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

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

Per page:
Latest users (6): bopso, fjgohomeyouredrunk, iamartyom, rainbowrush, sugoi, tlstheseen, anonymous(2).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2536 - astronomyexplain (07/20/2014) [-]
Space thread. Ask space questions, get space answers. If you don't have any, just reply for a picture.
#2542 to #2536 - Orc (07/21/2014) [-]
**Orc rolled image** Why is Pluto not a planet? I know it stopped being one around 2006 or so, but why? How could they just suddenly decide that it didn't meet the qualifications. I read up on it a little bit, but I really don't remember anymore, and feel like someone explaining it to me would be better.
User avatar #2617 to #2542 - tobituary (07/24/2014) [-]
If you have 4 minutes to spare, this video explains it really well
User avatar #2593 to #2542 - jokeface (07/23/2014) [-]
Pluto isn't a planet for the same reason midgets aren't people.
#2556 to #2542 - djequalizee (07/21/2014) [-]
I'm astronomyexplain, i just don't feel like logging out and back in.

What leightonsolomon said, it's too small to be a planet. It's also theorized pluto may have been a captured Kupier belt planet as well. Pluto was also given a new name when it was demoted, and is now officially known as 134340 Pluto.

IC 1396A
#2557 to #2556 - Orc (07/21/2014) [-]
**Orc rolled image** They couldn't tell that it was too small in the first place?
User avatar #2558 to #2557 - djequalizee (07/21/2014) [-]
Basically it's always been kind of sketchy if pluto should be considered a planet or not. The breaking point was in 2005 when astronomers discovered UB313, later named Eris, even farther than pluto. It was 25% more massive than pluto. Basically they either had to make Eris a planet, or decide that Pluto wasn't a planet. Scientists came up with 3 qualifications that a body would have to meet in order to become a planet

t needs to be in orbit around the Sun

It needs to have enough gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape

It needs to have “cleared the neighborhood” of its orbit

Pluto does not meet the third rule. Planets like Earth are the dominant body of their orbit. Typically they will either pull objects in or fling them into space. Pluto is only 0.07 times the mass of the other objects in its orbit. The Earth, in comparison, has 1.7 million times the mass of the other objects in its orbit. Planets who don't meet the third qualification are then considered dwarf planets. Hope this helps.

#2543 to #2542 - leightonsolomon (07/21/2014) [-]
Because if pluto is considered a planet, then we have to make all the other dwarfs planets. Plutos demotion was because of the discovery of many more "planets"
Plus the thing is the size of a moon, it should have never been considered a planet.
#2546 to #2543 - Orc (07/21/2014) [-]
**Orc rolled image** You shouldn't have been considered a planet.
#2547 to #2546 - leightonsolomon (07/21/2014) [-]
Your mom should be considered a planet.
#2548 to #2547 - Orc (07/21/2014) [-]
#2549 to #2548 - adrianoc (07/21/2014) [-]
I remember you, you asked a guy if he was done that one time.
User avatar #2539 to #2536 - whatley (07/21/2014) [-]
If you were to throw an electron and a proton at a neutron star, would it just be a really heavy isotope of hydrogen?
#2555 to #2539 - djequalizee (07/21/2014) [-]
I'm astronomyexplain, i just don't feel like logging out and back in.

No, neutron stars are not purely made of neutrons. Typically about 10% of a neutron star consists of protons and electrons.

User avatar #2559 to #2555 - grandlordchicken (07/21/2014) [-]
By mass or number of particles?
User avatar #2560 to #2559 - djequalizee (07/21/2014) [-]
I believe it's mass. Don't quote me on that though.
User avatar #2561 to #2560 - grandlordchicken (07/21/2014) [-]
Yeah that would make sense.
#2535 - anon (07/20/2014) [-]
Family Members in Chinese
#2534 - anon (07/20/2014) [-]
Linear Equations in Two Variables
#2533 - anon (07/20/2014) [-]
Dividing Fractions
#2532 - anon (07/20/2014) [-]
world war 1
#2525 - anon (07/20/2014) [-]

I want you to read this.

This universe is unfit for life. Had anything different happened during the Big Bang, life could have been impossible.

This thought only saddens me due to the multiverse theory.

