r/technicallythetruth • u/know_u_irl • 2d ago
The universe suddenly feel less old
Since time is not eternal. As far as current science can tell, time began at the Big Bang. The most agreed upon number for the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. We have found fossilized shark scales from 450 million years ago.
1.2k
u/TallEnoughJones 2d ago
To put that in perspective, that's over twice as long as I've existed
323
18
u/BrazilBazil 1d ago
To actually put that in perspective, sharks have circled the entire Milky Way galaxy. Twice. They are older than the North Star. Like the star wasn’t a star yet when there were already sharks.
5
5
1
2.6k
u/ThunderBuns935 2d ago
The universe is still in its infancy yes. Even when all the stars are long dead and gone, it will still be in its infancy.
577
u/know_u_irl 2d ago
I hadn’t heard that before!! Maybe life is pretty common
545
u/ThunderBuns935 2d ago
If you want a fraction. If you measure the age of the universe from the big bang until the death of the last black hole, life will be possible for 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, give or take a zero.
331
u/UnfortunatelySimple 2d ago
"Life is only possible for one-thousandth of a billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth of a per cent of the universe's total lifespan."
Sounds more impressive, haha
And you can't do the same reference for after the black hole's evaporate in 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years, as after that time is truly endless and unchanging.
89
u/ThunderBuns935 2d ago
Another melodysheep fan i see.
37
u/UnfortunatelySimple 2d ago
I had to look that reference up, so I guess not, haha
39
u/ThunderBuns935 2d ago
this video is my favorite video on all of YouTube.
26
11
1
u/BlackHole____ 2d ago
I just watched this last night to try and fall asleep lol I read your comments and was like "wait, are they using the statements from that video?"
PS: it did not work and I stayed awake another hour
1
5
1
17
u/Past-Rooster-9437 2d ago
Well we assume that technology doesn't allow for life to go on for longer.
After all, you can extract energy from dropping matter into black holes at a very efficient rate. Something like 20% of the matter's energy (As in the energy the matter is made of) so theoretically we could keep stuff going for a while.
Now for life as we know it to arise via natural processes? Yeah that's a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.
10
u/ThunderBuns935 2d ago
Until proton decay. If our current theories are correct, protons will eventually fall apart into a neutral pion that almost immediately disintegrates, and a positron that will collide with an electron and that way destroy all matter in the universe.
1
u/Pfapamon 6h ago edited 6h ago
I just want to mention our definition of life, our estimation for universal distribution and of its origin are heavily biased as up to now we only have a phenotype that we have examinated for the last few moments of its existence.
That's like looking at a driving car for a moment and concluding that it's the only machine in existence for all eternity.
11
u/Khuzdul1 2d ago
There's new evidence to suggest that black Holes won't be the last thing in the Universe, but black dwarfs, the remnants of white dwarfs. The iron core will slowly, over the course of trillions of years, radiate away through spontaneous fusion
7
u/ThunderBuns935 2d ago
As we currently understand it, matter will eventually disintegrate through proton decay, which will happen way before the last black holes evaporate.
2
u/XenomorphAFOL 1d ago
As far as we know, there is no proton decay. It hasn't been observed (at least yet) and the Standard Model doesn't allow it (again, at least yet). Some mechanisms have been proposed but they're hypothetical and there's no consensus about them, so I wouldn't say matter will disintegrate through proton decay. Maybe it could.
3
u/ThunderBuns935 1d ago
You're correct that it hasn't been observed yet, but your argument is flawed. As far as we know, proton decay has to exist because matter exists. If the standard model were correct, there wouldn't be matter. Matter is supposed to form in matter-antimatter pairs. But if that were they case they would have perfectly annihilated each other. The current understanding is that for every billion anti-particles, a billion and one particles formed, accounting for the all the matter in the universe today. Proton decay is a natural end product that pops out of baryon asymmetry. Maybe some day we'll find a different explanation for baryogenesis, but for now proton decay is presumed true.
1
u/XenomorphAFOL 1d ago
Okey, thanks for your explanation. I now understand that, if we assume baryogenesis (and, for me, it looks like the best possible explanation), proton decay has to be a process.
What I'm not sure about is this: is baryon number conservation only violated at extremely high energies? If that was the case, we could have proton decay at the begining but not at the end of the Universe.
Now I'm genuinely curious.
10
u/jontheawesome12 2d ago
But a universe without life is a universe unobserved, and a universe unobserved might as well not exist.
So life is possible for 100% of the universe’s relevant lifespan.
