Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#407 - odio (01/10/2013) [-]
Fg =Gm1m2/r²
#404 - sosdani (01/10/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#406 to #403 - kusalranawaka (01/10/2013) [-]
yes it does
User avatar #408 to #406 - daniboyi (01/10/2013) [-]
Didn't you get the joke? He is close but the attraction is still not there.
#427 to #408 - kusalranawaka (01/10/2013) [-]
Oh god yeah im so stupid, haha sorry i just got it...
#399 - cfeuer (01/10/2013) [-]
The faster you go, time....slows.....down...
The faster you go, time....slows.....down...
#421 to #399 - paranoidzoid (01/10/2013) [-]
whatever that thing is, it continues to haunt my dreams
it that damn creepy voice
#396 - gertoja has deleted their comment [-]
#395 - gertoja has deleted their comment [-]
#382 - nengcaste **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#398 to #382 - barehype (01/10/2013) [-]
whyve you gotta be a dick all the time
User avatar #377 - lolzordz (01/10/2013) [-]
how the **** is there a formula for information being lost in black holes? lol

its like yep.. you will never see that stuff again, i figured it out at home..
#379 to #377 - megamuffins (01/10/2013) [-]
You can just state something without proof, so to prove that information in a black hole is lost forever you experiment with equations, coming up with specific definable notations if needed until you get the desired outcome no matter the substitution. #science
User avatar #386 to #379 - lolzordz (01/10/2013) [-]
i remember a few sources saying that black holes defy logic though? we're just basing our equations on things we already know, not knowing truly if they apply to such ******* as a black hole
#387 to #386 - megamuffins (01/10/2013) [-]
What is science except to explain ******* we dont know? Everything is defined by humans so we black holes defy logic, we change logic to accept black holes
User avatar #389 to #387 - lolzordz (01/10/2013) [-]
thus repeating the cycle religion went through
User avatar #401 to #389 - goldenglimmer (01/10/2013) [-]
I think you misunderstand. Science, in itself, is simply a tool we have created to describe the cosmos around us. It's not like our formulas are unequivocal truths that have always been and always will be, no, we create them to better understand the nature of the universe, that has always been and always will be... science is created by man.

Back in the time of Copernicus, when most still believed the Sun orbited the Earth, there were equations that made that theory work. Scholars from the Church were able to calculate the orbits of various bodies in the sky using Earth as origo. In other words, the Church had at the time scientific "evidence" that Copernicus' theories were wrong, but they turned out to be right, and the Church had to rewrite parts of its academia, even though it technically "worked".

We have to adapt to the laws of the universe. If we observe something, we can't just deny it because our "science" says it can't be. It's not like we're filling in blanks with random theories and ideas. They're based on empirical evidence and objective observations.

TL;DR: Don't go around making parallells where they absolutely do not belong.
User avatar #402 to #401 - goldenglimmer (01/10/2013) [-]
I use the term "always" very liberally here. Feel free to replace it with "billions of years".
#390 to #389 - megamuffins (01/10/2013) [-]
Except science applies this rule to everything, not just the things it wants to. And if anything is wrong because of new knowledge, its scrapped and re-explained until something else comes up. Science is ever changing to fit an ever changing universe, religion is not
#381 to #379 - megamuffins (01/10/2013) [-]
Can't just state*
#374 - crazyoljew (01/10/2013) [-]
Well done, good sir
#373 - anon (01/10/2013) [-]
E=MC2 i think the cooler way of describing it is that energy and mass are interchangeable
so a quark of some kind traveling fast enough can just turn into energy, or the other way round
#372 - SnakeDoc (01/10/2013) [-]
the second to last one was disproven.
#371 - skinless (01/10/2013) [-]
let me guess, this thread is filled with people trying to prove scientist and other highly intelligent people wrong?
User avatar #370 - arziben (01/10/2013) [-]
math is so rad
#368 - carlsagouin (01/10/2013) [-]
The faster you move, the lighter you are for a same amount of energy.   
I don't get the "The faster you move, the heavier you are" :/   
Please tell me if I'm wrong.
The faster you move, the lighter you are for a same amount of energy.
I don't get the "The faster you move, the heavier you are" :/
Please tell me if I'm wrong.
User avatar #394 to #368 - infurnus (01/10/2013) [-]
Think about relating this to a Motorcycle and the rider in the steel cage; Greater the speed, there will be an increase in force. OR Being hit by a car going at 30 mph is better than being hit by a car travelling at 80mph, the increase in force/action potential.

