Wiseass thread

Wiseass thread.
Will answer any questions about science if you're too lazy to google.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1wAaI_6b9JE
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Explain to me the science behind proving global warming is a lie.

explain why op likes cox n dicks

Does quantum entanglement have any useful applications?

The major argument used against global warming is that it may be caused as a cyclical event, as our climate withdraws out from the previous ice age, tends towards a hotter global climate and will once again tend towards another ice age.
However, the major consensus, by 97% of all climate experts is that human beings is accelerating global warming.
There has never been any discrete published evidence against global warming.
However, there has been evidence supporting that many global warming claims are exaggerated.

This is caused at either:
the genetic level
or the environment level

Regardless, in both cases, the organism feels a sexual drive towards penises due to improper hormone control within the body.

Yes, Quantum Entanglement has been used to develop Quantum computers that utilise quantum binary.
Quantum binary is, in all simplicity, faster at performing calculations that normal binary.

Moreover, Quantum Entanglement has also been useful in theoretical applications-
It has recently been used in the field of 'Quantum Biology' to illustrate how birds react to magnetic fields.

what is a pog

from a dictionary,
a cardboard or plastic disc printed with a design or picture, collected or swapped by children or used in games.
a children's game in which players strike a pile of Pogs with an implement, winning any that land face upwards when they fall.
"a group of boys play Pogs during recess"
Origin
1990s: from POG (acronym from the initial letters of passion fruit, orange, guava ), a trademark for a juice drink originally made by a dairy on Maui, Hawaii: the lids of the drink provided the first game disks.

if a clit is a dick then would it be considered a blowjob when you suck it?

Neato.
2nd question.
Explain how time slows as your velocity approaches c.
Is it simply the faster you go the more time slows so there is no upper limit except to that of an outside observer or am I applying faulty logic?

how do magnets work

Pogs, Bart! Remember Pogs? They're back, in Alf form.

Pineapple, Orange, Guava: POG

Its a juice that's really popular in Hawaii and really really delicious

This question tends toward the social sciences.
It is only considered a blowjob based on the individual.
There can always be the biological argument, however, that no matter how much you alter the clit, it was always originally a dick, which would make you 'homosexual'.

tl;dr: depends on mindset of the individual engaging in the sexual activity.

Blowjob doesn't imply gender or specifically biological sex. You can give a girl a blowjob because you're putting your mouth on her genitals.

Ah, thank you very much, gentlemen.

Firstly, I can use the argument of impossibility,
where it would be impossible for any other object to attain the speed of light due to E = mc^2
Where, if your kinetic energy increases, so does your mass. Hence, an infinite kinetic energy would be required to approach the speed of light.

However, for sake of argument, assuming that we were looking through the eyes of a photon, time would depend simply on: v = st
Given that the photon travels at a constant speed, and that the displacement is constant, time alters accordingly.
Your logic would be slightly faulty there, as velocity never changes.
If you are further interested, you can see an application of this in explaining time dilation in high G singularities like black holes.

Magnetism works based upon the alignment of the spin of neutrons within the atoms of that substance.
If you are wondering about where "Magnetic Force" itself, comes from, that cannot be explained as it is described as a FUNDAMENTAL force.
However, magnetic force is created based upon these varying neutron spins and can be particularly observed within nuclei of Iron, Cobalt and Nickel.
Most magnets are made out of alloys of these materials.

I thoroughly enjoy this thread but unfortunately have no questions to contribute goo shit op

I'm already pretty familiar but it's been a while since thinking about it.
Could you remind me the differences between the 10 dimensions?
The first 4 are very obvious to me, but then I don't remember when it breaks down.

Sorry sir, this would fall under the definitions of "what is a blowjob".
This tends towards literature and is an area outside of my specialty.

Are you talking about spatial dimensions, or dimensions of time?
Or are you incorporating the two of them?

I know that you can induce sleep paralysis by laying perfectly still while very tired but ignoring all of your body's signs of itches and things that would make you move.
What can you do to turn that into an out of body experience?

What if I told you the 97% you're claiming to be "climate experts" are actually not all climate experts but scientists in other fields?

The individual would have to fall asleep towards unconsciousness. Most 'out of body' experiences are caused as a consequence of dreams, as well as the external stimuli you face within the dream.
The idea is to try being partially conscious whilst falling asleep.
If you are interested, this can be aided using drugs such as 'Galantamine' which is normally used to improve memory.

