My penis. I don't claim that any of these are correct, I don't have a source, I didn't make it... Nice try OP but i dont think that Africa could fit on my computer screen


Anonymous comments allowed.
#30 - whoovesthedoctor (04/11/2013) [-]
Nice try OP but i dont think that Africa could fit on my computer screen
#24 - gemnesys (04/11/2013) [-]
Somehow I've read it all in the voice of this glorious bastard.
User avatar #54 to #24 - Holyshizznips (04/12/2013) [-]
He proved a few of these wrong. The book falling through the earth one for example, pretty sure he figured it out in a video and it's more like 13 minutes.
User avatar #75 to #54 - BmanX (04/12/2013) [-]
I think it's more saying that if there was a constant force of gravity pulling that book down, it would take that long. Obviously it's impossible for a book to go straight through. It would just stop in the middle (assuming it's not burned up).
User avatar #159 to #75 - Holyshizznips (04/12/2013) [-]
Actually it would smash into the sides and get destroyed that way before it burnt up. Due to the earth spinning while the book is falling straight down.
#130 to #24 - mangoskatertwo (04/12/2013) [-]
For anyone wondering. His youtube channel is call Vsauce. Its a science channel that hits on a great topics and very fun to watch.
#153 to #24 - cptnjosh (04/12/2013) [-]
With that little catchy "you know ****** about to go down" music in the background.
User avatar #87 - landartheconqueror (04/12/2013) [-]
that one about cleopatra is pretty freaking obvious. i mean, the photo is in colour for god's sake
#106 to #87 - anon (04/12/2013) [-]
thats from a movie
User avatar #163 to #106 - landartheconqueror (04/13/2013) [-]
cool guy
#148 to #87 - anon (04/12/2013) [-]
User avatar #12 to #11 - zezenzerg (04/11/2013) [-]
Stick a generator in it.
User avatar #150 to #12 - dapianoman (04/12/2013) [-]
Couldn't you just **** it up with magnets and copper wire and batteries and **** ?
User avatar #17 to #11 - crackmaster (04/11/2013) [-]
you just blew my goddamn mind
#35 - theist (04/11/2013) [-]
"2 to 9 pounds of our body is bacteria"

"we are more bacteria than human!"

User avatar #53 to #35 - fluffmanz (04/12/2013) [-]
Bacteria don't weigh that much because of their size in comparison to a body cell, I believe.
#55 to #53 - fluffmanz has deleted their comment [-]
#149 to #55 - kingpongthedon (04/12/2013) [-]
You were right the first time, bacteria is plural.
User avatar #70 to #35 - psydoc (04/12/2013) [-]
As I understand about 90% of the cells in and on our body are bacteria, and about 10% of our mass is from bacteria.
#94 to #35 - anon (04/12/2013) [-]
Bacterial cells are much much smaller than the cells in your body. OP's trying to say that we have more bacterial cells than we do of our own.
#138 to #35 - hillbillypowpow (04/12/2013) [-]
small bacteria cells, big human cells.
User avatar #139 to #138 - theist (04/12/2013) [-]
in that case we have more cells being bacteria, but most of us is still human flesh, seeing is it has the most mass
#100 to #35 - anon (04/12/2013) [-]
I only weigh 17 pounds!
#13 - littlesoldierboy (04/11/2013) [-]
If you drop a book (or anything else) down a hole through the earth, it tkaes roughly 42 minutes to pop out the other side of earth. This amount of time is the same, no matter what direction the object is falling
#61 to #13 - anon (04/12/2013) [-]
In a vacuum yes, it doesnt say anything about vacuum in the post.
User avatar #14 to #13 - klick (04/11/2013) [-]
acctully if you drop an object in a hole that goes straight through the earth it would never reach the other side, or even the middle. The combination of earth's rotaion and gravity confuses the hell out of the object so it goes " **** it, I'm just gunna chill here on this wall."
#33 to #14 - wadofwade (04/11/2013) [-]
And the 45 minutes assumes that the acceleration would be constant, but since gravity is an inverse-square law, the acceleration itself would accelerate and it would fall even faster, likely to burn up as an asteroid does in the atmosphere. It wouldn't even last long enough to chill on the wall.
#37 to #33 - frankiethekneeman (04/11/2013) [-]
I'm guessing it would burn up do the fact that most of the earth is liquid metal and rock. But if you could somehow build a walled, climate controlled tunnel through the earth - as the book fell, it's relationship to the mass of the earth around it would change very rapidly. By the time it reached the center, you would have gravity pulling it in literally every direction. Needless to say, the point I'm making is that at some point, the gravity of the rest of the earth would start decelerating it as it passed through.
#135 to #37 - wadofwade (04/12/2013) [-]
No. That is not how physics works. Acceleration due to gravity increases as you get closer to the center of an object (i.e. the acceleration due to gravity halfway between the surface and the core would about 90 m/s^2, instead of 9.8 m/s^2, meaning that the acceleration increases as you get closer to the center of gravity. Fact.) The book would be traveling so fast that it would burn up regardless of the temperature of the mantel, because it probably wouldn't even make it there anyway, meaning that any additional gravitational forces the book has already passed, and are acting against it, are negligible.
#157 to #135 - frankiethekneeman (04/12/2013) [-]

