fcking magnets

[shitposter3000 No.5772859]

Hey goys, why do we even use conventional currents?

And how does magneto work?

[Pedro !!h6N23eWX4gY No.5772862]

End your shitposting, I'm the shitpost master around here.
If you know what's good for you, stay out of my territory.

[shitposter3000 No.5772865]

>>5772862
i've come to claim your throne, fight me irl.

[Pedro !!h6N23eWX4gY No.5772866]

>>5772865
what the fuck did you say about me?
i'll wreck u.
just luuk at me.

[shitposter3000 No.5772872]

>>5772866
you dont even phase me son.
i eat people like you for break fast.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.5772876]

Im gone for a while and anons already try to take my place?

[Anonymous No.5772879]

>>5772876
Don't worry you will forever be the greates shitposter in /sci/

[Pedro !!h6N23eWX4gY No.5772886]

>>5772876
You know I'm superior to you, EK, you're nothing but an annoying fuck that is so retarded that you unintentionally shitpost, and then you take credit for God's work of giving you a <50 IQ.
Run.

[shitposter3000 No.5772889]

>>5772886
my iq is 450 faget

[Anonymous No.5772894]

Typical day at /sci/

[Pedro !!h6N23eWX4gY No.5772897]

>>5772889
>implying iq represents intelligence
lel

[shitposter3000 No.5772898]

no but srs answer my questions

[Anonymous No.5772905]

>>5772897
>INTELLIGENCE quotient
>doesn't represent intelligence

You just went full retard.

[shitposter3000 No.5772913]

>>5772897
i bet you kiss girls faget

[Anonymous No.5772923]

>>5772905
Iq tests actually only quantify certain abilities.
You can't say it measures intelligence, since this notion is yet to be fully explained.

[Anonymous No.5772925]

>>5772923
>Iq tests actually only quantify certain abilities.
And those abilities are what we call "intelligence".

>You can't say it measures intelligence
It defines intelligence.

>since this notion is yet to be fully explained.
Before explaining it, we must define it. This is done by IQ tests.

[Anonymous No.5772926]

>>5772859
Magneto works by throwing wolverine into people

checkmate, athiests

[Pedro !!h6N23eWX4gY No.5772929]

Is Adamantium ferromagnetic?

[Anonymous No.5772930]

Can someone answer to OP, please. I want to know too

[shitposter3000 No.5772932]

>>5772929
must be if it wants to be a magnet

[Anonymous No.5772934]

>>5772925
>And those abilities are what we call "intelligence".
Nope, they are related to intelligence.

>It defines intelligence.
I don't define Intelligence by IQ tests.

>Before explaining it, we must define it. This is done by IQ tests.
The notion of intelligence precedes the one of IQ tests.

You'll never see any dictionary or website define intelligence as "the thing IQ test measures".

[Anonymous No.5772935]

>>5772929
of course dude..

[shitposter3000 No.5772938]

>>5772934
this is a magnet thread, not an intelligence thread.

[Anonymous No.5772942]

>>5772938
this shitposter speaks the truth

[Anonymous No.5772943]

>>5772934
>Nope, they are related to intelligence.
Please give us your definition of intelligence and name an academically accepted test to quantify intelligence.

>I don't define Intelligence by IQ tests.
Then you disagree with academic consensus.

>The notion of intelligence precedes the one of IQ tests.
The notion of length precedes the one of meters. Yet meters have become the unit of length.

[Pedr No.5772939]

>>5772859

You cannot win, Pedro is king!

[Anonymous No.5772940]

>>5772938
This is a science board.

[Anonymous No.5772949]

>>5772940
Magnets are the epitome fusion of science, magic, and miracles

checkmate, christians

[AntiSocial Jackass !!UwMNaHc90wZ No.5772952]

>>5772940

This thread is cancer.

[shitposter3000 No.5772951]

>>5772943
damn, your retorts are like a knife on hot butter

[Anonymous No.5772955]

>>5772943
>Please give us your definition of intelligence and name an academically accepted test to quantify intelligence.
I accept the definition of wikipedia which is:
>A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
As for an "academically accepted test to quantify intelligence", I think that IQ tests are a good way to measure intelligence.

>Then you disagree with academic consensus.
There's no academic consensus on IQ test defining intelligence.
A ruler doesn't define meters.