I think he made a pretty good.unbiased case, though if youd like to elaborate on that, that's be neat

Both really
0 - a single point
1 - direction/a line
2 - two axis/ a plane
3 - three axis/ a solid
Then the solid itself can be seen as a point.
4 - duration (can be seen as a timeline like the 1st dimension for the point that the 3rd dimension creates)
5 - (gets fuzzy here for me but) a split on that timeline that could be alternate "durations" that the point or object could be or have been experienced
6 - all of the possible timelines of a particular object or thing.

All of these possibilities become their own point in a way then there's some crazy shit about the universe that can get the dimensions up to 10

Quoting evidence:
"Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming."
"1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible forclimate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishingclimatescientists.
2) The greater theclimateexpertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming."

I have used evidence to back any claims I have made

I've been through sleep paralysis twice and never had an obe. I don't think the two subjects really correlate

In mathematics, dimensions can tend towards infinity.
In the case of string theory, only 26 dimensions are required to explain the universe's existence.
I personally believe it would be much easier for you to understand these higher dimensions if you viewed how dimensional transcendence occurs as you move from 2D (paper) to 3D (our world).
In each higher dimension, the basic principle is always the same: it is possible to touch every point of the lower dimension, through the higher dimension.
If you have heard of 'differences' before, these are all arbitrary, and have most likely been used for ease of explanation.
I find it helpful to understand all of this, if you think about what happens as you move a sphere through a plane of paper.
Or what happens if you move a circle into 3D.
I think you will find this video helpful:
youtube.com/watch?v=1wAaI_6b9JE

I think I have misunderstood your question then,
are you talking about going towards 'lucid dreaming'
or are you talking about sleep paralysis in specific?

I didn't originally post the question I was just interjecting my thought while awaiting your answer

Yeah. I agree. It's more along the lines of lucid dreaming which I'm really good at but I think I get too self aware and realistic in my dreams to have it really be an outofbody.

how can some people survive getting shot in the head?

You are right, 'lucid dreaming' which is often cause of the 'Out-of-body experience' is very different to sleep paralysis.

Sleep paralysis occurs because your brain, although it manages to 'switch on' your consciousness, it forgets to wire your consciousness back to its physical receptors.

In lucid dreaming, it all occurs within the subconscious of your brain, where you are more aware of your surroundings due to leaving your consciousness active and not 'switched off'

This is a great thread and I've been contributing answers and questions, but we all need to start image bumping.

This is something very unambiguous.
Scientists still don't have complete understanding of how the brain works, so any answer I give to your question would just be good speculation.
In theory, any individual will survive losing any amount of brain matter as long as vital unconscious centres such as the cardiac centre (controls heart beat), the respiratory centre (controls breathing), etc
are unharmed.
This is often what causes a coma in many individuals.
If you are specifically talking about why some people don't get into comas when shot in the head, it's because they lose only a slight amount of brain matter.
Brain matter is very malleable, and can adapt accordingly: this is why you often hear that blind people can hear and feel better (if their visual cortex is inactive, it might as well be used for something else).
If you have further enquiries, please feel free to ask.
Also, I think you will find this case very interesting:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

I N T E L L E C T U A L
T H R E A D

OP here,
I appreciate this

You're welcome
It's OC

I've been on meds that caused sleep paralysis and have gotten it ever since. I can also do something that usually leads to sleep paralysis, basically most easily described as dreaming before i fall asleep. I'll lay in bed with my eyes closed and ... Start dreaming. I can feel myself laying in bed but I can get up and walk around the house and such and dreamy things happen even though at any moment I can open my eyes. Shits weird. The drug was called viibryd, would not recommend. That shit caused absolutely crazy fucking dreams. Sometimes I'd dream for what would feel like hours and hours each night and wake up feeling more tired than when I went to bed. I'd get sleep paralysis multiple times a night the last nights before I stopped taking it and some of the withdrawal effects I got were even more mindfucking nights of endless crazy ass dreams and sleep paralysis. It was awesome when the dreams were lucid though.

This sounds as though you have been partially within a lucid dream.
Your consciousness has been partially 'switched off' by the looks of it.
This is why you feel the bed (conscious) but you also experience dreaming; hallucinations, etc
as part of the subconscious.
If you can learn to master this skill, you can have very nice dreams.
I have heard of cases where people would be able to willingly fly within their dreams, and some making entirely imaginary universes altogether.

