/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5040246]

How hard do I need to think in order to burn 1 calorie of energy

[Anonymous No.5040250]

>>5040246
>xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
go the fuck back to >>>/b/
and take your goddamn infantile cartoons with you

[Anonymous No.5040249]

sage for not vidya

[Anonymous No.5040262]

What evidence do you have to support the idea that thinking hard burns more calories?
>>5040250
>on 4chan
>complaining about anime
newfag alert.
Welcome to 4chan, please read the faq and rules and enjoy your stay.

[Anonymous No.5040264]

>>5040262
Well the brain obviously uses a portion of the energy which we take in via food etc, so wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a higher amount of activity would cause it to use that energy at a higher rate rather than the brains energy use being a constant?

[Anonymous No.5040265]

>>5040262
>it's my first day on /sci/ ^.^
>>>/a/
>>>/b/
Don't come back

[Anonymous No.5040267]

>>5040262
First day here huh? Fuck off newfag. Infantile cartoons are <span class="math">NOT[/spoiler] tolerated on /sci/. fuck off to >>>/a/

[Anonymous No.5040282]

Why was the other thread with a drunk anime character asking about majors not attacked like one? No OP, by the way.

Op's question was as legitimate as it gets on here.

[Anonymous No.5040289]

>>5040282
Link to thread?

[Anonymous No.5040292]

>>5039396

[Anonymous No.5040293]

>>5040289
Oh, nvm. I had it hidden. He will enjoy his ban as well

[Anonymous No.5040319]

>>5040265
>>5040267
Post pictures of ponyfags and obvious trolls getting banned, acts like this means anime is bannable.
nope.jpg
You're obviously just some loser who has a grudge against anime and feels the need to shitpost about it whenever it pops up on /sci/

[Anonymous No.5040326]

>>5040319
>it's my first day here xD
fuck off retard

[Anonymous No.5040333]

>>5040326
What a pathetic reply from a pathetic little man.
What's the matter, raped by an anime character?

[Anonymous No.5040355]

>>5040333
>>5040319
>pathetic insult
>projecting
You clearly do not know the rules here. It was very clear and informative to let you know that you will be enjoying a ban.

Your retardation is an insult to science. Get the fuck out of the science board, you imbecilic moron.

[Anonymous No.5040372]

>>5040355
I've been here since long before /sci/ was even made.
Anime is not against the rules.
Why are you so mad?

[Anonymous No.5040378]

this thread has been completely derailed by some tard. i am sorry OP because that could have been a funny question.

[Anonymous No.5040379]

>>5040372
>I've been here since long before /sci/ was even made.
irrelevant. you've only been here a day. fuck off newfag. take your infantile cartoons back to >>>/a/

[Anonymous No.5040382]

>>5040378
you are the cancer

[Anonymous No.5040388]

>>5040379
Soooooooo angry.
You really need to learn to relax.
You also need to learn to stop making baseless assumptions if you're going to hang out on /sci/, that's the realm of religion not science.

[Anonymous No.5040400]

>>5040372
>I've been here since long before
I highly doubt you've been here more than a week. Someone who has been here more than a week is very aware of the rules and policies.

>/sci/ was even made.
The original /sci/ has been around since 2004. Again, doubtful, unless you know moot personally.

>Anime is not against the rules.
Your opinions are not facts. Infantile cartoon shitposting is in violation of global rule #6 and #13. Continuing to post these irrelevant images will only extend your ban duration.

>Why are you so mad?
Please prove that I'm mad. Such a claim requires evidence.

[Anonymous No.5040406]

>>5040388
>You also need to learn to stop making baseless assumptions
If he were to be incorrect, you could prove him wrong. Obviously you can't.

[Anonymous No.5040411]

>>5040400
There you go with your baseless assumption again.

Rules #6 and #13 have nothing to do with anime. You're seriously grasping at straws here.

The fact that your mad is evidenced by all your posts.
>go the fuck back to /b/ and take your goddamn infantile cartoons with you
>Get the fuck out of the science board, you imbecilic moron.
>etc etc
You swear like a 12 year old sailor having a tantrum.

