explosions
explosions
36 comments
-
Can't see the other side- if it's a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional object in can still be accurate because of perspective.
-
My thoughts precisely, they are just assumimg this is just a 2D circle, when in reality it's more likely to be a 3D sphere. They aren't accounting for the area of a 3D object, we don't even know the thickness of the "slices" that are flying.
-
Sphere vs circle
-
Generally explosions do in fact involve an object suddenly increasing in volume (with corresponding decrease in density)
Said objects typically become partially gaseous, but if the rest of it is porous then it's not unusual at all for that to increase in volume also.
Easy example: popcorn.
-
Neither does popcorn.
-
Why assume it started off as a sphere? Everything makes sense if it started off as an irregular blob.
-
It might well have started our as a sphere. But you also need to rotate pieces in the third dimension of you want to pay the sphere back together.
-
-
Sphere looks like circle. Chop sphere in half, lay flat, looks like two circles. BOOM, Banach-Tarski!
-
I mean, its representing a 3 dimensional object, so a lot of those "areas" are actually volumes which can stack "behind" one another
-
Only if you assume the object was round. I mean it was almost certainly meant to be round, but it could be right ¯(ツ)_/¯
-
If it was round it wouldn't have blown up!
-
Right? Round isn't what I'd think to call "a funny shape." Maybe some folks do though.
-
-
I presume it was a round-bottom flask as explosions are usually the fault of chemists.
-
-
Do you people hate the SAUCE? What sort of savagery is this?
Here: https://ottawa.place/@MichaelPorter/113566528132723718
-
Blame Banach and Tarski
-
Clearly the artist believes in the axiom of choice
-
-
Sure it does, it's just not round.
-
It just means the explosion had so much energy some of it was converted to mass. As you cannot determine what kind of explosion that is, this explanation cannot be disproven in general terms.
-
Near💀
-
That symbol must be very triggering for Superman
-
On a similar note, I don't know which doofus created the cancerogenic warning symbol. It's so stupid that I didn't understand it when I first saw it and thought it meant that it irritates breathing or something. Truly stupid.
-
Could you link to the symbol? It's not on the Wikipedia list of hazard symbols
It's the middle bottom one here, isn't it
-
Yes, it's the middle bottom one. Looks like a guy's chest is exploding for some reason. 🙃
-
-
-
Assumed it's a shitpost. But it isn't!! This is serious.
-
Popcorn.
-
Conservation of area is not a law of nature.
-
I wonder who's the artist behind the symbol
-
Looks almost like a human heart.
36 comments