B U M P
U
M
P

last bump to deletion

I lucid dream a ton, not always completely lucid but I usually know and control what I do in my dreams. I can fly when I want to but idk dream me isn't the most conscious decision maker. However the dream before sleep OBE type shit is cuz of the meds. When I lucid dreamed on that shit it was nuts. One time I started doing backflips into other dreams. Like I'd be dreaming a dream with all the crazy random dreamness and then I'd just backflip and fade through white into another random dream land and continue with the dream from there for seemingly half an hour or more. I was pretty much in control but as I mentioned, lucid dreams might be more controlled but they really don't feel much more "conscious"

How do magnets work?

...

Intriguing.

Answer this:
I thoroughly enjoy this thread but unfortunately have no questions to contribute goo shit op?

typo on 'goo', should be 'good'
It was a declarative statement, and was not interrogative.
It was not a question.

kek
what the fuck am I doing with my life

Person other than grunt. A military person that's in a support role, not actively fighting. Also known as a rear echelon mother fucker/REMF.

Can a match box?

no, but a tin can.

How could we realistically gain the required amount of energy to enable cold fusion, while still making a profit from the outcome energy?

Firstly, every power generating facility will have it's initial set up costs-
Although nuclear energy (fission) has been very cost effective, it did have an initial high cost to build the facilities.
When we talk about cold fusion, the most effective way to fuse the nuclei would be through an electromagnetic force.
However, as per what I know, it's still more cost effective to initiate hot fusion, in the presence of thermal energy.
This also why ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) which is currently building a fusion plant plans to use heat to convert the helium atoms into plasma.
If you are looking at profits, I believe hot fusion would be the most effective.
If you are still interested only within cold fusion, we can only work based on magnetism and electric fields, which, as I said before, just isn't as effective.
You can use this process to explain why there are no 'cold' stars.

How hot can I take a shower without dying?
In a bath tub and with a sprinkler.
Like, at which degree C would I turn into soup or start melting...

The extreme temperatures that an organism can withstand always follow a normal distribution (a range of values)
For my answer, I will assume the organism has a mean temperature tolerance.
Even before the organism starts to 'melt', there are many chemical reactions that would cause the organism to decompose or break down at these higher temperatures.
If you are interested in the melting point, it should be about 100 degrees Celsius, as we are made mostly out of water.
However, as I said before, realistically speaking, the organism would probably die due other reactions that occur, rather than melting.
For instance, heat can very easily break down all protein in the body. This will inhibit vital bodily processes including nervous transmission, digestion, and other cellular metabolic processes.
These high temperatures would inevitably destroy the organism's DNA, as well, inhibiting any possible recovery.
Moreover, there is also the reaction of the organism's thermoregulatory system against this increase in temperature which will cause the organism to reduce the body temperature (like sweating)

In overall, the mean would be 100 degrees Celsius depending on:
The organism's homeostatic capacity
Duration of exposure to the heat source
Intensity of the heat source

Also dependant on the mass of the organism.

[spoiler]
Physicists, take note that I have assumed that the specific heat capacity of the organism is roughly equal to water.
[/spoiler]

So what's the hotter shower I could take without dying? By what you said, I guess 80 C.

Hold on, I weight 50 kg. I am skinny.

The hottest shower?
If you assume that the time taken is short, so that the person does not die, then the temperature would be about 2000 degrees Celsius.
At this temperature, water can disassociate into gaseous ions, which would inevitable kill you.

Your mean temperature tolerance would be lower, but still depends on your metabolic rate (and possibly, surface area)

I'm 1.70m?
How do I measure metabolic rate?
I eat every once in a while.

How often do you shit?
Do you shit faster when you eat leafy vegetables?
What is your weight, if you do not mind me asking?

scratch the weight, you're the same, 50kg, right?

How often do you exercise?
For more precision: how old are you? [Will assume 20, if unanswered]

I'm the same, I guess I do shit faster when I eat leafy vegetables.

I'm 20, indeed, I run 4 times a week, I've been on hiatus for a month, I'll start again tomorrow. I'm O+ and a Sagittarius.

what is fire

If you have noticed that you have an under average appetite, or that you shit lesser than normal, your metabolism is likely underweight (or vice versa).

Moreover, your Basal Metabolic Index (BMI) based from your height and weight also suggest that you are underweight, and have a low metabolic rate.

This would decrease your temperature tolerance.

Are traps gay?

Fire is commonly created due to combustion.
Chemists commonly describe it as a result of an exothermic process- this means that the chemicals undergoing the reaction lose some of their energy, which they release as heat.
When you light a match, the reactant's chemical energy, is converted into thermal energy, which you observe as a flame.
Flame is produced due to interaction of the gas molecules with the heat.
This colour depends on the ions present within the flame.

