compilation. instead of writing something like "not sure if oc" or "Totally OC 100% legit" i will give source to everything i found www.buzz compilation stumbleupon zombies Fonts
x

compilation

 
compilation. instead of writing something like "not sure if oc" or "Totally OC 100% legit" i will give source to everything i found www.buzz

instead of writing something like "not sure if oc" or "Totally OC 100% legit"

i will give source to everything i found
www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/can-you-make-it-through-this-post-with-having-your [foundthroughoutstumbleupon]
resized picture of africa.
You need to login to view this link
paper fonts.
www.dafont.com/punched-out.font
map of the dead.
You need to login to view this link

  • Recommend tagsx
+917
Views: 38197
Favorited: 145
Submitted: 11/25/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to bosskiss submit to reddit

Comments(121):

[ 121 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#60 - TurtleGuy (11/26/2012) [-]
Laughing at Greggs being classed as military.
User avatar #80 to #60 - Abra (11/26/2012) [-]
Its because they have knives and **** there.
#88 to #60 - NhuckCorris (11/26/2012) [-]
Oh wow!
For Americunts, Greggs is a bakery chain that sell watery sausage rolls.


Can't beat a bit of Greggs
User avatar #99 to #88 - oliviliv (11/26/2012) [-]
We have Gregg's in the UK too, by the way.
#119 to #99 - NhuckCorris (11/26/2012) [-]
That's why I said "for Americunts", as in, "this message is for americunts".

They don't have in in 'murikuh
#54 - genericnewfag (11/26/2012) [-]
What do you mean by the "true" size of Africa? Have I been deceived?
User avatar #56 to #54 - bosskiss (11/26/2012) [-]
look at this map
You need to login to view this link
looks normale right?

this is actually the true size
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Gall-peters.jpg


as said by comment 33# by haggle
It's because most maps show Africa as really small. If you look at the classic map and then compare it to the Peter's projection you see how small Africa has been made to look by European map makers.
#57 to #56 - genericnewfag (11/26/2012) [-]
There's hardly any difference between the two pictures. I was expecting a conspiracy theory and my own complimentary tinfoil hat, now I'm both disappointed and confused because of all the hype over nothing.

Cheers for the elaboration though. +1
#65 - lolsoldier (11/26/2012) [-]
The spring's mass is the same whether you compress it or not!
It's true that if you'd try to weigh it on a bathroomweight, it will appear to weigh more, but that because a weight measure pressure, not mass.
I just needed to point it out...
User avatar #67 to #65 - nebuchadnezzaurus (11/26/2012) [-]
/\ This
User avatar #74 to #65 - pukingrainbows (11/26/2012) [-]
weight is a force, not a pressure. A pressure is a force per area.
#77 to #74 - lolsoldier (11/26/2012) [-]
you're right, my bad...
User avatar #82 to #65 - anonymoose (11/26/2012) [-]
E=MC^2 bro. C^2 is a constant, so if something is given energy, then M must also increase.
#98 to #82 - ReyJavikVI (11/26/2012) [-]
I think that's what the OP meant, but you will never see that in practice. If you take a strong spring and compress it about 25 cm, you will get a mass increase of about 10^-17 kg.

Science, bitches.
#84 - Zwaffel (11/26/2012) [-]
Who else just went to the map side for zombies?
Who else just went to the map side for zombies?
#91 - slyve (11/26/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Actually, if you would shrink the sun to a point where it's radius measures 1,9 miles (3.0 KM) it would collapse into a black hole.

(Google: Schwarzschild Radius)
User avatar #115 to #91 - neokun (11/26/2012) [-]
What causes this?
User avatar #124 to #115 - slyve (11/26/2012) [-]
That's the point where the sun would get so super dense that it would collapse in on itself and form a black hole.

As for the "how exactly does that happen" part, i don't think anyone has figured that out, yet. Unfortunately. Black holes are awesome as hell, I'd love to know what happens in one of those sexy ************* .
#87 - mazlum (11/26/2012) [-]
According to the map of the dead I'm 			******		.
According to the map of the dead I'm ****** .
#9 - funnyjunktitan (11/26/2012) [-]
The Brontosaurus never actually existed, some scientists found two seperate kinds of dinosaur bones near each other and assumed they were a single dinosaur
User avatar #16 to #9 - SirSheepy (11/26/2012) [-]
actually the bones were nowhere near each other. they were at least a couple of miles apart.
#45 to #16 - lazyvoltage (11/26/2012) [-]
Well, Bronotosauruses are big ******* dinosaurs.
#7 - novus (11/26/2012) [-]
I did some digging. A compressed spring gains something called relativistic mass, which is the same as the potential energy added to it by compressing it. Relativistic mass should not be confused with its standard resting mass, and the spring's weight is not influenced by it. Mathematically, the total mass of the spring increased, but not in a way gravity can affect.