Somewhere, in another universe, life is teeming, because everything went right when their universe came to be.
User avatar #2544 to #2525 - leightonsolomon (07/21/2014) [-]
That's... depressing. But recently NASA announced that statistically, our galaxy alone has 100 million earth like planets that are more than capable of life. Even if life requires ridiculous circumstances, it's probable that it exists in many other places in our universe.
User avatar #2520 - monstrumologist (07/19/2014) [-]
Dunno if this is the right place to ask, but can someone explain what cradle-to-cradle is and how an idea/design can be considered cradle-to-cradle
User avatar #2521 to #2520 - monstrumologist (07/19/2014) [-]
what if I say "I want to make a shoe made from worn out tires!", is that cradle to cradle?
#2528 to #2521 - anon (07/20/2014) [-]
Cradle to cradle basically means that our waste products should become the resource materials for something different so that we don't deplete the world's resources.

The guy who came up with "cradle to cradle" (William McDonough) gave a lecture about it at my school.
When students asked him how we could manage to achieve this he had no answers.

I think the guy is just some pretentious asshole who thinks he reinvented the concept of recycling but has no real solutions
User avatar #2529 to #2528 - monstrumologist (07/20/2014) [-]
are you kidding me? no fuckin answer?!
We're expected to write a fuckin case study on this shit. Best part is this was never discussed in class. So, basically, we're writing case studies based on something that was never explained to us..
fuckin bullshit.
#2530 to #2529 - anon (07/20/2014) [-]
Well they did write a book about it .

You might find something usefill in there.

I've never read the book, everything i know about C2C i learned from that lecture and a couple of articles i've read
User avatar #2531 to #2530 - monstrumologist (07/20/2014) [-]
you have my gratitude, anon
#2524 to #2521 - anon (07/19/2014) [-]
It means self sustaining, I think. Like trees die and turn to compost which help other trees and plants, nothing at all being wasted. So I don't think shoes made from worn out tires count because they'd eventually become useless.
#2514 - pistro (07/18/2014) [-]
Good evening FJ, I have one question for you:
About the airplane crashed in Ukraine, many of you already know that it contained most of greatest authority about HIV, and someone already said that it was put down on purpose because of those passengers.
Considerated that this is not the first time that a large group of researchers about HIV die or disappear, what do you guys think?
I just want to hear an opinion

pic unrelated
#2522 to #2514 - dehumanizer (07/19/2014) [-]
kinda seems suspicious the pane crushes right now when Israel is invading Gaza considering Ukraine has been quiet lately
User avatar #2519 to #2514 - cognosceteipsum (07/19/2014) [-]
It is the nwo
#2513 - pulluspardus (07/18/2014) [-]
Okay science people, Have you ever had a dream about something that have yet to happen but you don't remember dreaming about it until it actually happens?

I have it quite a lot, its actually called "DeJa Vu" dreams, unlike Lucid dreams you don't know you're dreaming when you have them because everything is exactly the same as real life but in the very distant future (a month at best)

Have you tried to alter the outcome of that said dream somehow ? I did, and it actually changed, the person who was with me thought I was weird for leaving the room suddenly.

Its never about important things though, just mundane things like "Seeing person #1 walking in the room" or "Having a text message sent from facebook"

Also another phenomenon, does anyone here say "jee i wonder what time it is" and every time they look at the time its exactly 11:11 ? every. single. time.
I'm guessing its just "Brain time" something your mind does repetitively at the exact same moment without you knowing.
User avatar #2545 to #2513 - leightonsolomon (07/21/2014) [-]
Thats just because you tend to remember these things. So many mundane things happen everyday, if you happen to look at the clock at 11:11, you'll remember it, even though you looked at the clock 58 times before that day.
#2523 to #2513 - dehumanizer (07/19/2014) [-]
eh not really i would call it coincidence, you just remembered those things becuase you wanted to (things that happened in your dreams, exact time numbers).
User avatar #2550 to #2523 - pulluspardus (07/21/2014) [-]
then why do i dream them BEFORE they happen?
#2551 to #2550 - dehumanizer (07/21/2014) [-]
you dream about something and when it happens you remember you dreamed about it, its you thats making a connection
User avatar #2552 to #2551 - pulluspardus (07/21/2014) [-]
but how does it happen at the exact moment and the exact time and the same exact situation?
User avatar #2562 to #2552 - grandlordchicken (07/21/2014) [-]
How do you know it's the exact time, exact place, and exact situation, did you know the time and place in the dream? Is the situation even really exactly the same or are you just remember the parts that happened? Memory is a funny thing, it's changed every time you remember it.
User avatar #2567 to #2562 - pulluspardus (07/21/2014) [-]
because it is the same exact moment happening twice.
People saying the same exact things, at the same time and on the same place and also the same clothing same, same atmosphere same everything.
Memory is a funny thing true, but I always remember it when it hits.
User avatar #2568 to #2567 - grandlordchicken (07/21/2014) [-]
First of all, how do you know it's at the right time, is there a calendar and a clock in your dream? Do you actually remember the color and type of that persons shirt in the dream? I find dreams usually aren't that lucid. Do you actually remember the exact words they said in the dream? What else happens in this dream? How many dreams do you have that AREN'T predicting things? One common thing that can happen is that a lot of things happen in a dream, and then later one of those things happens in real life by coincidence, and you only remember the part of the dream in which it happened because that's the part that happened in real life. How often do you do the same routines day by day? Something may happen in your day, so your dream about it, and then something similar happens another day and you think the dream predicted it.
User avatar #2569 to #2568 - pulluspardus (07/21/2014) [-]
Sometimes (I look at my watch and stuff)
I have a lot of dreams that don't happen of course, and I am not saying i predict things, just some odd dreams that actually happen in the future
I don't do the same routines day by day, I'm talking to you now saying these exact words and i will never say these exact words ever again.