[Anonymous No.5040415]

>>5040406
And how should I do that?
I could reference old memes, but that could be easily faked.
Should I show him my 4chan platinum membership card? Oh... wait... that shit doesn't exist.
What do you suggest?

[Anonymous No.5040420]

Not sure. Though I've heard that chess grandmasters playing competitive matches burn something around 5000 calories a day.

[Anonymous No.5040430]

>>5040411
>There you go with your baseless assumption again.
You keep insisting in something wrong, even after I showed you the disproving evidence. Pretty much the definition of delusional.

>Rules #6 and #13 have nothing to do with anime.
Incorrect. Your images are irrelevant to science and mathematics. They take up space that could be used for images with actual content. Hence
> Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images

>You're seriously grasping at straws here.
I don't think you know what this means.

>You swear like a 12 year old sailor having a tantrum.
I asked you to prove it with evidence. That is a subjective statement. Do you realize what board you are on? Subjective quality and not objectively measurable, anyone can make absurd claims.

[Anonymous No.5040434]

>>5040411
>There you go with your baseless assumption again.
You keep insisting in something wrong, even after I showed you the disproving evidence. Pretty much the definition of delusional.

>Rules #6 and #13 have nothing to do with anime.
Incorrect. Your images are irrelevant to science and mathematics. They take up space that could be used for images with actual content. Hence
> Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images

>You're seriously grasping at straws here.
I don't think you know what this means.

>You swear like a 12 year old sailor having a tantrum.
I asked you to prove it with evidence. That is a subjective statement. Do you realize what board you are on? Subjective statements are not objectively measurable, anyone can make absurd claims.

[Anonymous No.5040437]

>>5040430
>>5040434
Calm down.

[Anonymous No.5040439]

>>5040415
Not my burden of proof. You make the claim that you are an oldfag, you post the evidence.

[Anonymous No.5040453]

>>5040430
Not OP here, but damn you mad.

In response to OP's question, it certainly seems like increased neural function would correspond to increased energy consumption. I suppose this could probably be correlated to the increased blood flow to the brain, because as far as I know blood is the only method for distributing energy to the brain. I'm an engineerfag so if somebody with biology knowledge comes along I'd be happy to concede that point.

Quick google search turned this up:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JacquelineLing.shtml

[Anonymous No.5040455]

>>5040434
>even after I showed you the disproving evidence
You have shown no such thing. You've just been bawwing like a big baby and making a fool of yourself.

As far as post quality goes that's subjective, which is doubly amusing because you later go on to bitch about how you being angry is subjective. Pretty hypocritical of you.
Frankly I consider OP's post of a much much higher quality than post >>5040250. But I suppose you think you're above the rules, don't you?

As far as rule 13 goes
>Do not use avatars or attach signatures to your posts.
Nobody is doing that. I'm only attaching random anime images to my posts here from google because I enjoy how it annoys you, OP certainly isn't guilty of that either.

[Anonymous No.5040459]

as hard as my dock when I'm boning your dad

[Anonymous No.5040460]

>>5040439
I have no interest in proving myself to be an "oldfag", and even if I did I have no way to prove it as I said earlier.
Your claim is that I've been here less than a week, so the burden of proof falls upon you.

[Anonymous No.5040465]

>>5040455
fuck off newfag. lurk more retard

[Anonymous No.5040476]

>>5040455
>You have shown no such thing.
Not my fault if you're unable to read the global rules. I guess you'll figure out the hard way in another three hours.

>You've just been bawwing like a big baby and making a fool of yourself.
The most pathetic backpedalling I've seen today. You should go back to high school.

>As far as post quality goes that's subjective
It is not. The board is very clearly "/sci/ - Science & Math". It isn't my problem if you do not have English reading comprehension.

>Frankly I consider OP's post of a much much higher quality than post >>5040250. But I suppose you think you're above the rules, don't you?
This isn't my post.

>>5040460
>Your claim is that I've been here less than a week, so the burden of proof falls upon you.
That isn't my claim, you shouldn't confuse me with someone else.

