• AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The linear pattern of the things plotted here weirds me out. Is there really such a clear life-time / size trend? Or were specific things chosen to be listed because they follow a roughly linear trend on the log-log plot?

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Somebody already posted the famous phrase in another thread:

      Everything is linear if plotted log-log with a fat magic marker

      • AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        You know, I was going to say that tetration or busy beaver numbers would counter that argument, but then again I guess they’d pretty much just look like vertical lines if the stroke weight of the marker was enough to cover the curved behavior around zero.

    • 🍉 DrRedOctopus 🐙🍉@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 hours ago

      he’s only plotting things that fit on the trend, log log is very forgiving. but if protins were in there yhey would be far to the left and all the way up higher than stars

    • Oinks@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      I can at least think of a few counterexamples:

      • Cats live longer than dogs.
      • Small stars live longer than large stars (by dramatic amounts).
      • Black holes larger than the ~10^10 kg mark shown here live a lot longer than any other object with the same mass. A hypothetical moon mass black hole can most likely outlive every single star in the universe.
      • Protons are smaller than anything in this chart yet are believed to decay over an extremely long time scale (>10^34 years).
      • Even smaller particles like electrons likely live forever.