981
982

"It's breathtaking to consider..." [1920x1080] (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by thissiteisalright

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on
all 49 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]dturner0413 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Love the sentiment, but the font color bit, ouch. Ive found it best to border solid colored text with another contrasting solid color when dealing with text above mutli colored backgrounds.

[–]thissiteisalright[S] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, I totally agree. I am not that good at photo editing, though. I made this pretty quickly, and I was pretty happy with what I wrote, so I kinda wanted to get it out fast :P

[–]Sacket 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

White text with black borders can be seen on any color background.

[–]heyachaiyya 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Love the sentiment enough to forget about it and comment about the text. lol.

[–]dturner0413 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just a helpful tip for next time. if i didnt say it, somebody else would

[–]mewditto 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So in your two eyes, In said photoreceptor cells, there are 3.9 × 1019 atoms.

Or

39,000,000,000,000,000,000

39 quintillion.

[–]chocolatemilkman 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's fuckin mind boggling

[–]tavernkeeper 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We call these "astronomical numbers." Perhaps we should call them "molecular numbers."

[–]AddictiveSoup 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is why it annoys me when people say stuff like "the number of possible combinations of playing cards is greater than the number of atoms in the universe". I know it's an enormous number, but there are so many fucking atoms.

[–]gredders 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nobody claims that there are more permutations of playing cards than atoms in the universe.

However, there are without a doubt more combinations than there are atoms in our solar system, and possibly the galaxy.

[–]AddictiveSoup 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How? If there are 39 quintillion in something as incredibly small as a pair of eyes, times 7 billion people, not even looking at the planets or oceans, let alone stars yet, it's inconceivable to think that the number of card combinations is bigger.

[–]gredders 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The number of possible permutations in a pack of 52 cards is 52!=8*1067 .

The sun accounts for more than 99% of the mass of our solar system and has a mass of 2 * 1030 Kg. Even if the entire solar system consisted of the lightest element (hydrogen, weighing 3*10-27 Kg) then the solar system contains about:

2 * 1030 / (3 * 10-27) = 7 * 1056 atoms.

So there are more than 100 billion times more permutations of cards than there are atoms in the solar system. It isn't even a competition.

According to Wikipedia, the Milky Way is about 1000 billion times more massive than our solar system. Accounting for the fact that there are many heavier elements than hydrogen, it's reasonable to suggest that the number of permutations is comparable (within a factor of 5) to the number of atoms in the galaxy.

[–]ZiggyStardust34 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You sir have gained my respect, may it only be from a stranger on the internet. And with it comes an upvote.

[–]trainingmontage83 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The number of permutations of a standard deck of 52 cards is 52! ("52 factorial"), which comes out to 8*1067. That's an 8 followed by 67 zeroes. There have been several TIL posts about this:

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/search?q=shuffle+deck&restrict_sr=on

I did a quick search on the number of atoms in the Milky Way, and found estimates between 1065 and 1069, so it's pretty close to the permutations for a deck of cards. But I've never heard anyone claim that there are more permutations for the cards than there are atoms in a galaxy or the universe; the usual version is that there are more card permutations than stars in the observable universe. That's true; there are "only" about 1022 stars.

[–]sheepshizzle 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Anyone have this wallpaper without the text?

[–]kuvter 45 points46 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I shall teach you (and anyone reading) how to find it yourself.

Important note: You can google search an image.
1. Open a google image search in another tab
2. Drag and drop current image into that search
3. Profit!

Here are the results of google searching the image you wanted.

[–]sheepshizzle 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks! Good to know.

[–]pureskill 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No lie! That's awesome. Thanks!

[–]kuvter 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're welcome, glad to help.

[–]heyachaiyya 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Flawless Victory

[–]Netzaj 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And still we need to build really complex machines to see the universe in all his forms. I prefer the John Cavil quote:

I don’t want to be human! I want to see gamma rays, I want to hear X-rays, and I want to smell dark matter. Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can’t even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language. But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws and feel the solar wind of a supernova flowing over me. I’m a machine and I could know much more, I could experience so much more, but I’m trapped in this absurd body! And why? Because my five creators thought that God wanted it that way.

[–]BiggestBigTuna 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

what does the quote mean when it finishes with "and all you are is a thought?"

[–]jeroenemans 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

thoughts don't even consist of atoms afawk.

[–]tavernkeeper 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally, there's no discernible difference."

-Dr. Manhattan

Where, then, do you reside if not in the atoms that compose your body?

[–]heyachaiyya 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well is that true or is that just a line in a movie.

[–]JoeDBean 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's cool, and all, but I really want to see that astronaut surf...

[–]ciscomd 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This has been said before in much more elegant ways.

