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
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (1191)
[ 1191 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#20 - kuukautisveri
Reply +198 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
HOW IN THE HELL DID THIS GET SO MANY THUMBS??!?!?!
#191 to #20 - doctorfetus
Reply +126 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#797 to #332 - yapperson
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#864 to #813 - anon id: 3117abe5
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
Still a doctor.
User avatar #1094 to #864 - edmin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
Still the main antagonist.
User avatar #969 to #332 - mikimoose
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
Well your name is it's my penis.
#205 to #191 - kuukautisveri
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
#1232 to #191 - organicglory
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#53 - ciaranc
Reply +60 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
I wish Jupiter was that close..
#729 to #53 - anon id: 1e3e7f05
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
i don't :c **** that would be terrifying
#79 to #53 - shoutie
Reply +102 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
Oh do you now...?
Well, if you're suicidal...
#226 - kingmaker
Reply +77 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
a compressed spring has more potential energy, but ******** that it has more mass
#239 to #226 - pariahlol
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
said weight, not mass
#237 to #226 - drummerperson
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#248 to #226 - anon id: e2babf38
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
Weight and mass are different just saying
User avatar #249 to #248 - kingmaker
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
thanks bud
User avatar #457 to #226 - andalitemadness
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.
User avatar #234 to #226 - graboidzero
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
Weight is the energy exerced on the weightscale. He never mentions mass, so technically he's right.
User avatar #242 to #234 - kingmaker
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
User avatar #247 to #242 - kingmaker
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
meant to say put the brick on the spring
#252 to #226 - daisuke
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(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.
User avatar #282 to #252 - Brouwera
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #275 to #265 - daisuke
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
funnyjunk, where correct answers explained with correct maths gets thumbed down.
User avatar #645 to #275 - lamarisagoodname
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
And here's an image I forgot to add to narrarate my argument.
#1281 to #648 - daisuke
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
User avatar #1284 to #1281 - bayakpo **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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 =)
User avatar #1289 to #1284 - daisuke
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/06/2012) [-]
yes, very little, what else would u think? ...
User avatar #1290 to #1289 - bayakpo **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/06/2012) [-]
Thx for the education. In payment a thumb for your response =P
User avatar #1291 to #1290 - daisuke
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/06/2012) [-]
np bro. have a thumb
#233 to #226 - jgk **User deleted account**
+26 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#245 to #233 - pariahlol
Reply +34 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
Law of conservation of mass demands that 29 is wrong.
#837 to #639 - pariahlol
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
User avatar #1051 to #837 - lamarisagoodname
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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
User avatar #641 to #639 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
I totally missed clicking the image i wanted.
#254 to #245 - jgk **User deleted account**
+2 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#256 to #254 - pariahlol
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
glad to please
#976 to #245 - spacelubber
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
true
#628 to #245 - anon id: d8e3d5b1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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!
User avatar #270 to #245 - daisuke
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#272 to #270 - pariahlol
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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
User avatar #1103 to #233 - points
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#255 to #233 - anon id: c40eed39
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#166 - itsmypenis **User deleted account**
+39 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #181 to #166 - gmaxx
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]

more atoms of water then glasses of water
User avatar #203 to #181 - charlesanthony
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(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 id: 565d83a4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
If anyone were to really think it through, I'd say it was implied.
User avatar #305 to #203 - gmaxx
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
i meant that... i mean atoms like H2O, but that's incorrect, but still the same ideea
User avatar #345 to #166 - lalaladrake
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
but who is glass?
User avatar #179 to #166 - doctadoc
Reply +50 123456789123345869
(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.
User avatar #928 to #179 - dankfrank
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
#479 to #478 - spideyonaunicorn
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
#481 to #479 - spideyonaunicorn
Reply +43 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
User avatar #1023 - mrsoup
Reply +35 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
**mrsoup rolls 444** interesting fact, i can roll
#1030 to #1023 - anon id: e89f7378
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
Wow
#1033 to #1030 - mrsoup
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
**mrsoup rolls 99**
**mrsoup rolls 99**
#1039 to #1023 - blazingballsack
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#1042 to #1023 - anon id: bdf61742
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
**anonymous rolls 1,876** prepare for dislikes ...
#1050 to #1023 - potatotown
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
**potatotown rolls 54** how in the ****...
**potatotown rolls 54** how in the ****...
#1064 to #1050 - mrsoup
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
**potatotown rolls 50** let me help you stahp
#1025 to #1023 - imagicialotv [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#90 - rheago
Reply +27 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
I ******* LOVE THESE
I ******* LOVE THESE
#526 - hairydickfarts
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
i want moar


i will never be satisfied
#1201 - DrPeppir
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
#1203 to #1201 - DrPeppir
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(10/03/2012) [-]
#11 - funnyjunknsfwsecti
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(10/02/2012) [-]
Calling ******** on the glass of water vs oceans thing. Sense does not make.
User avatar #12 to #11 - izzygirl
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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.
User avatar #55 to #11 - defeats
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
(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 123456789123345869
(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.