Imagine any given object, let’s say a pebble.

You could describe its shape, chemical composition, temperature, position, history, every atom within it, and every interaction it has ever had.

But what don’t we know? What values exist that we don’t know how to measure yet? And how would we even go about storing that much information on something?

And how intricately would you have to describe its shape, temperature, position and history for it to be classified as 100% complete?

Could the pebble ever obtain a complete description of itself? Or is there always at least a little information missing about any given thing?

You could say an ancient rock or a fossil. But the atoms in your hand are billions of years old. Does that mean you've technically been touching something ancient your entire life? And when does something actually begin to have an age?

Right now, I'm in a very busy period of my life. I go to school, work, and I don't drive so its a bit of challenge to get to a from place. Despite being tired all the time, I feel good. Because I'm not at home a lot, I end up seeing a lot of different people.

After listening to the episode about strangers, I've been trying to own my "strangerness" I'll strike up conversation with people who see me often even if I only know their face. I try to use those moments to practice being an active listener and asking relevant questions. To be honest, people don't often ask me questions but I think people will show you how much they want to know you and even then I know I leave an impression on those around me. Like I feel more comfortable existing in public I guess?

I definitely feel tired: rushing to work, writing papers and doing homework, taking care of myself with the little time I get at home. It's tough and I'm not always good at it. But it brings me solace to know I have people to talk to and that I'm a relevant stranger to some people, just because I show up. That I have impact just by showing up.

This is all to say that the episode "All the people you don't know" has had a big impact on my perspective about my place in the world. I think it's natural to want more friends but connecting with people in general is quite the privilege. Sometimes it rejuvenates me just to talk to somebody.

I’m kinda THE nerd in my class and whenever someone has a question they come to me for some ungodly reason, (well I mean I guess they’re right to cuz I usually always have an answer) but one of my friends asked me today “how come an atom won’t collapse into itself if the nucleus is positive and the negative electrons are so strongly pulled towards it?” and for the first time since the school year started I’ve found myself saying the word “dunno”- well anyway WHY is that? I mean it has to be something to do with quantum mechanics but I’m not even sure if I can give you a decent definition for that phase let alone how it could explain the question

I am at dinner drinking Italian “sorbetto” (a sorbet) and my mother in law just had a huge brain freeze. Luckily she’s all right now. Why do we get a brain freeze? What is the amount of “cold” one has to ingest to get one?

Obvious things come to mind: saving Franz Ferdinand, killing your preferred dictator in their crib, warning the captain of the Titanic, giving Judas 31 pieces of silver to not betray Jesus, making the Cuban missile crisis become a Cuban Nuclear exchange (hey, I didn’t say the large impact has to be good).

But perhaps there are even smaller adjustments to be made out there? Small incidental occurrences, that if changed, would derail our timeline into a dramatically different direction.

This question has been amusing me for a while now, whenever I need to pass the time. It’s inspired by Asimov’s book “End Of Eternity”, where time engineers would go back into a precisely calculated time and place, do the tiniest change, like move a box from one shelf to another, and that would drastically divert the course of history for the next millennia.

So I was wondering what are some real world examples of such tiny pivotal events.

Just came across my thread and the comments are very divisive. I initially, and still do think that the question leads to the plane not being able to take off. Wondering if the fluid dynamics expert has the answer.

my problem is, that i don't notice im hungry until i am dangerously hypoglycemic, and i can't eat that much when i do. as a consequence im pretty thin to a point where it really impacts my life and have very low glycogen levels i guess because i get hypoglycemic super fast and intensely. is there some opposite drug to glp1 that makes you more aware of being hungry and makes you able to eat more?

I just find how simple these new 4 pack holders are. I wounder who came up with it

I've been binge watching the podcasts on YouTube having only found The Rest is Science quite recently, and the best Dad mug comes up a few times.

I'm sure you all know the details so I'll skip. Surely you have to compare the 'Best Dad' against all the Dad's there have ever been?

Conservatively there have been around 25 billion Dad's in the history of humanity (someone has probably done the math), Michael would be in the region of 13,672,500,000 Best Dad.

He needs a new mug.

Not sure what exactly made this question get stuck in my head. But I have the impression that shaking the same weight is harder than lifting it.

Lets assume one has a sturdy box with a few weights stored inside, i.e. 10kg (2×2kg, 2x3kg) and one would shake it. How much would the box weigh at any given moment? I couldn't try it, my box isn't sturdy... But I shaked some closed cans of chickpeas instead and consciously it still felt like the can is heaviest at the lowest point of the shake movement, but only when the hand was already shaking it, not at the start, before you shake it. Is this just an illusion? And a can of chickpeas has not much air, if there is an actual effect and not just an illusion, would the difference in weight be more profound if the obcjects inside a box had more space to get shaken up/ around in?

Or is that feeling not a difference in weight but an experience of force ? What is even the difference between weight and force?

What if something would be perpetually shaken, could we even measure it's weight? (I mean apparently we do with planets etc.)

And if there is a difference in weight, how dense would something have to be to not change its weight when shaken? (Even if it is undetectable for humans?)

Hope thats not a too silly question, or rather geoup of questions. Its kind of a long time ago, but school left me feel stupid about everything concerning "natural" sciences. But I'm regaining my curiosity with podcasts like this one. Please treat me like I'm five.

Hi Hannah and Michael,
For those of us who grew up in the dial up era, what was going on with that noise? What did all the different changes in tone and sound mean?

So lemme cook: When you say something like "it is what it is" you are not saying the same thing twice, but you use an overloaded word to attach a different meaning to something specific. I think it's best illustrated using "boys will be boys" cause the specific boys in question (let's say it's a title for a video or picture) are then loaded with whatever preconception of boys you have. Thus you loaded a frame of reference into your mind, that is unique to your previous cultural exposure of the concept of boys. In a similar vein if you say it is what it is, you ascribe to a thing the very nature, not the thing itself. "Why does heartbreak hurt so much? it is what it is", ascribes the nature of heartbreak to the act of breaking someones heart. The act of dumping someone is hurtful because it breaks someones heart. I bet you didn't felt the same when you read the title tho: "I think tautologies are tautologies and therefore not redundant." at least I didn't. I guess that's because I do not have any preconceptions tied to tautologies that get invoked upon reading it. I dunno, does any of this make sense to y'all or am I burning this post?

The Big "Bang"

Is it just me that considers it possible that the start of the universe was not a big bang but a singularity expanding rapidly?

My theory, totally unproven and possibly absolute rubbish, is that the universe was born from a black hole in another universe, and the expansion essentially the opposite reaction (a white hole?)

Would this eliminate the need for the elusive Dark Energy, as the expansion could simply be the momentum of atoms moving from the previous universe on entry to the black hole?

How crazy is this? Does it have legs?

How come a hard and brittle seed can spontaneously turn into a soft sponge-like and tasty snack? Why do only some kinds of corn do this? Has this come to happen naturally or have we selected for this trait? Is this just a delightful coincidence or a wicked plot? Does the grain know something we don't or does it just earnestly want to appease us with it's alluring taste and texture? What's in it for the corn? Have we domesticated it, or has it domesticated us?

I have just interrogated a mid sized serving, but found no answers. I was hoping to get your input on this matter, everyone. Thanks in advance!

Treadmill Podcast

If I were to sink slowly into the ocean, assuming I could magically survive the intense pressure and breathe underwater, at what depth would the pressure around me be so great that I would be forced to fart? I.e, the gas inside my colon would be forced out by the pressure around me?