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:
Order:
Latest users (2): juon, pokemonisdabest, anonymous(4).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3001 - pipeworks (09/25/2014) [-]
I came in here like, "Yeah, science is pretty cool I guess, I like learning" but immediately I have no fucking clue what any of you are talking about.
User avatar #3007 to #3001 - whatley (09/25/2014) [-]
Guy below is right. The board is dead as hell as it is, I doubt people would mind questions being asked, even if they're simple.
#3008 to #3007 - dudeheit (09/25/2014) [-]
"guy below"
User avatar #3009 to #3008 - whatley (09/25/2014) [-]
Nigga we aren't on a first name basis.
User avatar #3032 to #3009 - dudeheit (09/26/2014) [-]
not now, guy above
User avatar #3004 to #3001 - dudeheit (09/25/2014) [-]
Then ask what you don't understand and maybe someone can/will explain it to you
#3003 to #3001 - princessren (09/25/2014) [-]
someday I wish to understand
someday I wish to understand
#2996 - dudeheit (09/24/2014) [-]
Can anyone tell my 1-Chlorobutane is less reactive than 1-Bromobutane compared to a Sn1 mechanism or respectively why 1-Chlorobutane is more reactive than 1-Bromobutane compared to a Sn2 mechanism?
The solution says so but from my perspective I would tell that they should be the same because in both cases we would have primary Carbenium ion, so its logical that they are more reactive to Sn2 than Sn1
User avatar #3011 to #2996 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/25/2014) [-]
Oh my god this is so cute

Orgo... Orgo only gets harder my friend.
User avatar #3031 to #3011 - dudeheit (09/26/2014) [-]
whats orgo ?!
User avatar #3033 to #3031 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/26/2014) [-]
Organic chemistry. Aldols so many aldols...
User avatar #2997 to #2996 - tidaldiamond (09/24/2014) [-]
Its to do with the size of the halogen and that chlorine is more electronegative giving it more ionic character which is turn is stronger than covalent bonds so the additional ionic character of the chlorobutane means it requires more energy to break and so would be more likely to occur via sN2 than the bromobutane which with the lower electronegativity is more covalent in character to less energy would be require to seperate it and it can autoionise
User avatar #3002 to #2997 - dudeheit (09/25/2014) [-]
Actually, that makes sense.
I hate organic chemistry, hopefully I will pass this fucking test. Do you mind if I pn you again if I have another question?
User avatar #3005 to #3002 - tidaldiamond (09/25/2014) [-]
It took me ages to get the hang of electronegativity, ionic character, bond strenth and electron density but eventually it starts making sense.....eventually
User avatar #3006 to #3005 - dudeheit (09/25/2014) [-]
all in all OC isn't that hard but if you miss just one tiny thing about a molecule, you are fucked - like directing effects of substituents on the benzolring
#2989 - StarvedSouthKorean (09/23/2014) [-]
User avatar #2990 to #2989 - xtwinblade (09/23/2014) [-]
Electrons in the metal lining up to produce an electromagnetic field.
User avatar #2993 to #2990 - squirrelterritory (09/23/2014) [-]
That doesn't explain shit, how the fuck does the field work?
#3036 to #2993 - zacchaeus (09/27/2014) [-]
it gets even more convoluted, its all virtual particles that "don't exist" and move at the speed of light. that is why you can't block a magnetic field. You could more accurately describe it as a warping of space like gravity but even that doesn't fully explain it.

Physics can teach you in detail the math and the way in which something works, but it will always lead to more whys.
0
#2988 - thewillow has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2965 - answer (09/22/2014) [-]
how can i tell which is a stronger base? it's 3AM and i have an exam in two days. my brain is dead. pls help

BrCH2CO2- or ClCH2CO2-
User avatar #2994 to #2965 - subtard (09/24/2014) [-]
BrCH2CO2- should be the stronger base. Two ways you can look at it.

