Clearing up some common misconceptions.
- Thread starter nklshaz
- Start date
I know I'm going to get people bitching at me for this but...
The initial study done by the EPA saying that second hand smoke is deadly was thrown out of federal quart.
The initial study done by (some short dead dude) that said that drinking alcohol kills brain cells involved pouring strong, if not pure alcohol, directly onto brain cells, which is enough to kill almost any kind of cell. Not to mention, if you're blood ever got that strong you'll have other a lot more things to worry about.
While I'm at it I'll post the links to these...
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legends_about_illegal_drugs
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions
The initial study done by the EPA saying that second hand smoke is deadly was thrown out of federal quart.
The initial study done by (some short dead dude) that said that drinking alcohol kills brain cells involved pouring strong, if not pure alcohol, directly onto brain cells, which is enough to kill almost any kind of cell. Not to mention, if you're blood ever got that strong you'll have other a lot more things to worry about.
While I'm at it I'll post the links to these...
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legends_about_illegal_drugs
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions
Maybe I'm being pretentious but I just want to throw out there that while you are right and programming is no where near as math intensive as people seem to think, every now and then you do need higher math. I worked on a remake of asteroids not too long ago, that required the unit circle and physics equations, both of which are above Algebra 2. Also I wanted to get a ball to bounce off of a circle correctly, doing that required calculus to determine the tangent line of the circle, with a bunch of trigonometry and vectors to reflect it off that line. I only bring this up because I had to go apologize to my Calc teacher, since I had said previously that the practical applications of calculus simply never come up in real life.renegade7 said:
Again, I'm not saying your wrong, because you are right. It's just that every now and then a situation does come up. I still haven't found a use for integrals though...
If memory serves me correctly (which it doesn't), the gravitational constant is 6.67E-12, while the electro-magnetic constant is 9E9, so while that doesn't necessarily mean that gravity is stronger than E&M, that's just sort of an example of how much bigger it is. Also, while I am not really familiar with the Strong / Weak Nuclear Forces, my understanding was that the Weak one prevents electrons from colliding with the nucleus of their atom, (meaning it is stronger than the E&M force pulling the two together) and the Strong force keeps the nucleus of an atom in place (meaning it is also stronger than the E&M force pushing the particles apart). From that I would say that gravity is the weakest, though again, I've only taken 2 Physics classes, I really don't know what I'm talking about.brandon237 said:
Truth be told; anything I say is worth your time. That's truth, man.nklshaz said:To clarify, I was defining "too much" by general national health guidelines, not by personal opinion or preference. Nor was I judging them, merely observing. Now please, you can be as snarky as you want, but at least make an effort to post something interesting, especially if you're going to quote me directly. The Escapist has loaded rather slowly for me since the layout change, so checking my inbox has become a bit of a pain in my ass. Please, at least try to make it worth my time. Thank you.The Gnome King said:Common misconception:nklshaz said:Hello fellow Escapists. As the title of this thread suggests, what are some common misconceptions that you would like to clear up? It can be about any topic, just as long as everyone here (Myself included, of course) learns a thing or two.
I'll start. I know this one applies to other nations, but I'm going to direct it at my own, because I know for a fact that we are guilty of it.
My fellow Americans, you do NOT need to eat an entire fucking cow every day! Seriously, I'm amazed by how much people over-consume meat in this country. I have no moral stance against eating meat, but damn, most people I see eat WAY too much. This wouldn't be so bad, but the average American doesn't eat enough fruits or vegetables either. I don't know why, but people here in America always seem to be concerned about not getting enough protein. (And trust me, we're in no danger of it) Hell, most fruits and vegetables taste damn good too, so I' m surprised that people here don't eat more of them.
Your turn Escapists. Please, educate us. Have a nice day
That I, in my infinite wisdom, know what is better for another human being than they do. **I** am the one to determine how much meat, alcohol, sex, cocaine, religion, or porn is "too much" - that I can somehow define acceptable consumption for another.
I see that misconception a lot in America.
