Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds


Per page:
Order:
Latest users (1): kanadetenshi, anonymous(2).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1855 - rootintootinputin (05/29/2014) [-]
whats a technology job that someone on The Big Bang Theory would have? one of the jobs someone really smart would have
User avatar #1856 to #1855 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (05/30/2014) [-]
Natural sciences such as physics and chemistry and practical sciences such as engineering.
User avatar #1857 to #1856 - rootintootinputin (05/30/2014) [-]
what are the advanced kinds called though
User avatar #1858 to #1857 - coronus (05/30/2014) [-]
Aeronautical engineers for space and air ships
Electrical engineers for obvious things
Chemical engineers, either for advanced inorganics (like my former roommate) or biochemical engimeers/ biochemists for medical engineering, drug delivery systems, antibiotics and whatnot.
Mechanical engineers for mechanical things
Physicists for ...everything...
astrophysics for space observation, star system analysis, and all that god stuff
nuclear/ quantum physicists for the tiny things and energy
hard condensed matter physics for whatever my brother is going to do with that doctorate
physical chemistry to make the chemists look bad
and a lot of other physics.

And then there's the biological sciences and neurosciences, of which there are many, many distinctions. For example, behavioral neuroscience.
User avatar #1835 - xsnowshark (05/28/2014) [-]
Hey guys, so I am getting started on building one of these:

rcdon.com/html/gr-1_turbojet_engine_project.html

Anyone interested in updates?

Here is a video of the jet engine running while connected to a turboshaft (the thing that is spinning the propeller):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mwkk8Yo40E
User avatar #1905 to #1835 - spainisbad (06/02/2014) [-]
I am, what are going to be the engine specifications?
User avatar #1907 to #1905 - xsnowshark (06/02/2014) [-]
I'll post some pictures of the turbo with measurements that I've taken soon. I mention you three as well
User avatar #1868 to #1835 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/31/2014) [-]
I am as well.
User avatar #1842 to #1835 - metalmind (05/29/2014) [-]
I am.
User avatar #1832 - princessren ONLINE (05/28/2014) [-]
I guess this could go here as well as technology
Solar FREAKIN' Roadways!
User avatar #1831 - samxdaxman (05/28/2014) [-]
Is it scientifically possible for an asteroid to hit earth in such a way that it would change our orbit so that one side always faces the sun and the other never sees it? And if so, what effects would it have? I'm writing a story and it goes that an asteroid struck Earth, and North and South America are on the dark side of Earth. They're using solar panels in the Sahara to absorb light to send it to a select few cities, providing heat, light, etc. to survive. Any scientific impossibilities in there? I'll answer any questions to the best of my abilities.
User avatar #1833 to #1831 - xsnowshark (05/28/2014) [-]
Anything is possible, but a strike that put Earth in a tidally locked orbit around the sun is incredibly improbable.

A strike that had enough energy to do that would destroy the Earth anyway.
User avatar #1843 to #1833 - metalmind (05/29/2014) [-]
Well, it would rather just cause an unprecedented mass extinction, and not entirely destroy the planet.
User avatar #1834 to #1833 - samxdaxman (05/28/2014) [-]
Yeah, I was talking to people on the advice board about that. Right now the story is that we saw it in the 1850's which led to a golden age of technology which allowed us to predict where, when and how bad the strike would be. We were able to survive with the new tech, but only in select cities.
User avatar #1836 to #1834 - xsnowshark (05/29/2014) [-]
Wait, people actually think that it happened?
User avatar #1837 to #1836 - samxdaxman (05/29/2014) [-]
What? In the story it happened, yeah.
User avatar #1839 to #1837 - xsnowshark (05/29/2014) [-]
Found it, it's Nat Geo (Found the full video!):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH3bmG-KjvU
#1841 to #1839 - samxdaxman (05/29/2014) [-]
Oh hell yeah, thanks dude.
Oh hell yeah, thanks dude.
User avatar #1838 to #1837 - xsnowshark (05/29/2014) [-]
Oh man, haha, I only read your question, not your explanation, sorry.

It's an interesting Idea for sure, but the people in your story would probably have to live very far underground to survive. It was either National Geographic or Discovery Channel that did a story on what would happen if the Earth stopped spinning. Pretty interesting stuff.