-They're both bases because they can bond with a hydrogen on the negative site. But Chlorine is more electronegative than bromine so it gains a partial negative charge by pulling electrons away from the bonding site and towards itself, making the bonding site less negative and so less attractive for hydrogen ions

-Or imagine both molecules as XCH2CO2H and think of them as acids. Because chlorine is more electronegative it will gain a more negative partial charge. This makes the site with the hydrogen more partially positive, meaning it'd form its own positive ion easier.
User avatar #2970 to #2965 - ScottP (09/22/2014) [-]
Also, do you have any pH/pOH levels for either one? That's another way to determine which one is more Basic
User avatar #2969 to #2965 - ScottP (09/22/2014) [-]
Whichever one has more OH- to give off, I think, since a strong acid is one that has the most H+ ions to give off
User avatar #2986 to #2969 - dudeheit (09/22/2014) [-]
I don't think that any of those two base (s ??) can give away any OH- at all, but i'm not sure.
Actually I think that they have to be about the same strength if you haven't given any information about pH/pOH/pKs/pKb etc. as mentioned by scott
#2962 - iamstoopid (09/22/2014) [-]
does recreational weed still have medical benefits?
User avatar #2963 to #2962 - eight (09/22/2014) [-]
Yes, but I wouldn't recommend smoking it if you want the benefits. Eat it, brew it, vape it and if you must smoke, use something that really filters the ash, like a good bong and don't do it too often. Smoking period is unhealthy, doesn't matter what herb it is.
#2966 to #2963 - iamstoopid (09/22/2014) [-]
is not
User avatar #2968 to #2966 - eight (09/22/2014) [-]
is not what?
#2971 to #2968 - iamstoopid (09/22/2014) [-]
smoking weed isnt unhealthy
User avatar #2972 to #2971 - eight (09/22/2014) [-]
Smoking anything is unhealthy. Inhaling any type of ash and carcinogen is unhealthy for the body. That includes weed, among anything else from tea leaves, to plastic, to cloth, to tobacco. If it turns into ash and it enters your lungs, you're doing your body a disservice. Does that make sense?
#2973 to #2972 - iamstoopid (09/22/2014) [-]
we dont breathe in the ash, just the smoke
User avatar #2974 to #2973 - eight (09/22/2014) [-]
What do you think smoke is? Ash in gas form.
#2975 to #2974 - iamstoopid (09/22/2014) [-]
smoke is smoke, ash is the powder left behind after burning it
User avatar #2976 to #2975 - eight (09/22/2014) [-]
Smoke - is a collection of tiny particles of carbon (soot), tar, oils and ash.

Why ask a question if you aren't willing to accept the answer? Seems like you're mind is already made up.
#2977 to #2976 - iamstoopid (09/22/2014) [-]
you didnt give me a answer, your just making stuff up
User avatar #2978 to #2977 - eight (09/22/2014) [-]
I gave you an answer you didn't like. Can't say I'm a fan of dishonesty.
#2979 to #2978 - iamstoopid (09/22/2014) [-]
i asked if recreational weed still has medical benefits and you only said weed will kill you because the smoke will poison you
User avatar #2980 to #2979 - eight (09/22/2014) [-]
Perhaps you should go back, read again and spend some thought process on what was said.
#2981 to #2980 - iamstoopid (09/22/2014) [-]
you didnt answer
User avatar #2982 to #2981 - eight (09/22/2014) [-]
Breaking Bad - The dudes name was Mel!

This is what you remind me of.
#2983 to #2982 - iamstoopid (09/22/2014) [-]
does recreational weed still have medical benefits?
User avatar #2984 to #2983 - eight (09/22/2014) [-]
I answered this already. It was the first thing I did. Then I went on to give more information on how to make it more beneficial.
#2985 to #2984 - iamstoopid (09/22/2014) [-]
no you started lying
User avatar #3000 to #2985 - fmtrick (09/25/2014) [-]
can'ttelliftrollingorjustacompleteidiot.jpeg
User avatar #3012 to #3000 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/25/2014) [-]
This was an emotional roller coaster from start to finish.
#2987 to #2985 - StarvedSouthKorean (09/22/2014) [-]
Dear Eight,

His name is iamstoopid. You've won this argument a long long time ago.

Sincerely,
Nien
User avatar #2960 - leadstriker (09/22/2014) [-]
Neil deGrasse Tyson on gmo food!
wut m8
did he just simplify the whole field of GMO's to cross breeding??
and say we have nothing to fear and we're just scared of new technology?
since when did he start getting payed by monsanto
respect -1
User avatar #3035 to #2960 - drastronomy (09/27/2014) [-]
as long as it does not get too widespread and creates a monoculture, its fine with me.Growth of bacteria, plants, algea, etc. should be restricted, however, so it does not affect the environment
User avatar #2961 to #2960 - whatley (09/22/2014) [-]
I don't see how his point is invalid, it's true that we've genetically altered food throughout the ages to serve our purposes and it's true that the root of most of the complaints regarding GMO foods are probably rooted in fear. Now, it's true that we're doing things that we aren't a thousand years ago to food, but he's right about them being nothing to worry about, that's been concluded, and that's the real important point.
User avatar #3015 to #2961 - coronus (09/25/2014) [-]
yup. I mean, if the DNA of our food wasn't denatured long before getting out of our digestive system, we would be Bdelloids, or some other, equally small gene-stealing rotifer.

