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:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3593 to #3582 - nimba (12/16/2014) [-]
You don't exist
because of all these things you're made of

It's buying in to compositional fallacy in the most bizarre way - 'how can you be real if parts of you are made of neurons?' How can H2O extinguish fires when hydrogen and oxygen are both notably flammable? The properties of the sum of parts can be different to the isolated properties of the constituent parts.
User avatar #3586 to #3582 - kebabs (12/16/2014) [-]
That was gay as fuck.
#3589 to #3586 - anonymous (12/16/2014) [-]
How so? Do you have any objections?
User avatar #3590 to #3589 - kebabs (12/16/2014) [-]
That was really stupid.
>I am just a meat slab
Shit was irrelevant and who ever made it is probably a faggot thinking "w0w i am so original woah i should be a theorotical scientist". Unless it's an article containing actual facts and experiments conducted telling me I am not real and in a dream world or I am in a computer, I am not believing any shit saying I am not real. I mean where are the calculations, where are the experiments, what's the proof?
Why do people even waste their time writing bullshit like that.
>I am just a byproduct of evolutionary accident
>everything you perceive, believe, or hold dear, is just the attempts by a few kilos of fat, connected to some basic sensory organs, to model reality.
w0w i am not real though i can perceive, believe, touch, smell, it's all just some organs rite amirite
fuck you you're not right, it even says that even if we see, it's not real, we've got a whole optics section in physics telling us how light behaves.
man i thought psychologists were supposed to be specific of human behaviour and not make these stupid posts.
User avatar #3607 to #3590 - coronus (12/17/2014) [-]
It's kind of sad, actually. Even beetles have a capacity for choice, and they have a handful of neurons in the entirety of their body. Besides the fact that our ability to look at ourselves in an introspective manner and change disproves the idea that our behavior is pre-programmed, or that we are capable and willing to engage in behaviors and thought experiments (like the above) that pose no benefit to anything or anyone ... a short rant.

The idea that our reality is just a construct is idiotic at its base, since all our senses are set up to receive real time data. The only time our reality is a construct is when something is seriously neurologically wrong, like schizophrenia or phantom limb syndrome.

Beyond that, our higher social constructs are at worst the emergent property of evolved sociality, but, much like our craving for foods that store well as fat, the base Social facets of humanity were far surpassed by our true mental abilities,and outpaced by the growth of culture, even before the Assyrians identified themselves as a singular group of people.

We are not merely a sum of our parts, and evolution does not produce accidents, nor does anything in the universe operate on some chaotic principle of randomness. In fact, any good scientist will tell you that the colloquial definition of random is, in reality, nonexistent.

A good example of a species that fit the description of programmed interaction and sociability is the ant. They exemplify the bare minimum of social order needed to survive, fight, and exist as a group. A few steps higher you get certain species of macaque, who have elements of proto-culture. In their case, each population is separated by the way they use simple tools and process food; behaviors that are partly taught and partly self discovered.

Nearly every higher function of humanity, save navigation and certain facets of memory, remains singular in all the animal kingdom.
User avatar #3618 to #3607 - kebabs (12/18/2014) [-]
Psychologist: Hey man you're pre-programmed, here read the things I have written in this article. You're just a bunch of organs.
Person: K. Does your article contribute to anything at all?
Psychologist: No. Let's just get sad about the fact that we're just organs doing their functions instead of focusing on important things.
#3581 - jimmyfofibby (12/15/2014) [-]
Does anyone have any questions about or want to discuss nuclear fusion? daw1217.freeforums.net/board/1/general-board   Go to this website if you do.   
Gif kinda science related.
Does anyone have any questions about or want to discuss nuclear fusion? daw1217.freeforums.net/board/1/general-board Go to this website if you do.