The statement in the content about weight is FALSE. A correct (but misleading) statement is that a compressed spring has more mass than an uncompressed spring. However, this extra mass cannot be weighed, as it is more a conceptual mass based on relativity (the compressed spring has more relative energy, and mass and energy can be interchanged using Einstein's principle E=mc^2).
User avatar #30 to #7 - bayakpo **User deleted account** (11/26/2012) [-]
Should they say that under a condition where the springs were shot into space at almost near to light speed approaching another planet, we can definitely agree that the weight of the compressed spring weighs more than the uncompressed by a little bit. More energy = more mass. And I added approaching another planet to add in the term of "weight". So there ya go, correcting the misleading stuff :DD
User avatar #8 to #7 - xyxoz (11/26/2012) [-]
I thought it was the simple fact that weight was force and mass combined, and a compressed spring has more force.
Even if mass is the same, it technically weighs more because it's exerting more force on the earth. High school physics.
#11 to #8 - novus (11/26/2012) [-]
What is compressing the spring? A rock on it? The rock plus spring will weigh the same, whether the rock is on the spring or just sitting beside it. High school physics.

To make it simpler, let's just say we compress the spring and then wrap a big rubber band around the ends, holding it compressed. We then lay the spring on its side on a scale, so that the spring is only exerting its weight on the scale. According to the "fact" in this post, the spring with the rubber band around it would weight more than the spring with the rubber band simply sitting next to it.
User avatar #12 to #11 - xyxoz (11/26/2012) [-]
Yes. Weight is force. If we were measuring mass, then the spring would be the same, but the force changes, thus the weight changes. Next time you stand on a bathroom scale, squat or flex your legs. See what happens.
#28 to #12 - semantic (11/26/2012) [-]
Can it have something to do with density?
That you compress the same amount of mass into a smaller space, and it seems to weigh more?
Just like a kg of feathers is the same weight as a kg of lead, only the lead seems heavier cause of the concentrated mass?
#83 to #8 - anon (11/26/2012) [-]
oh god no
#101 - bananarchy (11/26/2012) [-]
This image has expired
I'll be fine
#46 - lazyvoltage (11/26/2012) [-]
The only reason I kinda knew about the Venezuela one was because of Breaking Bad..
#64 - alfjnn (11/26/2012) [-]
******* Ottoman Empire Master Race, Bro.
#109 - Mattyowl (11/26/2012) [-]
Wow.
Map of the dead is more detailed than Google maps.
You can even see small paths marked on.

Also, I live next to a graveyard, which is marked grey... while my whole area is marked red. So I should go to a graveyard during a zombie apocalypse?
#100 - boxdweller (11/26/2012) [-]
Well, if zombies come to Glasgow, I'm royally screwed.
User avatar #102 to #100 - bananarchy (11/26/2012) [-]
You can stab them with your heroin needles
User avatar #105 to #102 - boxdweller (11/26/2012) [-]
And waste my Heroin? Are you insane, man?!
#106 to #100 - TimBisley (11/26/2012) [-]
Don't worry mate, we can use these!
User avatar #117 to #100 - neokun (11/26/2012) [-]
If zombies hit Glasgow, im heading for Gartcosh. Lots of farmland there.
User avatar #97 - bugplayer (11/26/2012) [-]
Diggind a hole through the earth would take you 45 min to reach the OTHER SIDE, not the bottom. Unfortunately, you would die so...Kids don't do that
User avatar #79 - Abra (11/26/2012) [-]
The map of the dead thing is amazing, I love you OP
User avatar #43 - hypex (11/26/2012) [-]
"a compressed spring weighs more than a relaxed one"
explain this ******** ? the spring doesnt get more mass does it?

say if you have 10 springs, you put thos on a scale and they weight a total of 10 pounds, then you put a huge iron block on top of it and negate that from the equation... you should still get 10 pounds?

