[ 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: 894 KB, 650x560, 1370400135593.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5818870 No.5818870 [Reply] [Original]

C4H6Cl2 needs to check its cis privilege.

>> No.5818873

>implying it's not trans
>implying you can into isomers
Are you the same guy who keeps referring to compounds by their empirical formulas?
It doesn't make you look clever at all.
Rather, it makes you look like a stupid baka desu

>> No.5818885

>>5818873
>Learn to recognise sarcastic posts.

>> No.5818903

>"There are more stars in our galaxy than atoms in our galaxy"
> -- Neil Degrasse Tyson

>> No.5819942

>Death by black whores
>and other stuff

>> No.5819958

>>5818873
>calling someone a baku desu
"It doesn't make you look clever at all."

>> No.5820016 [DELETED] 

>>5818903
>"There are more stars in our galaxy than atoms in our galaxy"
Serious logic fail.

>> No.5820021

>>5818903
>"There are more stars in our galaxy than atoms in our galaxy"
>>5818870
>"There are more stars in our galaxy than atoms in the Universe"
Epic logic fail.

>> No.5820024

>>5818873
>Refers to compounds by their empirical forulas
Evidently not because he said C4H6Cl2
Empirical formula would be C2H3Cl

>> No.5820039

>>5818870
dohoho, I thought that in chemistry class too!

The pic is retarded though.

>> No.5820677

>>5820024
u wot m8

>> No.5820940

>>5818873
>baka desu
What does that mean?

>> No.5820942

>>5820940
baka gaijin

>> No.5820945

>>5819942
>death by black whores

I'm_okay_with_this.jpg

as long as it's when I'm like 80 or something

>> No.5820952
File: 152 KB, 625x538, lol'd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5820952

>> No.5820954
File: 103 KB, 650x560, h5QjzYF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5820954

>>5820952

>> No.5820957
File: 1.50 MB, 230x172, euphoric.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5820957

>>5820952
>>5820954

>> No.5820960
File: 80 KB, 650x560, CfUjjL5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5820960

>>5820952

>> No.5820969 [DELETED] 
File: 176 KB, 800x728, blackwholes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5820969

>>5819942

>> No.5820972

>>5820969
neither tends to let go of your dick if you get too close

>> No.5821763

>>5820039
and you're autistic

>> No.5821766

>>5820940
baka = stupid

desu = "is/form of being" but it's placed at the end of a japanese sentence

>> No.5821784

>>5820952
I love science.

>> No.5821901

bump

>> No.5821965

"There are more Neil Degrasse Tyson in our stars than galaxies in our atoms"
-- Galaxy

>> No.5821967

>>5821965
It's funny because it's true.

>> No.5822048

Does OP's pic troll anyone at all?

>> No.5822054

>>5822048
>Does OP's pic troll anyone at all?

Yes. /sci/ is full of autists who are ridiculously easy to troll.

>> No.5822060

>>5822054
The fact that anyone buys this while surfing scientific channels on the internet, is a rustling fact.

>> No.5822081

>>5822060
/sci/ has devolved into trolls trolling trolls basically.
Most of the threads are made by trolls and most of the replies are also trolls.

>>5818870 troll
>>5818456 troll
>>5822032 philospohy troll, probably not intentional though
>>5821884 poli troll
>>5821997 just wating for this to turn into philo/consiousness trolling i give it 1h
>>5821938 I guess legit guestion but really stupid at that
>>5821814 circlejerk/troll bait, hard to distinguish at this point
>>5821604 semi legit post from ignorant poster
>>5822038 legit thread, i guess
>>5821963 I don't even know
>>5821860 philo troll
>>5818629 tier thread do i need to say more
>>OP legit
>>5821968 legit

There is practically no reason to post science on /sci/ anymore.

Fucking quick reply threw this in the wrong thread. i guess it doesn't like all dem links

>> No.5822082

>>5822081
>>OP legit
This was the clone thread.

>> No.5822085

>>5822081

>>>./q/

>> No.5822086

>>5822085
/q/ is not a report button.

Just trying to tell you that you shouldn't expect science in this board, or take the posts you see here too seriously, like this thread for example.

>> No.5822089

>>5822081
>There is practically no reason to post science on /sci/ anymore.
you just did a breakdown of a thread starting with "cis priv" in the OP. either you're being ironic or.. I have no idea

>> No.5822090

>>5822086
/sci/ is not a meta discussion board. Take your meta discussion to >>>/q/

>> No.5822092
File: 41 KB, 361x637, 1334183690667.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5822092

>>5822090
you people are making this troll obese

>> No.5822104

>>5822089
My point exactly. Trolls trolling trolls, and you shouldn't take post posted here to seriously.
Those threads were on the front page on that order when i made the post.

>>5822090
>meta discussion
lel, you for reals?

Besides /q/ isn't a meta discussion board either, meta discussion goes to it's respective boards.

