• 1 Post
  • 157 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 25th, 2024

help-circle

  • To actually answer your question: yes and no. If Europe is a continent, then India definitely is. Both are only separated from the rest of Eurasia by a collision boundary, and Europe’s collision boundary isn’t even active anymore, IIRC.

    Realistically, if you’re counting tectonic separation, then the afar triangle is its own continent, as there’s an active divergent triple boundary splitting it off from the rest of Africa. The coast of California is a different continent than the rest of north america, because it’s split by a transform boundary due to the subducting remnants of the Juan De Fuca plate. New Zealand has been accepted to be its own continent for quite some time, since there’s a gigantic slab of continental crust underwater to NZ’s Northwest. Even still, the southeastern portion would be counted as separate, because the transform boundary which has created the South Island Alps splits the south island. Madagascar is its own continental crust, as is Greenland.

    Really, if you want to understand the geological boundaries and origins among the areas of the world, I’d recommend considering all of the following five types of data:

    1. Cratons (the really old chunks of continental crust that have just been floating and moving around, making up the continental cores, for the last 3.5+ billion years
    2. Active Tectonic Boundaries (really useful for understanding why there are mountains, trenches, volcanoes and earthquakes where we observe them)
    3. what you can see on a map, like rivers, mountains, isthmuses, and continental shelves (the only thing that our current definition of “continent” actually cares about)
    4. anomalous hotspot volcanism (currently hypothesised to be caused by mantle plumes)
    5. historical terranes (such as avalonia)

    If you’re really interested in the tectonic boundaries of earth, check out the Concord Consortium’s “Seismic Explorer” online tool. Super fun.

    So, TL;DR: the idea of a continent is bullshit, and purely cultural, just like our definition of a planet (see minute physics’ videos explaining why the moon should be a planet, and the IAU are bad at definitions)






  • I’m personally far more concerned that the universe is a simulation stuffed in the closet of some higher-dimensional flunkie, and our universe is nothing more than a practice piece. That the answer to “why” could be so mundane as to make all effort in our universe entirely meaningless. It’s one thing to say that the universe as we know it will end in heat death, or some false vacuum decay event, and that all effort is therefore meaningless. It’s very different, on an emotional level, to consider the possibility that the universe is a mistake, some Petri dish left in the incubator too long and overgrown with contaminating flora. Even more unsettling, then, that such a possibility is fundamentally unknowable from within the universe.


  • The universe is a simulation, and not only is it impossible to disprove (non-falsifiable), but it would imply that you could be the only thinking consciousness here (Cartesian Solipsism)

    Consider:

    1. the universe has rendering rules, treating objects differently when they are observed, to the point where objects do not have set properties when unobserved (Bell Inequality)
    2. this holds for even arbitrarily large objects, as scientists have been able to demonstrate molecules containing thousands of atoms demonstrating wave-particle duality
    3. The Universe has a frame rate (Planck time)
    4. the Universe has a resolution (Planck length)
    5. The most basic level of the universe is discrete (energy quanta)

    While I choose not to go for the solipsism, I am becoming increasingly persuaded of the simulation theory’s likelihood.









  • Except, what everyone seems to be ignoring is that those buildings literally aren’t filled with the evil dudes. I was born in DC. Those buildings are almost entirely empty, and there are always multiple orders of magnitude more tourists in and around them than there are potentates. Most of the most powerful people in the country don’t even live in DC most of the time, because they’re rich enough to just fly in whenever they need to, or drive in from nearby states, where they have massive mansions. I’ve spoken my peace in a different reply which you are welcome to read, but torching DC is an inane idea, tantamount to screaming and breaking a plate so you can feel like you’re helping the situation.


  • As I said to a different response: when demolishing buildings, we use high explosives, not gasoline. I was born in DC. The buildings didn’t do anything wrong, nor did the people who live near those buildings. Very few of the traitors to the nation even live in the capital most of the time. Burning a city to the ground is never an acceptable solution to any problem; It wasnt appropriate in WWII for Dresden, London, or Hiroshima, it wasn’t in the war of 1812 for D.C., and it isn’t now. Large-scale retaliation will only cause collateral damage and put up a smokescreen. It would be nothing more than senseless violence amounting to stomping your feet on the ground. Any action which has a hope of success in bringing justice must be done in an orderly and methodical manner, I don’t go in for all the modern second amendment crap, and am a conscientious objector, because the one part of that amendment which is most important is this: a well-regulated militia is necessary to protect the rights of the people. The declaration of independence makes it clear that we have a right and a duty to throw off this government, which is openly seeking to reduce us under absolute despotism, but that doesn’t mean just burning some uninhabited buildings with god knows how much collateral damage is a good plan. It would be nothing but theatre with an extreme innocent death toll.