this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
1207 points (97.3% liked)

Science Memes

20648 readers
1607 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Meta Post Tags



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


If you are here asking: "Is this a science meme?"

Probably, yes. We use the Dawkins definition of meme: a replicating idea, not just an image macro with a fact on it. A good post here doesn't need to teach you something. It needs to make you ask something: who, what, where, when, and especially why or how.

Science isn't a filing cabinet of facts, it's a conversation. For example, a photo of an eel or other localized wildlife counts because most people never see one, and wonder is the first step of inquiry. A car meme counts if it makes you curious about what's under the bonnet. If you want to talk about something you noticed in the world, chances are someone else wants to talk about it too.

We moderate for vibe, not category. Pruning is light, especially where a post creates interesting discussion. Experimenting is encouraged.

See the pinned paper on Shitposting as Public Pedagogy if you want the academic case for why this works.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
1207
US education (lemmy.ml)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by Zerush@lemmy.ml to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 73 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

When was this written?

Given it has a (good quality) color photo attached to it, it was definitely published when we already understood the theory of electricity really well, so it doesn't get a pass.

We don’t know what any of the fundamental forces (electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) really are

I'd argue that for fundamental forces, "what they are" and "what they do" is the same, by definition.

And in any case, mains supply in your home is not just electromagnetic waves vibing around, it's electrons engineered to move through wires in very specific ways, transferring power from a moving magnet or (increasingly) a photon falling on a semiconductor junction, to move another magnet, heat up some metal, or (increasingly) bounce around some electrons between some semiconductor junctions and then emit photons from other semiconductors junctions.

Finally, most of the text is bullshit even if you don't think we know what fundamental forces "are":

No one has ever felt it

You can easily feel electric discharge. Just rub your hair on some wool.

No one has ever heard it

Just be around a thunderstorm. Thunder is the sound of an electric discharge.

We cannot even say where electricity comes from

You can see where the energy that moved the electrons in your wires came from: https://app.electricitymaps.com/

It was written by a complete and utter buffoon, and it can't be redeemed with any amount of handwaving or philosophizing over what it means to "know" or what things "are". Either that or it's satire (which might well be the case).

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Given it has a (good quality) color photo attached to it, it was definitely published when we already understood the theory of electricity really well, so it doesn't get a pass.

It's even worse than that. Electric lighting predates the photo camera by several decades

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Faraday's law and Lenz's law were discovered in the 1830s

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

The first arclamp is from the 1800-1810s. They weren't exactly selling them in stores by then, but they had been invented.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'd argue we didn't fully understand the theory of electricity until we understood the atomic structures of metals and semiconductors, and that was properly developed in the early 20th century.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

You could place "understanding" at many points in history, and several in the future:

Building an arclamp powered by a portable generator is damned impressive.

Sending a message via electromagnetic waves shows very impressive understanding of electricity too.

Having a small electromagnetic particle accelerator in your house to show moving pictures is pretty damned amazing.

Using electricity and basically sand to do maths is insanely impressive.

On the other hand, you might argue we don't understand electricity because we don't have a unified field theory.

[–] Thwompthwomp@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

I think it might be real:

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

I totally agree that the rest of it is nonsense, I was just commenting on the what it is/what it does bit