various measurements

    currently taken to be about 10^24 (every time the quality of our imaging improves, the number tends to go up, old data will typically give a lower figure)

    the mass of the entire earth is c. 6*10^27g

    assume a grain of sand is c. 0.01g

    if the entire mass of the earth were sand, there'd be c. 6*10^29 grains

    that's about 600,000 times the number of stars we currently estimate, but the earth is not 100% sand, there's only a smidge of it dusted around an awful lot of rock and metal

    to save time, the university of hawaii seems to be the source of the interweb's grain of sand count, coming in at 7.5*10^18

    so that's...

    grains: 7,500,000,000,000,000,000
    stars: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

    the stars have it by a factor of over 100,000

    *note this is the observable universe, we're limited by equipment and by physics, the universe is still expanding, we can see only a 'bubble' centered around us, i.e. unless current physics is very wrong, we see only a small piece of the universe
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,268
    That's all well and good SG. However, bk should just ask the Orange Cretin for the true answer, he knows evurrythang.
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    Pinno wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    ...the end of space...

    Oh really? On what premis? :D

    Maybe if you left earth in what you would presume is a straight line, eventually you will come back to earth.

    Maybe each galaxy is a cluster of electrons which are inside the molecules of a gnat and we are infinitesimally small...

    Inside what is the gnat?
  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 17,427
    turtles, all the way down
    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • bonk_king
    bonk_king Posts: 277
    sungod wrote:
    bonk king wrote:
    We've all heard the phrase that, "there's more stars in the universe than grains of sand on the entire earth". I'm intrigued how anyone can even start to do some kind of calculation that would end with them coming out with such a statement. And even more intrigued that no one seems to argue against it!! Granted, the universe is a fair old expanse but grains of sand? on every beach in the world? How intriguing.
    in the observable* universe, the number of stars is estimated based upon the available imaging from hst, herschel etc. and models for composition based upon various measurements

    currently taken to be about 10^24 (every time the quality of our imaging improves, the number tends to go up, old data will typically give a lower figure)

    the mass of the entire earth is c. 6*10^27g

    assume a grain of sand is c. 0.01g

    if the entire mass of the earth were sand, there'd be c. 6*10^29 grains

    that's about 600,000 times the number of stars we currently estimate, but the earth is not 100% sand, there's only a smidge of it dusted around an awful lot of rock and metal

    to save time, the university of hawaii seems to be the source of the interweb's grain of sand count, coming in at 7.5*10^18

    so that's...

    grains: 7,500,000,000,000,000,000
    stars: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

    the stars have it by a factor of over 100,000

    *note this is the observable universe, we're limited by equipment and by physics, the universe is still expanding, we can see only a 'bubble' centered around us, i.e. unless current physics is very wrong, we see only a small piece of the universe

    I must say sungod, your answer has intrigued me more than my original observation!!!!
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,488
    Robert88 wrote:
    Pinno wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    ...the end of space...

    Oh really? On what premis? :D

    Maybe if you left earth in what you would presume is a straight line, eventually you will come back to earth.

    Maybe each galaxy is a cluster of electrons which are inside the molecules of a gnat and we are infinitesimally small...

    Inside what is the gnat?

    A Blue Tit in a parallel universe 10^168* times bigger than ours.

    *This is of course, only conservative speculation.
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    Pinno wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    Pinno wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    ...the end of space...

    Oh really? On what premis? :D

    Maybe if you left earth in what you would presume is a straight line, eventually you will come back to earth.

    Maybe each galaxy is a cluster of electrons which are inside the molecules of a gnat and we are infinitesimally small...

    Inside what is the gnat?

    A Blue Tit in a parallel universe 10^168* times bigger than ours.

    *This is of course, only conservative speculation.

    So if the Blue Tit gets eaten by a predator can we escape to another parallel universe in which it doesn't? How can we do that? Especially if we still have a conservative government?
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 52,488
    Robert88 wrote:
    Pinno wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    Pinno wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    ...the end of space...

    Oh really? On what premis? :D

    Maybe if you left earth in what you would presume is a straight line, eventually you will come back to earth.

    Maybe each galaxy is a cluster of electrons which are inside the molecules of a gnat and we are infinitesimally small...

    Inside what is the gnat?

    A Blue Tit in a parallel universe 10^168* times bigger than ours.

    *This is of course, only conservative speculation.

    So if the Blue Tit gets eaten by a predator can we escape to another parallel universe in which it doesn't? How can we do that? Especially if we still have a conservative government?

    No, I don't think you understand. Our Earth is an electron and the sun is cluster of Neutron's and protons.

    We can pass through the digestive systems of multiple organisms (unchanged) but still exit the EU.
    However, if the Blue Tit just happens to fly into an atomic splitter...
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Pinno wrote:
    However, if the Blue Tit just happens to fly into an atomic splitter...

    Are they still going? thought they were getting on a bit - or did the members change? did one of them get fined for not sending their kids to school?
  • big_harv
    big_harv Posts: 512
    Pinno wrote:
    Robert88 wrote:
    ...the end of space...[/quote

    Maybe each galaxy is a cluster of electrons which are inside the molecules of a gnat and we are infinitesimally small...

    This notion intrigues me most (apart from the gnat) and I think it was Carl Sagan who put it in my mind. Our conception of the universe and solar systems mirrors our theory of atoms/ nuclei....ie circular. So our solar system is but an atom (please correct my 1970's science).
  • big_harv
    big_harv Posts: 512
    In fact don't bother. It's Monday afternoon and I'm sitting in sunshine sipping Rose. Most probably you are not :lol:
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,864
    Slowbike wrote:
    Pinno wrote:
    However, if the Blue Tit just happens to fly into an atomic splitter...

    Are they still going? thought they were getting on a bit - or did the members change? did one of them get fined for not sending their kids to school?
    No, that was Atomic Chicken.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • earth
    earth Posts: 934
    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". :D

    If the means of creation bears no tangible effect on our lives then is it not trivial?
  • earth
    earth Posts: 934
    Veronese68 wrote:
    HaydenM wrote:
    Also, to what extent was the 'Blitz Spirit' just propaganda? If it was, why do people bang on about it now? A friend of mine did his dissertation on it but I didn't read it.
    Could you ask him for a précis and get back to us?

    Is the average car colour grey? Three types of average, two of them would probably come up with grey. Mean and mode would be some sort of grey, I have no idea what the median would be.

    Are you sure the mean average would be grey? Everyone know if you mix every paint colour together you get brown.
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    earth wrote:
    Veronese68 wrote:
    HaydenM wrote:
    Also, to what extent was the 'Blitz Spirit' just propaganda? If it was, why do people bang on about it now? A friend of mine did his dissertation on it but I didn't read it.
    Could you ask him for a précis and get back to us?

    Is the average car colour grey? Three types of average, two of them would probably come up with grey. Mean and mode would be some sort of grey, I have no idea what the median would be.

    Are you sure the mean average would be grey? Everyone know if you mix every paint colour together you get brown.

    but then you'd need to somehow divide brown by however many colours you mixed together! brown is the sum of the colours!
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes

Categories