[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 253 KB, 600x1800, Troll bomb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3294854 No.3294854 [Reply] [Original]

>> No.3294869
File: 45 KB, 530x366, 1308975722592.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3294869

Wrong on at least three accounts:

Wavelength
Heat wave
Shock wave

Here's a good one.

>> No.3294863

That's the dumbest thing I have ever seen.

Our bodies are invisible to gamma rays, therefore there is no risk.
Therefore no need for a mirror.

>> No.3294875

>high energy photons
>deflecting with a mirror
good luck

>> No.3294900

>>3294854
Radiations aren't "light".
Light is a type of radiation.
THe wavelength of these radiations varies, at certain frequencies it interacts with some materials (light and mirrors) at some it doesn't or , in fact, it does but very minorly.

>> No.3294908

>Radiations aren't "light".
>Light is a type of radiation.

that means the same thing, idiot!

>> No.3294915
File: 2 KB, 209x215, 1300389216349.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3294915

>>3294908

>> No.3294922
File: 15 KB, 429x410, 1307091900441.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3294922

>>3294900
>radiations

>> No.3294929

>>3294900
Congratulations, your knowledge of physics is lower than that of a troll physics picture.

>> No.3294933

>>3294869
This one is actually interesting.

If stated that 1+1=3 then the logical reflex is to assume that , at least, one information is missing.
What could be the correct answer however, is to try and redefine our 1s .... in the case of humanity, one could say that 1(female)+1(male)= 3 (I just added two refinements in the characterisation of human beings and the equation made sense) ....
Maybe it is the correct answer in the case of the universe, expansion, etc.. I dunno lol

>> No.3294951

>>3294933

Lay off the crack brah

>> No.3295007
File: 216 KB, 413x700, 2-deep-for-you.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3295007

>>3294929
>>3294922

Try harder, troll.

>In physics, radiation is a process in which energetic particles or energy or waves travel through a medium or space. There are two distinct types of radiation; ionizing and non-ionizing. The word radiation is commonly used in reference to ionizing radiation only (i.e., having sufficient energy to ionize an atom), but it may also refer to non-ionizing radiation (e.g., radio waves or visible light).
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation

>> No.3295013

>>3294951
Don't be condescending. Your ego is out of the picture bro.

>> No.3295015

>>3295013

Hey, at least I am not trying to redefine number theory and our view of the Universe in a single post on /sci/

>> No.3295021

>>3295007
Look, bra, are you saying that gamma and X rays are not light? Because that's what you are doing. Because you are a fucking moron.

>> No.3295030

>>3294933
What the fuck are you talking about?

>> No.3295036

>>3295021
Actually "light" is an obsolete term.
If you want to talk comprehensively , use the right terminology (especially on /sci/).
So, it's incorrect to say that a ionizing radiation is "light".
Use your words more carefully perhaps?

>> No.3295047

>>3295021

I would use the word light as shorthand for visible spectrum.
I would also define it in the first instance to avoid confusion.

iseenothingwrongwiththis.gif

>> No.3295057

>>3295015
>>3295030
I'm only trying to state that a 1 is fixed in time, frozen at a precise state. However, nothing in reality works that way, everything changes, all the times, each picosecond.
So, if you take 1 adult human female and 1 adult human male in a room, given some time you may find that 1+1 transformed into 3 (adult female+ adult male+ xgender baby)

>> No.3295124

>>3295057
>>3294933
>Here

What I mean, seriously, is that we have working equations, each one of the numbers in these equations are representating variables, but only t a given time, it is an instant cliché of a dynamic phenomenon.... everything is changing, eas seconds, the universe is aging, expansion accelerates... everything changes except our constants... weird.
What if we could find an "aging solution" to applyh on all of our constants? Maybe our level of uncertainty and the oddities that our current constants can't explain comes from this slight , but general, "aging" of every system of the universe?

>> No.3295170

>>3295124

You feeling ok?

>> No.3295231

>>3295170
Totally. And you? Are you feeling lost? Generally when people have smart things to say, they won't hesitate. The fact that you posted this indicates that you have nothing smart to say.
Why waste electricity?

>> No.3295369

>>3295124
I somewhat get what you're trying to say, but isn't f(t) enough?

>> No.3295433

>>3295369
And what if even time itself "ages" ?

I know it may sound stupid, but think of it 2 seconds, as time being more a human notion than a single physical phenomenon, rather an addition of correlated "events" that constantly changes everything , losing energy in the process, "aging" (yes, I assume a aging system will function less efficiently as time passes, reality/our universe not being an exception. That may be unusual but I don't think it's so stupid). So maybe time itself is slowing down or accelerating depending on how react a decaying reality .

>> No.3295949
File: 28 KB, 707x493, 1304543775002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3295949

Bump

>> No.3298330

I know it's a late response, but I'll post anyway, just in case you're still here.

>>3295433
But wouldn't us being part of the time system render the question moot? If everything we perceive goes faster, and our own means of perception do too, then it's as if nothing has changed.