anyone be so kind as to explain this to me? :L
User avatar #55 to #43 - winsauceiswin (11/26/2012) [-]
it has nothing to do with e=mc^2. it has to do with f=ma and therefore m=f/a and if the force applied is large enough and acceleration is constant at 9.81 it technically has a larger mass and therefore weight. i'm not sure i believe it either and i'm in college physics right now (at the end really where we're starting quantum mechanics).
User avatar #85 to #55 - anonymoose (11/26/2012) [-]
It does have to do with e=mc^2.

c^2 is a constant and m and e are variable, so if something is given more energy [i.e. potential energy through compression] then it will gain mass. It's the basis to nuclear fusion and fission.
User avatar #90 to #85 - winsauceiswin (11/26/2012) [-]
compressing a spring does not give it more energy. we studied spring compression for like 3 weeks okay just stop talking out your ass
User avatar #94 to #90 - anonymoose (11/26/2012) [-]
It gains potential elastic energy. If not, clarify where the energy I put into the spring goes if the spring doesn't gain energy? I certainly don't gain it and the heat lost to the atmosphere is minute compared to the energy I'm putting into the spring.

Technically e=mc^2 isn't perfect, but I'm assuming the spring is a stationary, so E^2=(mc^2)^2 (pc)^2 is just pointless to say in this situation. So unless the spring is moving then my assumption was viable.

Also, please tell me, oh wise one, what e=mc^2 is? I was taught it was energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. And since the speed of light is a constant, we can say that the mass of an object is proportional to the energy contained in the object. If not, could you also clarify how nuclear power stations work, because if e=mc^2 is invalid then nuclear power stations are miracle factories, pumping out energy from no where through nuclear decay.
User avatar #122 to #94 - winsauceiswin (11/26/2012) [-]
in general springs are described by -kx=ma where f=ma and therefore f=-kx where k is a constant describing the stiffness of the spring and x is the distance from which the spring compressed from equilibrium. the equation can be rearranged to be m=-kx/a where a is either the rate at which it's being compressed for is gravity. so you can see that the mass is technically changed through that equation and it has nothing to do with e=mc^2
User avatar #95 to #94 - winsauceiswin (11/26/2012) [-]
it does gain elastic potential but e-mc^2 does not describe spring behavior the energy described in e=mc^2 is a different form of energy. the two equations describe two COMPLETELY different scenarios. i'll ttyl i have to go to class, ironically, physics.
User avatar #89 to #85 - winsauceiswin (11/26/2012) [-]
i know what e=mc^2 is and you have no idea what you're talking about
#44 to #43 - lazyvoltage (11/26/2012) [-]
I guess it has something to do with energy as energy is directly linked to mass (e=mc^2).
It's hard to actually explain this unless you go into super physicsy science stuff. It's basically an example of Einsteins E=MC^2.
The energy is stored in the spring resutling in a very slight change in weight.
User avatar #48 to #44 - hypex (11/26/2012) [-]
but still, the compressed mass doesnt weigh more than it normally would? and energy doesnt weigh anything? ever tried weighing electricity? :p

(yes electricity is energy, just in another form)

so i guess it would be even smaller than nano differences...

thanks for replying though ^^ +1 for you c:
#49 to #48 - lazyvoltage (11/26/2012) [-]
Yeah, it's gonna be a extremely small difference.
But it boils down to the fact that an increase in energy equals an increase in mass.
And weight is always proportional to mass for a fixed gravitational attraction.
How you would calculate the change I have no idea, but I know it would be oh so ************* tiny. Also, thanks for the thumb. Thumbing you back.
User avatar #70 to #48 - gunzas (11/26/2012) [-]
Electricity is a bad example here, it's mostly moving electrons (more or less) and electrons do have mass, though it's very very very small.
User avatar #13 - xkmarcus (11/26/2012) [-]
I may be being retarded here, but theoretically, if someone were to dig a hole from the crust, to the centre of the Earth, and then drop an object, as it falls, would it start to fall slower and slower due to a decrease in gravity, as it passes the majority of Earth's mass?
#14 to #13 - anon (11/26/2012) [-]
tis true
User avatar #15 to #13 - marceau (11/26/2012) [-]
No, it would speed up do to the center of gravity being closer and then it would shoot out into the opposite direction, slow down, come back and repeat until stopped at the center.
User avatar #18 to #15 - xkmarcus (11/26/2012) [-]
The hole wouldn't have been dug through the entire Earth, just from the outside to the centre.