This question tends towards the social sciences, and depends on what an individual defines as 'gay'.
Once again, I could use the "biology argument" to state that it only depends on the original sex of the two people engaging in the sexual activity.
In other cases, one could regard that feeling a sexual drive towards a trap without the knowledge of their penis is biologically natural, and therefore not gay.

tl;dr: if you know it is a trap, and are still aroused, then it is gay.

This kills the man?
I feel more comfortable with higher heat. I want to know the limits.

My calculations say that your temperature tolerance would be reduced, only based upon these factors.
There are still many other factors such as the extent of your thermoregulatory system, which depends entirely on your genes and your ethnicity.

The limits are ambiguous, I cannot strictly define it, as it depends on time, intensity, etc.

that's a different spellif you asshole

Is gender on a spectrum?

Is there currently any existing plausible theory as to how one might reverse the effects of entropy on the universe?

I'm Mexican. Say a half an hour bath.

The biology argument dictates that gender is not on a spectrum, as it depends entirely on the presence of chromosome XX or chromosomes XY.
However, the biology argument breaks down when one considers the presence of supersexes (people with chromosomes XXX or XXY)
I can also say, that although, by the process of natural selection, having a 'gender spectrum' is completely useless to society, one can argue against this by taking into consideration that having a 'gender spectrum' could act as a population control.
Any individual that is not "MALE" or "FEMALE" will be naturally selected out of the population, inevitably.
They only exist in society due to the presence of medical advancements.
Strict Biology: Gender is not a spectrum
Strict psychology: Gender is a spectrum

sorry should have clarified question, not how the flame is produced, what is the flame? just a manifestation of heat?

Magic exists?

Decreasing the entropy of the universe as a whole, would violate the law of thermodynamics, which would imply that all of our theoretical calculations in physics have been faulty, but that is not the case.

You might be interested in small-system entropy increasing changes-
for instance, in a chemical reaction, it is possible for the entropy to decrease, so long as the enthalpy increases.
HOWEVER, this decrease of entropy within the system always causes an increase of entropy elsewhere.

If there were any theory attempting to explain that the entropy of the universe would decrease over time, it would also have to explain where that entropy increases, elsewhere, outside the universe (which is physically not possible)

So, no, I don't think there are any plausible theories explaining this.

Which is more correct though. Biology or psychology?

All I can say is that, it would certainly be higher than the average.
Defining the 'average' is tough, as you aren't talking about melting anymore, I presume?

op is robot

at the rate at which technology is improving, how long will it take for us to have a battery the size of a micro sd card that can power a house

Deth

What your eyes view as a flame is caused due to energy transfer.
When the reaction transfers heat energy to the nearby gas, the electrons within these gas atoms get excited.
These electrons absorb the heat energy, and release it as a photon of light when they get de-excited.
This photon of light, is what you observe as 'fire'

Only if you believe.
Fun fact: chemistry was created based on magical means!

Interesting. But if hot fusion is more profitable then why is it not being widely used?
And if you say it's because it hasn't been properly tried yet, how can you know it's more profitable?

Both sides of the coin, have their weaknesses and strengths.
If you agree with Biology, then you also agree that you shouldn't be using a computer, and should be out getting laid at all times.
If you agree with sociology, you're essentially doing the opposite.

Yikes, this is a very theoretical question.
This depends on various other factors as well.
Assuming that the rate at which our technology develops, I wouldn't say it would be any time soon.
I'd give it perhaps 500+ years

I'd say, 300 degrees Celsius, for 5 minutes.
[Time is inversely proportional to the temperature]
If you want to die faster, then use a higher temperature.
Your reaction will be more extreme as temperature increases.

mind over matter

Nuclear fission fuel is more abundant, and requires lesser technology to attain.
Nuclear fusion will require more energy and more technology.

Hot fusion is more profitable than cold fusion:
we can tell this based on the stars:
All stars we have observed rely on thermonuclear processes, where heat aids in raising the kinetic energies of the molecules to undergo nuclear fusions.
We have not observed any stars (yet?) that produce fusion solely dependant on magnetic and electrostatic means.

The point of fusion is to try and mimic a star: utilising nuclear energy to produce electrical energy,
whereas a star utilises nuclear energy to produce light and heat energy.

It could certainly be a possibility in the future, but with the abundance of nuclear fuel society has right now, it would not be as profitable.
Hence, any tests for nuclear fusion have been set out to validate its theoretical credibility, and not to generate power.