The list over at wikipedia is much better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
Since it`s a bit misleading. Salty water boils slower since a higher temperature is needed. Also if you boil pasta you should get the water to ~sea water saltieness Edit: It seems I was quite wrong (about the saltieness not the boiling point). The upper tollarable limit seems to be aroud ~2 % salt while the sea has around 3.5 % salt.
You absolutely should not boil pasta in sea water saltines levels, it would be ridiculously salty.
It seems I was wrong. Sorry.
Well I found the person with the bland pasta :D
https://www.seriouseats.com/how-salty-should-pasta-water-be
Let me start by telling you one very important thing: Never, ever, ever make your pasta water as salty as the sea. That is the worst advice anyone can give. It is repulsively, inedibly salty. Frankly, 3% salt is also way too salty.
Sorry, but you are not adding seawater level salty water to your pasta. You might think you are, but you definitely are not. The water should be very salty, but seawater is very very very salty.
And I found the person with the bland sauce.
:D fair
That one and every single italian restaurant that I have been in the whole world, including Italy.
If the pasta was boiled with sea water like salt levels, I would definitely notice it, holy shit.
Something that always confused me, as the water seems to react with bubbles when I throw salt into it. My theory is that little amount of energy gets released when the ion grid structure is broken up, but still boiling point is higher for salted water. Could absolutely be bullshit… maybe someone can explain?
Edit: Thank you all guys for taking the time to explain!
It’s likely nucleation. Basically, the water wants to boil, however it can quite get over the hump to produce a gas bubble. When you add salt, the surface acts as a nucleation point. Once the bubble forms, it grows rapidly, often splitting and forming more.
You see this effect at the other end too. Supercooled water will remain liquid, until something becomes available to crystallise around. When this happens, the whole lot will freeze in seconds.
It’s just adding a bunch of extra surface area so the bubbles form on it. Like mentos and coke. https://youtu.be/QW7r2RHt6tY
deleted by creator
I completly agree just wanted to point out you will actually increase the boiling point of water when adding salt. Not decrease.
More water vapor made when you throw in salt when it’s actively boiling? Likely a physical reaction rather than a change to boiling point. The surface of the salt is rough, creating more surface area for the molecules to turn into their gaseous form.
Similar to mentos and diet coke, gases suspended in liquid can be released more efficiently with rough surfaces.
The salt can help “seed” the boiling, by providing nucleation sites for the bubbles to form. So, you end up with more bubbles, but they are smaller. Of course, this effect is only applicable before the salt finishes dissolving, so you’re only going to notice it if you throw salt in when the water is already boiling or close to it. Chemists will use boiling-chips (little rocks that don’t dissolve) for a similar reason to ensure a smoother boil (smaller bubbles means less splatter, assuming you put them in at the beginning… you definitely don’t want to add boiling chips after things are already hot or you’re gonna end up with even more splatter than doing nothing).
There are certainly energetic effects caused by the dissolution of salt crystals, but unless you’re starting with deionized water or using a crazy amount of salt, the effect is gonna be pretty negligible.
A small amount of salt has a nearly negligible effect on boiling temp. Salting pasta water is for flavor.
The part about evolution being a theory is wrong.
The term they describe is a hypothesis. A theory is actually the highest level of understanding we have to.
We have basic data. Then we have Laws, which describe how that data behaves. Finally we have Theories, that describe WHY the data behaves like that.
Conversely a hypothesis is an idea to be tested. First by logic, then by experimentation. Hypotheses produce data, Theories explain and predict data.
deleted by creator
But it is true that for a hypothesis to become a theory it has to be testable, and evolution isn’t.
It is. It’s a long term e. coli experiment going back decades. Also, you know, genetics and the fossil record.
You are mistaking evidence of something for a test. In order to move from a hypothesis to a theory, you must be able to reproduce or create experiments. Because evolution is a billions-of-years activity, it can’t be tested. So while it’s likely a fact, we really can’t even call it a theory unless you’ve got a billion years or so to create a test.
