Can You Make It? (Part Two). Not mine. Found at StumbleUpon. I hope you like it! Part One: /funny_pictures/4136560/Can+You+Make+It+Part+One www.buzzfeed.com/dav mind blown content
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (1191)
[ 1191 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
83 comments displayed.
#20 - kuukautisveri
Reply +198
(10/02/2012) [-]
Thanks for posting OP! These are really nice!
Thanks for posting OP! These are really nice!
#1254 to #20 - kuukautisveri
Reply 0
(10/03/2012) [-]
HOW IN THE HELL DID THIS GET SO MANY THUMBS??!?!?!
#191 to #20 - doctorfetus
Reply +126
(10/02/2012) [-]
To anyone wondering what this guys name "kuukautisveri" means, it's "Period blood".
To anyone wondering what this guys name "kuukautisveri" means, it's "Period blood".
#332 to #191 - itsmypenis **User deleted account**
+83
has deleted their comment [-]
#797 to #332 - yapperson
Reply +8
(10/02/2012) [-]
Clearly you've never played Super Meat Boy.
pic related. It's Dr. Fetus; the main antagonist.
#813 to #797 - itsmypenis **User deleted account**
+1
has deleted their comment [-]
#864 to #813 - anon
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
Still a doctor.
#1094 to #864 - edmin
Reply 0
(10/03/2012) [-]
Still the main antagonist.
#969 to #332 - mikimoose
Reply +2
(10/03/2012) [-]
Well your name is it's my penis.
#205 to #191 - kuukautisveri
Reply +20
(10/02/2012) [-]
#1232 to #191 - organicglory
Reply 0
(10/03/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#53 - ciaranc
Reply +60
(10/02/2012) [-]
I wish Jupiter was that close..
#729 to #53 - anon
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
i don't :c **** that would be terrifying
#79 to #53 - shoutie
Reply +102
(10/02/2012) [-]
Oh do you now...?
Well, if you're suicidal...
#226 - kingmaker
Reply +77
(10/02/2012) [-]
a compressed spring has more potential energy, but ******** that it has more mass
#239 to #226 - pariahlol ONLINE
Reply -1
(10/02/2012) [-]
said weight, not mass
#237 to #226 - drummerperson
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#248 to #226 - anon
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
Weight and mass are different just saying
#249 to #248 - kingmaker
Reply +1
(10/02/2012) [-]
thanks bud
#457 to #226 - andalitemadness
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
Look up the theory of relativity; when more energy is added, the mass increases because e=mc^2, so it would increase by 10^-14 in grams if you added 1000 joules of energy by compressing it.
#234 to #226 - graboidzero
Reply +2
(10/02/2012) [-]
Weight is the energy exerced on the weightscale. He never mentions mass, so technically he's right.
#242 to #234 - kingmaker
Reply +1
(10/02/2012) [-]
i am aware of the difference between mass and weight (should have know I would be called out on it) but still

take a spring put it on a scale weighs 1/2 pound
take a brick that weighs 4 pounds put it on the scale
the scale is going to read 4.5 pounds
#247 to #242 - kingmaker
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
meant to say put the brick on the spring
#252 to #226 - daisuke
Reply +3
(10/02/2012) [-]
not sure about this but mass is a form of energy. e = mc^2 ... dont know if this has anything to do with it. but yeah, it would be hard to measure the weight of a compressed spring since if it would be compressed it would already be held up. maybe it does weigh more after all.
#282 to #252 - Brouwera
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
Clever. Except I'm not sure the energy would be converted into mass seeing as the object in question is stationary during the measurment.


And this would indeed be very hard to measure.
#265 to #252 - admiralamory **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#275 to #265 - daisuke
Reply +2
(10/02/2012) [-]
nope, its true. So if we were were to add 1,000 joules of potential energy to a spring, its mass would increase by 1,000 / (3*10^8)² or 1.113 × 10^-14 grams.



E = MC ************* SQUARED
#302 to #275 - daisuke
Reply +2
(10/02/2012) [-]
funnyjunk, where correct answers explained with correct maths gets thumbed down.
#645 to #275 - lamarisagoodname
Reply +1
(10/02/2012) [-]
False. Last I checked, there was no nuclear reaction so the kinetic energy is simply stored in the fact that you're compressing the atoms together, this does not change the mass. Applying the theory of relativity would be saying if 1 gram of mass underwent nuclear fusion, this much energy is created.
#648 to #645 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
And here's an image I forgot to add to narrarate my argument.
#1281 to #648 - daisuke
Reply +1
(10/04/2012) [-]
go google it "compressed spring more mass" and you will find the answer.

