So prior to the solar system settling down after the planets started forming, there were rather more than eight or nine or however-many-we-have-this-week planets hanging around on the scale of Mercury or larger. They got eaten by by the sun, or occasionally other planets, or got hurled out of the solar system where they waitnever to be seen again. Some of the planets or protoplanets which got eaten by one thing or another were shattered in the process, or at least had chunks knocked off of them.
How do we know this?
We know this because we apparently found a piece of one, dating back to the first couple of million years of the solar system's existence:
Researcher Farhang Nabiei—of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland—was looking at the relationship between the diamonds and the layers of graphite surrounding them when he started wondering about the small pockets of substances trapped within.
Upon closer inspection, he found that the material inside the diamonds could only have been formed at incredibly high pressures—much higher than anything the meteorite would have been subject to as it crashed toward Earth. These diamonds must have held the weight of an entire world—literally. At 20 gigapascals, the pressure necessary to form these substances is likely to occur deep within a planet—one between the size of Mercury and Mars.
This visitor was not from Mercury or Mars. The meteorite was classed as a ureilite, a group of meteorites with a mysterious origin, pieces of some planetary body or asteroid that don’t quite match any of the rocky bodies that humans have recorded today. Researchers already knew that whatever it was, it had probably met its end in the demolition derby of the early solar system, but the scale of the object (or objects) was still unknown until the inclusions were described. The size of the diamonds is another clue to their deep origins.
So prior to the solar system settling down after the planets started forming, there were rather more than eight or nine or however-many-we-have-this-week planets hanging around on the scale of Mercury or larger. They got eaten by by the sun, or occasionally other planets, or got hurled out of the solar system where they waitnever to be seen again. Some of the planets or protoplanets which got eaten by one thing or another were shattered in the process, or at least had chunks knocked off of them.
How do we know this?
We know this because we apparently found a piece of one, dating back to the first couple of million years of the solar system's existence:
Researcher Farhang Nabiei—of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland—was looking at the relationship between the diamonds and the layers of graphite surrounding them when he started wondering about the small pockets of substances trapped within.
Upon closer inspection, he found that the material inside the diamonds could only have been formed at incredibly high pressures—much higher than anything the meteorite would have been subject to as it crashed toward Earth. These diamonds must have held the weight of an entire world—literally. At 20 gigapascals, the pressure necessary to form these substances is likely to occur deep within a planet—one between the size of Mercury and Mars.
This visitor was not from Mercury or Mars. The meteorite was classed as a ureilite, a group of meteorites with a mysterious origin, pieces of some planetary body or asteroid that don’t quite match any of the rocky bodies that humans have recorded today. Researchers already knew that whatever it was, it had probably met its end in the demolition derby of the early solar system, but the scale of the object (or objects) was still unknown until the inclusions were described. The size of the diamonds is another clue to their deep origins.
I mean, that's basically how we have the moon, iirc?
I recall something that said Jupiter wobbled in an out of the early terrestrial portion of our solar system which robbed mars of it's core forming material and slammed our sister planet into us to form our moon.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I recall something that said Jupiter wobbled in an out of the early terrestrial portion of our solar system which robbed mars of it's core forming material and slammed our sister planet into us to form our moon.
The greater and lesser Trojans are what you are looking for
0
Options
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
Filed under 'shit I sometimes think about but never really consciously investigate' is the idea that the light from the stars we see here now is often decades, if not centuries, old. It left the origin star literally years ago to arrive here now, but exactly how old is the light from the various stars and constellations we look at?
Well, in the case of the Zodiac, this page can help tell you.
Speaking of space, it's been shown that there is a large swarm, possibly as many as tens of thousands, of blackholes at the center of our galaxy. There are so many black holes at the center of the milky way that, if our solar system were in the galactic center, the nearest black hole would more than likely be within the Ort Cloud.
Here is the PBS's Space Time from today explaining this
So the bad news is that reality appears to be tearing asunder with those black holes, but the good news is the universe is so big it's going to take a while to finish.
So the bad news is that reality appears to be tearing asunder with those black holes, but the good news is the universe is so big it's going to take a while to finish.
This might make you feel better: (E: the thumbnail is hella misleading on what that video is about)
The study by researchers at the University of Missouri and other institutions is believed to be the first to compare the effects of fracking-linked pollution to those of conventional oil and gas development pollution. Research found evidence for groundwater contamination from both types of drilling, but more insidious effects from groundwater in areas where nearby wells are stimulated with hydraulic fracturing, the scientific paper says.
+4
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
These caterpillars have been around here for a decade or so, and they're freaky. In the worst cases the oaks are just about completely covered.
But while they are a serious irritant, and it takes a lot of effort to fight them (I seem to recall sending in suited up people with big vacuum cleaners essentially), I have never heard of anyone dieing to them.