I'm not actually a spiritual person , I don't believe in ghosts and angels and what not, just want to know the science behind this stuff there must be.
User avatar #2571 to #2569 - grandlordchicken (07/21/2014) [-]
The actual science behind this is the simple fact that we remember the things from dreams that happen more than the things that don't, and we have a lot of dreams and a lot of things happen, so coincidences happen. If you really want to get an accurate picture record everything that happens in every dream you have as soon as you wake up. Then when record it when the things happen, you'll find that the things that don't happen FAR outnumber the things that do. If the there is a huge amount of things in your dreams happening in real life, contact James randi, he has a million dollars for you.
#2553 to #2552 - dehumanizer (07/21/2014) [-]
fine you are magic, congratulations
#2554 to #2553 - pulluspardus (07/21/2014) [-]
I'm just asking what causes it, why are you being such a drama queen?
User avatar #2511 - darealsnooki (07/18/2014) [-]
Why is the sky blue?
User avatar #2516 to #2511 - xtwinblade (07/19/2014) [-]
When sunlight hits our atmosphere it refracts light, mostly blue and violet light, this slightly decreases the colour blue in the image of the sun we see from the ground, leaving it in an orange/yellow coloured look.
User avatar #2515 to #2511 - xsnowshark (07/19/2014) [-]
Why's water wet?
User avatar #2572 to #2515 - djequalizee (07/21/2014) [-]
Water is a dipole. Basically the oxygen is slightly negative and the hydrogen is slightly positive. So it attracts other water molecules, making it want to be near other water molecules. So that's why water sticks to you and makes you wet.
User avatar #2575 to #2572 - xsnowshark (07/22/2014) [-]
Because I'm sure these references won't make sense: www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/gza/4thchamber.html (Halfway through Ghostface Killah's part)
User avatar #2573 to #2572 - xsnowshark (07/21/2014) [-]
Why did Judas, rat to Romans while Jesus slept?
User avatar #2503 - rootintootinputin (07/16/2014) [-]
i really need a new external hard drive, mines starting to do that, "usb not being regconized" and everything. where can i get one thats a few hundred gigs for cheap. my music and videos are important to me
User avatar #2505 to #2503 - Mortuus (07/16/2014) [-]
/Technology/ is your friend.
User avatar #2507 to #2505 - rootintootinputin (07/16/2014) [-]
4chan? no
User avatar #2508 to #2507 - Mortuus (07/16/2014) [-]
FJ has a tech board, broski.
User avatar #2509 to #2508 - rootintootinputin (07/16/2014) [-]
technology is science so where do i find a cheap one
#2502 - kugis (07/15/2014) [-]
Hey everyone, I just want to ask whether mixture of polystyrene (pulverized to individual balls) and diesel fuel is a good enough substitute for napalm.
Purely hypothetical question, just in case I ever needed a flamethrower.
User avatar #2506 to #2502 - Mortuus (07/16/2014) [-]
It's as close as you'll get without being on every terror watch-list from here to Australia.