Dude, look up the E. Coli evolution study. It’s an experiment showing evolution in action.
It is a scientific theory. Just like gravity.
Very interesting. Got way too much into the weeds for me to follow all the way through, but point taken.
Einstein didn’t excel in maths. He was a physicist. He knew maths to do physics, but he wasn’t mathematician. He also had his calculus checked by someone else, because that’s what any reasonable researcher does. And when you work with people like Dirac, Shrodinger, Heisenberg or Feinman, you really feel like you’re bad at maths. You’d probably feel like an idiot too if you didn’t already have a Nobel prize.
IIRC, it was Schwartzchild (sorry butchered spelling) that solved equations about black holes, Einstein maybe wasn’t able to?
I doubt it was a question of ability. It’s more a matter of working on a problem for this. Einstein worked more on quantum physics after he made the relativity theory on which black holes are based.
But the matter is that physics is not done by one person, even at this time. The relativity for example is based on Minkovsky space iirc and refine ideas from Poincaré and a few others. Some guys do the maths and some others exchange ideas, and experience proves who is right or wrong.
Einstein was definitely a genius, but not for maths. He understood physics, and he understood what the equations meant for physics. I heard Dirac was a true math genius. He invented a new way to calculate quantum physics (the bra-ket thing I don’t remember much), among other things.
@atheist
It’s not just the insufficient velocity that makes the penny non-lethal. It’s the combination of the velocity together with its low mass. A 30 to 50 mph fast and 10 lb heavy penny could definitely kill you.Humans and dinosaurs do coexist right now, today: birds are (technically) dinosaurs.
Birds are decendants of dinosaurs but saying that birds are dinosurs makes Aa much sense as saying humans are fish Dinosaurs are a defined group of reptiles
Birds are more closely related to some dinosaurs than some dinosaurs were to each other. wiki page
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Doesn’t it seem that in context, jihad can still mean holy war? It seems the vast majority of jihadists are religious fanatics.
Do Muslims refer to difficult homework as a jihad? Do Muslims refer to living in poverty as a jihad? I’ve only ever seen it used in connection with a holy war, but I’m not Muslim so maybe I’m just fed propaganda and I’m ignorant of the true use.
The banana statment is complete nonsense. Herb nor Tree has any scientific meaning. The whole sheet is a bunch of petty pedantic gotcha at best and just wrong at worst.
What are you talking about? The literal difference between a herb and a tree is the presence of wood. This isn’t referring to the culinary term for herb, it’s referring to the short version of the botanical term “herbaceous”, which are plants that aren’t lignified, aka they don’t have a woody stem like trees or shrubs do. The terms absolutely do have scientific meaning. Banana plants do not have woody stems, hence they are herbs, aka herbaceous plants. In general terms we call them trees, but in a botanical sense they aren’t the same thing.
Tree doesn’t have a single definition, and using herb here is misleading. More, it just makes the point that it’s just a bunch of pedantic gotchas.
But herbaceous plant, which is very often shortened to herb, does have a definition that VERY clearly sets them apart from trees. That isn’t pedantic just because you don’t like it.
Both tree and herb are so poorly defined the Wikipedia article on each opens with how they are poorly defined. Wikipedia is exactly the right resource for establishing common, outside of a technical context definitions and details.
Bro on the Wikipedia page for herbaceous the first line literally says:
Herbaceous plants are vascular plants that have no persistent woody stems above ground.
The ONE definition everyone can agree on is that herbs don’t have woody stems like trees do and that they are distinctly different from trees. Even in the definitions section where it notes differing definitions for herbs, all the definitions agree on herbs not having woody stems. Did you even read the page or just randomly claim you read it and just hoped I wouldn’t check?