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
So I have a possibly stupid question. If our eyes were capable of picking up additional colors like some animals' can, would our brains be capable of processing them or would they need to adapt to be able to make sense of our eyes new capabilities? I was thinking of sci fi where people get eyes which can see in like infrared and ultraviolet and I always wondered if just giving the capability to their eyes would be enough.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
0
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
So I have a possibly stupid question. If our eyes were capable of picking up additional colors like some animals' can, would our brains be capable of processing them or would they need to adapt to be able to make sense of our eyes new capabilities? I was thinking of sci fi where people get eyes which can see in like infrared and ultraviolet and I always wondered if just giving the capability to their eyes would be enough.
My gut feeling is that we would perceive them but our brain wouldn't do a great job processing it, so it would be wonky. I will try to remember to ask my wife, who has a PhD in neuroscience, when she wakes up in the morning.
So I have a possibly stupid question. If our eyes were capable of picking up additional colors like some animals' can, would our brains be capable of processing them or would they need to adapt to be able to make sense of our eyes new capabilities? I was thinking of sci fi where people get eyes which can see in like infrared and ultraviolet and I always wondered if just giving the capability to their eyes would be enough.
So I have a possibly stupid question. If our eyes were capable of picking up additional colors like some animals' can, would our brains be capable of processing them or would they need to adapt to be able to make sense of our eyes new capabilities? I was thinking of sci fi where people get eyes which can see in like infrared and ultraviolet and I always wondered if just giving the capability to their eyes would be enough.
I've heard that a alien species living under a red sun would see a yellow sun like ours. Because their eyes would be adjusted for that spectrum of light.
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
I've heard that a alien species living under a red sun would see a yellow sun like ours. Because their eyes would be adjusted for that spectrum of light.
I feel like there are several different ideas mashed up in here…
Like, for the most part, your visual spectrum is mostly dependent on the atmosphere, not the ultimate colour of the biggest local light source. Nitrogen/oxygen atmospheres just so happen to have a nice wide gap in their absorption spectrum at a convenient set of frequencies with high enough energies to be relatively easily detectable with organic molecules, but low enough energies to not damage or destroy those same molecules too easily, while also having wavelengths short enough to be useful for resolving objects on people-scales.
Your vision is then secondarily dependent on your immediate environment; humans can differentiate more greens than other colours because plants, or chlorophyll really.
Third, what a colour “looks like” to any given individual is completely arbitrary. There is no way to tell if I perceive yellow the same way you do, short of actual telepathy, so making an equivalent statement about an entire alien species in a different environment is kinda shaky. Unless they were trying to convey that they would consider their perceptions to be “normal” and ours to be “weird, freaky alien biology” then yes. But so what? No-one (initially, at least) perceives their own experience as unusual.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this but that statement is making my brain do flips so I had to say something…
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
So I have a possibly stupid question. If our eyes were capable of picking up additional colors like some animals' can, would our brains be capable of processing them or would they need to adapt to be able to make sense of our eyes new capabilities? I was thinking of sci fi where people get eyes which can see in like infrared and ultraviolet and I always wondered if just giving the capability to their eyes would be enough.
Well, I am about 90% certain the answer is "We have no fucking clue" because the inner workings of the brain are still kinda mysterious and what you are talking about is beyond the ken of current science.
My guess here is that unless you made that information perceivable in the same way we do our normal spectrum, then it wouldn't work because the brain would have no way to interpret those signals correctly.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
So I have a possibly stupid question. If our eyes were capable of picking up additional colors like some animals' can, would our brains be capable of processing them or would they need to adapt to be able to make sense of our eyes new capabilities? I was thinking of sci fi where people get eyes which can see in like infrared and ultraviolet and I always wondered if just giving the capability to their eyes would be enough.
I assume that if someone was born that way, their brain would just develop to accommodate it, and it would just look like another hue past what most people see.
So...
That Wikipedia link above says that if someone loses their eye's lens and replaces it with some other material more transparent to UV, they have a chance of starting to see UV more, if their photoreceptors are inclined to detect it.
Then they start seeing more purple.
If you wanted more colours beyond what your current photoreceptors see, your eye would have to have more kinds of photoreceptors, that likely fire down a different path to your current ones and are interpreted differently by your brain.
Otherwise you could have a different type fire down the same neural path, but things would then just look more "red" or whatever signal the new type is mimicing.
Although if you had an infra-red receptor and only had it ping your red sense at a low frequency, then when red wasn't around to drown it out, in low-light, your brain would probably start looking at the infra-red instead.
Not sure how transparent or noisy the human eye is for infra-red though.
Might be like trying to see your monitor through the sun's glare.
Color is wholly an invention of the brain to represent which kinds of cone cells are being activated in what ratio, so the brain might stretch the existing perception of color to fit onto the new range of visible light, or it's possible you'd see a "new" color that is outside the traditional color wheel that's based on the red/blue/green trichotomy of the human eye's 3 types of cone cells, or it might not work at all or give you a headache. But we can't even tell now if two people seeing the same wavelengths of light see it in the same way inside their minds. For all we know what I see as red you might see as what I see as blue, and what you see as green might not be a color I even have in my brain, and we just know we're talking about the same thing because of points of reference in the world we point out to each other.
To answer all these questions I will implant a mantis shrimp's eyes into my head and let you know how many colors I can detect at the Lowe's paint center.