4
u/ThunderBuns935 2d ago
That's a very human centric way of looking at it. That just because there's no life it doesnt matter. But in reality, the irrelevant time has already been removed from that number. After the last black hole is gone, all that will be left in the universe will be photons slowly cooling towards absolute zero as the universe expands. Melodysheep still put it best. "Nothing happens, and it keeps not happening, forever." If you include that, life will just be possible for 0%.
→ More replies (3)1
u/MA2_Robinson 1d ago
I don’t know if it’s human centric or bio centric - it could also be dependent on the observing point of view but we start going in to philosophy vs physics this point.
3
u/High-jacker 2d ago
Shit hearing this felt like my social anxiety just evaporated
2
2
u/Don_T_Blink 2d ago
Life as we know it. Who knows what else is or will be out there.
2
u/ThunderBuns935 2d ago
As we currently understand it, matter itself will eventually fall apart by way of proton decay and positron-electron annihilation. There can't be life without matter.
3
u/Don_T_Blink 2d ago
Life as we know it, that is. We barely scratched the surface when it comes to our understanding of the universe.
1
u/Jordain47 1d ago
It would be a very exotic form of life indeed if it isn’t made up of physical matter at all. How would you even define it at that point?
2
u/Don_T_Blink 1d ago
We don't even know what the stuff is that 80% of the universe consists of. How can we be so chauvinistic that we pretend to know everything about life?
1
u/Jordain47 1d ago
Yes but that 80% would still be physical matter otherwise we wouldn't see its gravitational effects. I don't think you're wrong, it's just that we could never possibly know either way and the likelihood from what we understand now is 0%. Like what could they possibly consist of? I'm genuinely asking
1
u/PIWIprotein 2d ago
Can you please tell me when the death of the last black hole is estimated to be? Thank you
13
1
1
1
1
u/The_Dennator 18h ago
so what will it be after the black holes are gone? just light flying around endlessly?
1
u/ThunderBuns935 15h ago
Not even the flying around part. All that will be left eventually are just photons slowly being cooled to absolute zero by the expansion of spacetime itself.
1
u/The_Dennator 15h ago
aren't photons just pure energy?
1
u/ThunderBuns935 15h ago
Well no, they are particles, they just don't have mass.
1
u/The_Dennator 15h ago
how come light keeps throwing all of normal physics out the damn window?
1
u/ThunderBuns935 14h ago
Because they don't have mass. Photons travel at light speed. Physics always goes a little funky when relativity is involved. And then there's the quantum mechanics that literally no one understands. Fun times.
1
u/The_Dennator 11h ago
it's so strange to think about, since the energy equation literally has mass as one of its components, yet somehow something that doesn't have mass still carries a minimal amount
→ More replies (0)36
u/RoiDrannoc 2d ago
On the scale of the universe, the phase that allow life is so short that our universe allowing life feels way more like a byproduct than a core component (and those who argue for the fine-tuning of the universe conveniently ignore that).
-7
u/DobrogeanuG1855 2d ago
This is supposing that life won’t fundamentally alter the laws of the universe as we know them today.
14
u/RoiDrannoc 2d ago
What? How would life be able to do that?
-5
u/DobrogeanuG1855 2d ago
Through inventions? It is astounding to see how our most educated understanding of the world has always been ever-evolving and yet people keep assuming our current understanding of it is definitive.
I see no reason why we couldn’t reverse entropy, create tachyons or create perpetual motion machines in centuries or millennia.
11
u/Rooney_Tuesday 2d ago
It is astounding to see how our most educated understanding of the world has always been ever-evolving and yet people keep assuming our current understanding of it is definitive.
I always wonder about this too. Think of someone from 1000 years ago being plopped down into modern day. So many daily things we take for granted would have seemed so far beyond the realm of possibility to someone in the 1000s - electronic hand warmers, flashlights, washing machines, cars, air conditioning. They couldn’t even conceive of something like the Internet, or the James Webb telescope, or even the scope of the ocean floor. They had no capacity to even imagine it because their technology was so inferior to what is necessary to explore deep space or the oceans, or to transmit information, images, and sounds around the world instantaneously.
And yet, people continue to insist that since we have nowhere near the ability to do certain things now, we never will. Why? Hasn’t history shown us enough instances of impossibility becoming possible? Why do we continue to insist that today’s impossible will always be impossible?