Gif kinda science related.
#3585 to #3581 - anonymous (12/15/2014) [-]
how does one make a nuclear fusion reactor at home
#3604 to #3585 - jimmyfofibby (12/17/2014) [-]
With incredible difficultly that's how. But in all reality I don't know how to just build a nuclear fusion reactor at home. Nuclear fusion isn't yet even efficient.   
 Although I wish I knew
With incredible difficultly that's how. But in all reality I don't know how to just build a nuclear fusion reactor at home. Nuclear fusion isn't yet even efficient.
Although I wish I knew
User avatar #3547 - sweetbutteryjesus (12/14/2014) [-]
How are properties (melting point, boiling point, and conductivity) related to chemical bond strength?
User avatar #3548 to #3547 - kebabs (12/14/2014) [-]
If the bond is short, i.e strong, more energy is required to break it, hence melting point and boiling point are more for compounds with shorter bond. As for conductivity, the more shorter the bond, the more harder it is for valence electrons to get free, hence conductivity decreases.
User avatar #3546 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
Is majoring in Biochemistry and Molecular biology cool, or is it considered the gender studies major of the STEM field
User avatar #3551 to #3546 - nimba (12/14/2014) [-]
Taking an inter-field subject is a good bet, that's the way the industry is moving - the existing high-end professionals tend to be trained pure chemists or biologists, but when they're trying to work together they are speaking in different languages. If you can approach a team and offer to be able to interface with the chemists and the biologists you are going to be pretty valuable to their little tower of babel.
What I would say is make up your mind as to which school you're going to be in - I'm a biochemist in a biology school where the detailed chemistry kinda takes a backseat. I wish I had done biochemistry in a chemistry school tbh because chemistry is my stronger arm - but you may be different.
User avatar #3549 to #3546 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
The real question is who gives a shit? If you're asking to base your career path on it, don't bother. If you just want to know how people would view you, I wouldn't have a negative view on anyone doing biochemistry, but the general idea is that anyone doing pseudoscience is a dickhead. When I was at Uni, I was mocked for Forensics as my masters, because everyone thought that forensics was a shitty subject and not a "real" science. If it's not one of the original sciences, it sometimes is frowned upon by the snobs who think their subject is better, but this is just from my experience. It might be different elsewhere.
User avatar #3556 to #3549 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
Wait, how is biochemistry and molecular biology a pseudoscience?

User avatar #3557 to #3556 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
Well, pseudoscience originally meant that the subject doesn't adhere to traditional scientific methods, but it came to mean a science that isn't directly Chemistry, Biology or Physics when I was at Uni. The kids called a "pseudoscience" anything like Biochem, Forensics, Psychology, etc. I thought it was because of how the scientific method works, but to them, pseudo literally meant not real science.
User avatar #3558 to #3557 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
That's strange logic, though.

Biochemistry is a legitimate correlation of both chemistry and biology as it applies to the chemical processes within a living body. It's the application of both chemistry and biology, right?

That's like saying, if I mix the concept of a cake and a cupcake together and I get a cake-sized cupcake, or a cupcake-sized cake, or some variation of mixtures, it's not a real pastry. I get that either variation isn't an original form of either cupcake or cake, but it's still a pastry regardless, and it's still tasty.

So why would people majoring in "pseudosciences" like biochemistry be considered not majoring in a real science...
User avatar #3560 to #3558 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
Exactly. It sounds illogical, but they follow that logic because money is more important than knowledge at the Uni I went to. Most of the students paid their way in through their parents, and had no working knowledge of how things are meant to be or what "pseudoscience" meant. They just called it that because they were righteous bastards who believed their subject to be better than others, even thought they sucked shit at it because money was more important than skill.
User avatar #3562 to #3560 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
The funny thing I found out is the actual salary of what I want my major (biochemistry and molecular biology) to be is. A biologist's mean salary is around 45k (2013 statistic), while a chemists is 51k (2014 statistic).

However, a biochemists average salary is 48k, which is the median of these two averaged out salaries. Kind of funny, imo.

Also, were there a lot of physics majors at Oxford? When it came to the STEM students, at least.
User avatar #3564 to #3562 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
There were a lot of Physics students there doing BSc in Physics, but not so many doing MSc. The Physics students were mostly white UK residents who were really fucking good at the maths. The most foreign students were probably in Biology or Chemistry, but there were a couple in Physics. The Physics students were mostly accepted on skill instead of money, so I felt like it was the only subject where you REALLY needed to know your shit to be able to do it.
User avatar #3566 to #3564 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
And Asians.
User avatar #3565 to #3564 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
Ah. The reason I was asking that was because, on average, physicist have a higher salary than both biologist and chemist, etc.