Yeah, but if purple cone is firing because it's detecting UV, the brain can't know it's not the normal wavelength that causes that cone to fire.
It's going to extrapolate that colour out into the UV, modified by any sort of pattern recognition it comes across (things in shadow being less dark than things outside shadow for the same colour for instance).
It's only if you put another separate detector and visual path into the brain that the brain is going to have a chance to differentiate between the new excitation and the old ones.
Yeah, but if purple cone is firing because it's detecting UV, the brain can't know it's not the normal wavelength that causes that cone to fire.
It's going to extrapolate that colour out into the UV, modified by any sort of pattern recognition it comes across (things in shadow being less dark than things outside shadow for the same colour for instance).
It's only if you put another separate detector and visual path into the brain that the brain is going to have a chance to differentiate between the new excitation and the old ones.
Well, that and the fact that the excitation ratio between the blue cones and the other colours will be different for UV than regular violet, just like how you differentiate blue and purple.
The activation spectra for the three cone types are offset enough to still be different in the UV range.
Posts
You just know someone is gonna get one swallowed by a large shark.
Or an otter with screw with it
How do we know this?
We know this because we apparently found a piece of one, dating back to the first couple of million years of the solar system's existence:
I mean, that's basically how we have the moon, iirc?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The greater and lesser Trojans are what you are looking for
Well, in the case of the Zodiac, this page can help tell you.
Here is the PBS's Space Time from today explaining this
Here's the paper this information is based off of https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25029
This might make you feel better: (E: the thumbnail is hella misleading on what that video is about)
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/invasive-toxic-caterpillars-that-can-kill-are-about-to-invade-parts-of-london/
We all know what this turns into:
"If everything goes right, you should end up with a light, delicious souffle. At worst, you can die."
What is "Cooking With Dynamite"?
You have Spitfires too.
Next we need to smuggle across Redback Spiders.
I was gonna say "gee those look a lot like the shitty caterpillars we call Spitfires"...
I think I can still hear the authors' anguished screams if I put my ear up to the screen.
But while they are a serious irritant, and it takes a lot of effort to fight them (I seem to recall sending in suited up people with big vacuum cleaners essentially), I have never heard of anyone dieing to them.
My gut feeling is that we would perceive them but our brain wouldn't do a great job processing it, so it would be wonky. I will try to remember to ask my wife, who has a PhD in neuroscience, when she wakes up in the morning.
People get headaches I believe.
Perhaps it was just that not wearing UV filters meant that your cornea got burned and gave you a headache.
I feel like there are several different ideas mashed up in here…
Like, for the most part, your visual spectrum is mostly dependent on the atmosphere, not the ultimate colour of the biggest local light source. Nitrogen/oxygen atmospheres just so happen to have a nice wide gap in their absorption spectrum at a convenient set of frequencies with high enough energies to be relatively easily detectable with organic molecules, but low enough energies to not damage or destroy those same molecules too easily, while also having wavelengths short enough to be useful for resolving objects on people-scales.
Your vision is then secondarily dependent on your immediate environment; humans can differentiate more greens than other colours because plants, or chlorophyll really.
Third, what a colour “looks like” to any given individual is completely arbitrary. There is no way to tell if I perceive yellow the same way you do, short of actual telepathy, so making an equivalent statement about an entire alien species in a different environment is kinda shaky. Unless they were trying to convey that they would consider their perceptions to be “normal” and ours to be “weird, freaky alien biology” then yes. But so what? No-one (initially, at least) perceives their own experience as unusual.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this but that statement is making my brain do flips so I had to say something…
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Well, I am about 90% certain the answer is "We have no fucking clue" because the inner workings of the brain are still kinda mysterious and what you are talking about is beyond the ken of current science.
My guess here is that unless you made that information perceivable in the same way we do our normal spectrum, then it wouldn't work because the brain would have no way to interpret those signals correctly.
I assume that if someone was born that way, their brain would just develop to accommodate it, and it would just look like another hue past what most people see.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
That Wikipedia link above says that if someone loses their eye's lens and replaces it with some other material more transparent to UV, they have a chance of starting to see UV more, if their photoreceptors are inclined to detect it.
Then they start seeing more purple.
If you wanted more colours beyond what your current photoreceptors see, your eye would have to have more kinds of photoreceptors, that likely fire down a different path to your current ones and are interpreted differently by your brain.
Otherwise you could have a different type fire down the same neural path, but things would then just look more "red" or whatever signal the new type is mimicing.
Not sure how transparent or noisy the human eye is for infra-red though.
Might be like trying to see your monitor through the sun's glare.
It's going to extrapolate that colour out into the UV, modified by any sort of pattern recognition it comes across (things in shadow being less dark than things outside shadow for the same colour for instance).
It's only if you put another separate detector and visual path into the brain that the brain is going to have a chance to differentiate between the new excitation and the old ones.
Well, that and the fact that the excitation ratio between the blue cones and the other colours will be different for UV than regular violet, just like how you differentiate blue and purple.
The activation spectra for the three cone types are offset enough to still be different in the UV range.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.