Could be a square in a two dimensional space with different rules.

CT bread scan.

Panel 3 was pulled off so well, I actually felt a bit warm and fuzzy before panel 4.

Terry Pratchett is pretty much the Tolkien of flat earth literature.

Edit: give me 100 upvotes and that will satisfy me more than 2k on Reddit.

Edit 2: AWESOME!

This is something I show students in physics class because they’re just morbid at high school age and I’m pretty morbid myself.

But no, I do black it out on the slideshow and give the antsy a chance to vacate the classroom.

Thanks for the ENHANCE 👍

I reckon you’re thinking of the neutrino which rarely interacts with matter.

So how about a bottle of dry ice?

Profit 😕

I agree CCTV is a bit invasive…depends on the tenants! If I were a landlord with some tenants of concern, I’d have washing machines facing away from CCTV so no laundry is on camera!

‘Free laundry machines’ could essentially be included in the rent, provided laundry machines are used properly and intentional damage paid for. I would be okay with CCTV being employed to ensure this. An extra $10 for water usage, and everyone uses their own detergent.

But does that make sense for capitalists?

I have a toddler and I hope to dear god there’s no lead about. She will lick anything.

Given the choice between licking mercury and licking lead, 96% of respondents answered with lead.

Apologies for the random percentage and quoting fictional data.

Oh got it, thank you!

From my elementary knowledge of chemistry:

I had to go looking for Mercury and Lead and sure enough they look about right.

Column 1 reacts with water so you bet that’ll hurt. Hydrogen needs a boost to start reacting with oxygen so no naked flame is recommended.

Anything in column 7 are desperate to rip electrons away from molecules so yes, permanent damage to your tongue and mouth.

Uranium is alright if you lick it once. A guy ate uranium cake once on TV.

The ‘Please reconsider’ lot seem to be a good way to die a horrible death by radiation.

Tc I believe is technetium which is radioactive and emits gamma rays, perhaps not soluable so stays in your body and you become gamma-man.

I thought you might be correcting me so I checked up the definition. Both are okay?

‘Composed of’ is a better sounding phrasing though.

Thanks, I believe I was being lazy to not want to deal with averaging the density of various rocks, but your suggestion about the density of soil is a good one.

Chemistry and Physics combined make very interesting ‘resonances’ in molecular behaviour. That’s as educated a guess I may make.

I don’t deny the star wars universe is getting a bit more of an update in the cinemas, especially post-Interstellar and whatnot, but space opera in the 80s was really intent on ignoring the stark reality of space for both constraints of filming and viewership. Goddamn fun though.

I know we’d all like some scientific actualisation of Star Wars but I mean:

• They made noise in space 'cause that’s fun.
• There was always gravity on pretty much any ship.
• I don’t really recall any spacewalks so we don’t see any instance of ‘no gravity’
• There’s hyperspace since lightyears is a bit of a long time.
• Stormtroopers seem very scientifically and inefficiently accurate

At this point I think the Star Wars movies (the oldies) pretty much ignored a fair bit of the science.

But if it was a death star literally put there in our universe, I think there would be a bit of structural considerations for gravity, but not huge due to it being quite hollow. Gravity is pretty strong when the sphere is entirely comprised of dense rock and no air. A mostly hollow sphere of air where air is something close to 1/1000 that of rock (yes, used the density of water lol) is not going to get much of a rollicking from gravity.

Edit: an interesting ‘expose’ on the moon landings claim one thing: why were the photos so relatively boring? Because they were real and that’s all they could get for all the limited resources they had at the time.

One article suggests that:

Although the leading speculation for this relationship implicates stressors that are unique to these relationships, the current study suggested that this phenomenon is mostly due to characteristics of individuals with whom those in interracial relationships are more likely to be coupled.

So the conclusion of the research suggests it’s not a racial characteristic. It’s much more nuanced.

Link to abstract