>The notion of length precedes the one of meters. Yet meters have become the unit of length.
But meters don't define lengths. Thanks for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.5772953]

>>5772952

[shitposter3000 No.5772957]

but srs, why do we even use conventional currents?

[shitposter3000 No.5772956]

>>5772952
no, is science

[Anonymous No.5772958]

>>5772957
because magnets

[Anonymous No.5772959]

>>5772955
>As for an "academically accepted test to quantify intelligence", I think that IQ tests are a good way to measure intelligence.
Then what are you disagreeing with?

>A ruler doesn't define meters.
Yes, it does. It's imprinted on the ruler how long a meter has to be.

>But meters don't define lengths
They do. If I asked you how long is your boyfriend's dick, you'd answer me in centimeters, a unit derived from meters. Just like if I asked you how intelligent you are, you'd answer with your IQ score.

[Anonymous No.5772969]

>>5772959
>Yes, it does. It's imprinted on the ruler how long a meter has to be.
You must be seriously scientifically illiterate, to think that meters are defined by rulers.
Wikipedia's definition is pretty clear, and don't involve rulers:
>Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole (at sea level), its definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge of metrology. Since 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

>If I asked you how long is your boyfriend's dick, you'd answer me in centimeters, a unit derived from meters.
You're not making any sense. That doesn't even prove that meters define lengths.

>Just like if I asked you how intelligent you are, you'd answer with your IQ score.
I wouldn't. Most people would say "oh, I'm average", some douchbags would say "above normal", and so on.

You're confusing between the way we quantify something, and the thing itself.

[Anonymous No.5772981]

>>5772969
>Wikipedia's definition is pretty clear, and don't involve rulers:
Are you telling me that you don't trust rulers and everytime you want to measure length, you use a complicated construction to measure the time it takes light to travel small distances?

>That doesn't even prove that meters define lengths.
It does because you cannot quantify length without referring to meters or an equivalent unit.

>Most people would say "oh, I'm average", some douchbags would say "above normal", and so on.
Intelligent people are douchebags to you? Nice anti-intellectualism.

>You're confusing between the way we quantify something, and the thing itself.
There is no difference.

[AntiSocial Jackass !!UwMNaHc90wZ No.5772997]

>>5772956

I hate clowns.

[Anonymous No.5772995]

Not >>5772955

>>5772959
>meters define length
Meters are units of length. Something created to describe length. You could say they are a derivative of length.

And considering intelligence, I also find the wiki definition quite appealing. It's something much more complex than just the ability to solve a certain kind of tests.

[AntiSocial Jackass !!UwMNaHc90wZ No.5773001]

>>5772959

I wouldn't. I don't know my IQ. I do know what my GRE score is.

[Anonymous No.5773003]

>>5772995
Me again.

>>5772981
quantify, measure != define
Is that so hard to grasp?

[Anonymous No.5773009]

>>5772981
>Are you telling me that you don't trust rulers and everytime you want to measure length, you use a complicated construction to measure the time it takes light to travel small distances?
I trust rulers, and I accept the fact that they (approximately) measure meters, but the exact definition of meters doesn't rely on them.
Similarly, I accept that IQ tests (approximately) measure intelligence, but the exact definition of intelligence doesn't rely on them too.

>It does because you cannot quantify length without referring to meters or an equivalent unit.
The short definition from wikipedia proves you wrong.

>Intelligent people are douchebags to you? Nice anti-intellectualism.
It's not because they say that they are intelligent that they necessarily are.
Furthermore, I consider that bragging about your intelligence, (whether or not you're clever) is quite impolite.

>There is no difference.
And this is where you're wrong.
The quantification of some concept is only an approximate way of defining a concept, not the concept itself.

[shitposter3000 No.5773019]

>>5772997
i love you

[Anonymous No.5773025]

>>5772981
>It does because you cannot quantify length without referring to meters or an equivalent unit.
How about time and velocity?

[Anonymous No.5773030]

>>5773025
ok i see where i'm wrong ;p

[Anonymous No.5773033]

>>5773025
>>5773030
It's all me.

[AntiSocial Jackass !!UwMNaHc90wZ No.5773040]

>>5773019

Wll, I love to Shitpost, so this should this should work out beautifully.

[Anonymous No.5773113]

>>5773009
bazinga!

[shitposter3000 No.5773125]

god doesnt exist because conservation of energy?