Facts. .. the Ottoman Empire Facts the Ottoman Empire
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (629)
[ 629 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
51 comments displayed.
#144 - werefinding
Reply +273
(12/04/2012) [-]
**werefinding rolled a random image posted in comment #137 at The Road ** Things be so huge
#168 to #144 - pieliker
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#170 to #144 - anon
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
Sweet roll.
#419 to #144 - annaisocoolike
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
i laughed way too hard at this
#155 to #144 - andnowducks
Reply +5
(12/04/2012) [-]
#243 to #144 - crellow
Reply +8
(12/04/2012) [-]
pretty ******* great roll
#2 - armenia
Reply +66
(12/04/2012) [-]
**** the Ottoman Empire
**** the Ottoman Empire
#88 to #2 - clarksonius
Reply -1
(12/04/2012) [-]
How about **** you?
#631 to #88 - armenia
Reply +2
(12/05/2012) [-]
You have a problem with Armenians?!
You have a problem with Armenians?!
#19 to #2 - whatamidoingwithme
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#424 to #2 - herzy **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#148 to #2 - dashdashdash
Reply +4
(12/04/2012) [-]
They're actually very fun to read about, I enjoy learning about them and they're one of my favorite subjects in history, sure they did some bad things, but hey! everyone did!

Unless you're hungarian or Romanian then I can understand your hatred!
#541 to #148 - armenia
Reply +2
(12/05/2012) [-]
I would be okay with them if they admitted to the genocide but they dont
#150 to #2 - dashdashdash
Reply +6
(12/04/2012) [-]
Oh I just noticed your username, Well if thats the case, then I understand.
#35 to #2 - attifyon
Reply +19
(12/04/2012) [-]
#139 - gatsu
Reply +53
(12/04/2012) [-]
Finally an original content on the front page, totally not one of the most reposted in the history of fj
#146 to #139 - unicornbanger
Reply -10
(12/04/2012) [-]
Yeah.. the no one joke is getting old too.
#151 to #139 - ohemgeezus ONLINE
Reply -8
(12/04/2012) [-]






I should really learn to use a reaction face before using it
#172 to #151 - ovary
Reply +2
(12/04/2012) [-]
Yeah you should.
#341 to #172 - ohemgeezus ONLINE
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
You don't seem to understand, I said that because everyone doesn't seem to know to press enter 6 times, same with the whispering one. That's the same as posting a reaction pic to something that isn't even related
#326 to #151 - dustypengwin
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
This image has expired






ohemgeezus accidently
#189 to #139 - HarvietheDinkle
Reply +2
(12/04/2012) [-]
This picture never gets old!
#15 - waffies
Reply +27
(12/04/2012) [-]
Hmm, seen this on FP before, everybody debunked about half of these facts
#167 to #15 - bosskiss
Reply +1
(12/04/2012) [-]
i see i replied to the wrong comment sorry for bothering you.
#173 to #167 - waffies
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
your point is valid nonetheless!
#23 to #15 - bosskiss
Reply +3
(12/04/2012) [-]
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...
-lolsoldier

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).
-novus

check the comment for a more details about the spring
www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4259082/compilation/
#213 - soulxknightx
Reply +20
(12/04/2012) [-]
#41 - MacheteJoe
Reply +16
(12/04/2012) [-]
If were more bacteria than human cells and I weigh 190lbs with as much as 9lbs being bacteria then no more than 9lbs can be of my human cells so by that logic I can only weigh 18lbs... What is the othe 172lbs?? OP is surely made up of semen and faggotry.
If were more bacteria than human cells and I weigh 190lbs with as much as 9lbs being bacteria then no more than 9lbs can be of my human cells so by that logic I can only weigh 18lbs... What is the othe 172lbs?? OP is surely made up of semen and faggotry.
#42 to #41 - divinedrgn
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
half of the things listed seemed like he just pulled them from other people without actually looking into whether they were true or not.
#44 to #41 - MacheteJoe
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
we're*
#46 to #41 - joeyliquid
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
What's this about the water as well? That seems complete utter ********. 1 mole is 6.23x10^23, inside of a glass of water is billions if not more moles.. Therefore inside of the ocean there will be hell of a lot more.. Wtf is OP on about?
#55 to #46 - defeats
Reply +2
(12/04/2012) [-]
The fact:
There are more water atoms in a glass of water than there glasses of water in the ocean.

What it means.
If there were 100 atoms in the ocean, the ocean would fill less than 100 glasses.
#50 to #46 - arcahne
Reply +1
(12/04/2012) [-]
The atoms in ONE glass of water is greater than the amount of glasses(cups) it would take to empty every ocean combined. Better?
#65 to #50 - joeyliquid
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
Reword this entire fact comp for me?
#194 to #65 - bulbakip
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
learn reading comprehension
#51 to #46 - Pharonix
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#48 to #41 - anon
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
bacteria are way smaller than cells, so in numbers there are a great deal more bacteria, but in weight there aren't
#54 to #41 - StumpDawg
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
Not trying to disprove you but...
We are ~70% water, water is made of atoms, not cells
lets say you way 200 lbs (just so my mental math is easier)
that means only 30% of you is not water, nevermind all other non cellular materials in your body. That means at best you are 60 lbs of cells, so the ~10 pounds of bacteria makes up 18% of your body, which is closer, but still OPs number is absolutely stupid
#97 to #41 - anon
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
Your logic makes no sense.

In this situation you assume that every single cell weighs the same. Which is false.
Human cells are significally larger than bacteria cells.
You are saying 1 million bricks weighs the same as 1 million marbles.

Nah man
#171 to #41 - anon
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
Unless bacteria weigh alot less then our body cells weigh, which they do.
#357 to #41 - coffeelolship
Reply 0
(12/04/2012) [-]
bacteria cells weight far less than human cells. they are hundreds of times smaller than human cells, therefore we do have more bacteria cells.
bacteria cells weight far less than human cells. they are hundreds of times smaller than human cells, therefore we do have more bacteria cells.
#457 to #41 - ohhitheree
Reply 0
(12/05/2012) [-]
That implies he was the one who made it.
#538 to #41 - mrmoosemoose
Reply 0
(12/05/2012) [-]
Bacteria cells are Prokaryotic and human cells are all Eukaryotic. Prokaryotic cells are significantly smaller and have less mass than Eukaryotic, therefore it is plausible.
#619 to #41 - ventriloquist
Reply 0
(12/05/2012) [-]
Bacteria don't weigh the same as a human cell. But op wouldn't know as he reposted the whole thing
#91 to #41 - Chuckaholic
Reply +1
(12/04/2012) [-]
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-humans-carry-m ore-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones

You're off the cuff logic vs the scientifc american and research. It is actually true what OP put.
#53 to #41 - defeats
Reply +4
(12/04/2012) [-]
Bacteria cells are much smaller than human cells. There are at least ten times as many bacteria as human cells in the body
#563 - sergeantwazup
Reply +13
(12/05/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#564 to #563 - sergeantwazup
Reply +13
(12/05/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#119 - meanamoeba
Reply +12
(12/04/2012) [-]
#166 - imsohigh
Reply +11
(12/04/2012) [-]
Wasn't this just on front page like 2 weeks ago?
Wasn't this just on front page like 2 weeks ago?
#106 - frolacosta
Reply +9
(12/04/2012) [-]
Reposted an entire compilation...