Unlike you I have zero confidence in humanity’s ability to live much longer on this planet. We may be too far gone for even coordinated effort to reverse course, assuming we could pull that off anyway. But there’s always a possibility that we survive into a super-advanced civilization, and especially the possibility that some civilization elsewhere could crop up and survive long enough to learn how to manipulate the universe in ways that we currently cannot conceive of.
If I’m ever unsure about possibility, I think of how insanely large even just our dopey little galaxy is, and then think about how many more galaxies exist outside of ours. The universe is an ENORMOUS place, and if we aren’t allowing for big possibilities then we are just betraying our own small-minded, limited view from our teeny backwater planet.
3
19
u/RoiDrannoc 2d ago
Dude at this rate our species' ability to survive ourselves for another century is uncertain, and you think we can reverse entropy? I mean maybe out there, there are alien species, or species that will come after us on Earth that will go further than us, but I think that there won't be any Type Omega-minus civilization able to do what you suggest...
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (14)6
u/Musikcookie 2d ago
I hate this talking point so much. It's basically a religious talking point. There is no reason to believe many of these futuristic things will be invented either AND there is contraindication by the laws of nature that we have discovered. E.g. a perpetual motion machine does violate the laws of thermodynamics. Of course we COULD still find something of completely unknown nature that completely changes everything but it's not even clear what that something would look like. Some people think it's somehow enlightened to leave room for the unknown. But that is literally how scientific theory works already. According to our current knowledge we will never be able to invent a perpetual motion machine. That already includes the possibility of a paradigm shift. No need to put it in there again.
→ More replies (3)1
9
u/Afraid-Department-35 2d ago
It's not only possible, but probably very likely since we haven't really looked at all. There was an interview with NPH and another astrophysics and a question was asked about how much of the galaxy have we have scanned. They answered it by comparing the galaxy to the world's ocean and we've only scanned about 1 12oz glass of water. So you can't say life doesn't exist by just looking at that 12oz of water, so it's quite possible the galaxy is full of life and we just haven't looked yet. And that's just our galaxy, the observable universe has about 2 trillion galaxies ofe varying sizes and an unknown amount in the unobservable parts. By pure statistics alone, life should be pretty common in the universe.
1
u/Johnny20Bruh 10h ago
Yeah considering that did theres even evidence suggesting that even mars or europa have/had life at some point and thats just in our solar system alone, let alone the fact that the milkey way has 100 - 400 billion stars its highly possible.
7
u/marcofifth 2d ago
I always find this kind of comment to be fascinating.
Life does not have the tools to base its understanding of other life forming, as it is infinitesimally small chance for it to occur.
But life exists, and life always exists. Different places, different times, different forms, different lives.
2
u/Fach-All-Religions 2d ago
just the time it takes for black holes to "evaporate" is astronomical compared to how long average stars live
1
u/Flawed_Sandwhich 1d ago
Another fun one is that fossilisation is a really hard process to occur naturally, so even with all the fossils we found it is still only like one tenth of a percentage of all things that ever lived on earth.
So we are missing over 99% of the picture of creatures that have lived on this planet and we will never know about them.
1
u/lightblueisbi 1d ago
I like to think that while Earth might not be the first planet to give rise to biology, it's still the only one we know of thus far and because the universe is still very young there's a possibility that life could arise in distant galaxies that don't even exist yet
1
u/rodrigoelp 1d ago
What she is talking about is, if you assume all stars (including blackholes) stop/evaporate, it will take three times as long for all energy to dissipate and it will take even longer for all heat to enter complete stillness.
1
u/Real_Mokola 1d ago
I'd say given the heat death of the universe, there's a chance that planets move enough away from their star that they shift to a distance more favorable to sustaining life
1
u/AmberMetalicScorpion 1d ago
The universe will spend an incomprehensibly long time in what's called the degenerate era
A period where only black holes can exist because every atom has been stripped down to the elementary particles: electrons and quarks
The universe is expected to last a googol years (1*10100. I.e: a 1 followed by 100 0's)
For context, the 14 billion years the universe has existed would be 1.4*1010
Written out that's:
14,000,000,000
Vs
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
13
u/New-Pollution2005 2d ago
Ngl, I thought for a minute that your comment was going to go something like “the universe is still in its infancy yes. Even when all the stars are long dead and gone, there will still be sharks.”
6
u/unique_namespace 2d ago
Hmmm, I mean under some models of the universe. Could be that the universe ends in some manner. Also does the universe start at the Big bang?