Since its a story, though, being totally accurate doesn't really matter as much. Should be interesting to see what you come up with.
User avatar #1840 to #1838 - samxdaxman (05/29/2014) [-]
Yeah, the focus is gonna be on the affects it had on the people. For example, there's an Outsider force who want to get into the cities that survived, but due to food shortage, cramped spaces, and lots of crime, they won't be let in.
#1829 - lordketchup (05/28/2014) [-]
The Bruhathkayosaurus could grow up to 40-44 meters. The largest land animal right now is elephants, which are just 10 meters

Why could species grow so much larger back then and not now?
#1830 to #1829 - thedeadpidgeon (05/28/2014) [-]
There are a couple theories. most of them have to do with respiration and oxygen content in the air. More efficient oxygen processing=more energy gathering potential=more size
User avatar #1854 to #1830 - coronus (05/29/2014) [-]
Yup, mostly that. Higher oxygen concentration would also allow for insects to grow to massive sizes, which we see around the same time as the largest dinosaurs and sea beasts.

With current oxygen content, anything that large would have to have massive lungs, thick blood, efficient muscles, and a slow metabolism with a very short sleep cycle to allow for more hunting or foraging time.

Something that large would have to be mostly lungs today, unless it had high blood pressure and a large, fast heart circulating relatively thick blood, densely packed with red blood cells. Either that, or exist as an aquatic species with large gills; dissolved oxygen in water is much more plentiful than in air, and gills are several times more efficient.

So perhaps there are large creatures dwelling in the deep ocean. watching, waiting for the day the stars are right for their return.
#1818 - basichaharemix (05/26/2014) [-]
But can science explain why Jesus can ball so hard!?
Religion 1
Science 0
User avatar #1817 - schnizel ONLINE (05/26/2014) [-]
If homosexuality is genetic, and homosexuals don't reproduce, then how the fuck hasn't natural selection eliminated the gene by now?
User avatar #1872 to #1817 - blackzero (06/01/2014) [-]
Aside from what Kanadetenshi said (which was interesting, I never heard about it being epigenetic), I always thought that if there was another contributing factor, maybe it was genetic but unseen, almost.
This is the first generation where we see being gay as acceptable, as far as I know. maybe all the homosexuals stayed 'in the closet' persay, and just bred, assuming something else was amiss from their lives (perhaps if they turned away from the religion they were brought up with, if they felt 'empty' from not being with someone of the same sex, maybe they filled that hole with religion?).

It's a long shot to bring up, but I thought I'd share.
User avatar #1873 to #1872 - schnizel ONLINE (06/01/2014) [-]
DAnks nigga.
User avatar #1824 to #1817 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (05/27/2014) [-]
The main cause of homosexuality is epigenetics. Epigenetic marks are intended to promote normal sex development while in fetal development, however, they can be passed on to an offspring through the process of mitosis. When they are transferred from one parent to an offspring of the opposite sex, it can contribute to an altered sexual development, thus leading to mascunlinization of female offspring and feminization of male offspring.

There are also some evolutionary psychological hypotheses such as the gay uncle hypothesis which posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family's genes in future generations by providing resources (food, supervision, defense, shelter, etc.) to the offspring of their closest relatives.
User avatar #1846 to #1824 - revengeforfreeze (05/29/2014) [-]
How does the gay uncle thing work? Mindset changing genes of others by being close to them or what?
User avatar #1851 to #1846 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (05/29/2014) [-]
It doesn't really have to be a mindset so to speak, just as long as the genes of your relatives get passed on it should be fine. It's similar to bee society where worker bees are infertile while providing sources to the queen.
User avatar #1853 to #1851 - revengeforfreeze (05/29/2014) [-]
Ah, I see.
So if a guy has an ucle that is gay, then he also posits part of the 'genes' for homosexuality.
User avatar #1844 to #1824 - metalmind (05/29/2014) [-]
Hey kanadetenshi, are you, and if what, studying?
User avatar #1849 to #1844 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (05/29/2014) [-]
Zoology primarily.
User avatar #1850 to #1849 - metalmind (05/29/2014) [-]
Cool.
What kind of work would you like to do after you graduate?
User avatar #1852 to #1850 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (05/29/2014) [-]
Not sure yet.
User avatar #1825 to #1824 - schnizel ONLINE (05/27/2014) [-]
Remove kebab?
User avatar #1826 to #1825 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (05/27/2014) [-]
wut
#1827 to #1826 - schnizel ONLINE (05/27/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #1820 to #1817 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/27/2014) [-]
We really just don't know enough about the mutation to say anything definitively. While we know that it's caused by certain areas of the brain developing differently than their heterosexual counterparts (notably the hypothalamus), but aside from that, not a helluva lot is know, and it's really not a priority right now. Homosexuality isn't necessarily a bad thing at this point. If it was discovered that homosexuals lived longer lives, or shorter, then we would study them extensively, but we have hundreds of different cancers that need to be looked at, and a greater number of more common issues, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

