/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.13620776]

Is molecular gastronomy food a meme?

[Anonymous No.13620778]

>>13620776
people trying to make up for wasting money on a useless degree when they could've just been a line cook and gotten the same experience while being paid

[Anonymous No.13620794]

>>13620776
Fukn shite innit. What a load of wank

[Anonymous No.13620840]

>>13620776
yes and no

pic related, then yes but using say a molecular gastronomy technique to cook something easier or more evenly, then yes

[Anonymous No.13620888]

>>13620776
that image doesn't accurately reflect molecular gastronomy imo, looks more like some kind of minimalist culinary art
reminds me of that black girl's facebook page who was showcasing frozen bees and flower petals as some new kind of revolutionary menu. one of these goofballs probably have pics of what i'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.13620900]

>>13620840
>>13620888
Explain

[Anonymous No.13620930]

>>13620900
you're just not gonna check my hitler trips? i see how it is bitch

when i think molecular gastronomy I think culinary science, rather than culinary art - while the two may intertwine to create the next best thing
i mean, high fructose corn syrup was a pretty awesome 'molecular, gastronomical' breakthrough in the world, and now look at all the fancy little shit you can buy today that's made from it and all its variants

if it's a meme, it's a pretty damn old one. something akin to japanese space program noodles

[Anonymous No.13620940]

>>13620776
Molecular gastronomy makes me so angry, because it has limitless potential to add whatever flavors you want to anything you want, but retards just use it to "make cool shapes and stuff lul".

These are the people that like Science Fucking Rules!

[Anonymous No.13620942]

>>13620940
shit when you say it like that it does sound like a fucking meme

[Anonymous No.13620957]

>>13620888
>that image doesn't accurately reflect molecular gastronomy
This. It's just a kind of sloppy example of nouvelle cuisine with some dry ice. At the very least the ahi should be uniformly cooked and the asparagus wouldn't look like it was drained of color by a vampire. That's literally the kind of shit that molecular gastronomy is used for - not that either of those things are hard to do using basic bitch traditional methods. There aren't even any sauces or foams, and that's literally just cheap tobiko instead of spherified wasabi or whatever.

[Anonymous No.13620961]

>>13620900
for example, sous vide is a molecular gastronomy technique

sous vide can make a steak perfectly medium rare, it's an interesting technique that uses molecular gastronomy

however to take it one further, a guy who uses that will probably do it for aesthetical reasons rather than culinary ones, and then proceed to cut his sous vide steak into perfect squares and put it on the dish like so with droplets of olive oil and butter

[Anonymous No.13621027]

>molecular gastronomy

do you need a microscope to see the food?

[Anonymous No.13621031]

>>13620776
>asking this question
>in 2005 plus FIFTEEN YEARS

[Anonymous No.13621032]

>>13621027
Not all molecules are microscopic, my friend.

[Anonymous No.13621133]

>>13621032
molecules aren't even microscopic. you can't see molecules my main man

[Anonymous No.13621146]

>>13621133
you're totally wrong. Obviously you can't see the atoms themselves by eye alone, but you can see the molecule. Just look at polyester thread. It is a single, long molecule made of many tiny esters, but it is one molecule nonetheless. Plus you can see some proteins, which are molecules as well. And electron microscopes are also capable of producing images of molecules. Basically, you're gay and an idiot.

[Anonymous No.13621155]

>>13621146
>you're wrong bro, just look at anything that exists in the 3 dimensional plain
no dude, and I'm not believing for an instant that a silicon needle has established that molecules look exactly like what scientists have been postulating for exampled diagrams this past century either. you're the gay retard here

[Anonymous No.13621166]

>>13621155
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I'm talking about very large molecules. A good comparison is a huge tv from a distance away. You can see the picture it makes out, but not the individual pixels.

Also I have no clue what you're talking about with silicon needle.

[Anonymous No.13621179]

>>13621166
Ok so you have no idea what a molecule is

[Anonymous No.13621190]

>>13621179
A molecule is a group of atoms chemically bonded together. Sounds like you are the one that doesn't know what he's talking about. A single polyester can be millions of esters long. That's one molecule, but it's large enough to be visible. Same with proteins. They're a chain of so many amino acids, chemically bonded together, which makes them a single molecule.

[Anonymous No.13621191]

>>13621166
Scientists claiming a little atomic force needle can map an image of microscopic particles that are believed to be the actual molecules of an item, but it's utter bullshit, like sleep walking and genetic mental disorders - total fucking rubbish.

Molecules build upon other molecules until a compound is created that constitutes what makes up any solid, liquid, liquid, or plasma. You're still just seeing the shape of something, not the forest from the trees.