As for your observation; isn't it rather useless? National guidelines vary, and some societies (the Inuit?) eat meat exclusively and thrive off it. Some current dietary plans - like the new "Paleo" plan (ie., Caveman diet) - involve eating large amounts of meat.
Humans seem to be able to thrive on a wide range of diets; and this is consistent with what I have learned in study of both nutrition and culture.
So perhaps your perception that people eat "too much meat" according to "national guidelines" is in itself flawed to begin with? Usually nutrition is a fairly simple measure of calories in, calories out.
People who consume mainly meat as a part of their diet and who have extreme levels of physical activity will be able to consume more meat.
Keep in mind, I think humans can do pretty well on a vegan diet or a totally carnivore/meat-based diet. There are cultures in the world that follow both fairly closely from certain Buddhist sects to the aforementioned Inuit culture.
As somebody who has a... fairly decent background in human health and nutrition, we'll say - I find your comment rather silly. It's shaming people and it's designed to make yourself feel superior or advanced in your knowledge that elite people or classy "European" types don't do what "those fat stupid Americans do" - newsflash for ya; heart disease rates in France have now just recently equaled those in the US. Is this due to increased meat consumption? Unlikely.
More likely, it's due to decreased activity levels.
Personally? I eat what I want as long as it's healthy and as close to organic as I can get. Kobe beef, wild salmon, fruits, vegetables, nuts - humans can thrive on just about any diet with the right exercise and a base level of micro and macro nutrients.
If anything, most Americans consume too many CALORIES, period, for their activity level. It comes just as much from processed carbohydrates and sugar which are, if anything, just as much as a problem (if not moreso) than eating meat.
I love how you can always argue both sides (or any side) of the "what people should be eating" debate. What's always fun though is to sit back and eat popcorn. (At least a carbohydrate with a modicum of fiber.)
Cheers!
Generally a programmer who likes math will find lots of ways to use it in their programs, and a programmer who doesn't like math will solve the problems in other ways. Also most programming jobs require a computer science degree, and CS needs the math background since it goes beyond programming to look at the fundamentals of computation.Blade1130 said:
It's not really correct to compare the 9E9 coloumb constant with the 6.67E-12 because they have different units. Specifically, the 9E9 measures the force between charges so it depends on the unit of charge, while the 6.67E-12 is between masses so it depends on the unit of mass.Blade1130 said:
If we kept measuring mass in kilograms, but changed the unit of charge from coloumbs to something else, the 9E9 would change but the 6.67E-12 wouldn't.
To make the analysis correct, we have to take care of the units problem. In E&M the relevant physical constants are the charge of the electron e, the electromagnetic constant k = 9E-9, the speed of light c, and the quantum of action h. These can be combined into the fine structure constant, which is a pure dimensionless number characterizing the strength of E&M:
fine structure constant = 2pi k e^2/h c =~ 7.3E-3
We can do the same thing for gravity with Newton's constant G, the mass of the electron m, and h and c:
gravitational coupling = 2 pi G M^2/ h c =~ 10E-45
Since these coupling constants do not have any units, they don't depend on the system of measurement, so we can compare them and see that E&M is ~10^42 times stronger than gravity.
The coupling for the strong force is ~1, 1000 times stronger than E&M. The weak force has the same coupling constant as E&M, but because the W and Z bosons that transmit the weak force have mass, unlike the photon, this mass makes the weak force exponentially weaker.
One more thing, the weak force definitely isn't what keeps the electron from colliding with the nucleus. The reason they don't collide is because of quantum mechanical behavior; sometimes this is called "zero-point motion", but basically it means that the quantum electron can't sit still, it's always moving, and that keeps it out of the nucleus.
The main thing the weak force does that most people are familiar with is beta decay. Beta radiation is just high powered electrons, and they are released when a neutron in the nucleus spontaneously decays into a proton (which changes the atomic number, so changes what type of element it is) and an emitted electron that is called beta decay. This reaction also produces neutrinos, which are associated with the weak force in general, and that's why neutrinos are so hard to detect.