A lot of this is my opinion, but the same opinion is shared by many of my friends, as well. At this point, homosexuality isn't a priority. That may or may not change at some point in the future, but right now, the common cold is of more importance to many research teams.
#1828 to #1821 - thedeadpidgeon (05/28/2014) [-]
Although the coincidences could be enough to merit some looking into, this is hardly any kind of evidence, just major speculation. It would be nice if there were statistics out there citing the prevalence of t gondii in gay males vs heterosexual males.
User avatar #1847 to #1828 - metalmind (05/29/2014) [-]
But one problem would be that this couldn't be conducted by just one institute that easily, since you would need to exclude possible differences in it's prevalence in certain populations as a factor, which would make it a lot more expensive, and more difficult to organize.
User avatar #1845 to #1828 - metalmind (05/29/2014) [-]
Good idea.
User avatar #1822 to #1821 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/27/2014) [-]
This information, while interesting, hasn't been properly tested. While the previous assumptions that latent infection in humans were asymptomatic changed due to animal study, it isn't necessarily a fact that it can alter human brain function.

Thank you for sharing, however.
User avatar #1823 to #1822 - schnizel ONLINE (05/27/2014) [-]
No problem.
<3
No homo
User avatar #1816 - lietuvisss (05/26/2014) [-]
I need some suggestions on what documentaries to watch about science preferably physics or astronomy (no geology)
User avatar #1819 to #1816 - xsnowshark (05/26/2014) [-]
This is a great documentary, one of my favorites. Check for it on Netflix, it was there recently.

www.imdb.com/title/tt1233514/
#1813 - zionistjew (05/25/2014) [-]
sciense bored is kil lol
#1810 - infernobird (05/25/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #1809 - guiguito ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
Wow, no one uses this board.
#1814 to #1809 - eight (05/25/2014) [-]
Nobody likes science anymore.
User avatar #1812 to #1809 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/25/2014) [-]
Unfortunately, it is quite slow. There are a few regulars, but it's never too "hopping".
User avatar #1815 to #1812 - guiguito ONLINE (05/26/2014) [-]
I think everyone is discussing science on the religion board.
User avatar #1808 - xsnowshark (05/23/2014) [-]
Hey guys, I was watching the news and heard about a major (supposedly) meteor shower that will happen tonight, could be worth checking out.

www.tampabay.com/news/nation/look-up-meteor-shower-tonight-could-be-spectacular/2181116
#1802 - anonymous (05/23/2014) [-]
why is the front passenger seat called "shotgun" if shotgun weddings often result from activity in the back seat?
#1807 to #1802 - hustlenow (05/23/2014) [-]
I remember reading somewhere here that it originated when carriages needed security so the front passenger seat was the security thus somehow "shotgun"
#1804 to #1802 - thedeadpidgeon (05/23/2014) [-]
I always understood it as a reference to the military or gangs or something like that. You have the driver and the shooter.
User avatar #1800 - eight (05/23/2014) [-]
Anyone excited for Hurricane season? I want some good storms.
User avatar #1848 to #1800 - metalmind (05/29/2014) [-]
Meh, all we get here in Germany are Thunderhail storms.
#1811 to #1800 - dehumanizer (05/25/2014) [-]
So do people in Haiti.
#1801 to #1800 - huntergriff (05/23/2014) [-]
god no...This is what I came home to during hurricane season nine years ago. That's from hurricane katrina. my old house was destroyed by the storm surge.
User avatar #1803 to #1801 - eight (05/23/2014) [-]
I never understood why people live in low lying places. It's just not smart. If an area floods regularly, avoid it. Stay away from the beaches too. Big hurricanes are scary but Cat 1, Cat 2 I enjoy watching.
User avatar #1806 to #1803 - huntergriff (05/23/2014) [-]
and i mean yes it's fun watching at a cat 1/cat 2, but anywhere else it's just scary.
User avatar #1805 to #1803 - huntergriff (05/23/2014) [-]
because, we as a species are a stubborn species.
#1795 - anonymous (05/22/2014) [-]
I need help.

I saw a let's call it "fictional documentary" years ago when I was young about some made up planet and they invented a lot of animals and living beings and explained their behaviour and their anatomy and shit and it was very interesting. There was like a little flying robot with a camera recording this made up animals and one I remember was these guiant animals who would walk on something similar to an ocean and would absorb nutrients through their feet.