[Anonymous No.13621195]

>>13621191
ok, nevermind. You've outed yourself as a complete moron with that first sentence.

[Anonymous No.13621197]

How often so you wanna make this Thread faggot?
Yes it is

[Anonymous No.13621212]

>>13621191
>>13621190
>>13621179
This Hurts so much. Yes, we can See molecules. At least we can measure where every Atom and Electro Blabla ließ. Yes, With the Help of a tiny needle. Also electronmicroscopes make it possible to Look at molecules. Please all Just shut the fuck Up.

T. Physics master

[Anonymous No.13621221]

I swear /CK/ is the dumbest Board on 4channel.org. No doubt about it

[Anonymous No.13621233]

>>13621212
Yo know I've met psychologists who believe that if your parents were crazy then that means you have a gene that can make you crazy as well.
>>13621195
Look literally anywhere IRL. You sitting right there typing? Look to your right - you know what you see? Fucking molecules. You hear that? That's the fabric of time. You feel that? That's how fucking thick you are.

[Anonymous No.13621291]

>>13621233
>Look literally anywhere IRL. You sitting right there typing? Look to your right - you know what you see? Fucking molecules. You hear that? That's the fabric of time. You feel that? That's how fucking thick you are.
what a gay copout thing to say
fuck you. i hate you. don't bother replying, i'm closing the thread.

[Anonymous No.13621314]

>>13621291
>"I see what you're trying to say now."

[Anonymous No.13621364]

>>13620942
dont worry, the fat duck guy and wiley dufresne exist

[Anonymous No.13621379]

>>13621212
You must have gotten your degree from the fucking Congo or some shit, then. You're a goddamn nincompoop if you believe you can see a molecule by any means. No, a visible object made of molecules isn't the same as visualizing a literal molecule. A protein large enough to visualize via EM/TM is made up of so many fucking subunits, each of those being composed of a shit load of amino acids. You cannot visualize a single amino acid nevertheless a molecule. You can see a thread of DNA but cannot see a single nucleotide. Your argument hinges on semantics and retarded analogies. Go back get a degree from a first world country then come back and lecture people about science.

[Anonymous No.13621489]

>>13621233
You are a varg tier faggot. Contrarian just to be contrarian. Please just shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.13621493]

>>13621379
I never said we can see a protein. God fucking damnit, if you have no clue, just shut the fuck up. It is possible to map out the electrons and the atoms in a molecule. Just look at nanoscopy. FUCKING HELL, why is /ck/ so full of faggots, that didn't even finish highschool?

[Anonymous No.13622149]

>>13621493
Post a photo of a molecule. Put your money where your mouth is you fucking retarded goober.

[Anonymous No.13622170]

>>13621379
Dude, you're posting on a board that regularly claims they can defeat the laws of thermodynamics (see the keto threads).
Science is not a strong point for /ck/.

[Anonymous No.13622179]

>>13620776
that shit is so 2009

[Anonymous No.13622180]

>>13621493
>It is possible to map out the electrons and the atoms in a molecule
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says otherwise.

[Anonymous No.13622185]

>>13621493
Oh, so now it's "mapping out the electrons," not directly visualizing (seeing)? You backpeddling, goalpost-shifting piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.13622187]

>>13620776
Why are cooks so self important that they make up a meme name for pooring liquid nitrogen on food

[Anonymous No.13622192]

>>13622149
https://phys.org/news/2013-05-first-ever-high-resolution-images-molecule-reforms.html

[Anonymous No.13622204]

>>13620776
dont know how it tastes or how its made so idk probably

[Anonymous No.13622211]

>>13621379
> https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/ibm-scientists-take-first-atom-atom-image-molecule/

[Anonymous No.13622251]

>>13620776
mostly just pretentious garbage and food theatre, occasionally it does give us methods that are genuinely useful and those eventually make it down to common kitchens, sous vide is one example.

[Anonymous No.13622277]

I cook my steaks well done using the synchrotron at argonne

[Anonymous No.13622436]

>>13622192
>>13622211
Ok, I'm sorry for calling you a retard.

[Anonymous No.13622458]

>>13620930

Thing is that molecular gastronomy =/= culinary science, it's a code word for "I am a pretentious asshole"

[Anonymous No.13622486]

>>13621233

If your parents had a genetic mental illness you DO have the gene for that genetic mental illness, you goddamn smoothbrain. The question is whether or no that gene is expressing in you, or if it will express in your kids or your grand kids.

[Anonymous No.13623485]

>>13622486
Most of /ck/ didn't finish highschool. This is the most stupiud board on 4channel for sure