My personal favourite:
The difference between Acronyms and Initialisms
An initialism is a series of letters used together to refer to a longer string of words. For example:
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)
SUV (Sport Utility Vehicle)
MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game)
An acronym is essentially an initialism BUT the difference is that you can pronounce the letters as a word. For example:
SCUBA (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Aparatus)
LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation)
Enjoy your dose of useless knowledge!
The difference between Acronyms and Initialisms
An initialism is a series of letters used together to refer to a longer string of words. For example:
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)
SUV (Sport Utility Vehicle)
MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game)
An acronym is essentially an initialism BUT the difference is that you can pronounce the letters as a word. For example:
SCUBA (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Aparatus)
LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation)
Enjoy your dose of useless knowledge!
Have you been watching Penn & Teller? I was thinking about writing about the exactly same misconception... :IProverbial Jon said:
Thank you!! I am one of those who have to take the pill for medical/health reasons - without them I start suffering from iron deficiency anaemia. I didn't even want to start taking the pill at first but on the other hand I was sent to the friggin' hospital and had to have blood transfused because I was in such a bad shape (where it was prescriped for me in the first place after a load of tests and whatnot) haemoglobin leves being around 60. And I don't get any discount for the pill even though it's prescription, it annoys the hell out of me cos they are so damn expensive! They should be recognised as real medicine and not "just for birth control".Stagnant said:
Chewing gum is terrible for you, it increases the acidity of your stomach in anticipation of food, which never arrivesrenegade7 said:
Just because games I play like minecraft, tetris, pokemon and space invaders do not have graphics up to your 'standard' doesnt make them bad games. Graphics doesnt make the game, the fun, enjoyment and entertainment you get from them does. I get more fun out of playing these lower level graphics games than playing most of the games nowadays.
atheists = satanists. this is a clear misconception that many religious people tend to use. we cant be satanist, we dont believe satan exist either.
stereotyping is false. no its not. there is a reason for stereotypes. sure its never 100% of the people. but the vocal majority eventually are, or were at the type stereotype was created. we used to laugh at "americans are far" stereotype 10 years ago, now this is serious business. and i do i evne need to mention that last year 17 childrend suffocated in a car becuase they got left locked in inside in america, while 0 did in europe?
people are generally smart. no their not. nor they are friendly.
stereotyping is false. no its not. there is a reason for stereotypes. sure its never 100% of the people. but the vocal majority eventually are, or were at the type stereotype was created. we used to laugh at "americans are far" stereotype 10 years ago, now this is serious business. and i do i evne need to mention that last year 17 childrend suffocated in a car becuase they got left locked in inside in america, while 0 did in europe?
people are generally smart. no their not. nor they are friendly.
That's like saying a ton of A is a lot heavier than a pound of B though.Tiger Sora said:
Strong force is 10[sup]36[/sup] times (that's 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 times...) stronger than gravity if you cut it down to properly comparable conditions.
I fully agree, as i am honestly (slightly) below average when it comes to maths but still worked for 4 years as a programmer without ever using more than doing very basic equations and calculations.renegade7 said:
That said however, it always depends on what you do. Once worked with someone doing chip tuning on cars (= changing variables in the cars electronics to basically "overclock" it and squeeze a bit more horse power and fuel efficiency out of it) and well...that guy needed to be pretty good at math, to understate it.
A good PC capable of gaming standard will not cost you an arm, a leg, a kidney, your unborn first child and over or near 1,000 in any of the three major world currencies.
As an aspiring nutritionist, I will just preface this post by saying that the majority of things that the average person believes about proper nutrition are just plain wrong.
1. Fat does not make you fat any more than carbohydrates or protein do. A caloric excess from carbohydrates, fat, protein, or all three together will make you fat.
2. Eggs do not negatively affect blood cholesterol levels in healthy individuals. Don't throw away the goddamn egg yolk, it's where pretty much all of the nutrients are!