Wikipedia Disagrees.


And so do these redditors:

The point I'm making is that the earth is not a point mass, like you're treating it. It's an amalgam of separate matters creating non-uniform gravity. That's why they can use gravity meters to search for oil deposits - since it's less dense than rock, it lowers the gravity over it. They mention that in the article I'm about to post offhandedly in the first paragraph. It's an article about seismological surveys, but the point is clear.
#158 to #157 - wadofwade (04/12/2013) [-]
You have come to a classic contradiction, haven't you? Initially, you said an object would decelerate, suggesting a net gravitational force, now you incorrectly call on theories that assume a HOLLOW Earth, which is not being debated, which states that there would be NO net gravity inside and disproves your previous incorrect statement. The information in your sources is correct, you just don't know how to apply it. For instance, "A corollary is that inside a solid sphere of constant density the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre." (A difference in alloy densities, like the irrelevant point you made, would only allow for a negligible variation in acceleration.) I don't care much to continue giving you a free education, so take this as you like. Good bye.
#160 to #158 - frankiethekneeman (04/12/2013) [-]
I was in initially wrong, that's true. But so were you. The rest of the sentence you quoted was "becoming zero by symmetry at the centre of mass." - which is the opposite of what you said in your initial post. The acceleration due to gravity half way to the center of the earth would thus be half of the acceleration on the surface (4.9m/s^2), and not related by the inverse square law.

Through reasoned debate and a little research, we've both been proven wrong and come to a more correct place of understanding. Don't turn your nose up at that, it makes you seem petty and small.
User avatar #32 - cantfindausername (04/11/2013) [-]
"Should we keep going?"
You didn't give us an option, jerk.
#16 - profflippystix (04/11/2013) [-]
i just realized with the one trillion seconds remark. so if america save $1 every second it wouldnt pay off our debt in 32,000 years? even if we saved 10000 a second how long would it take to pay off 14 trillion dollars of debt??? oh yeah and. congrats.
User avatar #105 - deezknuts (04/12/2013) [-]
title is too small
#6 - lyraateit **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #15 to #6 - nightmaren (04/11/2013) [-]
I do not understand.
#20 to #15 - lyraateit **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#21 to #20 - nightmaren (04/11/2013) [-]
Oh, gotcha.
Oh, gotcha.
#18 to #6 - frogmum (04/11/2013) [-]
there are more atoms in a glass of water than there are glasses of water in an atom.
duh man get it together
User avatar #1 - sepheroth (04/11/2013) [-]
With the setup for the first fact, you should change the title to "My Penis"
User avatar #9 to #1 - felixfj (04/11/2013) [-]
the title made me stare at the heart for a while.
User avatar #2 to #1 - qwarthos [OP](04/11/2013) [-]
I didn't even notice the pun potential. Thank you, proper title now in place.
User avatar #3 to #2 - sepheroth (04/11/2013) [-]
Anytime internet stranger!
User avatar #4 to #2 - WHATTHEPISSTRAINE (04/11/2013) [-]
I thumbed for the title
User avatar #5 to #4 - qwarthos [OP](04/11/2013) [-]
#19 - mapelolsyrup (04/11/2013) [-]
A whales veins are so big that if a child swam through them it would drown in whale blood
"get in my blood"-whale
#10 - anon (04/11/2013) [-]
Everytime I see this, I love reading the facts. They're pretty good. However, I'm always left wondering what the **** they were talking about before that first sentence...I want to know dammit!