1. im learning about this in physics atm.
2. heres some links to support:

http://debunkeymonkey.blogspot.se/2009/08/does-compressed-spring-weigh-more-than .html

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm

<pic related, einstein facepalm
#1284 to #1281 - bayakpo **User deleted account**
Reply +1
(10/05/2012) [-]
In theory it weighs more, but really that much amount of energy when calculated is not very much. It may weigh more yes. But by how much? Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry little. Thx for the 2nd link I learned something new =)
#1289 to #1284 - daisuke
Reply +1
(10/06/2012) [-]
yes, very little, what else would u think? ...
#1290 to #1289 - bayakpo **User deleted account**
Reply +1
(10/06/2012) [-]
Thx for the education. In payment a thumb for your response =P
#1291 to #1290 - daisuke
Reply +1
(10/06/2012) [-]
np bro. have a thumb
#233 to #226 - jgk **User deleted account**
+26
has deleted their comment [-]
#245 to #233 - pariahlol ONLINE
Reply +34
(10/02/2012) [-]
make a small machine to compress it, weigh said machine without the spring, then weigh it while it is compressing the spring. Subtract the difference and you have the weight of the spring while it's compressed.
#639 to #245 - lamarisagoodname
Reply +4
(10/02/2012) [-]
Law of conservation of mass demands that 29 is wrong.
#837 to #639 - pariahlol ONLINE
Reply +1
(10/02/2012) [-]
Weight not mass, and I never said it wasn't wrong I was simply telling somebody how to weigh a compressed spring
#1051 to #837 - lamarisagoodname
Reply +1
(10/03/2012) [-]
I agree with you, but even if you weigh the spring using the correct method (your method) it would still weigh the same.
#1140 to #1051 - pariahlol ONLINE
Reply +1
(10/03/2012) [-]
Well perhaps there's some homo-voodoo sciency **** going on that we don't know about. Based upon all the knowledge i have, it won't change in weight, but it's science, things are subject to change
#641 to #639 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
I totally missed clicking the image i wanted.
#254 to #245 - jgk **User deleted account**
+2
has deleted their comment [-]
#256 to #254 - pariahlol ONLINE
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
glad to please
#976 to #245 - spacelubber
Reply 0
(10/03/2012) [-]
Rather than making a small machine, you could tie a rope about the top and bottom to compress it.
#987 to #976 - pariahlol ONLINE
Reply 0
(10/03/2012) [-]
true
#628 to #245 - anon
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
OR you weigh the relaxed spring and a clamp together, then you put the spring in the clamp, tighten it, and weigh them both again. Find the difference!
#270 to #245 - daisuke
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
but dude, u would need some badass ******* measurement, lets say if we were were to add 1,000 joules of potential energy to a spring, its mass would increase by 1,000 / c² or 1.113 × 10^-14 grams.

gl measuring that :)
#307 to #270 - daisuke
Reply +2
(10/02/2012) [-]
So if we were were to add 1,000 joules of potential energy to a spring, its mass would increase by 1,000 / c² or 1.113 × 10^-14 grams.


pic related to fj community
#652 to #307 - mrgaw
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#272 to #270 - pariahlol ONLINE
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
yeah i'm not saying to do this with a bathroom scale and some duct tape. You would have some crazy equipment, but it is possible
#1103 to #233 - points
Reply 0
(10/03/2012) [-]
It IS a change in mass "bro". Weight is equal to the constant of gravity times mass. Since I seriously doubt compressing a spring alters the Earth's gravitational pull, a change in weight means a change in mass. The change in mass does not comply with conservation of mass therefore this cannot be true in a closed system.
#1250 to #1103 - jgk **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#255 to #233 - anon
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
cause its so hard to know the weight of the stuff that keeps it compresed,right?
#257 to #255 - jgk **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#166 - itsmypenis **User deleted account**
+39
has deleted their comment [-]
#181 to #166 - gmaxx
Reply +1
(10/02/2012) [-]