Anyone has ever heard/seen this documentary? I saw it on National Geographic if I'm not mistaken.
#1796 to #1795 - anonymous (05/22/2014) [-]
Alien Planet - Darwin IV Oops, already found it, should have searched before asking but didn't knew what to search.

Here it is in case someone wants to see it, it's very interesting.
User avatar #1781 - seriouslyblack ONLINE (05/21/2014) [-]
1
#1779 - anonymous (05/21/2014) [-]
y'know...I don't see why they don't just make some kind of network of space stations like this one, that's fully manned by people, just to stop asteroids and meteors in their tracks. I mean wouldn't that work? I mean yes, it would probably be extremely expensive, but wouldn't it solve the problem of the destruction of the planet Via asteroid?
User avatar #1784 to #1779 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/21/2014) [-]
1) Money. People get mad at the government spending money on roads, you think they'd be fine with a huge ass space station that wouldn't have any immediate benefit to them? People are short sighted, and long term expensive projects don't go well with that.

2) Most people won't even admit that asteroids are a danger to the planet, and the ones that do usually think that it's a small enough risk to not warrant any action on our part.

3) A project of that magnitude would be inconveniencing due to the amount of money, manpower, and resources that would have to be diverted to this project. People are stupid, and don't want to be inconvenienced personally, even if it is for their own benefit.

4) People would be worried about the station's weapons being used militaristically and would probably oppose construction of it because of that reason, even if it was an international effort.

I'd love if we did actually use all of our amazing technology and knowledge for a human project like a defensive space station, but we'd rather use the technology to kill goat herders and more effectively ruin our atmosphere over anything.
#1787 to #1784 - anonymous (05/21/2014) [-]
>3) A project of that magnitude would be inconveniencing due to the amount of money, manpower, and resources that would have to be diverted to this project. People are stupid, and don't want to be inconvenienced personally, even if it is for their own benefit.

what if it was an international effort? like every other country pitches in and shit

I mean it just seems more inconveniencing and more dangerous to have a team of astronauts go in and put a bomb on it like in armageddon or waiting for a friend at the end of the world, or deep impact.
User avatar #1780 to #1779 - eiaisqzbsesb ONLINE (05/21/2014) [-]
Would probably spark the risk of someone turning those things into weapons to be used against ground targets.
#1788 to #1780 - anonymous (05/21/2014) [-]
see, everyone says this, but...I just don't see it...I mean if a bunch of goat herders are going to go and try to steal a shuttle like in the beginning of CoD: ghosts, that's going to be extremely tough... i mean realistically, you're going to have those shuttles guarded about as tightly as a military base and you're going to have to use your own people to man them, right? and how are a bunch of goat herders or whatever going to figure out how to fly a shuttle? PLUS Once you get on to the space station, you're going to have to deal with the military guards who are probably armed with assault weapons...so...I mean...you're fucked if you try anything...
User avatar #1782 to #1780 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/21/2014) [-]
A weapon of that size and spec used against ground targets would be the equivalent of a meteorite striking the earth. Bad idea, but we are human.

Using such a weapon on a geothermal hot spot would be interesting, however.
#1786 to #1782 - anonymous (05/21/2014) [-]
Hence why I mentioned it being fully manned. Probably by the military or whatever.
User avatar #1789 to #1786 - eiaisqzbsesb ONLINE (05/21/2014) [-]
Who's military? Any one nation laying claims on a weapon that large would spark a global conflict.
#1792 to #1789 - anonymous (05/22/2014) [-]
hm...Perhaps The UN? I mean I know they don't have a military, but I mean the UN has been involved in various combat situations, right?
User avatar #1790 to #1789 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/21/2014) [-]
A world government would be needed, but that won't happen until we actually make contact with extraterrestrial life. Pretty much every nation agreed that the UN would make decisions at that point (in regards to how we act and respond to said event).
#1771 - eiaisqzbsesb ONLINE (05/20/2014) [-]
What is the proper way to calculate numberwang?
User avatar #1770 - whatley (05/20/2014) [-]
You need to login to view this link

This is some next level quackery.
#1785 to #1770 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/21/2014) [-]
Holy shit, this hippy psuedo science is great.
#1774 to #1770 - xsnowshark (05/20/2014) [-]
Where the fuck do people come up with this stuff...
User avatar #1775 to #1774 - whatley (05/20/2014) [-]
"Evidence of this is seen with homeopathy."

I lost it.
 Friends (0)