Would it not slow down due to the continuously decreasing amount of mass dragging it down.
User avatar #19 to #18 - marceau (11/26/2012) [-]
Then it would impact into the other side and shatter like glass probably... or is my guess.
User avatar #20 to #19 - xkmarcus (11/26/2012) [-]
I know it would impact, I'm wondering if it would decrease in speed as it got closer to the centre
User avatar #21 to #20 - marceau (11/26/2012) [-]
Nope, it would still get faster.
User avatar #22 to #21 - xkmarcus (11/26/2012) [-]
But why, surely it would have less mass pulling it towards the centre?
User avatar #23 to #22 - marceau (11/26/2012) [-]
It isn't about mass, it is about gravity, that is why you fall faster to a planet as you approach it from space.
User avatar #24 to #23 - xkmarcus (11/26/2012) [-]
But mass is what creates gravity.....
User avatar #25 to #24 - marceau (11/26/2012) [-]
And the mass of the planet is still there, that is also why Jupiter's center is solid, pressure from gas above it made it that way.
#29 to #25 - tyl (11/26/2012) [-]
If you dug halfway to the center how much would you wiegh?
#31 to #29 - tyl (11/26/2012) [-]
My point is, if you dig to the center you would float.you would have no gravity.So as you approach the center gravity becomes less, slowing you down.
#36 to #31 - mikecrux (11/26/2012) [-]
your acceleration becomes gradually less due to the decreasing force of gravity, but that doesn't mean you will slow down. your velocity will keep increasing until you reach the centre, but your acceleration will approach 0. so you will speed up, just at a gradually slower rate :)
#37 to #36 - tyl (11/26/2012) [-]
assuming a vacuum (no air resistance) which was never specified
#38 to #37 - mikecrux (11/26/2012) [-]
well ok true. your velocity will increase until you reach terminal velocity* :)
#40 to #38 - tyl (11/26/2012) [-]
Hard to prove but i think the air resistance would overcome gravity at some point and slow you.
#50 to #40 - mikecrux (11/26/2012) [-]
by using the term "slow you" in kinda sounds like you are implying that your velocity will decrease, which it won't, it will only reach a maximum and then stop increasing
#51 to #50 - tyl (11/26/2012) [-]
If you are falling through air at terminal velocity and turn down the gravity you will slow down.
What do you think would happen if you jumped from a plane, reached terminal velocity and then removed gravity?
#53 to #51 - mikecrux (11/26/2012) [-]
actually yeah i get what you are saying with the whole air resistance stuff. my bad, i wasn't paying full attention :)
0
#52 to #51 - mikecrux has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #39 to #13 - UA partay (11/26/2012) [-]
The acceleration would slow down, but the book would never slow down. Here is why:
Gravity is inversely proportional to radius and directly proportional to mass. The entire mass of the Earth is constantly pulling you down when you are standing on the surface, however, to simplify things, we use the center for calculations. But when you dig a hole straight to the center, you have to take into account the changing mass. In the very center, the acceleration due to gravity is zero, however, anywhere outside of the center there is still acceleration. This is because the mass from the other side of your position will still be "creating" gravity that pulls on you, and there is more of that mass.
User avatar #42 to #39 - xkmarcus (11/26/2012) [-]
Ahh, yeah, that makes sense.
User avatar #26 - infamoustrapper (11/26/2012) [-]
lolwut? if you shrink the sun down to a white blood cell...and shrink the milky way down by the same scale.....how would the milky way be larger than the white blood cell?
User avatar #27 to #26 - infamoustrapper (11/26/2012) [-]
anddddd just realized that the sun is not bigger than the milky way
#47 to #27 - illegalartist (11/26/2012) [-]
Genius.
Genius.
#63 to #27 - huszti (11/26/2012) [-]
depends on what milky way you are talking about
#76 to #27 - rachelthemartian (11/26/2012) [-]
I thought the same exact thing at first. Sat here thinking about it for about 5 minutes.
I thought the same exact thing at first. Sat here thinking about it for about 5 minutes.
0
#62 to #27 - huszti has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #41 - jibb (11/26/2012) [-]
This is basically vsauce made into a comp.
#123 - anon (11/26/2012) [-]
"There are more stars in space than there are grains of sand on every beach on earth"

Well no **** , the universe is infinite as far as we understand.
[ 121 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)