Do you even science?. . iit N REISHI. Aea; or, THE duim, l' tuti,!, l' iil, In MOTION INT. ETIHER IS ' 50. congratz, you watch vsauce.
Home Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

Do you even science?

iit N REISHI.
Aea;
or, THE duim, l' tuti,!, l' iil, In MOTION
INT. ETIHER IS ' 50
...
+1496
Views: 46236
Favorited: 50
Submitted: 02/03/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to angrygirl E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(117):

[ 117 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #114 - elbrysobrony ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
Huh. Well then. Didn't know that.
#113 - renamon (02/04/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#111 - winnayergin (02/03/2013) [-]
as Esther answered I cannot believe that someone able to make $4657 in 1 month on the internet. have you read this web site www.Wow83.ℂom
User avatar #110 - awesomenessdefined (02/03/2013) [-]
Yes, in that episode of the IT crowd, THAT was the one problem with Jen's theory.
#106 - Yojimbo ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
0
#103 - madhattergirl has deleted their comment [-]
#102 - poptartans (02/03/2013) [-]
I.T Crowd! ♥
I.T Crowd! ♥
#116 to #102 - anonymous (02/04/2013) [-]
nice glasses
0
#99 - nickotak has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #97 - lordsugardaddy (02/03/2013) [-]
Top frame is Jen, from the British Comedy Sitcom 'The I.T Crowd' (It's pretty funny, I'd recommend watching it) encase anybody was wondering.
#96 - ranicewitschi (02/03/2013) [-]
like Kathleen implied I cant believe that a student able to profit $6464 in one month on the computer. have you read this page www.Jump90.ℂom
User avatar #119 to #96 - happypancake (02/04/2013) [-]
KATHLEEN IMPLOED NOTHING
+4
#94 - admiralamory **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#83 - anonymous (02/03/2013) [-]
about 4% of the Internett contains porn. 13% of the Internett is porn related.
User avatar #104 to #83 - Crusader (02/03/2013) [-]
FALSE
For every "normal" page, there are 4 pornographic, or sex related pages.
User avatar #73 - waaw (02/03/2013) [-]
If you took that 50 grams of electrons and split it in two, then put the halves a meter a part, they would push apart with a force equal to about 40 billion billion billion pounds.
#64 - antitrollingleague (02/03/2013) [-]
and about 99% of that is porn...
#52 - Jesusnipples ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
#47 - anonymoose (02/03/2013) [-]
>Weight
>grams
User avatar #121 to #47 - Crusader (02/04/2013) [-]
To the layman, the joke makes sense.
User avatar #65 to #47 - daddymcswagger (02/03/2013) [-]
People like you make Amerifags look bad...
User avatar #66 to #65 - anonymoose (02/03/2013) [-]
How? I'm Irish.
User avatar #56 to #47 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
its used for both weight and mass
the conversion of grams from weight to mass is exactly 1:1
User avatar #105 to #56 - Crusader (02/03/2013) [-]
mass is weight
User avatar #115 to #105 - shadowknife (02/04/2013) [-]
Incorrect. Weight refers to the force acting upon an object due to gravity. It is measured in Newtons in standard units. Mass refers to the amount of matter that makes up the object which is commonly measured in grams or pounds.
User avatar #117 to #115 - Crusader (02/04/2013) [-]
So what you are saying is that weight is how hard something is being pulled towards the earth due to gravity, and mass is how much matter is being affected by gravity.
So in layman's terms, they are the same thing.
One is simply referring to the force rather than the object.
User avatar #118 to #117 - shadowknife (02/04/2013) [-]
no they arent the same thing. one refers to the force on the object and one refers to the amount of object as you noted but they are not equal for example if someone has a MASS of 10 kilograms then they will have a WEIGHT of 91 newtons. They are not the same thing.
User avatar #122 to #118 - shadowknife (02/04/2013) [-]
sorry approximately 98 newtons
User avatar #120 to #118 - Crusader (02/04/2013) [-]
As I said, in layman's terms.
Do you know what a layman is?
It is the lowest ranking in an organization, the majority of the populace, the average.
To the average person, they are the same thing.
YOU may know they are different, I may know, we may even car, but the laymen of the world don't know, don't care, and don't see the difference.