Since before you said that most students who called out "pseudoscience" majors usually majored in something where the money is dank, I would assume there'd be a lot of physics majors. Also, how many black/African students were at Oxford, anyway? When you say foreign, I suppose you mean Indian/Middle Eastern/West and Eastern Europeans.
User avatar #3567 to #3565 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
By foreign, I mean mainly Asian students who came from rich families. They usually came from areas where the rich were really rich, and the poor very fucking poor. As for African-American students, there were a few, but not many. Most that I saw studied in Humanities and the Performing Arts, specifically History and Drama. I'm not sure what caused them to flock to those subjects, but I dare not ask and say "is it because black history".
User avatar #3569 to #3567 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
However, /rant aside, what did you major in-- if that's not too personal a question?
User avatar #3570 to #3569 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
I did a BSc in Chemistry, 3 year, and then I did my MSc in Forensic Sciences, specialising in Toxicology and Ballistics. I wanted to do a MSc in Chemistry for 4 years, but I felt that narrowed my options too much and I wanted to go into forensics. I'm starting to realise how bad of an idea it is, because jobs are hard to get and it's so glamourised by the media that all I have done recently is some studentship work.
User avatar #3571 to #3570 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
So, what's your dream job, then?
User avatar #3572 to #3571 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
I originally wanted to be a Forensic scientist for a big government organisation like the police or a higher up power, but I started to realise how slim my chances are. Now, I'm contemplating earning money from live music performances. I'm not a great musician, but it's more money than I'm making now, and a successful career in that would be great.
User avatar #3573 to #3572 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
Well, did a bit of research. Becoming a toxicologist can make you some serious cash.

Anyway, it sounds rough that you're having trouble finding a job for your specialties, but if you do plan on starting a music career, I hope it's successful. When you say live music performances, do you mean solo, or join an existing ensemble?
User avatar #3574 to #3573 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
Part of a band temporarily. At this time of year, lots of local venues want Christmas performers, so we're just doing some Christmas stuff for easy money. I'd like to continue in a band, honestly. I wouldn't mind even if it was a 2 piece band like the Black Keys or The White Stripes, I just like having someone there to perform with.
User avatar #3576 to #3574 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
I wasn't paid a yearly salary, I was paid based on what I produced. I was lucky to be scraping £20,000 over one year, and that sounds like a lot, but it's not in my circumstance. With live performances, I could maybe make in the range of £25,000-£30,000 if I did very well. I enjoy music performances more than writing papers for a shitty University, so I'd happily tour around and have an opportunity to make it big, y'know?
User avatar #3578 to #3576 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
Follow your dreams, as they would say.

Maybe you've considered songwriting? I bet if you have an awesome band in general, and a catchy song, you'd rake in bucks.

I was about to relate writing papers for Uni to being a lyricist, but then I realized that wouldn't really work. Do you think you could make it big, though?
User avatar #3579 to #3578 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
I dunno, man. Small beginnings and everything, but nothing's impossible. I'd love to be big like Foo Fighters or some band like that. My all time idol is Synyster Gates and I'd love to do what he's done. It's all right place, right time though.
#3580 to #3579 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
User avatar #3577 to #3576 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
>>#3575, Fucking hell, I replied to the wrong one.
User avatar #3575 to #3574 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
Well, how much money do you expect to make being in a band temporarily than what you were doing previously?
User avatar #3568 to #3567 - vashford ONLINE (12/14/2014) [-]
I wonder why you don't hear about too many African-American's in the STEM field, but then I realize it's sort of the culture. I mean, next year for my Senior year in high school I want to take a multitude of sciences(AP Chemistry, AP Biology, maybe AP Physics, etc.), but my parents keep wanting me to take different more literature-oriented classes. I have no idea why, but I think I have an inference.

They even want me to take a one-trimester class (Ethnic Literature: African-American Literature) so I can get more "in-tune" with my culture. Both my sisters were forced to take it or have one of their classes dropped when they were in high school still, and now my oldest sister is aiming for her Ph. D in Clinical Psychology, and the younger (but still older than me) sister is majoring in Film and Cinema.