That, and all GMO crops are non-breeders, so the environmental risk is close to zero as well. Not only are they sterile haploid multiples, but they tend to run on drastically reduced (1yr or less) life-cycles, which further reduces risk.
User avatar #2957 - thefunnyside (09/21/2014) [-]
Guys, there are two theories of how earth (and our solar system in general). What are their names?
User avatar #2958 to #2957 - choobe (09/21/2014) [-]
The one is that the Sun completely all over the place, the other is that it when the Milky Way entirely, it just.
User avatar #2967 to #2958 - thefunnyside (09/22/2014) [-]
thank
User avatar #2956 - lurifax (09/21/2014) [-]
Over the course of the next 50 years, nanotechnology is set to advance our world beyond recognition. It will make our current technologies seem primitive, clunky, and in some cases barbaric. Very soon you will begin to to see the effects of the first phase of this revolution. Take a look at the amazing innovations below.

www.thatsreallypossible.com/news/804/nanotech-revolution-phase-one/

Science, niggas
User avatar #2992 to #2956 - xtwinblade (09/23/2014) [-]
only problem is mass-production.
User avatar #3013 to #2992 - Sethorein ONLINE (09/25/2014) [-]
Everything becomes easier to produce over time. The amount of computer memory you can buy with 100 dollars has been doubling every couple years for decades...
User avatar #3014 to #3013 - xtwinblade (09/25/2014) [-]
yes, but nano-tech takes a long time to produce for each individual object. We know and can make computer processors that are 10 000 times as fast as the ones we have, but we are not making them because it takes 8 weeks to make just 1.
We currently do not have the technology to mass produce nano-technology and it will take a long time until we do.
User avatar #2949 - lurifax (09/21/2014) [-]
www.alexras.info/code/orbital_objects/

Look at dis. Kinda thought provoking, no?
User avatar #2991 to #2949 - xtwinblade (09/23/2014) [-]
not really. those dots are about x1000 bigger than the actual satelites.
User avatar #2948 - lurifax (09/21/2014) [-]
EY, FAGITS
what's your favorite physics phenomena?
User avatar #3016 to #2948 - coronus (09/25/2014) [-]
Technically an exploit of several phenomena ... but: digital holography. My brother's PhD is based on sound and light based wave projection, specifically in the realm of holographic recreation of real data. It's pretty cool, I guess.
User avatar #2998 to #2948 - djequalizee (09/25/2014) [-]
Double slit eave interference pattern
User avatar #2999 to #2998 - djequalizee (09/25/2014) [-]
*wave
User avatar #3017 to #2995 - lurifax (09/25/2014) [-]
Now that's nifty.
Explain?
User avatar #2950 to #2948 - whatley (09/21/2014) [-]
The Casimir effect. Shit's cool.
#2951 to #2950 - lurifax (09/21/2014) [-]
That is neat as hell
User avatar #2952 to #2951 - whatley (09/21/2014) [-]
Wait, I didn't even know about this second part, just about a force being applied on plates via a quantized field. How the hell does it make wormholes?
User avatar #2955 to #2954 - whatley (09/21/2014) [-]
I'm somewhat dubious about this. It's only real mention of wormholes is:

"Exotic matter with negative energy density is required to stabilize a wormhole. Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever pointed out that the quantum mechanics of the Casimir effect can be used to produce a locally mass-negative region of space-time, and suggested that negative effect could be used to stabilize a wormhole to allow faster than light travel. This concept has been used extensively in Science Fiction."