more atoms of water then glasses of water
#203 to #181 - charlesanthony
Reply +1
(10/02/2012) [-]
water is not an atom, it's a molecule made of three atoms. 2 hydrogen and one oxygen.
#591 to #203 - anon
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
If anyone were to really think it through, I'd say it was implied.
#305 to #203 - gmaxx
Reply -2
(10/02/2012) [-]
i meant that... i mean atoms like H2O, but that's incorrect, but still the same ideea
#345 to #166 - lalaladrake
Reply +1
(10/02/2012) [-]
but who is glass?
#179 to #166 - doctadoc
Reply +50
(10/02/2012) [-]
If you were able to get every last drop of water out of the ocean into separate glasses, the amount of glasses of water you'd have would still be less than the amount of atoms in a single glass of water.
#928 to #179 - dankfrank
Reply -4
(10/03/2012) [-]
I think hes saying the amount of atoms in a glass cup. If the ocean were to be taken away, and filled with glass cups, all the atoms in all the glass cups would not equal the amount but actually be less then atoms of water in a glass cup
#478 - spideyonaunicorn
Reply +29
(10/02/2012) [-]
#479 to #478 - spideyonaunicorn
Reply +29
(10/02/2012) [-]
#481 to #479 - spideyonaunicorn
Reply +43
(10/02/2012) [-]
#1023 - mrsoup
Reply +35
(10/03/2012) [-]
**mrsoup rolls 444** interesting fact, i can roll
#1030 to #1023 - anon
Reply 0
(10/03/2012) [-]
Wow
#1033 to #1030 - mrsoup
Reply +24
(10/03/2012) [-]
**mrsoup rolls 99**
**mrsoup rolls 99**
#1039 to #1023 - blazingballsack
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#1042 to #1023 - anon
Reply 0
(10/03/2012) [-]
**anonymous rolls 1,876** prepare for dislikes ...
#1050 to #1023 - potatotown
Reply 0
(10/03/2012) [-]
**potatotown rolls 54** how in the ****...
**potatotown rolls 54** how in the ****...
#1064 to #1050 - mrsoup
Reply -1
(10/03/2012) [-]
**mrsoup rolls 21** don't know if i can, stahp.
**mrsoup rolls 21** don't know if i can, stahp.
#1085 to #1064 - potatotown
Reply -1
(10/03/2012) [-]
**potatotown rolls 50** let me help you stahp
#1025 to #1023 - imagicialotv [OP]
Reply +2
(10/03/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#90 - rheago
Reply +27
(10/02/2012) [-]
I ******* LOVE THESE
I ******* LOVE THESE
#526 - hairydickfarts
Reply +19
(10/02/2012) [-]
i want moar


i will never be satisfied
#195 - spankidanki
Reply +18
(10/02/2012) [-]
funnyjunk my first source of global information
#11 - funnyjunknsfwsecti
Reply -3
(10/02/2012) [-]
Calling ******** on the glass of water vs oceans thing. Sense does not make.
#12 to #11 - izzygirl
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
There are more atoms that make up one glass of water than how many glasses of water the oceans can fill.

That is very hard to wrap your mind around.
#55 to #11 - defeats
Reply 0
(10/02/2012) [-]
How one may explain this sentence to someone of primary school level:
If the ocean had enough water for 100 glasses
That glass of water has more than 100 atoms.
Therefore, the number of atoms in one glass of water is greater than the amount of glasses all of the World's oceans could fill.
#29 to #11 - CaptainKBX
Reply +1
(10/02/2012) [-]
I read it as "There are more atoms in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in the ocean"

In other words, a glass of water has more atoms in it than the ocean has glasses, like of water. Who throws glasses in the ocean?

Yeah, my brain derped a little
#14 to #11 - thedippestofshits
Reply +18
(10/02/2012) [-]
Let's say glass contains 25 cl of water. The density of water is roughly 1kg/liter (let's ignore variations caused by temperature), thus we have 25 grams of water. The molecular weight (M) of water = M(O) + 2*M(H) = 16g/mole + 2*(1g/mole) = 18 g/mole (again, this is a rounded number). This leaves us with (25g)/(18g/mole) = 1.3888888... => 1.39 moles of water.

Avogadro's constant (6.022 * 10^23, or in layman's terms, a *******) tells us how many atoms or molecules there are in 1 mole, so if we multiply it by our 1.39 moles, we get roughly 837 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 molecules of water (837 sextillion for Americans, 837 trilliard for Europeans).

Now then, to test our fact, how much space would 837 sextillion glasses of water take? multiply it by 25 cl (20.925 septillion cl) and then convert this to cubic kilometres (1cl = 10^-14 km^3), giving us an end result of 209.25 billion cubic kilometres.

For our last step, we quicky google the ocean's total volume. (http://hypertextbook com/facts/2001/SyedQadri . shtml). These sources give us an average volume of about 1.35 billion cubic kilometres.

So then, our conclusion is that, not only are are there more molecules in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in the ocean, it's over a 100 times so.

Scienced.