You can probably be assured that it's "because of black history," and because of black culture.
User avatar #3550 to #3549 - nimba (12/14/2014) [-]
I believe that pseudoscience isn't necessarily invalid. Forensics is like psychology IMO - it's the application of scientific principles to a field that is usually above the complexity level of something like a molecule or a population. I have some forensic experience and I found it a little frustrating because it had a different assumptive threshold than I was used to. I wouldn't classifiy it as strictly scientific but that doesn't mean that I would automatically condescend to a forensic major.
User avatar #3553 to #3550 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
This is all based off of personal experience. I like pseudoscience, and I value it highly. It's just that I experienced something very different at Uni, and I was chipping in what I knew of the general view. I did go to Oxford though. They're mostly snobby foreign cunts who's parents are richer than Branston.
User avatar #3554 to #3553 - nimba (12/14/2014) [-]
I think you've told me that you went to oxford before. You don't think it's more than a little snobbish do you?
User avatar #3555 to #3554 - sciencexplain (12/14/2014) [-]
Hmm... As a place, it's not too snobbish. The foreign students are pretty up their own asses, but when it reaches the later years when they need to start actually doing well because they can't pay the way through the rest, they're on their knees begging for help. The students who got in because of their qualifications and skill are nice people. The place itself is nice, but if you define snobbish as people who are aware of their skills and talents, Oxford is very snobbish. People there know they're good, and they know who they're better than in their educational field. The lecturers sure as shit know that, and they love to put the righteous people in their place.
User avatar #3545 - confusedasian (12/14/2014) [-]
Can anyone science me on how strong wood is? Like for those big war hammers, axes, and spears they used wood for the pole. How strong is wood that it didn't just break? For the iron or steel part at the top to get lodged in something, wouldn't the wood break? Like, if you're swinging as hard as you can into a guy with armor, the metal part gets stuck.
User avatar #3559 to #3545 - phoenixforger (12/14/2014) [-]
Well, actual warhammers and war axes were not even remotely as big as the modern day, fictional equivalents. For the most part, these were one handed, and weighed only a couple of pounds. The two handed variants were very rare. The maul, which is essentially a two handed warhammer, had a big ol' wooden head. For the most part, weaponry is kept to light weight. So, the wooden handles didn't support as much weight as you may think.

There are, of course, many different kinds of wood, and each kind has different properties. For the most part, though, the denser the wood, the stronger and heavier it will be.

As for impact strength, fighting is more about accuracy than brute force, especially if you are fighting an armored opponent. You'll have a hell of a lot more luck stabbing in between armor, then piercing through steel plate, chain mail, and wool. It takes very little force to pierce human flesh.
User avatar #3561 to #3559 - confusedasian (12/14/2014) [-]
What about Halberds? The big pokey pokey get off your horse stick.
User avatar #3563 to #3561 - phoenixforger (12/14/2014) [-]
The heads are still fairly light. Haleberds are made for slashing and piercing, not chopping or crushing. The handle would be fairly thick, and capable of taking some pretty harsh treatment.
User avatar #3542 - coolranchderpitos (12/13/2014) [-]
Anybody know any good shows like Ted Talks? They seem interesting but everyone says they're mostly wrong or inaccurate.
User avatar #3587 to #3542 - iridium (12/16/2014) [-]
Depends on what exactly you're watching on Ted Talks. I would do some actual research about it before just going along with what people say.
#3543 to #3542 - anonymous (12/14/2014) [-]
Who's everyone?
#3541 - shanets (12/13/2014) [-]
Hey guys, not exactly the right board to post but seems like the best option.

Anyone got any tips on doing a critique of a science journal? I have to write one and then reproduce in exam conditions but I'm struggling with it as I've never really reviewed a journal before.

I'm also suppose to compare it to other research but everything I find is other reason by the same author.

Thanks for any help.
User avatar #3588 to #3541 - iridium (12/16/2014) [-]
Do you still need it? It's been 3 days, so I don't know if you still do.
User avatar #3535 - pheonixinstinct (12/12/2014) [-]
my math teacher gave us the test answers but they are in matrix code. i dont know how to break it but was hoping somebody here would. all the answers will be either A, B, C, or D.

The matrices are [168] ; [148] ; [86] ; [154] ; [190]
[50 ] [50 ] [24] [34 ] [48 ]
[174 ] [166] [70] [108] [156 ]
[406 ] [374] [198] [368] [462 ]

all of these are 4x1
this is all the info i have, anyone that can help?
User avatar #3544 to #3535 - xsnowshark (12/14/2014) [-]
Upload an actual picture
#3540 to #3535 - anonymous (12/12/2014) [-]
couldn't you just upload a pic of the question paper
User avatar #3533 - guiguito (12/11/2014) [-]
Is veterinarian college gud?
User avatar #3534 to #3533 - dudeheit (12/12/2014) [-]
why should it be bad?