[Anonymous No.5040482]

>>5040465

>Acts like a wannabe mod on /sci
>Probably already has a hard on to finish that janitor application
>Fills thread with shitposts

[Anonymous No.5040483]

Increased neural activity definitely does require increased energy. How much is anybody's guess, but I imagine there's not too much of a difference between thinking normally and thinking "hard". And yes, I have zero data to back that claim up. Still, there's definitely extra energy required. Increased activity in individual neurons requires energy for the electrical and chemical signals, which as mentioned has been shown to correlate with increased blood flow, so if nothing else it'll take energy to get that blood pumping!

[Anonymous No.5040490]

[Anonymous No.5040494]

>>5040482
>mod
>tells shitposters to fuck off
pick one retard. I don't want to be a mod. They do a good job.

[Anonymous No.5040503]

>>5040482
Not even that guy, but there is nothing wrong with informing someone of their shitposting tendencies. There is no rule against making an informative, quality reply.

[Anonymous No.5040510]

>>5040494
Maybe you misunderstand. You are the shitposter. You derailed this thread. You discouraged an actual discussion of OP's original question, which by the way was a completely valid question for /sci. You are the problem in this thread. You are the problem on this board. You are the one who needs to fuck off.

[Anonymous No.5040528]

>>5040510
Why do you continue to spew unsuppoted claims and vapid insults? Are you out of arguments? Are you emotionally distressed because you can't rationalize your silly beliefs anymore? Cry harder.

[Anonymous No.5040533]

>>5040510
>You are the shitposter.
No I am not. The OP is for posting an inane garbage /b/ thread.
>You are the problem in this thread. You are the problem on this board. You are the one who needs to fuck off.
No that would be you. You are the cancer. You support shitposts like the OP's which don't belong on /sci/. You need to fuck off retard.

[Anonymous No.5040545]

>>5040528

>>5040510 Here, same anon as >>5040453, also not OP.

My only argument is that you have contributed nothing to this thread. Not once did you address OP's original question.

[Anonymous No.5040552]

>>5040545
>Not once did you address OP's original question.
that's because it is an irrelevant, inane, and infantile question. it does not belong on /sci/. just leave the board already.

[Anonymous No.5040559]

>>5040552
>it is an irrelevant, inane, and infantile question.

[Anonymous No.5040565]

>>5040559
if you don't like go to an infantile board. fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.5040570]

>>5040552
How is it not /sci/ related? He asks about the energy consumption of a biological process.

/sci/ related topics involved: biology, chemistry, thermodynamics, and others

[Anonymous No.5040573]

>>5040559
So when are you going to stop being trolled?

[Anonymous No.5040577]

>>5040570
because you cannot define the hardness in which one thinks. go back to >>>/x/ retard

[Anonymous No.5040581]

>>5040577
How would OP have known that?

[Anonymous No.5040586]

[Anonymous No.5040587]

>>5040581
quit bumping a shitpost

[Anonymous No.5040590]

>>5040587
Lurk more, faggot.

[Anonymous No.5040591]

[Anonymous No.5040592]

>>5040590
quit bumping a shitpost

[Anonymous No.5040595]

>>5040592
What's nokosage?

[Anonymous No.5040597]

>>5040577
Obviously there is no unit for thought, but there exists a state of minimal mental exertion and maximum minimal exertion. One could measure the energy consumption of the brain as it goes through the various states and find a minimum and maximum time it takes the brain to consume one calorie's worth of energy

[Anonymous No.5040598]

>>5040595
it wasn't nokosaged. checked the frontpage and it was bumped. retard

[Doll of Wood No.5040614]

yes, thinking harder burns more calories. google calories burned studying. i think it is twice baseline rmr, so about 200 calories an hour. hard thinking can measurable drop your blood sugar.

[Anonymous No.5040647]

>>5040577
I have in fact, formulated a method for determining the hardness of ones thoughts. The hardness of thought is proportional to the degree of ones brow to the horizontal (right to left across forehead). Therefore,

H = k(/) <---- theta

Then k is the hardness of thought per degrees of brow furrowed deep with that thought. Now, we can measure the maximum hardness of thought an individual can achieve by giving them an IQ test. While they are doing this test, we measure the degrees of brow furrowed at various increments and calculate a mean value for it. Thus, we can calculate k, which I have dubbed 'the constant of asshattery'.

[Anonymous No.5040649]

>>5040647
Also, I dub the SI unit of hardness of thought as the 'hard on'.