im a potato?. . Before you judge others or claim any absolute truth, consider that... you can see less than t% of the electromagnetic spectrum and hear less tha im a potato? Before you judge others or claim any absolute truth consider that can see less than t% of the electromagnetic spectrum and hear tha
Upload
Login or register

im a potato?

Before you judge others or claim
any absolute truth, consider that...
you can see less than t% of the electromagnetic
spectrum and hear less than 1% of the acoustic
spectrum. As you read this, you are traveling at 220
kilometres per second across the galaxy. 9084, of the
cells in your body carry their own microbial DNA
and are not "you". The atoms in your body are
99. 9999999999999999% empty space and none of
them are the ones you were born with, but they all
originated in the belly of a star. Human beings have
46 chromosomes, 2 less than the common potato.
The existence of the rainbow decends on the conical
photoreceptors in your eyes; to animals without cones,
the rainbow does not exist. So you don' t just look at a
rainbow, you create it. This is pretty amazing, especially
the you unmet
less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum.
...
+992
Views: 49335 Submitted: 07/06/2013
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (181)
[ 181 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
46 comments displayed.
#1 - JMF
Reply +160
(07/06/2013) [-]
10/10. Learned something new.
#34 - erethilful
Reply +131
(07/06/2013) [-]
So this is why people say people with Down a potato.
So this is why people say people with Down a potato.
#89 to #34 - problematique
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
Not really, people with down syndrome have more chromosomes, to be exact 47, and only in few occasions they don't lack any chromosome, but they have downs because part of the 21 chromsome 'broke' and stuck at another
#92 to #89 - liamkneeson
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#94 to #92 - problematique
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
no... lol we have 46 chromosomes, most people with down syndrome have 47, and i know what happens in misos, when an egg or a sperm have less than 23 chromosomes the infant that will be created will most likely die immediately, except in case of the turner syndrome
#155 to #34 - matheomaidana
Reply 0
(07/07/2013) [-]
didn't people with down have 47?
#45 to #34 - ghirahn
Reply +3
(07/06/2013) [-]
same realization.
#141 to #34 - mikoli
Reply +4
(07/07/2013) [-]
#82 to #34 - theprocrastibator
Reply +10
(07/06/2013) [-]
I don't know why, but I'm struggling to read your comment.
#125 to #82 - anon
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
I think he means he has been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
#167 to #125 - masdercheef
Reply 0
(07/07/2013) [-]
but if you had an apple with a straw n you poked the apple though wit it and a pebble hadnt dropped through itd stop straw inside the apple ebcause gravity cant apple
#14 - antigravitycake ONLINE
Reply +10
(07/06/2013) [-]
if only we can see rainbows how do we photograph them?
#103 to #14 - jouten
Reply -2
(07/06/2013) [-]
YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT
#15 to #14 - viridiandusk
Reply +64
(07/06/2013) [-]
That isn't how it works.
A camera copies what it sees into an image. We see only the colours that our cones can detect. there are still more colours in the photograph.
In Layman's terms.
#16 to #15 - antigravitycake ONLINE
Reply +3
(07/06/2013) [-]
i like you. have a thumb
#158 to #15 - herptyderpies
Reply 0
(07/07/2013) [-]
so if someone/something with no cones looked at a picture of a rainbow, it wouldnt be there...?
#180 to #158 - viridiandusk
Reply 0
(07/12/2013) [-]
The inside of an eyeball contains cells called rods and cones. Rods are more numerous and provide basic vision. Cones are used to detect colours. If you had no cones, you wouldn't be able to differentiate colours.
So your answer would be no. Without any cones, you would not be able to see a rainbow.
As is my basic understanding. I'm not a professor..
#30 - funnyrage
Reply +30
(07/06/2013) [-]
false, since my mother just vagina-vomited me behind my computer half a minute ago.
#55 to #30 - anon
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
wait, wut?
#159 to #30 - mrcocoabeans
Reply 0
(07/07/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#33 to #30 - Awesomenessniss
Reply +14
(07/06/2013) [-]
Actually the technical term is "front-pooping a little person."
#41 to #33 - listerthepessimist
Reply +12
(07/06/2013) [-]
i thought it was 'Pumping out a unit'
#170 to #33 - funnyrage
Reply 0
(07/07/2013) [-]
how should i know? im only 18...hours old.
#49 - theantidote
Reply +27
(07/06/2013) [-]
We don't create rainbows, the spectrum is already there once it is refracted, it is just that we are one of the few that are able to detect them, but it's not just us. Some birds for example will see even more colours in the rainbow than we do
#56 to #49 - volleys
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
Do what the post said and DON'T JUDGE OTHERS!
#77 to #49 - chiselbit
Reply +2
(07/06/2013) [-]
Mantis shrimp can see ALL the colors. Well they can see 12 color channels as opposed to the humans measly 3. They also have the ability to see linear and circular polarized light, sunglasses mode and 3d glasses mode respectively.
#117 to #77 - PieManTheGreat
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
Does that mean we can only see a quarter of all colours?
#124 to #117 - newforomador
Reply +2
(07/06/2013) [-]
We can only see a quarter of all the colors the mantis shrimp sees, not all the colors that exist. In the words of zefrank "Imagine a color you can't even imagine. Now do that 9 more times. That is how the mantis shrimp do."
#135 to #124 - PieManTheGreat
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
i can't imagine any more colours, and knowing they exist just makes me feel like I'm missing out on super rainbows.
#160 to #135 - bobbysilk
Reply 0
(07/07/2013) [-]
Did you know that magenta doesn't exist in the color spectrum. It is created because of the three color channels we have and how we only see red, green, and blue in different combinations.
Magenta is the combination of red and blue, which should average out to be green, but since we don't see any green we create the color magenta instead.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPPYGJjKVco
#154 to #117 - chiselbit
Reply 0
(07/07/2013) [-]
I wasn't being literal with the all part.
#131 to #117 - zaxzwim ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
holy **** and try and think up a new colour, just do it. you can't can you well holy **** there are more
#85 - Hidnight
Reply +21
(07/06/2013) [-]
so some people are more potato than others, go figure.
#38 - dawkz
Reply +16
(07/06/2013) [-]
And now I understand the phrase: "Someone was born with a couple of extra chromosomes..."
#19 - Millybays ONLINE
Reply +13
(07/06/2013) [-]
"Before you judge others or claim any absolute truth, consider that...
Later: The atoms in your body originated in the belly of a star.