User avatar #3536 to #3534 - guiguito (12/12/2014) [-]
Dunno, my narrow comception of the world tells me that it's all about bathing dogs and euthanizing horses.
User avatar #3537 to #3536 - dudeheit (12/12/2014) [-]
Well you do the same things you do as a "normal" doctor only with animals.
And certainly you won't be washing dogs as a doctor.
User avatar #3538 to #3537 - guiguito (12/12/2014) [-]
Sounds hard, i know that doc college is the hardest to get in and pass, so i guess the same with animals will be equaly as difficult.
User avatar #3539 to #3538 - dudeheit (12/12/2014) [-]
Yes that's right, the nc is way higher for vet then human medicine
User avatar #3523 - tsoper (12/11/2014) [-]
why is a black hole called a black hole if its not actually a hole?
User avatar #3526 to #3523 - kebabs (12/11/2014) [-]
We've only studied that something like black hole may exist. It's still hypothetical, as we have not been able to observe such phenomena due to many reasons, so many properties are attributed to black holes but it is still hypothetical and our perception may be proven wrong.
User avatar #3525 to #3523 - Mortuus ONLINE (12/11/2014) [-]
Because viewed from distance, it'd look like a hole in space. A big, black hole.
User avatar #3520 - delio (12/10/2014) [-]
A consumer electronics sales person earns a base salary of 1800 per month and a commission of 6% on the amount of sales made. If the salesperson received a paycheck for 3600$ last month, what was the amount of sales that month? Set up a linear equation to answer this problem, clearly defining any symbols that you introduce.

I really need help on this one. Im totally lost. Anyone here who can guide me step by step through the process?
User avatar #3530 to #3520 - iridium (12/11/2014) [-]
(n2-n1)/percentage. Easy to remember.

Also that's math and economics. Not science.
#3532 to #3530 - kebabs (12/11/2014) [-]
>not science
User avatar #3522 to #3520 - delio (12/10/2014) [-]
nevermind, solved it.
User avatar #3510 - delio (12/10/2014) [-]
Someone help me out here please. I cant fail this.

Determine whether the following function is even, odd, or neither. f(x) = 6x^2+7x

How do you even graph this much less solve this.
User avatar #3511 to #3510 - kebabs (12/10/2014) [-]
Odd function
User avatar #3512 to #3511 - delio (12/10/2014) [-]
how do you know?
#3513 to #3512 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
If f(x)=/=f(-x) then the function is odd, if f(x)=f(-x) the function is even.
User avatar #3515 to #3513 - delio (12/10/2014) [-]
so im suppose to look at the 6x^2 as one variant of x and the other as the opposite?

Ok, I think I get it now.
User avatar #3516 to #3515 - kebabs (12/10/2014) [-]
Hence, we conclude f(x)=/=f(-x), so the function is odd. This shit is useful in integrals too.
User avatar #3517 to #3516 - delio (12/10/2014) [-]
thanks mate, much needed. can you help me on this one as well?

given f(x) = 2x^2+4x-1 and g(x) = 5x^2 -x, find (fg) (x) and simplify.

As far as I know (which is most likely wrong) that would mean

2x^2+4x-1 (5x^2-x) (x)

I really am not sure if I am suppose to add the two functions or multiply. I am also not sure what to do with the (x) at the end.
User avatar #3518 to #3517 - kebabs (12/10/2014) [-]
You're right on most of the part, but yeah you do not put the last (x) in the equation. So the solution would be.
So your answer was almost right except for the extra (x) term you added.
User avatar #3519 to #3518 - delio (12/10/2014) [-]
thanks mate, you're a life saver
User avatar #3514 to #3513 - kebabs (12/10/2014) [-]
Weird got logged out randomly.
User avatar #3504 - ScottP (12/10/2014) [-]
A solute is more soluble in a solvent that has the same (or similar) inter-molecular forces right?