Also, if they are different, then how come a scale that measures weight measures in pounds, ounces, grammes and kilogrammes?
User avatar #123 to #120 - shadowknife (02/04/2013) [-]
That scale doesn't measure weight it measures mass
User avatar #124 to #123 - Crusader (02/04/2013) [-]
Pretty sure that the scale in my kitchen for measuring food measures how much gravity is pulling the object down on the object, not how much matter is in the object.
Considering that the scale would be affected differently on mercury, mars, jupiter, etc. due to different gravitational pulls, yet it still measures in grammes, kilogrammes, ounces and pounds.
User avatar #125 to #124 - shadowknife (02/04/2013) [-]
thats the interesting thing. those scales actually do measure mass and you are right they wouldn't work properly on other planets for measuring mass. this is because the acceleration due to gravity (approx 9.8m/s^2) changes from planet to planet and wouldn't give true readings on other planets. However if you measure something here in grams or pounds it will have the same value on another planet you would just have to use a different kitchen scale that was calibrated for the planet
User avatar #107 to #105 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
fuuuuuuu
#100 to #56 - anonymous (02/03/2013) [-]
Are you ******* stupid or what bro?
User avatar #101 to #100 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
please lurk more
#62 to #56 - punkrockdude ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
Weight = force of gravity = mass x acceleration due to gravity

Mass = amount of matter

lrn2science
User avatar #71 to #62 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
http://www.mathsisfun.com/measure/weight-mass.html

please, take your time
#77 to #71 - punkrockdude ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
>Mass is a measure of how much matter something contains
>Weight is a measure of how strongly gravity pulls downwards
>Apparent Weight is a measure of downwards force
>Force is measured in Newtons, not kilograms or pounds
>When scales show "kg" or "lb" it is just an estimate of the mass above them
User avatar #79 to #77 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
im talking about the conversion of weight to mass in grams
#85 to #79 - punkrockdude ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
See if you actually had a high school education, specifically physics or science (or at least could read your own source) you would know that weight is a force. Someone saying that they weigh 150lbs is not accurate - they have a mass of 150lbs. To convert that to weight, you would have to multiply it by 9.81m/s^2. Weight cannot be measured in grams, kg, lbs, etc. it can only be measured in newtons
User avatar #60 to #56 - anonymoose (02/03/2013) [-]
1 gram mass has a weight of approx. 0.00981 Newtons.
User avatar #69 to #60 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
here's this too

http://www.mathsisfun.com/measure/weight-mass.html
-2
#63 to #60 - pianoasis has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #70 to #63 - anonymoose (02/03/2013) [-]
Can you read?
Originally defined as "the absolute weight of a volume of pure water equal to the cube of the hundredth part of a metre, and at the temperature of melting ice"[2] (later 4 °C), a gram is now defined as one one-thousandth of the SI base unit, the kilogram, or 1×10−3 kg, which itself is defined as being equal to the mass of a physical prototype preserved by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.
User avatar #72 to #70 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
that was an accident damnit
http://www.mathsisfun.com/measure/weight-mass.html

this
User avatar #76 to #72 - alhemicar (02/03/2013) [-]
And where the **** would that be? On the moon?
An object of a mass of 100 kg would weight 9.81 N on EARTH,
but what else would you expect from a site called Maths (not physics) is fun!
#78 to #76 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
We werent measuring in newtons, we were talking about grams being used for both weight and mass on earth
User avatar #81 to #78 - alhemicar (02/03/2013) [-]
ok, you gotta be ******* kidding me.

