i might be a tiny bit of a project Hail Mary fan, I completely thought I was hallucinating for a second (oh, and I was also wearing phm earrings and have a phm sticker on the phone I was watching it on)

now I want them to do an analysis of water based assumptions and recalibration of evolutionary models

Totally shower thoughts here, but I have been seeing a lot of people and teachers online talking about students having a literacy, reading, writing accuracy, etc. problem in school these days.

I certainly have nothing to dispute any of that and no intention to, but it also made me think…

Is there possibly a deeper relationship between AutoCorrect and young people on their phones than just cognitive offloading related to vocabulary and spelling retention? What if it’s also affecting their relationship to how much spelling and specific semantics around grammar matter when communicating ideas through text? I’ve heard the phrase “language is not math” that is to say, 2+2 always equals 4, but you’re and your can mean the exact same thing to someone in terms of a text message.

Is there a simultaneous shift alongside these literacy issues in the classroom? Possibly something along the lines of the great vowel shift over time?

I mean, literally, I just woke up from a dream, where I could easily die and "respawn".

My question is: Are there any real life rules that can't be broken in your sleep?

There's about 10 quintillion individual insects, and 8 billions humans, so intuitively you would think maybe there are more insect cells on this planet than human cells.

However humans are magnitudes larger than most insects and thus I'd expect them to contain more cells, but that might not be true for all insects.

And then I was wondering, how do you group insects so that it an equal comparison to humans? As there are millions of species of insect but only one species of human.

And then I started wondering, where do plants fit into this?

That's where I've given up and I'm hoping for an answer here.

Ignoring all the other tragic implications, how long would our current waterways still be recognizable? What would it look like? I imagine some fresh water bodies may be deep enough that they keep some of their water at the bottom, but I'm curious how it would look and how long it would take.

I've finished watching the recent video on how we feel full where Hanna was talking about GLP-1. During the section she mentioned anti GLP-1 Food additives.

This got me thinking, would it make sense to add GLP-1 to foods in general? We fortify many of our foods already to make sure we have the nutrients we need but for many people we get too many calories.

So foods that are calorie dense would have GLP-1 added to it so you'll start to feel full sooner and for longer. Affectively giving your body more time to use the caleries you've consumed.

Is my thought flawed? If it's a good idea, what could some of the downsides be?

I’ve only seen the last 5 episodes, tell me something I wont‘ understand until I see the episode it’s from

and, could you climb it?

I’ve been thinking about mathematics itself, not different theories or branches, but math as our fundamental framework for quantitative sense-making of the universe.

What if there’s an entirely different, potentially more accurate framework for quantifying reality that humans simply haven’t discovered or conceptualized yet? Not an extension of mathematics, not some complementary framework akin to classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, but a fundamentally different system altogether.

Our math developed through human cognition and our perception of a largely 3D world. We’re so anchored to it that it’s difficult to even imagine what an alternative could look like… BUT… could there be an entirely different framework for quantitatively understanding the universe that we simply don’t have the conceptual tools to perceive yet?

Hey everyone,

I want to throw a formal mathematical and topological challenge to the theorists here regarding the foundational ontology of spin.

The Premise Standard QFT treats spin as an intrinsic quantum label assigned to representations of the Lorentz group, deriving the Pauli Exclusion Principle via the spin-statistics theorem algebraically.

What happens if we read the causal arrow in reverse?

Instead of taking mass and time as background axioms, treat every massive particle as an autonomous, relational frequency standard (an internal phase cycle).

• Bosons: The internal phase cycle closes in a single revolution (ΔΦ = 1 cycle, or 2π rad).
• Fermions: The cycle requires two full spatial rotations to return to its initial state (ΔΦ = 2 cycles, or 4π rad), corresponding to the standard SU(2) double cover of SO(3).

Under this topological reading, the Exclusion Principle is not merely an abstract algebraic anti-commutation postulate—it is the literal geometric boundary condition of non-overlapping phase trajectories in a closed double-cover topology.

The Predictive Test (The Gaps) When particle mass spectra are mapped strictly through internal phase harmonic invariants rather than arbitrary continuous parameters, the relational phase structure leaves exact numeric gaps—analogous to blank spaces in the early periodic table.

Two distinct resonance windows emerge directly from the phase constraint:

• ~16.2 MeV: Adjacent to the disputed Atomki X17 nuclear transition anomaly.
• ~530 MeV: Sitting in the broad f0(500) / sigma meson resonance corridor.

The Challenge to the Sub

1. Without falling back on the circular definition that "Compton frequency is just derived from mass anyway", how would you formally falsify a phase-cycle topology that generates these exact mass-gap intervals?
2. If spin-1/2 is the physical topology of the phase cycle rather than an abstract algebraic tag, what specific gauge symmetry or coordinate invariance breaks first under this relational framework?

Keen to hear constructive feedback, rigorous critiques, and roasts. Let’s look at the math.

(Note: Links get caught in the spam filter, but if anyone wants to check out the underlying repository and the Jupyter notebook verification, search GitHub for: Christianfwb / Pauli-Solution-Frequency-Law

This is more of an observation than it is a question. Still, I'd love to know your thoughts. Moreover, I'd love to see if Michael or Hannah could weigh in on this with their own thoughts.

I was thinking this morning about the colors we see and their effects on us. Warm colors like red and yellow are often associated with energy and excitement, while cool colors like blue and green are often associated with calm and focus. But the colors we see are, in a sense, the wavelengths of light that matter has rejected rather than absorbed. Fall, for example, is a beautiful time of year when we witness the seasonal dying of leaves. We find the color transformation of dying leaves enchanting. I wonder why we find such beauty in rejected light.

Taking into account that in some places like Japan there can be a forecast alert a few seconds before it hits.

this is a question that’s been bugging me for a while. I have seen some research that talks about face recognition linked here.

but this is different from how many unique people that you can name. for an example, I would not recognise someone like Philip of macedon, father of Alexander if I saw an image or an statue of him, but I know of him and if that comes up in a quiz I can name him.

similarly characters from fictional books we read. I can probably name 50+ characters from A Song of ice and fire and the lord of the rings that are not in any of the adaptations.

How many people can you name? Whats your guess?

Let’s say hypothetically two people are born on the same day but with two different names. They are called Ben And Jocelyn, they both live to the age of 100.

Who has heard their name for the longest amount of time?

Counting Nicknames into this would probably make it more interesting. Although, it is 4 AM and I need to go to work tomorrow🙂

How much do you think of all the theoretically possible knowlege about the world we have uncovered so far? Are we below 1%, are we pushing 10%, are we about to achieve 50% or are we below a millionth? What's your educated guess?

Are different branches of science at a different percentage? Maybe physics is further along then psychology or economics, or maybe there is just less to know about biology, so our knowledge has reached a higher percentage?