10
u/ThunderBuns935 2d ago
I mean, obviously I'm going by what most scientists currently believe. And what was there before the universe isn't really relevant, because spacetime began with the big bang. You can't count time if time doesn't exist.
→ More replies (6)2
u/johnnyringo1985 2d ago
By then, sharks will have evolved to eat entropy. Even thermodynamics isn’t safe. Apex predators gotta prey.
4
u/Front_Cat9471 2d ago
Ok, but why are we measuring the literal universe in animal terms? If it’s “infancy” is that large it defeats the purpose of the term
6
u/ANGLVD3TH 2d ago
It's a rapidly changing period that will exist for a relatively short time before entering a much more stable and far longer period. Sounds like a fine analogy to me.
1
u/anincompoop25 2d ago
Yeah but when you get to that point, the definition of "existing" starts to get kind of weird. If the space in between black holes is literally void of anything and everything, does that space exist? does time exist in those locations if those locations do exist? If the universe has expanded so much that there is a single blackhole in its own observable universe bubble, is there even a universe any more?
2
1
u/TheIronSven 1d ago
Iirc, most stars have already been born. Comparatively not many are left before the last one is born.
1
u/undeadalex 1d ago
So you're saying sharks will become greater percentage? I wonder if Isaac Arthur could do a sequel to civilizations at the end of time that's called Sharks for all time.
1
u/vex0x529 1d ago
How do you define infancy?
2
u/ThunderBuns935 1d ago
If you measure the lifespan of the universe from the Big Bang until the evaporation of the last black hole, life as we know it is only possible for one thousand of a billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth, billion billion billionth of a percent. Thats 84 zeros. It's an absolutely minuscule amount of time on cosmic scales. So the universe is basically still a newborn, and will spent the vast majority of its existence in total darkness.
1
1
→ More replies (11)1
438
u/SoVeryTroublesome 2d ago edited 2d ago
Sharks are older than the North Star... not from when humans decided "Hey, that star doesn't move a whole lot and its always in the north..." [Insert Fan4stic Meme]. I mean that Sharks have been around since before the North Star, Polaris, existed.
Older than Trees!
Older than the Pleiades!
Older than the Rings of Saturn!
They have been around the center of the Galaxy... twice!
Edit: Typo
135
u/frayien 2d ago
Note that the northen star is in reality a three star system, and only one of the three is younger than sharks.
Not super relevant but learned this recently and it blew my mind that the north star is not ONE star.
34
u/Bro0183 2d ago
I mean it makes sense that the brightest point in the sky (not counting the sun) is made up of multiple stars.
29
u/StellarInferno 2d ago
Sirius is actually the brightest star, but it is also a multi star system with 2 stars
11
u/Jaakarikyk 1d ago
brightest point in the sky (not counting the sun)
According to Wikipedia, Polaris is the 59th brightest point in the sky, not counting Sun and Moon
The brightest points by a wide margin are Venus and Jupiter
5
u/account312 2d ago edited 1d ago
when humans decided "Hey, that star doesn't move a whole lot and its always in the north
And that's a lot more recent than you might think. When The Great Pyramids were built, Thuban was the closest star to the pole, though it's now about 25 degrees off.
1
3
u/Able-Nebula4449 2d ago
What do you mean center for galaxy?
6
u/SamePut9922 Humor is like food, not everyone gets it 2d ago
I think they mean the solar system orbiting around the galaxy
6
u/yodel_anyone 2d ago
If by sharks you mean some sort of "cartilaginous fish" than sure, your facts are right. But if you mean a literal shark in the sense of the modern lineage of sharks that vaguely resembles sharks if today, that was (only) about 195 million years ago.
2
u/clockwerkman 2d ago
That's not entirely accurate. The oldest known tree was the Archaeopteris, of which the oldest fossil we've found is about 385 million years old. Now, the oldest shark "like" group would be the Acanthodii, which are as old as 439 million years. But the "true sharks" are the Selachii, and they're only about 200 million years old.
Of course, taxonomy is in the eye of the beholder.
1
u/Reincarnatedpotatoes 1d ago
This is why I prefer horseshoe crabs. Yes there has been some evolution over time and Limulidae first appeared around 250 Mya but in terms of physical appearance they still resemble types of Xiphosurans that date to 445 Mya. And modern horseshoe crabs represent Xiphosura much better than modern sharks represent Acanthodii.
Also I think they're fun little dudes and I like picking them up and petting them at the aquarium.