Here’s also what the Wikipedia page for herbaceous plant says:
Herbaceous plants most often are low-growing plants, different from woody plants like trees and shrubs, tending to have soft green stems that lack lignification and their above-ground growth is ephemeral and often seasonal in duration.[14] By contrast, non-herbaceous vascular plants are woody plants that have stems above ground that remain alive, even during any dormant season, and grow shoots the next year from the above-ground parts – these include trees, shrubs, vines and woody bamboos. Banana plants are also regarded as herbaceous plants because the stem does not contain true woody tissue.[15]
Some herbaceous plants can grow rather large, such as the genus Musa, to which the banana belongs.
Wikipedia itself says, point blank, that bananas are herbaceous plants and that herbaceous plants are different from woody plants which include trees.
Here’s a wiki quote from the banana wiki page for good measure:
The banana plant is the largest herbaceous flowering plant.[10] All the above-ground parts of a banana plant grow from a structure usually called a “corm”.[11] Plants are normally tall and fairly sturdy with a treelike appearance, but what appears to be a trunk is actually a “false stem” or pseudostem.
And from the Musa genus page:
Musa is one of three genera in the family Musaceae. The genus includes 83 species of flowering plants producing edible bananas and plantains. Though they grow as high as trees, banana and plantain plants are not woody and their apparent “stem” is made up of the bases of the huge leaf stalks. Thus, they are technically gigantic herbaceous plants.
So if you’re going to use Wikipedia as your authority in the topic then Wikipedia is saying the exact same thing both I and this infographic have been saying.
From the page on trees
In botany, a tree is a perennial plant with an elongated stem, or trunk, usually supporting branches and leaves. In some usages, the definition of a tree may be narrower, including only woody plants with secondary growth, plants that are usable as lumber or plants above a specified height. In wider definitions, the taller palms, tree ferns, bananas, and bamboos are also trees.
Literally says Bannaas are sometimes considered trees.
If you actually read the page instead of stopping at the line you thought agreed with you then you’d have seen that the same page says that banana plants are only considered trees in its “broadest sense” based on “common parlance.” Meaning people often call them trees because they look like trees even though they’re not actually trees. So in the the most generalized non-technical use of the word they could be considered a tree in the same way a child’s drawing of a brown scribble with a bigger green scribble on top can be called a tree. Fun fact, did you know that koala bears aren’t actually bears? Honey badgers aren’t actually badgers. Bearcats are neither bears, nor cats. Killer whales aren’t whales. Electric eels aren’t eels. Velvet ants aren’t ants. Things get named based on appearance all the time, but that doesn’t mean they are the same thing as what they look like and are named after. That’s why those names and terms are referred to as common/vernacular/colloquial. And lower on the same page your quote is from it says:
A commonly applied narrower definition is that a tree has a woody trunk formed by secondary growth, meaning that the trunk thickens each year by growing outwards, in addition to the primary upwards growth from the growing tip.[4][7] Under such a definition, herbaceous plants such as palms, bananas and papayas are not considered trees regardless of their height, growth form or stem girth.
You wanna know who they cited for that definition? Actual botanists. Wanna know what their citations on the broader definition had to say about banana plants? That they are herbaceous plants, and are only called trees because they have a “tree-like” appearance. Even the ones debating the definition of tree clarify that botanically bananas aren’t true trees. I can follow up with that if you want but that’ll be a long comment if I’m gonna go over the sources and their contents, because some of them are heftier than others.
When they say “trees aren’t well defined even in botany” they don’t mean “banana plants can be considered trees in some botanical definitions”. Botanically, banana plants are not trees. The debate in botany is based on stuff like whether trees have a primary trunk, or rings, or if they have to be a singular entity, etc. That complicates the definition of tree in reference to shrubs vs trees, or clonal organisms like pando vs singular trees, sure, but bananas are not in question on that front. They don’t even have an actual stem above ground most of the time, what we think of as the stem is just a bunch of leaves wrapped up together. Hence why it’s called a pseudostem.
