Asklemmy

43945 readers

818 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

357

What are some commonly known facts that are too bizarre for you to believe to be true? (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 year ago by zirzedolta@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

338 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For me it is the fact that our blood contains iron. I earlier used to believe the word stood for some 'organic element' since I couldn't accept we had metal flowing through our supposed carbon-based bodies, till I realized that is where the taste and smell of blood comes from.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] zirzedolta@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

What's even more fascinating is that most of the stars we see in the sky are afterimages of primitive stars that died out long ago yet they shine as bright as the stars alive today

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That doesn't seem right. The galaxy is only 100,000 light years across (give or take) and the life span of stars is measured in billions of years.

Most of the stars we see are in our galaxy, so at most, we are seeing them as they were 100,000 years ago, which means that the vast majority of them will still be around, and looking much the same as they did 100,000 years ago.

[–] zirzedolta@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I seem to have made a mistake then. Thank you for correcting it.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago

Thinking about it further, if we're talking about stars that we can see with telescopes, Hubble, James Webb etc, then you're on the money. Stars in remote galaxies far outnumber the ones in our galaxy and show us glimpses of the early stages of the universe. And many of those stars are long gone

[–] LostGuide@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not too sure where you got that number from. From what I can find, the radius of the observable universe is estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years.

Edit: I see now that you are talking Galaxy. That's different.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

The original comment was about stars we can see in the sky, so I was assuming naked eye