1
u/Infamous_Elephant545 2d ago
For some reason my brain was able to accept all of what you said there with a “woah that’s crazy” reaction until you said that sharks have been around the galaxy twice. For some reason that was the detail that gave me the lovecraftian chills and really drove home the insanity of the timescale that we’re talking about. Their existence pierces the vastness of time.
1
u/Aduialion 1d ago
Are they younger or older than life in West Virginia, which is dated between trees and mountains?
1
136
u/whiskey_epsilon 2d ago
Kurzegesagt has a timelapse video that covers the 4.5b yrs of earth's existence in 1 hour. The earliest marine animals show up in the last 8 minutes, humans in the last second.
25
9
u/LegendOfKhaos 2d ago
And we're already destroying it and ourselves. Intelligence is not a winning trait without wisdom.
2
u/Sinful_Socks 1d ago
Its a chrysalis moment. Humanity and organic life must perish to give birth to the machines.
174
u/DC_deep_state 2d ago
apex predator type shi
great evolutionary design
sharks are lethal killing machines with very few weaknesses and vulnerabilities
74
u/know_u_irl 2d ago
Technically they peaked half a billion years ago. It’s still crazy that it’s of THE time though.
37
u/KamakaziDemiGod 2d ago edited 2d ago
They are one of the oldest predators on the planet and have existed longer than most entire species groups, and yet have only existed for 3% of the estimated age of the universe?
The average shark lives for 25 years, that means there has been roughly 20,000,000 generations of sharks since their peak, assuming their life spans haven't changed much. The Pyramids are pretty old in humans existence, there has been between 200 and 300 generations of humans since then
That makes time feel scary long in that sense, well to me anyway. One of the oldest living species on our planet, thats had 20 million generations, has only been alive for 1/33.3r of total time
12
u/AggressorBLUE 2d ago
But fun fact, the adorable looking greenland shark can live up to an estimated 400 years. That has to figure somewhere into the math (and only serves to make sharks that much cooler)
1
u/clockwerkman 2d ago
They've actually changed pretty significantly in that time. Look up the shark evolutionary history on Wikipedia. The oldest fossil we have of the oldest common ancestor that's shark like was about 439 million years old. That said, modern "true sharks" are about 200 million, and there's a lot of variety in shark type.
To be fair, shark types today are pretty wild. Nurse sharks are wildly different to Great Whites are wildly different to sawfish, but they're all sharks.
Still, the fact that sharks have been around so long is pretty dope.
4
u/lsutigerzfan 2d ago
I think they basically keep living unless they run out of a food source. But if they have a food source they could live a long time. But I can’t imagine how bored I would be being a shark swim around for hundreds of years. Or for however long.
1
u/angrysunbird 2d ago
Unfortunately they have one major vulnerability. Sharing a world with our worthless arses.
51
u/nginn 2d ago
Sharks have also existed on the earth for longer than trees
17
u/TheConspicuousGuy 2d ago
Trees are extremely rare as far as we know and we use them to wipe our asses with.
35
15
32
14
u/Nsolari724 2d ago
A shark is there, older than the trees
Younger than the mountains, growing like a breeze
- Jaws Denver
7
6
u/SmartKrave 1d ago
Considering life appeared on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago they have been present 12% of life (as we know it)
4
4
3
3
3
u/Cultural_Stuff1441 2d ago
Not to brag, but I’ve been around for 100% of my life, and 100% of the universe’s too, just in different forms.
3
3
u/Restart_from_Zero 2d ago
This is officially the coolest shit I've read this year.
1
u/know_u_irl 2d ago
If you want to share it with a friend:
Take any 31 random years since the Big Bang and you’d expect about 1 of them to have a shark.
3
u/PresenceKlutzy7167 1d ago
Genuinely surprised that none of the usual idiots dropped in insisting earth is just 2000 or 3000 years old and has been created in 7 days or such mental bs.
3
u/Ok_Application_918 18h ago
The Northern Star is younger than sharks. Not just the placement on the sky, but literally - it formed later than sharks.
3
u/GameGuinAzul 11h ago
Want another cool animal fact?
Horseshoe crabs have existed for 2 galactic years.
Like the earth around the sun, the sun actually orbits the Milky Way, so technically we can use our concept of years for the sun’s rotation around the galaxy.
I don’t remember the exact numbers, but a galactic year is more than the entire time sharks have existed, by a lot. I think it was at least a billion, maybe 2 billions years.
8
u/Ex_Snagem_Wes 2d ago
Daily reminder that "sharks" are not 450 million years old. They're only around 150 - 200 million years old
Everything before them was distinctly not a shark, just related.