[–]TheEllimist 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos we've begun, at last, to wonder about our origins. Star stuff, contemplating the stars organized collections of 10 billion-billion-billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet Earth and perhaps, throughout the cosmos.

-Carl Sagan

[–]tavernkeeper 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

True, but that could be said of almost anything.

[–]MrMakeveli 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I enjoy the sentiment, but would probably take out "And all you are is a thought" and the anonymous attribution. We're not just a thought: we are a machine that developed in such a way to react to its surroundings. Saying we are just a thought is kind of gimicky. And adding "anonymous" to try to boost its cred might have the opposite effect. Just MHO of course. Thanks for sharing regardless.

[–]thissiteisalright[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think being anonymous would lose credibility. Anyone with 5 minutes and an online search engine can find all of those facts to be true. Also, in theory, how can you prove you are anything besides a thought? All of your sensory input is comprehended and understood through cognition. To assert that you know anything else as a certainty can be refuted in some way. I suggest reading the works by Rene Descartes. Ever hear of the quote "I think, thefore I am"? It pretty much sums up his philosophy on the matter.

[–]MrMakeveli 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Losing the anonymity attribution was for the purposes of avoiding being tacky, not credibility. And I don't really need a philosophy 101 I think therefore I am speech. I've taken many classes on epistemology, I'm well aware of the limitations of our senses. Also, you clearly haven't read much Descartes. Even though that is the conclusion he comes to, he still believed that we could trust our senses for the most part, you just could never completely rely on them. Maybe try delving a bit deeper than reading philosophy quotes if you're going to try to represent their views.

[–]thissiteisalright[S] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sir, I am going to prescribe you a long-term supply of 500mg ChillPill. Hopefully this will prevent any sporatic nerdraging in the future. Insert rectally twice a day.

[–]jeroenemans 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

you might not want to strike up such a tone with 2pac, reacting to your post as 39 quintillion loose atoms somewhere in the universe

[–]Carver_Descartes 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How is this anonymous?

[–]thissiteisalright[S] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Because the second this post dies and gets lost in reddit forever, nobody will know who wrote it. And even if someone sees this post, all they will know is my reddit username...

[–]Cronoadvan 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

http://i.imgur.com/xeRgq.jpg

[–]jeroenemans 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

then it is just not anonymous by definition...

[–]H4L9000 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the, "we are the universe observing itself" idea came from Alan Watts. Don't have a quote, but I remember hearing that in some of his Zen lectures.

[–]ThislsWholAm 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

All you are is a thought

That's actually a lot though, I think, or at least pretty special.

[–]vegetarianBLTG 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the whole speed of light thing being very very fast, the atoms in our eyes (composed of star dust, yes) would not be seeing the light from themselves.

It's still cool how we're all made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, but I'm not made of a star who is looking at itself.

edit: Wow. Downvotes for misreading/misinterpreting a quote? Sweet.

[–]bushel 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wellllll.....I ain't no physicist or nuthin, but the way I heard it was....

A photon meets an atom and is absorbed, causing a change in the electron orbitals which becomes a change in chemical properties, which builds to a bio-chemical change which triggers a nerve synapse, which propagates up the optic nerve to the brain and in mixed with all the other signals to be interpreted by the brain as what we see.

And if, instead, the photon causes an electron to jump orbital levels but then falls right back, the atom will re-emit the photon. If this happens between two atoms, perhaps one could argue it's "seeing" it's own reflection?

Also, metaphor.

[–]aburns9 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The image isn't saying that the atoms in our eyes are receiving light from the stars they were forged in. It says that they are receiving light from a similar process (ie, fusion in the core of a star). All those inanimate atoms coming together to form life and giving rise to a being with cognitive abilities and consciousness allows those atoms to, in a sense, study themselves. As Carl Sagan put it, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

[–]HumerousMoniker 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But we are seeing the light from the children of the stars we were formed in. As I understand it, the order of events is roughly:

  1. Big bang
  2. Hydrogen clumps together a little bit, gravity pulls it all together into a star.
  3. fusion of hydrogen in star makes lighter elements, carbon, oxygen, etc
  4. Star goes supernova
  5. Star recondenses
  6. More fusion, heavier elements and metals formed
  7. Supernova again
  8. Elements condense, sun is born.
  9. Earth coalesces
  10. Evolution and what not brings about all sorts of animals, including humans.

[–]Kman1121 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think science can be just as poetic as religion sometimes.

[–]hotpants69 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Word. Respect in anonymous

[–]Javelineer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How could more atoms find their way into our eyes then the rest of the galaxy? Since our eyes are currently in the galaxy, how could you say that we have more atoms in us then the very galaxy we're in?

[–]gredders 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It means there are more atoms in your eyes than there are stars in the milky way.

[–]Stratigon13 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am so stoned!