What's the difference between intermolecular forces and intramolecular forces?
User avatar #3505 to #3504 - kebabs (12/10/2014) [-]
Intermolecular is related to neighbouring molecules.
Intramolecular is related to a single molecule.
Intermolecular forces are the forces which hold/repel neighbouring molecules.
Intramolecular forces are the forces which holds the atoms of a single molecule together.
User avatar #3506 to #3505 - ScottP (12/10/2014) [-]
What are some types of intramolecular forces, and which one is stronger: inter or intra?
User avatar #3507 to #3506 - kebabs (12/10/2014) [-]
The forces such as ionic, covalent, etc which hold the atoms of molecule are examples of intramolecular forces and, Van Der Waal's force and hydrogen bonding are some types of intermolecular forces. Intramolecular forces are much stronger than intermolecular forces, you can compare covalent bonding and Van der Waal's force.
User avatar #3508 to #3507 - ScottP (12/10/2014) [-]
Ohhh okay that clears it up. Thanks!
User avatar #3509 to #3508 - kebabs (12/10/2014) [-]
Try to remember it like inter- as in inter-national meaning between two different countries, so inter-molecular means between two different molecules.
User avatar #3521 to #3509 - ScottP (12/10/2014) [-]
Which of the following compounds is predicted to be the most soluble in hexane, C6H14?
(1) NaCl (2) H2O (3) HCl (4) CH3OH (5) CH3CH2OH

Hexane only has London Dispersion forces and a large mass, correct? So why is it that the answer is (5), CH3CH2OH? That has London Dispersion and Hydrogen Bonding. Is it because the Hexane's large mass is an equal IMF with the Hydrogen Bond?
User avatar #3527 to #3521 - kebabs (12/11/2014) [-]
If the solute forms hydrogen bonds with the solvent, it is better soluble in that solvent. (fuck my english backwards with a telegraph pole). Now you will have doubt in your mind as why is the answer not CH3OH then, because CH3CH2OH has more electron donating groups. (CH3- and similar groups like -CH2-, in general hydrocarbon groups tend to push electrons if we have to put it in a blunt manner, this phenomena gives rise to more partial negative charge on the oxygen so it forms more stronger hydrogen bonds and if hydrogen bond is stronger than solubility is more)
#3503 - globetotter (12/10/2014) [-]
Did anyone here do a rhetorical analysis of Truman's specch before Congress in 1947?

Sharing would be greatly appreciated
User avatar #3531 to #3503 - iridium (12/11/2014) [-]
Nigga dat some linguistic, english and speech shit, dat aint science
User avatar #3486 - imadps (12/10/2014) [-]
Could someone help me with my bio homework? Almost failing, getting stuff in from 2 months ago.

1. Give 2 examples of liquids for which there is some practical value in knowing the temperature at which they boil. Explain each.
(I couldn't think of 2 that were practical)

2. Explain why Canadian homes are generally drier in winter than in summer.

I know I'm retarded for not doing these myself. I mean, I did say I am close to failing the class.

User avatar #3491 to #3486 - kebabs (12/10/2014) [-]
1. You can give examples of many liquids whose boiling points are known, search for distillation or extraction of compounds/elements via distillation. Basically if there is a mixture of substances and you want to segregate them one of the methods is heating the mixture and at this point knowing boiling points of substances is useful. The substance with less boiling point will vaporize first and hence segregation is possible.
2. Probably due to air currents (not sure) in winter dry air currents probably make passage via Canada so moisture content is less.
User avatar #3487 to #3486 - iridium (12/10/2014) [-]
1: Water. It's really easy to boil and boiling it has tons of uses.

Since it's not my assignment I'm too lazy to think of many more. Maybe Bromine? I mean it has a low boiling point of around 150*F and it's toxic in gas stage, but still used for some stuff scientifically. I'm just guessing though.

2: A number of reasons, such as the Arctic air currents, and the fact that a lot of moisture is frozen. Ice is less dense than water after all. But the primary one has to due with the fact that colder air has less water molecules in it in general. The colder it gets, the fewer molecules per cubic meter it can have.

In the future, keep to your studies.
#3480 - joshkroger (12/09/2014) [-]
>When people try to explain physical situations and say "Centrifugal" force instead of "Centripetal" force.
>When people mispronounce "Centrifugal" as "Centrifical"

It bothers me a lot. So much to the point where I have to correct them.