Though your title is an awesome way to do it thanks to sepheroth
#52 - anisbanana (04/12/2013) [-]
Yeahh I'm ganna call this post ******** since only united states, china and UK barely fit into africa... And more bacteria than body cells? What are you ****** stupid? If I weighed 4 pounds this might be the case but 150 lbs is not comparable to 9 pounds of bacteria...
#120 to #52 - anon (04/12/2013) [-]
Have you seen how tiny bacteria are compared to animal cells? Like, 100 times smaller. There are a higher number of bacteria cells than human cells, not a greater mass.
User avatar #64 to #52 - gildemoono (04/12/2013) [-]
eukaryotic cells (which we are made up of) are hundreds of times larger and heavier thn prokaryotic cells which is what bacteria are. Thousands of bacteria are needed to match the weight of a single skin cell. As such although it makes up a fraction of your weight, by quantity, there are more prokaryotes in your body than eukaryotes.
#161 to #64 - anisbanana (04/12/2013) [-]
An average prokaryote is 1/20 of a eukaryote not 1/1000th...
An average prokaryote is 1/20 of a eukaryote not 1/1000th...
User avatar #162 to #161 - gildemoono (04/12/2013) [-]
While my figures are certainly estimations, it does not disprove my claim. Prokaryotes and smaller and lighter than eukaryotes. Given your figures a 150 pound person would only need 7.5 pounds of bacteria to match the quantity of Eukaryotic cells in the body. And even then we are not considering the difference in depth of a eukaryote and prokaryote nor the difference of density of the two.
#136 - apokemon (04/12/2013) [-]
&gt;2 to 9 pounds of bacteria    
&gt; More bacteria than human   
Let's say I weigh 200 pounds, and 9 pounds of that is bacteria.    
That leaves 191 pounds of human.    
Pretty sure I'm more human than bacteria.
>2 to 9 pounds of bacteria
> More bacteria than human
Let's say I weigh 200 pounds, and 9 pounds of that is bacteria.
That leaves 191 pounds of human.
Pretty sure I'm more human than bacteria.
#101 - thegamewarden (04/12/2013) [-]
The spring one is misleading. Its not that it weighs more but rather that it exerts more force on the surface it contacts. This can be measured and mistaken as weight because weight is simply mass x acceleration due to gravity. So it doesn't actually have a greater weight.
#119 to #101 - anon (04/12/2013) [-]
According to E=MC^2, matter equals mass, therefore a spring with higher potential energy has more mass. That extra mass is minuscule and impossible to measure, but its there.
#121 to #119 - thegamewarden (04/12/2013) [-]
the mass never changes only the apparent weight. mass can never be lost or randomly added only converted to energy. So the mass cannot have increased
User avatar #127 to #121 - ProWig (04/12/2013) [-]
more energy= more mass bro
#134 to #127 - thegamewarden (04/12/2013) [-]
conservation of mass.
mass never changes.
#137 to #134 - thegamewarden (04/12/2013) [-]
I win
User avatar #155 to #137 - ProWig (04/12/2013) [-]
omfg are you srs?
User avatar #31 - joefakes (04/11/2013) [-]
The 2.5 million light years seperation is not the same as 2.5 million years having happened, or we would not be able to see the most distant objects which are much further now than light could travel since they emitted the light.

The universe is expanding and the fact that we can only see objects in the past means that they were closer to us when they emitted the light. In fact it is the amount that this distance has increased that we use to measure how far away galaxies are (google Hubbles law and redshift).
#22 - loffarn (04/11/2013) [-]

User avatar #8 to #7 - qwarthos [OP](04/11/2013) [-]
This is very neat
Leave a comment

Top Content in 24 Hours

 Friends (0)