Not mine. Found at StumbleUpon. I hope you like it!
Min comment interval: 14 seconds
Remaining character count: 4000
Remaining character count: 4000
Spoiler Image
Shortcuts: "C" opens comments. "R" refreshes comments.
Record voice message?
Anonymous comments allowed.
83 comments displayed.
#191 to #20

doctorfetus (10/02/2012) [] To anyone wondering what this guys name "kuukautisveri" means, it's "Period blood".
#457 to #226

andalitemadness (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 (10/02/2012) []
Weight is the energy exerced on the weightscale. He never mentions mass, so technically he's right.
#645 to #275

lamarisagoodname (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.
#1281 to #648

daisuke (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/doescompressedspringweighmorethan .html
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm
<pic related, einstein facepalm
1. im learning about this in physics atm.
2. heres some links to support:
http://debunkeymonkey.blogspot.se/2009/08/doescompressedspringweighmorethan .html
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99140.htm
<pic related, einstein facepalm
#1051 to #837

lamarisagoodname (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.
#976 to #245

spacelubber (10/03/2012) []
Rather than making a small machine, you could tie a rope about the top and bottom to compress it.
#1103 to #233

points (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.
#203 to #181

charlesanthony (10/02/2012) []
water is not an atom, it's a molecule made of three atoms. 2 hydrogen and one oxygen.
#11

funnyjunknsfwsecti (10/02/2012) []
Calling ******** on the glass of water vs oceans thing. Sense does not make.
#55 to #11

defeats (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.
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 (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
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 (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.
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.