Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#456 - commandurrazor **User deleted account**
+21
has deleted their comment [-]
#448 - anon
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
Yeah the first one isn't true... It's a relativity thing. The formula actually changes to keep the fundamental laws of physics happy so that mass (which is intrinsic) stays constant. For this you need the equation E=(gamma)*m*c^2
#447 - beerterror
Reply +3
(01/10/2013) [-]
MFW the last one. What disorder do they mean?
#505 to #447 - carnagejc
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
Simple way of understanding entropy is to picture knocking over a bookshelf of organised books.

There is a tiny chance that they may retain order and fall neatly in place, but chances are they will fall in a big mess.

Things naturally become more chaotic over time.
#455 to #447 - anormalbrony
Reply +2
(01/10/2013) [-]
just the general chaotic form of matter and energy. that one is supposed to be entropy if im correct, it is the measure of chaos
#464 to #455 - beerterror
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
fair enough. i just feared that it's some para-sociological ********!
#445 - anon
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
The first one is so wrong...
The faster you move, the more energy you have.
Even if it were to be: m=E/c^2, it means you have a smaller mass if dividing by an increasing variable.
#463 to #445 - didactus ONLINE
Reply +1
(01/10/2013) [-]
You know you can move around in the Equation and if you divide both sides of E=mc^2 by c^2 you will get E/c^2=m so it's true what says in the content.
You know you can move around in the Equation and if you divide both sides of E=mc^2 by c^2 you will get E/c^2=m so it's true what says in the content.
#465 to #463 - alhemicar
Reply +1
(01/10/2013) [-]
c is the speed of light in vacuum and it is constant
#471 to #465 - didactus ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
If energy increases i.e. velocity increases and E/c^2=m and kinetic energy=mv^2/2 then mass must increase by higher velocities.
#478 to #471 - gillypie
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
The equation E=mc^2 is only used when velocity is 0 (object at rest). The ful equation is E=mc/Sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)). Your logic works with the info provided in the content but not in physics.
#476 to #471 - alhemicar
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
damn didn't take that in count, I barely understand these formulas, we use entirely different letters
#479 to #476 - didactus ONLINE
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
It's understandable, I study this **** quite hard right now so that's why you got the snarky reply. And considering I actually use these exact letters I should know it or I would be a failure of a student.
It's understandable, I study this **** quite hard right now so that's why you got the snarky reply. And considering I actually use these exact letters I should know it or I would be a failure of a student.
#449 to #445 - anon
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
c cannot increase. It stands for the speed of light...
#441 - alhemicar
Reply -4
(01/10/2013) [-]
Yeah good thing our site is called ScienceJunk! Oh, wait....
#451 to #441 - anon
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
Its not called faggotscomplainingwhentherearemuchworsepostsonthefrontpageeverydayjunk either.
#453 to #451 - alhemicar
Reply -4
(01/10/2013) [-]
yeah and I will never see the day it will be named **************************
#460 to #453 - anon
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
The **** that anon "bitched" about was you bitching/ making a bad joke, so yeah, **** you.
#461 to #460 - alhemicar
Reply -4
(01/10/2013) [-]
1st thing, log the **** in
2nd, what I complained you little cunt was justified, what does this have to do with funny? All you do is being a bitch
#473 to #461 - anon
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
How was that justified? It was a mediocre unfunny post like most of funnyjunk, do you comment under every post that is not funny? So what if it is science, at least it is not a ****** le ragecomic or a faggot trying to get internet fame.
And I do not have an account.
Inb4 "hurr durr gtfo anon you so fag lewl"
#581 to #473 - alhemicar
Reply -2
(01/11/2013) [-]
a mediocre unfunny post on funnyjunk? Well, too bad, you prob won't see this, that's what you get for hiding behind anon like a pussy.
did this post have anything that atleast was AIMED to be funny? No. It's intention wasn't anything near being funny. Yes, there are unfunny posts on frontpage, but that depends on what you consider funny. Yet NO ONE considers can possibly find physical formuals funny, if someone finds them funny he probably has psychological problems.
And adding an inb4 hurr durr and at the end of your comment can make your comment even more stupid than it already is.
#439 - aleksisti
Reply +1
(01/10/2013) [-]
The third from the top: "Moving through space faster makes you travel slower through time". That is basically: moving fast through space with a car that goes like 140mph (200kph) makes u travel slower through time. Say, you are going to travel from point A to B at 140mph and between the points there's a man with a watch. When you are next to him at 140mph, u should be, according to the formula, in the past.