There's a way to make it out of mayonnaise and some other stuff, but it's a bad idea.
User avatar #2504 to #2502 - nevergetsdubs (07/16/2014) [-]
In terms of just pure damage to concrete sidewalk when left on it? No
Still effective when manually loaded into and fired from shotgun shell? Yes
User avatar #2497 - cognosceteipsum (07/14/2014) [-]
Why is every scientist these days a materialist?
User avatar #2563 to #2497 - grandlordchicken (07/21/2014) [-]
Why is ever non scientist delusional? See I can be obscenely over generalizing too.
User avatar #2577 to #2563 - cognosceteipsum (07/22/2014) [-]
I guess.
User avatar #2580 to #2577 - grandlordchicken (07/22/2014) [-]
Now, what in the world do you ACTUALLY mean by "Why is every scientist these days a materialist?" I don't know of even one scientist who is greatly materialist, you don't fucking become a scientist if you care a lot about money and material possessions,. scientists don't make a lot generally, with the effort needed to become a serous scientist you could become two lawyers or a doctor and make WAY more.
User avatar #2581 to #2580 - cognosceteipsum (07/22/2014) [-]
That's.. not the only meaning to the word materialist.
User avatar #2583 to #2581 - grandlordchicken (07/22/2014) [-]
In what way did you men it?
User avatar #2584 to #2583 - cognosceteipsum (07/22/2014) [-]
Believes we are only made out of material and nothing incorporeal like a soul or some kind of 'energy'
#2585 to #2584 - grandlordchicken (07/22/2014) [-]
Ah, you're actually right here then. As for the answer to that is simple, what is a scientist? One who uses the scientific method to acquire knowledge. Now a materialist is one who believes that everything lies in a tangible sphere rather than an abstract world. Now tangible simply means something can be interacted with. Anything that can't be interacted with doesn't effect our universe (it might be argued doesn't even exist) if it doesn't effect our universe then there can't be knowledge about it in our universe, that would be effecting our universe. If there cannot be knowledge about something in our universe we can have no idea wether it exists or not, and by Occam's razor it must be assumed it does not until more information surfaces. Something intangible cannot be studied by definition, and as matter may be entirely defined by its interaction, may by definition not exist. That's why scientists aren't interested in the intangible, as soon as things can be learned about it, or as soon as there is even evidence for its existence they will be interested, though at that point it would be definition be tangible. Did I understand your question correctly?
User avatar #2587 to #2585 - grandlordchicken (07/22/2014) [-]
Oops, I misread your comment as "why do scientists believe the universe is materialist" the answer to your question is much simpler, gimme a sec.
User avatar #2588 to #2587 - grandlordchicken (07/22/2014) [-]
Ok so why don't scientists believe in the soul (which by its classical definition is effect by and effects the universe so is not intangible). The answer to that is the most simple answer in the world, and also the most definitive: there is currently no evidence for one.
The day that there is any evidence for something like a soul the greatest minds of the scientific community will be all over studying this amazing new phenomenon.
User avatar #2586 to #2585 - cognosceteipsum (07/22/2014) [-]
Let me see tomorrow. I need to return to where I was earlier today now *sigh*
#2491 - lesnar (07/14/2014) [-]
"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless” - Steven Weinberg