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/1/187.full
3. Over-consumption of carbohydrates can raise your cholesterol. Yes, that means the toast can in fact raise your cholesterol more so than the eggs in your breakfast. Chronically elevated insulin levels wreck your lipid profiles.
http://www.medhelp.org/tags/health_page/32718/complementary-medicine/Its-insulinnot-cholesterol-you-should-watch-like-a-hawk-?hp_id=694
4. Eating many small meals a day is no better than eating one or two larger meals. Your body will not go into starvation mode after six hours of not eating, we are far more resilient than that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
5. High protein diets ARE NOT bad for your kidneys if you don't already have kidney disease. Protein is generally the most satiating of the three macronutrients, and it has a higher thermic effect of food (TEF) which can lead to easier weight loss/maintenance. I'm not saying that it should be 80% of your diet or anything, but the fear mongering over high protein diets is BS promoted by militant vegetarians.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16174292
There are many more, but I'll leave it at that for now.
1. Fat does not make you fat any more than carbohydrates or protein do. A caloric excess from carbohydrates, fat, protein, or all three together will make you fat.
2. Eggs do not negatively affect blood cholesterol levels in healthy individuals. Don't throw away the goddamn egg yolk, it's where pretty much all of the nutrients are!
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/1/187.full
3. Over-consumption of carbohydrates can raise your cholesterol. Yes, that means the toast can in fact raise your cholesterol more so than the eggs in your breakfast. Chronically elevated insulin levels wreck your lipid profiles.
http://www.medhelp.org/tags/health_page/32718/complementary-medicine/Its-insulinnot-cholesterol-you-should-watch-like-a-hawk-?hp_id=694
4. Eating many small meals a day is no better than eating one or two larger meals. Your body will not go into starvation mode after six hours of not eating, we are far more resilient than that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
5. High protein diets ARE NOT bad for your kidneys if you don't already have kidney disease. Protein is generally the most satiating of the three macronutrients, and it has a higher thermic effect of food (TEF) which can lead to easier weight loss/maintenance. I'm not saying that it should be 80% of your diet or anything, but the fear mongering over high protein diets is BS promoted by militant vegetarians.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16174292
There are many more, but I'll leave it at that for now.
I am not entirely sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me on this one to be honest. And you are missing a bracket somewhere (not helping the confusion). Although it sounds like you are disagreeing.Tiger Sora said:
Okay, let us look at that black hole part:
The mass that an object has to have to be able to actually absorb light is well... massive. Yet we bend charged particles in relatively small rings here on Earth with Particle colliders using Electromagnetism. As in we can make particles move in loops that only have as much energy as we can - with our limited power here on Earth - provide.
And a small bar magnet acting on either a charged object or piece of metal can easily lift the other piece against Earth's gravity if close enough. While you do have to factor in the fact that we are not that close to the Earth's core, you still have to remember that this is an entire planet.
Electromagnetism looks weaker because the universe and most things in it are neutrally charged. At the very least, large enough objects or regions are quasi-neutral. So EM does not act a lot of the time. The nuclear forces only act at very small ranges, but with extreme force. This still leaves gravity as the weakest.
Weakest =/= Least important, just the one that is the least strong.
Although I suppose this stems from people only ever having to worry about gravity, even electromagnetism starts becoming abstract to people for some reason. And you are not going to get someone with no real interest in science to give two flyings about the nuclear forces.Limecake said:
And agreed on the big bang one too, although I have never actually had someone say it was an explosion in a debate with me yet...
Electromagnetism is also infinite range and cumulative force. It is just that There is an equal (or very close to) amount of positive and negative charge in the universe (which negate each other), and on most large bodies and regions at any given time. So its effects do not show. If you had two planet-sized objects that were even slightly charged, The force between them would be absolutely MASSIVE. And if the Nuclear Forces acted at more significant ranges, the universe as we know it would likely not be able to form. The actual energy that the carriers of EM and the nuclear forces have is FAR greater than the energy that the carrier of gravity has.Exile714 said:
Gravity is only positive and affects everything, that is why it has such a large influence, but that said the force itself acts very weakly without large masses involved.