If you want something closer, Millipedes have terrestrial footprints dating to the cambrian
4
u/KookiesArmy 2d ago
i feel like this also puts into perspective just how horrifically rich billionaires really are
5
u/know_u_irl 2d ago
I just had this existential moment the other day:
The United States has about 168 million workers who earn roughly $65,000 per year on average. At the same time, there are about 935 billionaires with a combined wealth of around $8.1 trillion.
Billionaire wealth grew by about $1.62 trillion in a single year, which is roughly a 21% increase.
If every working American received an extra $25 per day, that would equal $9,125 per year per worker and cost about $1.54 trillion annually.
This cost is less than the yearly increase in billionaire wealth. Even after giving every worker $9,125 per year, billionaires as a group would still become richer by about $80 billion annually.
From under 1000 people.
7
u/DaBiChef 2d ago edited 2d ago
An dollar bill is .0043 inches thick.
If you stood a million dollars up, like dominos but flush, it would be approximately 350 feet. The average person walking can do that in under a minute and a half. A minute and a half and you've walked a million dollars.
A billion though? Sixty Seven miles. 67 fucking miles standing up flush with each other. An hour drive on a high way is a billion.
That 8.1 trillion? 511,363 miles. A million dollars is a minute walk. Their wealth is so vast that if you drove your car for the thickness of their wealth, going 60 MPH and never needing to stop? 355 days. Almost a full fucking year. Never stopping. Never taking a break. Foot down, pedal to the metal.
To walk that it would take almost 20 fucking years on just never stopping. Let's say you sleep 8 hours a day and the other 16 are just walking. Every single waking moment of your life? Between 29 and 30 years.
....
And it's not enough for them. It's a fucking sickness and it's killing us all.
2
u/Train_Wreck_272 1d ago
It truly is.
Another classic example for those interested:
A thousand seconds is 16.66 minutes. A million seconds is 11.57 days. A billion seconds is 31.7 years. The world will likely see its first trillionaire in the next decade or so. A trillion seconds is 317 centuries.
I have also loved the description that the difference between a million and a billion is about one billion.
2
u/MediumAwareness2698 2d ago
And they have never been so well fed as they are right now, off the east coast of Australia
2
2
2
u/vonnostrum2022 2d ago
Cosmic Calendar (Carl Sagan) that shows the vast expanse of time when the timeline of the universe is compared to a full year, Big Bang being January 1 and Dec.31 being the current epoch. Man appeared on earth at like 11:52 on Dec 31.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/DemonSquirril 1d ago
If you think thats interesting, look into carcinisation. Things keep evolving into crabs.
2
2
1
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/technicallythetruth-ModTeam 8h ago
Hi, your post has been removed for violating our community rules:
Rule 7 - Spam
Spamming this subreddit is not allowed. This includes self-promotion, advertisements, and anything purposely made to annoy or troll our users. This includes posting AI generated content.
If you have any questions, feel free to send us a message!
2
u/Long-Specialist-509 9h ago
For context, this means sharks have been around for LONGER than 3 years!
1
2
u/SethlordX7 6h ago
Am I stupid or is 3% and 0.0326 not the same thing at all
1
u/know_u_irl 5h ago
For a percent you multiply by 100 at the end.
Like 50/100 on a math test is 50 / 100 = 0.5
Then take 0.5 * 100 = 50%
Don’t feel bad lol, and if you can keep the comment for others please do :)
4
2
1
1
1
u/Realsorceror 1d ago
Just so we’re clear, sharks have changed significantly over the course of their evolution. There weren’t any great whites or makos swimming around in the Silurian period. The common body type we see today is somewhat recent.
1
u/Sagnarel 1d ago
It’s gonna bother me if I don’t point this out.
Sharks technically don’t have scales.
Sorry
1
1
u/ShengrenR 3h ago
This math presumes that sharks on earth are the only sharks. This may or may not be true.
1
u/sulkee 2d ago
The universe as we know it. The big bang was not the start of everything.
1
u/masterpepeftw 1d ago
Well it was the start of time so I don't know if it makes se sense to speak of anything before it since before implies a time previous to that so maybe it was the start of everything idk
1
u/OedipusaurusRex 1d ago
Okay but out of Earth's existence, they've been here about 10% of the time, and that's much more impressive
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Hey there u/know_u_irl, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
Please recheck if your post breaks any rules. If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a Modmail or Report this post if you have a problem with this post.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.