And it's not mentioned at all on Wikipedia.
User avatar #3026 to #2955 - spainisbad (09/25/2014) [-]
The thing is all about exotic matter, negative energy density and faster than light speed (which is actually a so-called Alcubierre Drive, where your original speed remains the same) is still theoretical. In NASA they are running the numbers (Dr. Harold I think it was? Not sure about that one) with no results at the moment. Looking up "Alcubierre Drive" will give you more info, but I haven't really heard about the Casimir Effect before.
User avatar #3027 to #3026 - whatley (09/25/2014) [-]
Oh I know, pretty much anything that says "Exotic matter" is bullshit, because it's not actually real in physics, and does insane thing that don't even exist in theory let alone things we've actually proved. Same thing with the Alcubierre drive, relies on exotic particles to actually work.
User avatar #3028 to #3027 - spainisbad (09/25/2014) [-]
That's why I said it's theoretical. It'd be cool if it actually existed, but who knows.
User avatar #2953 to #2952 - lurifax (09/21/2014) [-]
Dunno lol, I just googled it
User avatar #2940 - logickid (09/21/2014) [-]
sciencexplain ?
User avatar #2944 to #2940 - sciencexplain (09/21/2014) [-]
...Yes?
User avatar #2946 to #2944 - logickid (09/21/2014) [-]
What's air?
User avatar #2947 to #2946 - sciencexplain (09/21/2014) [-]
A combination of different gases that can be used as fuel for combustion, respiration or atmospheric control.
User avatar #2941 to #2940 - hektoroftroy (09/21/2014) [-]
what's he supposed to explain?
this place existing?
User avatar #2942 to #2941 - logickid (09/21/2014) [-]
I get alone at times, it's been a long time ever since I've seen like 100 of the explains/xplains...
User avatar #2943 to #2942 - hektoroftroy (09/21/2014) [-]
oh... I'm sorry
#2936 - madioliver (09/20/2014) [-]
Hey,
I'm not sure if this is the place to put this but I was wondering if anyone could help me ID what animal this is. I only have this one picture of the head. The fur was black and it really did look like a dog but my friend says wolf or coyote. The only reason I think dog is because the canine teeth look like they were clipped. While I only have the one picture I did look over the rest of the skeleton so I have a fair idea of what it looked like. Any ideas would be great. There's a lot of animal abuse where I live and I would like to know if this animal was left to die (If was on a small island pretty far from any shore, it would be easy to dump a dog there.)
#3108 to #2936 - StarvedSouthKorean (10/13/2014) [-]
Most likely a pit-bull looking at cartilage and the absent of incisors is a great indication of a domestic breed.
User avatar #3018 to #2936 - coronus (09/25/2014) [-]
Definitely looks canid. The structure of the skull is thick and boxy, which rules out the thinner, leaner brow, jaw , and snout of coyotes and foxes. The shape and jaw length rule out the more streamlined domestics , leaving a relative of the pitbull, bulldog, bull terrior, or one of the other stocky breeds.

...

deffinitely a domestic dog though. The teeth and skull are unmistakably canine, and entirely too short up around the muzzle to be a fox or wolf.
User avatar #3024 to #3018 - madioliver (09/25/2014) [-]
Thanks! I was hoping it wasn't a dog but at least you cleared up the confusion.
User avatar #3025 to #3024 - coronus (09/25/2014) [-]
Having just played with my neighbor's lab mix, and started looking at abandoned pitbulls to adopt, this is one of those time's I'm not too glad I could help.
User avatar #3019 to #3018 - coronus (09/25/2014) [-]
Also, the teeth look a bit off. Even dogs not bread for hunting and guarding should have sharper canines and incisors than that, and a few of them look to be ground or filed dull.
User avatar #2939 to #2936 - drastronomy (09/20/2014) [-]
looks like a pitbull to me

could be wrong, though
User avatar #2929 - drastronomy (09/19/2014) [-]
it is possible this is completely wrong and retarded, since i came up with this late at night,but....


-i=-(sqrt(-1))
-i=sqrt(1)

-i= +- 1

which means is some kind of superstate between positive and negative
User avatar #2931 to #2929 - whatley (09/19/2014) [-]
Pretty sure you can't do that. Multiplying -1 by -1 inside the root I mean, because what you're doing is assuming that -1 inside the root is equivalent to -1 outside the root, which it's not.
#2932 to #2931 - drastronomy (09/19/2014) [-]
i am not fully sure if i set up this correctly, so:

Can you even cancel out the negatives on the right side?

if not this entire train of thought was retarded, and i will be going to bed
User avatar #2933 to #2932 - whatley (09/19/2014) [-]
No.