A Newton, short N. 1 N = 1 kg * m * s^-2,
A gram, short g. 1 g = 0.001 kg
Those who made the page are idiots, you could aswell say that you use pascals to measure force.
User avatar #84 to #81 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
Im not saying its right, im just saying that we use it that way
User avatar #88 to #84 - alhemicar (02/03/2013) [-]
then stop trying to proove that it's right, the post was titled "do you even SCIENCE" so it's obvious you'd anonymoose was talking about the scientific definition.
User avatar #74 to #72 - anonymoose (02/03/2013) [-]
Another link proving me right?

Q: Aren't "weight" and "mass" the same?
A: Not really.

But remember .. they do not mean the same thing,
and they can have different measurements.

technically wrong to talk about weight in kilograms
User avatar #75 to #74 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
when did I say they were the same thing...?

"its used for both weight and mass
the conversion of grams from weight to mass is exactly 1:1"

please prove me wrong
User avatar #91 to #75 - anonymoose (02/03/2013) [-]
I thought you were arguing that they were the same thing.

OP was trying to be scientific but used the wrong unit, so I was correcting him. If he can be a overlyscientific douche, so can I when he trips up somewhere.
User avatar #92 to #91 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
nope
User avatar #80 to #75 - alhemicar (02/03/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
W = mg
g=9.81 m/s^2, m = 100 kg therefore W = 981 kgm/s^2 = 981 N
#82 to #80 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
again, we are not talking about newtons

grams is a measurement used for both weight and mass on the planet earth

it was created so the conversion would be 1:1 under earth gravity
User avatar #86 to #82 - alhemicar (02/03/2013) [-]
omG you're literally too stupid to insult.
A gramm is an unit used to measure mass, a basic physicall dimension. Weight is the force with wich gravity pulls down an object, thus W = m * g
If you measure mass (m) in gramms, there's no possible way you could measure weight (W) in gramms too, because once you muliply gramms and m/s^2 you'd get newtons (N).
Is it clear enough for you to understand?
User avatar #87 to #86 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
for ***** sake im done
User avatar #89 to #87 - alhemicar (02/03/2013) [-]
after your last comment, obviously.
User avatar #90 to #89 - pianoasis (02/03/2013) [-]
yeah
gg
User avatar #68 to #63 - alhemicar (02/03/2013) [-]
Originally defined as "the absolute weight of a volume of pure water equal to the cube of the hundredth part of a metre, and at the temperature of melting ice"[2] (later 4 °C), a gram is now defined as one one-thousandth of the SI base unit, the kilogram, or 1×10−3 kg, which itself is defined as being equal to the mass of a physical prototype preserved by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.

I'm ******* done
#55 to #47 - brettyoke ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
>measuring weight on Earth
>Grams is acceptable for weight as well as mass
#98 to #55 - punkrockdude ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
Mass = amount of matter

Weight = force due to gravity = mass x acceleration due to gravity = ykg x zm/s^2 = N (Newtons)
User avatar #57 to #55 - anonymoose (02/03/2013) [-]
No it's not.
User avatar #58 to #57 - brettyoke ONLINE (02/03/2013) [-]
If you're on planet Earth it is. Hey, look where we are.
User avatar #61 to #58 - anonymoose (02/03/2013) [-]
It's generally taken as an acceptable means of measure weight for general public, but this post is being specifically scientific. In which case it's about as wrong as using pascals to measure force.
User avatar #59 to #58 - alhemicar (02/03/2013) [-]
I hope you're ******* kidding me....
User avatar #53 to #47 - ancano (02/03/2013) [-]
A thousand times this.
User avatar #46 - alhemicar (02/03/2013) [-]
I'd expect him to know the difference between weight and mass
#40 - warlockrichard (02/03/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #35 - lapsushominum (02/03/2013) [-]
Couldn't one argue that the internet has mass in the machines that are required to run all the servers? Although, the internet isn't really the servers themselves, but the connections between the servers...
User avatar #44 to #35 - ptpt (02/03/2013) [-]
Switches
Cables
Generators (power)
Computers
etc.
[ 117 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)