(Sorry wouldn't let me attach the ballofdeath.gif I had)
#380 to #368 - fecal (01/10/2013) [-]
I think the idea is that the faster you move, the amount of energy contained both in mass and in the energy of movement is of a higher total than the amount of energy stored in the same mass when it is not moving
#384 to #380 - fecal (01/10/2013) [-]
And the geste of the whole thing is just to picture the theory that all mass consists of energy in a mathematical format. Basically the energetic mass of the vessel increases exponentially as speed increases. So Energy= Mass(base energy)*velocity(movement energy)2
User avatar #376 to #368 - wiredguy (01/10/2013) [-]
It's like saying "a coiled spring weighs more than an uncoiled one".
Of course it's total ******** , it just has some potential energy stored up.
But energy and mass are interchangeable, so it makes some small amount of sense.

It's people who are proud of the fact they basically understand something, trying and failing to explain it to people who haven't even heard of the basics.
And it is sickening to watch.

I'm sure to someone properly educated in the field, I appear the same, but I'd like to think I do alright as I am...
#589 to #376 - carlsagouin (01/12/2013) [-]
Yeah, maybe here E is like the weight. I thought "heavy" was refering to the mass M, which is inaccurate.
#369 to #368 - carlsagouin (01/10/2013) [-]
I think it should be "the faster you move, the more energetic you are", which makes perfect sense.
User avatar #362 - cosmicoverdose (01/10/2013) [-]
This is a proven fact although the figures may be slightly wrong.

If you flew away from the earth at the speed of light for 50 years and then flew back you would have ages 100 years but the earth would have aged 10,000 or something like that. It's mind ******* .
User avatar #378 to #362 - mangioluingi (01/10/2013) [-]
that doesn't make sense

you flew at the speed of light
time is supposed to slow down, not speed up
#363 to #362 - anon (01/10/2013) [-]
NOPE E2=M2C4+P2C2 blah blah
traveling 50years@C you will be 50 years gone and the earth would look the same to you. just 50 years has passed but you don't even realize that since time stopped for you.
User avatar #364 to #363 - cosmicoverdose (01/10/2013) [-]
You calling Morgan Freeman a liar?

Just saying what I heard on Through The Wormhole
#365 to #364 - anon (01/10/2013) [-]
in this case than yes.
#359 - crawlingninjabear **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#357 - robtarded (01/10/2013) [-]
The tendency to move from order to disorder increases as time progresses only in closed systems though. Don't get a hard-on creationists, it doesn't disprove evolution.
User avatar #352 - oregmes (01/10/2013) [-]
the third one gave me a feel for some reason... kind of for the astronauts and more for us because if something is comming here at a great speed like a comet what would happen? would earth still exsit in its own time and all of us be dead until the time the comet arrives?
#366 to #352 - spacestalin (01/10/2013) [-]
comets don't travel that fast to be affected significantly by the third one (at least not more than us in our spaceships)
and yes, the earth would still exist even if you're approaching it at the speed of light though it IS possible that what you saw when you left your planet and what you see when you are actually there are different things, even speed of light travel takes millions of years.
If some aliens would watch the earth from a planet 65 million light years away, they would see the earth filled with dinosaurs. Imagine their surprise when they find us when they arrive.
User avatar #354 to #352 - oregmes (01/10/2013) [-]
deep thinking like that makes my brain explode...
 Friends (0)