The only meaning or purpose in life is subjective, it's not something that can be found through a detailed and objective study of nature. When people say they have meaning and purpose in their lives, it may be subjectively true to them, but that shouldn't be confused with true objective meaning.
User avatar #2501 to #2491 - Mortuus (07/15/2014) [-]
There's a /Religion/ board for philosophical stuff.
User avatar #2499 to #2491 - xsnowshark (07/14/2014) [-]
Wrong board
#2490 - lesnar (07/14/2014) [-]
The firing of neurons in the brain is as meaningful as water flowing over rocks. It's just physics.
User avatar #2564 to #2490 - grandlordchicken (07/21/2014) [-]
The idea of meaningful is a human concept, the universe doesn't have a value called "meaning" "worth" "value" or "importance" which it ascribes to things or events.
User avatar #2526 to #2490 - Conquistador (07/20/2014) [-]
Lol, never seen anybody mascotfag a wrassler before.
#2489 - lesnar (07/14/2014) [-]
It's human arrogance driven by ego to believe "human existence" is anything other than just another occurrence in a much larger spectrum. Consciousness is a slow burning curse. We claim to be a higher form of life because we possess cognitive thought, yet we have absolutely no idea why we are actually here. So we create countless forms of abstraction to both give ourselves a false sense of purpose and to serve as a distraction from the fact "we have NO idea why we are here" Personally I would much rather be driven solely by instinct than by this fractured reason.
User avatar #2481 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U nigeltheoutlaw what do you think about this?
User avatar #2480 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
Apparently, rejection from peers or other people is on par with physical pain. That's just fucked up considering the world we live in. RIght now, somebody is attempting suicide. Man.
User avatar #2468 - cognosceteipsum (07/12/2014) [-]
Let's give our opinions on who spearheads what kind of science!
Neuroscience: Ramachandran and Sam Harris
Evolutionary psychology: Steven Pinker
Cosmology: Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss
Mathemathics: Whatley, fill this one out for me
Psychology: Uhm... Jung? Not sure on this one. I guess I'm not sure about what to put here.
Biology: No fucking idea.
What I define as spearheading in this context is the one who had the most influential ideas most recently.
User avatar #2517 to #2468 - xtwinblade (07/19/2014) [-]
im not that good with people, but i would say Astronomy have Carl Sagan
and Physics have Einstein obviously.
User avatar #2518 to #2517 - xtwinblade (07/19/2014) [-]
scratch that. Physics has Isaac Newton.
User avatar #2471 to #2468 - leightonsolomon (07/13/2014) [-]
He hasn't done too much recently but you could put Richard Dawkins down for biology.
User avatar #2473 to #2471 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
My dad called him mediocre but I Don't agree in the slightest. He fucking invented memes. MEMES.
User avatar #2474 to #2473 - leightonsolomon (07/13/2014) [-]
Yeah hes a badass. If you havent yet, you should watch his talks and debates on youtube.
User avatar #2475 to #2474 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
Seen a few, he kicks ass. I don't get what the hatred is for. Stupid and annoying. EVERY TIME you search something about someone famous like that on youtube you get
"xDxDXD recherd dewkrns sux"
"dxdxdxdx evilution = fake dxdxxdx"
only the few nuggets of gold (the actual debates and talks with him)
User avatar #2476 to #2475 - leightonsolomon (07/13/2014) [-]
Mostly because of angry religious people mad at his Militant Atheism policy.
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
User avatar #2477 to #2476 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
Ah yes. Growing really tired of people like that, c'moooooooon. Why are you so afraaaaaid? Jeez. It's really depressing too.

I mean, fuck, I believe in God but not the God of the Bible, Qur'an or any other holy book for that matter. It is quite obvious that those books were just a representation of our barbaric past
User avatar #2482 to #2477 - leightonsolomon (07/13/2014) [-]
Ah I see. Are you deist? That sounds like Deism to me. I'm personally agnostic just because theres no way to know, plus thats what Einstein, Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, Neil de Grasse Tyson, etc, are.
User avatar #2483 to #2482 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
Probably agnostic or deist. I must admit, I have a bit personal bias since my life has been pretty hard.
User avatar #2484 to #2483 - leightonsolomon (07/13/2014) [-]
I see, what do you mean exactly?
User avatar #2485 to #2484 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
My life is full of anxiety right now and there's been a heck of a lot of moments where I might have died and I didn't, so I'm slightly biased towards the idea of there being a god on the factor of fear of death and happy for fortune.
User avatar #2486 to #2485 - leightonsolomon (07/13/2014) [-]
I feel you. Many people need to believe in something. A lot of people are afraid of the lack of an afterlife, but you have to remember that once you die theres nothing technically. No happiness, thats true, but also no sadness. "You" meaning you're conciousness, dont exist. Theres nothing to be afraid of though, I mean you didnt exist for 13 billion years, itll be just like before you were born. So I wouldnt let you're fear limit the truth, as Richard Dawkins says it best, "There is a difference between what is comforting, and what is true." The thought of there not being a god is kinda scary sometimes I know, but its also exciting. It means theres so much we dont know and so much we still have to discover. you're anxiety will pass in time, the same happened for me. Live up this time you have on earth and dont let the fear of death dictate you're beliefs.
User avatar #2487 to #2486 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
Definitely. But a f fallacy I feel many atheists do is "just because it's uncomfortable doesn't make it true"

It's a small confirmation bias on their side too, I'd say. I believe in souls for the moment. I'm not sure, but that's why I enjoy life almost every day rather than dwell on the fact I'm going to die. I think it's also kind of arrogant for people to worry that much about their death, as if they were the center of the universe.
 Friends (0)