Some scientist proved this on a tv-show of National Geographic.
#438 - acemrhawk
Reply +17
(01/10/2013) [-]
MFW
#436 - TrollBringer
Reply +28
(01/10/2013) [-]
CAN YOUR SCIENCE EXPLAIN THIS
#482 to #436 - sdeco
Reply +6
(01/10/2013) [-]
#566 to #482 - iamtheblackgoat
Reply +1
(01/10/2013) [-]
This image has expired
#444 to #436 - fuckinniggers
Reply +12
(01/10/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#435 - jonasmsv
Reply +1
(01/10/2013) [-]
If I would need to break up with someone in a long distance relationship, I'd be smug as **** while I posted #2 on her facebook-wall(Or something)
#432 - anon
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
Uh no, it means: Random assortment of numbers, lines and the alphabet
#426 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply -3
(01/10/2013) [-]
First one is: Matter is energy
#440 to #426 - GritaGris
Reply +2
(01/10/2013) [-]
No, it means there is a direct relation between energy and matter. This does not mean they are the same thing.
#474 to #440 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply -1
(01/10/2013) [-]
But they are
#424 - dafogman
Reply +22
(01/10/2013) [-]
#422 - BobbyMcFerrin
Reply +6
(01/10/2013) [-]
Jesus christ OP the second from the bottom was proven wrong because it violates all of the physical conservation laws.

Stephen Hawking himself, the main proponent of the idea of information loss in a black hole, conceded in 2004 that he was wrong. Instead, he admitted that information is contained within the black hole for 'eons' until it is finally released in some mangled, unrecognizable form.

If you're going to put something in ***************, make sure it's correct please.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2004/07/21/hawking040721.html
#420 - swordyou
Reply +2
(01/10/2013) [-]
How did this make frontpage?
#450 to #420 - hypex
Reply +2
(01/10/2013) [-]
because all the dumb twats on this site like to think they're smart by liking science
#419 - lamarisagoodname
Reply -2
(01/10/2013) [-]
Not to put a damper on how much you enjoy science but many of these formulas are purely theoretical, believing them to be true is the same as someone saying 2+2=god's particular mood today, we know very little about spacetime, black holes, electromagnetics and entropy. Only thing we can apply is the universal gravitation equation which isn't all that exciting. Seek knowledge as far and wide as you can but don't expect it to give you all the answers.
#443 to #419 - GritaGris
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
Apart from the second from the bottom, every single one of these is, for all intensive purposes, a FACT. I think you misunderstand the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context.
#442 to #419 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
mention "god" on science post, red thumbs

I should have seen this coming
#418 - anon
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
information is never lost ....
"In July 2004, Stephen Hawking published a paper presenting a theory that quantum perturbations of the event horizon could allow information to escape from a black hole, which would resolve the information paradox" - from wikipedia on Black Hole information paradox.
Now it is only a theory but well accepted one.
#415 - tanabata
Reply +6
(01/10/2013) [-]
This image has expired
MFW reading this post
#414 - sorryminesbigger
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
If OPEN wasn't a fagot he would know Hawking's back hole equation was shown to be not correct. OPEN=FAG
#567 to #414 - iamtheblackgoat
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
This image has expired
"OPEN"?
#586 to #567 - sorryminesbigger
Reply 0
(01/12/2013) [-]
Sorry, it was my tablet's autocorrect
#417 to #414 - workinprogress
Reply +2
(01/10/2013) [-]
"back hole"?
#412 - anon
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
The first one isnt true
#410 - anon
Reply 0
(01/10/2013) [-]
da **** is this general knowledge ****? stupid americans