What misuses bothers you, /science/?
User avatar #3552 to #3480 - nimba (12/14/2014) [-]
weight instead of mass
'oh' instead of zero
scales instead of balance
inter- and intra- confusions
#3646 to #3552 - smudgiemuffins ONLINE (12/19/2014) [-]
In most contexts, weight and mass are interchangeable though. On earth's surface with no ridiculously high energy levels, heavier objects are strictly more massive ones and vice versa.
User avatar #3648 to #3646 - nimba (12/19/2014) [-]
not in my context.
#3499 to #3480 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
Edgy cunts saying "Ex-Excuse me that is actually centr-centrifugal and not centrifical, omg you're bothering me with your verbal abuse so much"
User avatar #3484 to #3480 - subtard (12/09/2014) [-]
"Glass is a liquid"
User avatar #3488 to #3484 - iridium (12/10/2014) [-]
That's not a misuse, that's just a myth.
#3478 - alimais (12/09/2014) [-]
What is this guy doing here ?
What is this guy doing here ?
#3483 to #3478 - sadpandaissad (12/09/2014) [-]
its called a high voltage Kenotron Bulb. he is making a home made X-ray. mystery solved.
User avatar #3481 to #3478 - sadpandaissad (12/09/2014) [-]
Irradiating his room.
User avatar #3476 - mondamini (12/08/2014) [-]
I know that a black hole is just an object with an escape velocity > the speed of light, but does every black hole have to have a singularity at the centre?
User avatar #3474 - tarfyki (12/08/2014) [-]
Are we 4 dimensional beings only able to view existence in the 3rd dimension? If we were 2 dimensional, all we would be able to see would be line segments (1 dimension).
User avatar #3529 to #3474 - magnuskasparov (12/11/2014) [-]
We actually see in 2d and our brain puts it together as 3d. Depth perception is an illusion, just like you can create a painting that looks like it has a lot of depth. The physical world, however, is 3d.
A 1-dimensional object is basically just a line, any line. You can describe any position on this line by only using one number. Think of it this way. Draw a line on a transparent sheet with a marker. Let's ignore the thickness of this line because that would be 2d and let's ignore the thickness of the paper. Now let's assume that every point you choose is the thickness of the line, so you don't have to deal with 2d. There are N possible points depending on the length of the line and the left end of the line is where the point called N is, now every increment is N+N until it reaches the last point. So in a line with only 3 possible places in order to describe the location of a point, the left endpoint would be 1, the second one would be 2 and the third one would be 3 so if you want to describe the middle you can describe it as point 2.
Now 2D is easier to explain, it's basically the same thing , but this time we take into account the thickness of the line and we can draw many other lines, but we still ignore the thickness of the paper and ink. 2D is basically how you graph stuff on early mathematics using X and Y axis. Now 3D has X(1D) Y(2D) and Z(3d) axis. Here we take into account the thickness of the ink and paper and now you can get the position of any point in the drawing you made in 3d. There are other dimensions, but I don't know much about them so I can't explain further, but I can guarantee that 4d includes all the previous dimensions. In the physical world, aka our world, we can't have 2D objects unless we ignore the thickness of atoms and ink etc.
User avatar #3524 to #3474 - tsoper (12/11/2014) [-]
Dimensions are stupid and heres why..

Everything is in 3d in one form or another. 2d like a paper, still 3d just lacks a big enough depth. In real life 1d and 2d are all a part 3d. Overall, its just a definition word we made to classify stuff, like give me that artwork on a 2d canvas.

There is no 4d regardless of what ppl told you. Thats retarded and your predictions of it based on 1d,2d,3d is inaccurate and false. And dont confuse time with distance, they will always be different to each other.

There is no more in our universe than height, width, and depth. However, Einsteins theory of realitivity shows how we often percieve time to be bending. Although thats just an illusion, time cannot really bend. At least not to my understanding.
#3492 to #3474 - anonymous (12/10/2014) [-]
mathematicians created tesseract because they like to play the game and also define the rules.
fucking mathematicians
User avatar #3489 to #3474 - iridium (12/10/2014) [-]
We aren't 4 dimensional beings, we're 3 dimensional beings that are able to perceive 3D objects through two 2D lenses.
User avatar #3475 to #3474 - subtard (12/08/2014) [-]
We can't see in 3D. We see in 2D.
#3468 - PopcornViking has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)