you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 130 points 4 months ago (39 children)

I doubt very many science teachers would have said that

  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    I've had multiple teachers, including at least one science teacher, say nature doesn't do straight lines.

    It was just as baffling then as it is now. Especially since I've always had a fascination with pyrite.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Doesn't quartz also do straight lines pretty much always?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Based on the two large mostly clear crystals from different parts of the world I'm (figuratively) holding, "yes" would be my answer. Although most quartz I come across in the wild is the cloudy chunky kind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Every crystal or crystal like structure does straight lines, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Quartz has an octagonal crystal structure, which is the only thing distinguishing it from regular glass. Both are silicon dioxide.

    If you melt quartz and let it cool, it will just be regular glass with an amorphous crystal structure. Conversely, if you melt glass and mix in some ground quartz, it will crystalize around the pattern and become quartz.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago*

    My first year teaching, they hired a physical education teacher to teach physical science. About one month in, they also “emergency certified” a secretary so they could get our class sizes below the thirties.

    States like Oklahoma and Louisiana are working on taking away the requirements that teachers even have a bachelors degree.

    I knew a biology teacher who was a creationist and actively told students that the COVID vaccine was dangerous. And he of course got the Department Head job, because I was a queer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -22 points 4 months ago (24 children)

    It's actually true. Right angles are a theoretical construct, that don't occur in nature. There is always some degree of variance baked into reality that violate theoretical absolutes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    It's actually false. I know this because I passed physical chemistry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -24 points 4 months ago (16 children)

    So, when you measure a right angle in physical chemistry, you get exactly 90 deg with zero decimal points? That's amazing.

    And also impossible. There's always a variance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    You need to learn yourself some molecular geometry. An octahedral molecule forms a perfect right angle due to its bonds. Sulfur Hexafloride (SF6) is one of those molecules. So yes, nature makes perfect right angles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    I don't mean to contradict you because I'm on your side here, but do you mean a hexahedral molecule? Cubes have six faces. An octahedron looks like two pyramids placed face-to-face

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Oh, I see. The atoms are representing the vertices, of which the octahedron has 6. (Oddly enough, the hexahedron has 8 vertices...)

    That makes a lot more sense. For some reason I was thinking in terms of faces, but that wouldn't make much sense molecularly...

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -18 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Are we talking "in a lab", or "in nature". Because I may not have studied molecular geometry, but I know a lot about metallurgy. And "in nature", every compound contains impurities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago*

    "in a lab", or "in nature"

    This distinction is meaningless for the purpose of this conversation

    They said octahedral molecules, those are common enough that I think you find several kinds of them in mineral water.

    compound

    Compounds are not molecules

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    You are a special breed of pedantic. This is pedantic to the point of questioning if you have any actual intelligence or just a few smatterings of pedantic knowledge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    The other thing I was thinking is that a swinging object (vine, what have you) will, even for the briefest, infinitesimal moment, form a perfect 90 degree angle to the tree branch.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

    A quare is defined as having four right angles. By your definition of right angle, you've never drawn a square in your life.

    Stop being a pedant and admit that you learned something today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    I've never drawn a "perfect" square...and neither has anyone else. There will always be some deviation from a perfect 90 degree angle, except in theory. Even if that deviation is infinitesimally small, it still exists when an angle is measured accurately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    You are the one who brought up “perfect”. That’s not even the claim in the OP, so I’m not clear what point you even think you are making.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    That's what defines a right angle. When one line stands against another line, so that the angles on either side of the first line are equal, or "right" to each other. In mathematical terms those angles would have to both be exactly 90 degrees in order to be "equal". Even the slightest difference between them, and they are not considered "right" angles anymore.

    This is why the meme above says, "My science teacher: right angles don't exist in nature". Because no naturally occurring structures are exactly 90 degrees. Ever. There is always some tiny variance that breaks that theoretical requirement.

    The person I responded to said, "I doubt very many science teachers would have said that", but they do. At least at more advanced levels. It's a common teaching parable that opens the conversation about the inherent "fuzziness" of reality. Even the most accurate measurements will always have a certain amount of baked-in uncertainty.

    Reality itself is messy. There are no true right angles. No perfectly parallel lines. No truly flat surfaces. The best you can ever do is get ridiculously close.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    Bruh that's not how any of this works.

    First off, if there's always variance, then logically by random chance sometimes you must measure exactly 90°.

    Second of all, how many decimal points are you measuring too? 1? 2? 10^-23? The likelihood of measuring exactly 90° definitely goes down the more places you measure to, but A: precision is only useful up to a certain point, and B: it is never 0%.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    Sure when you set the goal post that far away you're right but by doing that you've made your argument so pedantic that it's just not worth arguing against. In practice at some point the variance is so insignificant and we can just say it's a right angle. If you want to maintain the position that it's not a perfect right angle by all means you're welcome to do that. I'd say, that piece of bismuth is close enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    I mean, at an atomic level, could a Pythagorean triple not make a right triangle?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    "In theory", if one of those angles equals exactly 90 deg. But "in reality", nothing will ever truly measure exactly 90 deg. Best you're going to get is 90.0000-something. Reality doesn't work in absolutes...only approximates. Some are more accurate than others, but none are perfect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    If a triangle oscillates from having an angle greater than 90 deg to less than 90 deg, there has to be a moment where it equaled exactly 90 per the hairy ball theorem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Oh but you see (you fool!) you used the word theorem, ergo, by your own admission, this only works in theory! Hoisted by your own petard! - Archangel1313, probably

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments