Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#5611 - anon
Reply 0
(07/25/2016) [-]
In films and TV, whenever a person is tranquilized, everything seems to slow down for them. Even voices and sounds get deeper, to further show that things are slowing down, as if to demonstrate that their body isn't operating as fast.

But if the mind began to slow down, wouldn't we actually perceive things as happening faster, as we wouldn't be able to take in the information very quickly.

When you experience an adrenaline rush, you perceive things as if they had been slowed down, because your brain is operating so quickly.

The only film I recall where perception speeds up as they are tranquilized is Madagascar.
#5613 to #5611 - ukobarrywewa
Reply -1
(07/26/2016) [-]
When you get a hit of tranquilizer, it doesn't make your brain slow down, it makes you drowsy. When you're drowsy, things do seem to slow down, visually at least.
#5610 - masterreposter ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/23/2016) [-]
If we can stop light, can we eat it?
#5622 to #5610 - platinumaltaria
Reply +1
(08/05/2016) [-]
Sadly no, if a photon contacts an electron it excites it.
#5624 to #5622 - masterreposter ONLINE
Reply 0
(08/05/2016) [-]
Would be cool if we figured how to eat stopped light lol have a laser show when we pee
#5625 to #5624 - platinumaltaria
Reply +1
(08/05/2016) [-]
You know I don't think that's how it works.
#5626 to #5625 - masterreposter ONLINE
Reply 0
(08/05/2016) [-]
You don't work
#5627 to #5626 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(08/05/2016) [-]
That is correct.
#5628 to #5627 - masterreposter ONLINE
Reply 0
(08/05/2016) [-]
Just a cool thought lol
#5602 - effort
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
GIF
I have the option to take either Solid State Electronics (not Solid State Physics) or Quantum Mechanics. The solid state course is a 200 course and quantum mechanics is a 300 course, both accredit the same amount (4). So, in your infinite wisdom /science/, which course would be "easier"? Btw, I'm cramming in ~5-6 physics courses a semester, so I want to lighten the load.

Side Note: I'm a mech eng major, but I have to take one of those courses.
#5603 to #5602 - Fgner
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
Honestly can't tell you without knowing the school and the teachers... Just look up those professors on RateMyProfessor, look at the reviews people left for that specific class. Most people include the grade they got in the class with their review, so you can get a rough estimate as to what to expect.

I'd vote Solid State Electronics is more practical shit, likely more math involved. Quantum mechanics will likely be more conceptual and use a lot of weird Greek symbols, but in the end be easier.
#5604 to #5603 - effort
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
Thanks for the suggestions. There is an option to take the theoretical part of solid state, but it requires higher prereqs. As for the other solid state, it's practical, and requires only the first two levels of calc based physics (100 courses). However, quantum mechanics requires a 200 and 300 level physics course (introductory to modern physics and electromagnetism 2). Wouldn't solid state electronics (practical) sound easier?

Also the professors for both courses are equally terrible, which means it'll come down to home studying...
#5608 to #5604 - mublerking
Reply 0
(07/22/2016) [-]
It honestly kind of depends on how comfortable you are with calculus and stats. I'm a particle physicist, but in my undergrad I studied engineering science (major in engineering physics, minor in computer engineering) and I had to take courses like SSE. SSE the math wasn't as difficult, but it was longer and significantly more tedious, in QM as long as you were good on things like continuous probabilities and fast at integration you could do amazingly.
#5606 to #5604 - Fgner
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
Ah, go for the solid states, then. In my uni SSE was 300-level and required diff-Q and all that non-sense. My sister took QM as part of her liberal arts degree and it was shit easy, but liberal arts.
#5607 to #5606 - effort
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
Thanks for your advice, I probably already knew the answer to this question, but just wanted some reassurance.
#5605 to #5604 - effort
Reply +1
(07/21/2016) [-]
Oh I should also mention, the theoretical part of solid state requires quantum theory as a co-req.
#5601 - ukobarrywewa
Reply 0
(07/21/2016) [-]
You need to login to view this link

some of you guys might appreciate this a bit
#5632 to #5601 - thesoulseeker
Reply 0
(08/07/2016) [-]
1. Is kind of done.
2. Is not going to happen, simply because cancer isn't a single condition, but a group. Finding a single cure for conditions with multiple causes and symptoms isn't going to happen.
3. No comment.
4. Refer to 3
5. See 4
6. There's museums full of the stuff.
7. Look at 5
8. Observe 7
9. Those are two very different things. There is some evidence for dark matter in the form of gravitational lensing observations. Dark energy is more of a mystery.
#5592 - mudkipfucker
Reply 0
(07/16/2016) [-]
who would win in a fight? /science/ or /religion/?
#5623 to #5592 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(08/05/2016) [-]
"fight"
#5609 to #5592 - whitechino
Reply 0
(07/23/2016) [-]
When planet X comes buy, neither won't matter.
#5597 to #5592 - Fgner
Reply +1
(07/17/2016) [-]
They're probably both die. So, I guess, society?
#5598 to #5597 - Fgner
Reply +1
(07/17/2016) [-]
> They're
#5596 to #5592 - Sewallman
Reply 0
(07/17/2016) [-]
They're both pussies
#5582 - epicalania
Reply 0
(07/15/2016) [-]
Does anyone know what the term for a group of solar systems is?
Not a star system, (although some suborders of this grouping could be star systems, true) Not anything as large as a galaxy either.

Is there a term for a small (-ish?) cluster of planetary systems? What sort of size range would this take? a few dozen? a thousand? more?
#5583 to #5582 - Fgner
Reply 0
(07/15/2016) [-]
Open cluster. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster )

Open clusters aren't so much dependent on the number of stars in them, but rather that they all come from the same gas cloud with similar ages and composition.
#5589 to #5583 - epicalania
Reply 0
(07/16/2016) [-]
Hmm, that could be what I'm looking for, thanks
#5581 - masterreposter ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/14/2016) [-]
is it true that C2OK is a fuel?
#5584 to #5581 - Fgner
Reply 0
(07/15/2016) [-]
Well seeing as there's no so chemical as C2OK (dicarbon potassium oxide)... no. Did you write that correctly?
#5587 to #5584 - masterreposter ONLINE
Reply 0
(07/16/2016) [-]
Yeah, 2 carbons, oxygen and potassium. Just checking
#5588 to #5587 - Fgner
Reply 0
(07/16/2016) [-]
Nah, that molecule won't form, the valences don't add up.
#5580 - gingershavetrolls
Reply 0
(07/14/2016) [-]
hi can any astrologer tell me what this means? i dont know the time i was born so its not totally accurate but i'm curious about this sort of thing now. i'd really appreciate it.
#5585 to #5580 - Fgner
Reply +1
(07/15/2016) [-]
THis

pronoun
1. Used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced.
2. Referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned.

determiner
1. Used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced.
2. Referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned.

adverb
1. To the degree or extent indicated.
#5586 to #5585 - gingershavetrolls
Reply +1
(07/15/2016) [-]
hahahaha thank you

i forgot to attach this
#5599 to #5586 - Fgner
Reply +1
(07/17/2016) [-]
Sorry the religion board shit on you so hard. Unfortunately, I don't know any of that. I'm sure a forum is out there that can answer your questions, though. Perhaps even /r/astrology?
#5544 - anon
Reply 0
(07/08/2016) [-]
I can touch my feet, lightly pick my nose, rich my armpits, dog around mud and tree's all without feeling the need to wash my hands, even eat after it all. Yet the instant i touch my dick i put myself in containment and have to wash the fuck out of my hands before i touch anything else, its like its as germy and bad as touching your ass hole.

I dont know what got imprinted in my head growing up to make me like this, but it feels wrong. It feels like i should be able to touch my genitals then food or anything like any other part of my body apart from my ass.

Is this the case?
#5543 - thenamlessguy
Reply 0
(07/07/2016) [-]
Could someone explain how the fuck electric eels work?
#5545 to #5543 - platinumaltaria
Reply +1
(07/08/2016) [-]
Electric eels have structures called electrocytes which operate similarly to the cells in a battery. Electrocytes work by removing positively charged ions from themselves via transport proteins, which generates a voltage across them. The electrocytes are stacked like cells to increase the voltage generated.
#5551 to #5545 - thenamlessguy
Reply 0
(07/08/2016) [-]
So it's not magic?
#5525 - zonetransferrer
Reply +1
(06/12/2016) [-]
does any of you have some solid materials for studying macromolecular chemistry?, i need reactions, kinetics, mechanism, principles. I cant find anything useful and my textbook is really hard to read (yes i know science is hard to read but that shit is ridiculous) :/
#5526 to #5525 - Fgner
Reply +1
(06/13/2016) [-]
Sorry, I'm not in the field myself so I don't know exactly what you mean by "macromolecular". Polymer? Metallurgic? Either way, I hope this list does you good in y our studies: www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/2kqe53/if_youve_ever_wanted_to_learn_university_level/
#5522 - anon
Reply -3
(06/07/2016) [-]
new episode of sci school COMING IN HOT sci school
#5517 - totallytito ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/06/2016) [-]
GIF
Serious question here; assuming how life can be programmed through DNA and operates on its own specialized code language,
it could be argued that biology and machinery share a slight overlap in their development and programmability.
If the difference between the living and animate were to be a factor of complexity, what would be the required level of complexity necessary in order to produce artificial(if not genuine) life?
We have bacteria and viruses which we classify as living, but do not meet the complexity requirements to be acknowledged as individuals as we do towards animals and pets. There are also computer viruses which also are said to meet the requirements of a living virus, but are also not "respected" as living individuals.

Some would argue that the ability to reproduce would be a major factor, but then again we have infertile men and women who are unable to fulfill this task while still being classified as living.

So again, what would be the requirements necessary to classify an AI as a living being whose life must be preserved?
#5518 to #5517 - Fgner
Reply +1
(06/06/2016) [-]
There's no difference between biological organisms and mechanical machines. They're both just a mix of chemicals and electric potentials making things happen. Machines are simply built with certain tasks in mind and assumes inputs. They have no need to reproduce, seek food or shelter, avoid predators unless actively designed for it. Therefore all that excess cruft doesn't need to exist. They have the added benefit of intelligent design, so nothing goes in that they don't directly need.

The entire conversation is arbitrary philosophy anyway. Existing AIs have more thought behind them than most animals do. Hell, your word processor has more complex behavior than the average reptile. To say that existing machines aren't sentient, but then turn around and say your pet gecko has a soul would be stupid. Going further, the interaction of planets or stars or galaxies are vastly complicated, as well - are they sentient? What about atoms - which are complex in composition and also react to stimuli? The entire Earth has far more complexity than a human brain - so that MUST be sentient right? The only reason this is a discussion is because most people are uncomfortable admitting we aren't special and either everything has a soul or nothing does. I fall into the former category To say anything else would be implying this magical barrier where *poof* now experience occurs because you have this specific type of complexity humans have and then another where *poof* OH, sorry, now you don't experience because you're too complex.

But to what level of consciousness do we have to achieve to preserve it? In my mind, we should seek to minimize the suffering of any experiencing entity. So it's rather easy for me to say it needs to be capable of 2 things: (1) higher thought - so it can freely think and truly understand it's situation. And (2) emotion - so that, in combination with 1, it may fear it's own death by the means that threaten it - AKA, if it can know you're going to kill it with a sword - don't. But if it can't fear the gun you're pointing, no big deal. .

Beyond that, all machines - biological, mechanical, or electrical - are simply tools. Use a hammer to hammer, your ox to plow, etc. If it can't fear it's own death, there's no reason to feel bad about killing it. Though, the consequences should be thought of (for instance, killing an ecosystem isn't intrinsically bad because it can't experience itself, but causes suffering to all the living things inside)

When this debate happens in real life, I always like to bring up Sims characters. They have complex states that determine emotions and needs. They have thought processes that give them impulses to act, they can freely observe their situation and make their own moves if left alone. The computer keeps track of dreams and desires and the characters actively seek positive outcomes and avoid negative situations. Sure, it's not higher thought, but this is no different from a basic lizard - complex states, seeking to avoid noxious stimuli and achieve positives.

If you believe a lizard is conscious, if you believe they have souls, it would be intentionally ignorant to think all those Sims you killed weren't alive in some way as well.
#5527 to #5518 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
There is some point in which start being different than machines, because matter behaves differently depending on if we look at it or not. It does no do that for a keyboard or a chair
#5528 to #5527 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
> because matter behaves differently depending on if we look at it or not

No, it doesn't. The double split experiment has been so widely misattributed, same with the Schrodinger thought experiment, it's sad.

First up, we didn't observe the particles, the detectors did. The detectors are inorganic machines, the observation was never a "conscious" being.

Quantum systems like light are in a superposition at any time. We can't tell what state it is in, until a larger (but still quantum) system interferes with it to observe. When this happens, the quantum state is forced to collapse, it must decide at that time whether the cat is dead or alive. However, we've now interacted with the light and collapsed it's superposition by observing it before the slit, it's been polarized by the detectors. So when the quanta (packets of light) reach the slit, it's in a definite particle state and must follow the accompanying laws of that particle. As such, it can only go straight through those little slits and form bands on the final detector.

However, without the detector the light remains in superposition, the polarity and behavior of the light is not definite but a set, or wave, of probabilities. When it reaches the slits, the light is still such a wave and follows the according laws. But all good things come to an end and the light must hit the detector at the end. And when it does, the quantum system comes into contact with a larger system and the superposition is again forced to collapse. So when it hits the detector, it becomes a particle again. However, unlike with the detector, the quanta are now all over the place, with the highest number of quanta appearing at the crests of the interference pattern for the two probability waves coming from our slits. (What a disgusting sentence).

It was never the human observation that changed it, it was the fact that the light was polarized by the detector. Even if you unplugged the computer that recorded the polarization data, the light would still act as a particle. Quantum state follows lazy evaluation for collapse waits until the last possible second to be determined , but data erasure cannot recover quantum state.
#5593 to #5528 - mublerking
Reply 0
(07/17/2016) [-]
In a sense it does, unobserved states do behave differently than observed states. All observable states obey the mass shell relation E^2-p^2=m^2 (its usually written as p^2=m^2 where p is 4-momentum in this case and called the momentum hypersphere, but its nicer with energy). In all observable states the mass shell relation must be obeyed, hence we say all observables are on-shell, this is due to noethers theorem, stating that for any symmetry of the lagrangian we get a conserved quantity, in this case time invariance leads to conservation of energy in terms of on-shellness.


This is however where unobserved things differ, nothing about the equations of motion suggest that reaction must be on-shell. In fact, they can be off-shell, and we have good evidence to suggest this (the photon can normally only have 2 polarizations, the transverse ones. If its off shell however the photon can become massive and pick up the third polarization, the longitudinal one. We can tell it does this because the photon propagator is actually the sum of the outer product of all its polarization, and it happens to be the sum of three polarizations, thus the photon can take the third showing that it doesnt obey the mass shell) In this sense, matter does behave differently if its not being measured.
#5594 to #5593 - Fgner
Reply 0
(07/17/2016) [-]
I don't think you're in disagreement with me. By saying observation changed nothing, I simply meant that there's nothing special about human observation. It's the fact that the light interacted with an outside system that forced it out of superposition.

But, such as is the case for particle decay, that collapse does cause the behavior to change.

Thanks for the read, though!
#5595 to #5594 - mublerking
Reply 0
(07/17/2016) [-]
But it's also not the detector, previously for instance it was thought things like Heisenberg uncertainty were due to say how you measured it. For instance to measure position you must use light, but that changes the momentum. But that view was incorrect, it's just fundamental about nature, completely independent of any method of observation. Even if somehow you used the theoretical "perfect" detector these effects would arise. (I'm not disagreeing with you, merely stating that the way it's worded may be misleading as it appears to place the uncertainty as a fault in the detector)
#5530 to #5528 - sobir
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
sorry if im being a bother
#5532 to #5530 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
Not at all, I have all the patience in the world for someone who legitimately wants to learn.
#5533 to #5532 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
Starting uni this year in Leicester, England. Gonna study physics. I want the hardcore theorethical one. pretty hyped tbh
#5534 to #5533 - Fgner
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
Fuck yeah, git 'er done! It's definitely going to be a lot of math and hard thinking, but every day will be a puzzle for you to solve and you'll bring humanity one step closer to... well we don't know! Time travel, teleportation, instant data transfer, stable quantum computing, the possibilities are endless!
#5590 to #5534 - mublerking
Reply 0
(07/16/2016) [-]
We can already travel in time you silly
#5535 to #5534 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
fuck, youre giving me a motivation hard-on. Just read what you typed about my last question and I think imma need to re-read it all over again. Thanks for the explanation tho, I rarely find someone to talk with about this.
#5529 to #5528 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
I really like your explanation stile, its very clear. As far as I remember it was proven that all things act like waves and particles, because the same experiment you just described with light was made with electrons as well with the same results. Do we know how it knows when to choose a position tho, and how it chooses the one it does.

Btw you seem to have done your research, are you studying physics or do you just enjoy learning about such things
#5600 to #5529 - mublerking
Reply 0
(07/18/2016) [-]
It isn't necessarily proven as with anything it can be shown that it's incredibly likely, but we can't necessarily prove anything with 100% certainty. However, it is incredibly likely that particle wave duality is true because of, as mentioned the double slit experiment, but also observable effects like quantum teleportation which directly impedes our ability to make smaller transistors.

We don't necessarily know how it chooses a position. There's several interpretations of quantum mechanics, and they tend to disagree on this. For instance, while the Copenhagen interpretation essentially says that it is truly random and can't be determined, the pilot wave theory describes it as being due to some hidden variable that we can't determine. We do however know why it collapses in the first place, particles in observed states are called "on-shell" (see >>#5593 for a better explanation of on-shellness), particles in unobserved states can be off shell. This means that they don't obey this. However when it's off shell it's mass and energy can change, the energy can change by "borrowing" energy from the vacuum, this is essentially how the Heisenberg equation ∆E*∆t≥h/4π works, it can borrow energy like this but the more energy it borrows the less time it can borrow it for. In that sense, the more weirdly the particle acts the less time it can act weirdly, and thus the wave function collapses faster, and collapses when you look at it as it must be on-shell when you measure it so can't be acting weird.
#5531 to #5529 - Fgner
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
> Do we know how it knows when to choose a position tho

Lazy evaluation. Quantum states will remain that way as long as they possibly can, they really don't want to fall into a defined state. But the exact moment another, interfering quantum state comes into play, all quantum states involved are immediately collapsed. Most likely within the exact Planck frame such interaction begins (though this can't be observed).

Well, what do you mean other, interfering quantum state? Literally everything, really. At a macroscopic scale it's not noticeable. But if you zoom in, all interactions actually occur at an atomic scale, and those interactions are almost all determined by how electrons interact with each other. And those interactions are determined by the interactions of fields. And these "solid" particles are just the result of interacting fields and smaller particles themselves. And so on and so forth.



When it comes down to it, nothing is "truly real", the very matter you're composed of is just a cascading collapse of countless quantum systems, falling into their probability curves and producing certain "normal" behaviors. In reality, the laws of physics aren't absolute and they're violated all the time in very, very, very tiny amounts (because of how improbable the outcome is on the probability curves).

For instance, electron tunneling is the process where an electron can pass barriers they are incapable of passing by known laws of physics. However, the probability that they are there is still allowed in a quantum state, so when a collapse occurs, they sometimes show up. It's a huge problem in hardware engineering these days, as our transistors are getting smaller.

And imagine you're playing red light, green light. When played right, the kid in charge will do it every few seconds, and somebody soon reaches the finish line. But what if the kid was shouting every half a second? You'd never have time to move, the game wouldn't ever end! Well that's what happens with radioactive decay. It's a quantum process, and atoms don't actually "count" or anything. They have no way of determining when it's their time to die. It's simply a probability curve for them and, statistically, after X amount of time 50% of them will have died. The probability curve never changes, so we call that a half-life.

But if you continually observe them, constantly collapsing them, you "freeze" them in time. Like in the video, like in the game, they become unable to travel along the probability curve any longer and, theoretically if you observe in every Planck frame , NEVER experience decay. Congradulations, a violation of classical physics.

I guess, more accurately, we could say that we're proving classical physics isn't being violated so much as being proven inaccurate.

> and how it chooses the one it does.

As we understand it now, we don't understand. And unfortunately, we may be completely unable to pinpoint the underlying behaviors of quantum systems; they're hidden from us and already incredibly hard to interpret or understand. Hell, we don't know why quantum systems even collapse around each other like they do. We just observe that it happens. We're looking down into a deep hole, with no way of knowing what's at the bottom... or if a bottom even exists at all. Perhaps this is the very basis of the universe, things just randomly happening?

But we do know it all falls along probability curves. The video here shows the process of decoherence, where atoms start in a system of superposition but the environment causes it to fall into a definite state.

> are you studying physics or do you just enjoy learning about such things

My dream job would be chemistry, but my family wasn't wealthy and I just did my 4-years for mechanical engineering to minimize the burden on them. But what a wonderful world we live in, I can just make sure I'm well read on things I'm interested in.
#5536 to #5531 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
Have you watched a movie called "How deep does the rabbit hole go"
#5537 to #5536 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
Can't say I have.
#5538 to #5537 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
Well it says some pretty weird shit and its not something I can easily google, or so I think. It looks at the way we as observers change things. One experiment that I would really like to see the source of claims that if we record a number of beeps, some sounding in the left ear and some in the right and give it to random people to listen to without we listening to it ourselfs, if we tell them to focus on on ear more than the other the number of beeps heard there rises. Since it hasnt been observed its normal that the beeps are random but this interaction is really weird. I wanted to ask you on your opinion on the whole thing because it sounds made up
#5539 to #5538 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
Not sure, I'd need to actually see the study itself. As it stands, that sounds made up, I've never experienced that happen before and there have been plenty of times I do that exact thing watching videos online. If it's not, it can rather easily be explained by our brain's sometimes faulty wiring. Auditory illusions, just like optical, exist.

But I say that making conjecture that we, as humans, are special and influence how things exist is purely fictional. Based on the same kind of misunderstanding of science we see with the double slit experiment. And that's coming from a guy whose entire world-view is based around the idea of a fundamental superposition with "collapse" by a fundamental observer. AKA, that theory would support my world view if I chose to believe it.
#5540 to #5539 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
Im gonna watch it one more time and see if I can get hold of the experiment source
#5541 to #5540 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/29/2016) [-]
You da mvp.
#5542 to #5541 - sobir
Reply +1
(06/29/2016) [-]
time to sleep now doe. Its been great meating you man, thanks for everything. ill message you when I get to the bottom of things
#5520 to #5518 - totallytito ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/06/2016) [-]
Furthermore, I was asking about the human justification for calling something sentient.
I'm already aware of how the mechanics work, but I wanted to ask about what humans consider worthy of being conscious.
#5521 to #5520 - Fgner
Reply 0
(06/07/2016) [-]
Ah, well that varies on an individual basis doesn't it? Some people have a very narrow worldview, and choose to believe that humans are the only truly sentient creatures. Some people choose to believe that every single thing ever is sentient and should be respected as such.

I think most people believe, though, that biological organisms with human-like emotion are sentient. So reptiles, mammals, avians. But not insects. And computers are ruled out because "they're just machines" and not much thought is really put into questioning that boundary for the layman.
#5519 to #5518 - totallytito ONLINE
Reply +1
(06/06/2016) [-]
This exactly the kind of response I wanted to hear,
I'm in the right image board at last.

I'll get back to this when im more alert
#5513 - whitechino
Reply 0
(06/05/2016) [-]
How many years of my life and I still didn't know our solar system has four planets with rings. Why does every planet after the asteroid belt has rings and not ours.
#5546 to #5513 - platinumaltaria
Reply -1
(07/08/2016) [-]
This does not surprise me even slightly. But please, lecture me on my intelligence some more.
#5547 to #5546 - whitechino
Reply 0
(07/08/2016) [-]
boi, stop following me. Get some help. You're too annoying.
#5548 to #5547 - platinumaltaria
Reply -1
(07/08/2016) [-]
You're on the front page of the science board, this is literally the last place I would look for a moron. Deflate that ego.
#5549 to #5548 - whitechino
Reply 0
(07/08/2016) [-]
You're gonna have to stop using my words for your shity points. Don't come at me when Z man keeps embarrassing you and giving you every reason you should fight in Syria.
You're not smart. Stop being a pretender. If you were smart you could get out this ruff part of your life, make some friends, and fuck off where you're not wanted. Don't hit me up for the rest of the day. I gotta go out into the world and do stuff and see people. Do you know what that means? To see people that aren't your mommy and daddy?
#5550 to #5549 - platinumaltaria
Reply -1
(07/08/2016) [-]
You know I can't understand you when you're mouth's full of zlane's dick.

I'm not as smart as a lot of people, but I am smarter than a lot of people, including you. You're attacks against me are always the typical superficial crap; you're never going to get anywhere with that. If I reveal something to the internet, chances are it's not my greatest weakness ;) Bring some bigger guns next time, this little show was insulting.
#5554 to #5550 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
your*

#5555 to #5554 - platinumaltaria
Reply -1
(07/09/2016) [-]
*niggers
#5556 to #5555 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
"You know I can't understand you when niggers mouth's full of zlane's dick?"
#5559 to #5556 - platinumaltaria
Reply -1
(07/09/2016) [-]
>not realising that I have no respect for anons
#5561 to #5559 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
ay plat

you'll never be pure white

u mad? lololoollo
#5562 to #5561 - platinumaltaria
Reply -1
(07/09/2016) [-]
Not really, quite a number of pure whites bring shame to their race.
#5564 to #5562 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
YOU'RE A NIGGER. A FUCKING NIGGER

Throw his ass out. He's a nigger! He's a nigger! He's a nigger! A nigger, look, there's a nigger!
#5565 to #5564 - platinumaltaria
Reply -1
(07/09/2016) [-]
No I'm not, which makes calling me one rather ineffective as an insult...
#5573 to #5566 - platinumaltaria
Reply -1
(07/09/2016) [-]
>>#5572
Well I know what you are: a moron.
#5574 to #5573 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
why disparage your own kind?
#5575 to #5574 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
How about you login ;) pro-tip, you won't.
#5576 to #5575 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
how about you tell what race you are?
#5579 to #5576 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
>>#5578
Sure I am kid.
#5577 to #5576 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
How about you explain why it matters.
#5578 to #5577 - anon
0
(07/09/2016) [-]
forget it. i know you're a nigger
#5567 to #5566 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
Is there a point to this, or do you enjoy looking like an idiot?
#5568 to #5567 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
>nigger

>calling people idiots
#5569 to #5568 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
>anon
>thinking I care about you
#5570 to #5569 - anon
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
>nigger

>thinking anyone takes you seriously
#5571 to #5570 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
>continuing to use an insult that doesn't even apply to me. Call me cracker next.
#5572 to #5571 - anon
0
(07/09/2016) [-]
so what are you? you said you're not a spic, a chink, white, or black. what are you a fucking arab?
#5552 to #5550 - whitechino
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
Are you done having thin skin?
I'mma stop messing with you for now on cause you're the type of special in the head that's too annoying to have a nanny caretaker.
#5553 to #5552 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
You got me, I get attacked daily but I'm the one with thin skin, totally.
#5557 to #5553 - whitechino
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
boi, shush. Go back to bed, or eat your english muffin or whatever ya eat over there.
#5558 to #5557 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
"I'mma stop messing with you"
Way to ignore me bruh. Such not commenting. Wow.
#5560 to #5558 - whitechino
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
These are the last words you'll here me directed towards ya. You're a lost cause you lost soul.
#5563 to #5560 - platinumaltaria
Reply 0
(07/09/2016) [-]
Well honestly if that were true it would be a relief. But no, I'm probably going to have to endure you for a while longer. fyi people don't have souls, cya later
#5516 to #5513 - brownskin
Reply +2
(06/06/2016) [-]
The outer planets are all gas giants, with a significantly higher mass, and a stronger, larger gravitational field as a result gas giants can only form naturally far from the parent star, as the matter that makes up the gas giants would have been captures by the parent star while still in the planetary disk phase.

The inner planets can have rings as well (it is theorized that the Martian moon Phobos may form a small ring as it is torn apart by the planet's gravity, and before it finished it's formation, our moon may have also been a ring), but, they lack key factors to ring sustainability that the larger planets have.

1. Mass. There is simply more mass for larger rings to be made of.

2. Ring Shepards. This term refers to small moons that orbit area around the ring systems, whose gravitational field helps keep the rings from dissipating. They often form during the ring's early years, as the ring material collides, much like planetary formation. On a much larger scale, our asteroid belt exists due to the conflicting gravitational forces from the Sun and Jupiter.

That's all I can remember though. Basically the inner planets don't have the proper mass for large enough rings, nor the ring Shepards necessary to keep them from breaking apart
#5515 to #5513 - Fgner
Reply +1
(06/05/2016) [-]
Why doesnt earth have rings  Tell me why
#5514 to #5513 - polarbare
Reply +1
(06/05/2016) [-]
it turned into the moon?