I named several Wikipedia pages, including 2 focused specifically on banana plants and their genus, which say that the banana plant is not a tree botanically. I can even list more Wikipedia pages that specify the difference between trees and herbaceous plants in a way that wouldn’t include banana plants if you want. But you found a couple of lines on one page, talking about the broadest non-botanical use of the term, and you’re clinging to that one like gospel. So apparently you don’t actually view Wikipedia as The Right Resource™ unless it’s a specific line that agrees with you.
Left brain right brain… Language? Surely as black and white as it gets.
Ditto the sugar /ADHD thing, that’s in heavy research and is more about sugar -> inflammation -> neurological changes -> ADHD symptoms.
The wording is really specific and frankly misleading though technically true in what it seems to be claiming.
It is technically possible for brains that had something go wrong to develop language competency in the right hemisphere’s real estate as long as the person was young enough.
But it is absolutely wrong in portraying this as if the two hemispheres aren’t functionally different in practice (even if not in potential).
Think the left/right sentiment is more about that this is just the way things usually settle, not the way they have to be. You can have aphasia in non-dominant hemisphere strokes, aphasia is also not necessarily permanent in strokes. Recently I was linked a nature article where they rewired newborn ferret visual and audio nerves, they showed that the
visual cortex was able to pick up and process audio input and vice versa.audio cortex was able to process visual input.Sugar causes inflammation? I mean I know it’s not healthy, but…
Yeah, lots of ROS and inflammation from excess sugar, especially when ingested without fibre.
I would say the pasta one is debatable. The starch in the pasta is supposed to make the sauce thicker and thus more sticky. This won’t happen when the starch is trapped in oil.
If gum took anywhere near 7 years to digest, regularly swallowing it would put you in the hospital within weeks. The gastrointestinal tract does not like obstructions.
Black holes may not be holes, but an up-close view of the event horizon would certainly look like one.
Iron maidens may be fake, but plenty of other ancient torture implements aren’t. Humans are awful.
Fun fact: you have an entire separate sense solely for knowing whether you need to shit.
If fan death was wasn’t a myth, I would have died a very long time ago.
Birds aren’t idiots. They know perfectly well the difference between a human and their own baby. If they could smell human, they still wouldn’t reject their babies because they’d also be able to smell baby bird.
TIL getting laid is a performance-enhancing drug.
Maybe not all dairy, but I definitely turn into a phlegmmy boogie goblin after eating larger amounts of some dairy foods.
I shall continue to tread carefully, even if science is on my side!
That is not what a theory is in science. Gravity is a theory and it’s still very real.
Didn’t take long for the reddit garbage memes to migrate.
deleted by creator
This thing. It’s a meme.
deleted by creator
The meme image uses the wrong definition of theory in science.
Instead of using the scientific definition it uses the common one.
That’s my contribution, correcting the fallacies.
deleted by creator
The non every day use, duh.
The Coriolis one is generally true, but it’s been proven to have an effect on draining water in highly controlled environments using water that has been allowed to settle for at least 18 hours.
Ehm you made a mistake. You wrote “The Three Wise Men” instat of “God”. And the description of him doesn’t fit too.
Nowhere in the New Testament does it specify there’s a God?
Nowhere in the New Testament (let alone in scientific reality) is it proven that there is a God.
Sure, but that wasn’t the claim here.
Glass is absolutely an amorphous solid, and over time glass windows will start to deform. You can see it in some of the older buildings in Europe that are hundreds of years old.
That’s not true, those old windows have always been deformed in that way because people back then weren’t good at making glass, but their shake hasn’t changed.
And they are usually thicker at the bottom because people were smart enough to realize there’s less risk of breakage if the weight doesn’t rest on the thinner end.
But there are some cases were the thicker part is up.
Correct, but it’s but because they were bad at making glass, it’s that making glass is hard, and a sturdier bottom is less likely to break. They were very good at making it, they just didn’t have high precision manufacturing.
Glass is absolutely an amorphous solid
It is an amorphous solid instead of a liquid, like the picture claims.
over time glass windows will start to deform
No, see the other comment.