What you do when you cancel negatives is actually multiply parts of a formula by -1, keeping them the same magnitude but reversing the sign. You can't do this with things inside a square root and outside a square root, as sqrt(-1) is different to -1.
Imagine it with a different number, 3. If you had 3sqrt(3x5), you couldn't make it into sqrt(5) by cancelling the threes. Same principle with the negatives.
User avatar #2934 to #2933 - drastronomy (09/19/2014) [-]
fuck

i know this shit

its elementary


i need to go to bed
User avatar #2935 to #2934 - whatley (09/19/2014) [-]
Maybe. These kinds of thoughts where a you get a weird outcome are almost always wrong in some way anyway, because someone would have already thought of it.
User avatar #2928 - Marker (09/19/2014) [-]
I've created a conspiracy physics problem:

You are a wooden puppet with a mass of 0.150 kg and four massless, inextensible strings attached to each of your limbs. Your puppet master yanks your strings with an upward force of 100 N. Assuming no air resistance and no free will, how will you vote in the 2016 election?
User avatar #3020 to #2928 - coronus (09/25/2014) [-]
Since voting is a choice, and choices require judgments, which require the ability and will to discriminate, you do not attempt vote unless directed to vote for a specific candidate.

If in an ultraconservative district:
the polling stations burn you for being an abomination. with no legal documentation to explain your sentience or voter registration card, you have no legal rights or protections to resist. Your master then files a claim for malicious destruction of property , for which the ensuing legal battle establishes the first legislation for the legal value of sentient and semi-sentient possessions.

If in a liberal district:
Your right to vote is hotly debated. Rallies and demonstrations are held in your honor, of which you are unable to form an opinion. Due to the slow and contemplative nature of politicians and lawmakers, you miss the election waiting for a verdict on your citizenship, legal status, and voting restrictions. Better luck next time, bub.
User avatar #3021 to #3020 - Marker (09/25/2014) [-]
Wrong. The answer was 5 meters per second. Maybe if you had shown your work you might have gotten partial credit.
User avatar #2945 to #2928 - drastronomy (09/21/2014) [-]
for ron paul
User avatar #2926 - redbread (09/17/2014) [-]
Hi guise,

So I'm in my third year of university, I'm working on a biology degree. Since you read that last sentence you obviously know that english isn't my native language, that's why I have an English class.

Here's the thing: I need to make an english presentation about a somehow scientific subject, and I wanted to do mine on a cool social/psychological experiment such as The Milgram Experiment. For those who don't know what it is check it out, it's pretty cool: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

So I was wondering if any of you knew one that was really interesting or knew where I could find some. I just started lurking on sciencedaily.com and explorable.com but of course I ended up on funnyjunk.

(I'm posting this on /social/ too, let's see which board is the best)

Thanks guise.
User avatar #2927 to #2926 - redbread (09/17/2014) [-]
Nevermind, I just went on /social/, I don't think I can get help in there, that wasn't the board I thought it would be.
User avatar #2921 - posttwo (09/16/2014) [-]
Physics time!
Powering a 12v coffee maker (13amp/126w)
Using a battery
How do
User avatar #2917 - theseventhmirror (09/16/2014) [-]
So, I've heard some explanations on this but I'm still not entirely sure about why.
What exactly did Schrodinger's cat prove, what was being tested, How did putting a cat in a box that randomly fills with neurotoxin forward science?
User avatar #2959 to #2917 - xtwinblade (09/21/2014) [-]
schrodingers cat was a hypothetical situation of quantum physics on a macroscale.
User avatar #2923 to #2917 - whatley (09/16/2014) [-]
Schronginders cat never actually happened it's a thought experiment about the interactions between quantum and Newtonian phenomena. The whole point of it is to show that quantum laws and Newtonian laws cannot be resolved with our current understanding of them.

A particle can be decayed and not decayed at the same time.
This causes the toxin to be released and not released at the same time, and therefore the cat to be dead and alive at the same time.

Obviously the second part doesn't make sense, a cat cannot be dead and alive at the same time, showing that quantum and Newtonian laws are different and interact with each other very oddly.
User avatar #2922 to #2917 - voltkills (09/16/2014) [-]
it didnt proove anything, its just a simple way to show how quantum principles work.
User avatar #2918 to #2917 - leadstriker (09/16/2014) [-]
i don't think anyone put a cat in a box for i know
it's a metaphor of how quantum physics works
as in like the chance of electron being in one place can only be a probability
#2915 - scrotoloitch (09/15/2014) [-]
How come my right hand always shakes when I try to write?
I've always had chicken scratch handwriting
I've been scolded a lot for bad handwriting..
#2916 to #2915 - StarvedSouthKorean (09/15/2014) [-]
You're a lefty
#2920 to #2916 - scrotoloitch (09/16/2014) [-]
Never would of thought of that.
Source?
 Friends (0)