I believe that theory as well, but isn't that incredibly hypocritical?
#44 to #19 - listerthepessimist
Reply -2
(07/06/2013) [-]
the opening line does need some work, i'm thinking;

If you dropped the scripture and picked up a textbook, you'll find that...
#22 to #19 - anon
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
it is... and not seeing that, scientfags become as disgusting as theofags.
#23 to #19 - mtandy
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
But we know that stars make elements...?
#24 to #23 - Millybays ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
We believe, its a theory, but its a very safe theory to side with (on par with evolution if not more believeable).
We don't KNOW.
You're almost as ignorant as the people who "know" that god exists.
#25 to #24 - mtandy
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
You're as ignorant, I do not presume to know things as knowledge is a more powerful word than most people believe.

But back to the stars. We know about nucleosynthesis, and the emission/absorption spectra of the elements, shouldn't those two by themselves make it more than just a theory?
#27 to #25 - Millybays ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
I kind of agree with you, but since we regard even gravity as a theory, scientifically speaking we need to consider this as a theory as well.
As you can tell it doesn't really make much sense otherwise, either both things are theories, or none of them are theories.
#28 to #27 - mtandy
Reply +1
(07/06/2013) [-]
Fair dos.
#52 to #19 - anon
Reply 0
(07/06/2013) [-]
They never said it was absolute truth. There is a big difference between knowing something and claiming it to be absolute. I know a bunch of stuff, and I'd state it as fact, but none of it is 2412312312322% certain.
#116 - yanik
Reply +12
(07/06/2013) [-]
**yanik rolled a random image posted in comment #26 at Go Away ** k
#128 to #116 - captchakid ONLINE
Reply +3
(07/06/2013) [-]
No more perfect roll was ever rolled.
#101 - cleverguy
Reply +12
(07/06/2013) [-]
what does this have to do with judging people?