>> No.5822106

>>5822104
>lel, you for reals?

Of course I'm for reals. What else do you propose? "Imaginery" numbers?

>> No.5823351

>>5821766
Thank you.

>> No.5823602

"Just one gram of a Neutron star would weigh more than five thousand grams"

-Neil Degrasse Tyson

>> No.5823632

>>5821965
holy shit i'm dying

>> No.5823637

>>5823602
You do realize that there is nothing wrong with this statement, right..?

>> No.5823641

>>5823637
I hope you're trolling

>> No.5823658

>>5821766
thanks faggot~desu

>> No.5823661

>>5823641
Ummmm mass and weight are different

>> No.5823668

>>5823661
When people "weigh" something but give the response in grams, wouldn't everyone assume they're talking about mass? I mean, I do understand that I missed that he used the word weigh, but wouldn't everyone just automatically think mass in that situation?

Maybe I'm wrong, but whatever

>> No.5823670

>>5823661
>>5823668
>points out the misuse of 'weigh'
>misses the whole 1g = 5000g thing

>> No.5823671

>>5823661
1g and 5000g would have the same gravitational constant applied to them on earth, so multiply both by 9.8m/s2 and you would have weight. so no, 1g still doesn't weigh more than 5000g.

>> No.5823674

>>5823670
That's what I was talking about originally when I said "I hope you're trolling"

>> No.5823673

>>5823668
Common misconception.

Although now that I think about this more, I'm not so sure - weight is the force of gravity, which depends directly on mass but not on density. 1 gram of anything should weigh the same, holding distance constant.

>> No.5823677

>>5823671
They would be accelerated with (almost exactly) the same force. 5000g being accelerated at the same rate as 1g would take far more force to resist. This is the force which a scale measures. This is weight. 5000g weighs more than 1g.

>> No.5823681

>>5823677
So are you saying that 5000g has more inertia?

>> No.5823682

>>5823681
I'm saying that it has more mass. And is moving with the same acceleration.

>> No.5823880

>>5823681
Mass is a measure of inertial resistance. 5000g has more resistance than 1g.

>> No.5824011

>>5822048
Why would it do that?

>> No.5825336

>>5824011
I don't know.

>> No.5825715

>>5823671

But neutron stars do not exist on earth, much like the density (that would be found) in a black hole doesn't either. So, they may weigh one gram on earth but 5000g in their natural place due to relativity.

>> No.5826300

>>5820957
Why is he euphoric?

>> No.5826309

>>5826300
Not because he is enlightened by his own intelligence, but because he's surrounded by the intelligence of others.

>> No.5826320

>there are more atoms in the universe than correct ways to eat a reece's

>> No.5826322

>>5826320
i know you can drink them, bottom's up!

>> No.5827833

>>5826320
I don't know what that means.

>> No.5828751

>>5826309
That is an extremely insightful account. Thank you.

>> No.5830092

>>5826309
I am now enlightened for having read your post.

>> No.5830553

>>5818870
>"There are more stars in our galaxy than atoms in our galaxy"

wut

>> No.5830669
File: 1.02 MB, 1023x766, science1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5830669

>> No.5830757

>>5823661

HOLY SHIT YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND

the mass would be 1g, but the weight would be much higher since the gravity would be several orders of magnitude larger.

>> No.5830761

>>5823673

the weight is dependent on the local gravitational field, and obviously the neutron star matter is going to be part of a neutron star.

>> No.5830770
File: 33 KB, 525x400, onegai.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5830770

>>5819958
>>5818873
>>5820940
>>5821766
>>5823658
Oh glorious queen, she returns!

>> No.5830780

>>5823668
No, that's usually what people do when converting from weight to mass. And since we know what gravity is, on average approximately, here on earth, we can easily and somewhat consistently figure that if object x weighs 1 oz, that's approximately 28 grams, most of the time.

>> No.5830786
File: 8 KB, 299x276, 1337709468361.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5830786

>>5830761
Although, I'd tend to think, if we had a tablespoon of (especially a particularly dense) star, we'd probably start talking about how much the earth 'weighs' in comparison to it. Don't you think too?

>> No.5830812
File: 65 KB, 171x175, dawkins.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5830812

>>5826300
Not because of some phone god's blessing.

>> No.5830815
File: 40 KB, 640x362, 1337580792413.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5830815

>>5830812
>phone god
But who was camera?

>> No.5831058

>>5830669
That's not even funny and the pic took a minute to load.

>> No.5832457

Can someone please explain the joke?

>> No.5832461

>>5831058
>1.02MB
>took a minute to load
Guys, who let the African in.

>> No.5833121

>>5822081
A lot of that red text has strikethrough. What does that mean?

>> No.5834245

>>5833121
It means the threads 404'd.

>> No.5835018

>>5830812
Who is the man in the picture?

>> No.5836429

>>5835018
Richard Darwins.