Login or register


Last status update:
Date Signed Up:3/30/2010
Last Login:10/26/2016
Content Thumbs: 88 total,  96 ,  8
Comment Thumbs: 257 total,  276 ,  19
Content Level Progress: 60% (3/5)
Level 5 Content: New Here → Level 6 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/10)
Level 123 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Content Views:6824
Times Content Favorited:10 times
Total Comments Made:115
FJ Points:309

latest user's comments

#110 - Don't worry friend, it seems no one here understands any sort …  [+] (20 replies) 02/28/2016 on Got a question for ya +5
#160 - anon (02/28/2016) [-]
oh yeah then explain to me wtf ambient substance means? is he trying to say its denser?
User avatar
#127 - ledd (02/28/2016) [-]
I'm pretty sure he's being bashed for the last statement, since weight and difficulty of lifting are two separate subjects. If he said they're same heavy, but diamond harder to lift, it'd be true.
User avatar
#144 - synthane (02/28/2016) [-]
No, mass and 'difficulty of lifting' are different subjects. They have the same mass. They do not have the same effective weight. He said it correctly, it is just that FJ is clueless.
User avatar
#147 - ledd (02/28/2016) [-]
Wouldn't weight be m*n in which case density is irrelevant?
I could only assume its vertical acceleration while falling would be greater, but how does that matter when held in a hand or a bag?
User avatar
#156 - synthane (02/28/2016) [-]
Easy way to see this in application. Hold a normal piece of paper flat on your hand. Chances are, a slight updraft is going to make it flutter about a bit. Now take a small pebble and hold it in the same spot. Less updraft is going to hit it because it is smaller. Acceleration was not what was important here, it was straight up volume more surface area in this simplified example, but you get the idea I hope .

Even if there wasn't exactly a "wind" going, molecules in the air are constantly moving everywhere. Some of these are going to hit the material and push upward. This makes the one with the larger volume effectively lighter because you are getting some help in holding it, even if you are just holding it in place.

Now, if the question was which would weigh more in a perfect vacuum, the answer is they are the same. In standard atmosphere, the more dense in other words, the one with less volume one will technically have a slightly lower effective weight. In either situation, their mass is the same.

So basically, this is kind of a weighted question where the perfect answer is "Not enough information provided." If they asked which has a greater mass we could say they are the same, but weight could be referring to effective weight, the simple measurement of weight, or as a misnomer for mass.
User avatar
#157 - ledd (02/28/2016) [-]
You see, this is where we don't understand each other.
You take weight to be weight along with environmental variables.
But weight is weight. It's mass times gravity force.
So, coming back to what I initially said, that guy(and seems you as well) said weight, while meaning how hard object is to handle in general, including all variables. Which question was not about, resulting in red thumbs. And because people hate when someone's smarter than them.
User avatar
#163 - synthane (02/28/2016) [-]
I see what you are saying. You are correct in that I was looking at the apparent weight rather than simple weight. However, look a bit at what OP's question was and what he was saying up there a bit. Neither mentioned weight. The question was "Which is heavier?" not "Which weighs more?"

Heavy implies how difficult it would be to move in a standard environment, so environmental factors should be considered for a proper response to the question. Weight is definitely the predominant factor in determining how heavy it is, though.
User avatar
#164 - ledd (02/28/2016) [-]
Ah, so we found the issue, I think.
OP said 'heavier', not indicating weight, and sinery said 'weight' while meaning 'heavier'.
Thanks for the discussion, m8
#165 - synthane (02/28/2016) [-]
Seems like that was it. Thank you for the discussion as well. Always is nice to be able to talk through things civilly and work out where things went askew in the conversation.

Have a good evening.
#167 - anon (02/28/2016) [-]
You and the comment OP are retarded, weight is weight.

If you put a pound of feathers in a box and a pound of diamons in an identical box, they will both be... one pound.

Stop trying to act intelligent because you just sound autistic.
User avatar
#170 - synthane (02/28/2016) [-]
But what if we don't put them in a box and just have hold them in their natural state? Then we get environmental factors that influence them. Putting them in a box completely eliminates this factor, but you're the only one who brought up a box, and it was not present in the original question.

Your last line there is definitely a helpful and contributing part of the conversation. See, I can respond in a similar way. Stop trying to oversimplify things because you just sound stupid. Doubt that helped my point much, but if it let me level with you then maybe we can work this out, no?
#175 - anon (02/28/2016) [-]
I'm not even going to try and be logical with you because obviously you're beyond that point.

How about you sit down and just be a normal person for once instead of trying to pick everything apart in a desperate attempt to keep living the praise you got as a child for being "Ohhh so smart!".

Would you like some crayons or blocks to play with?
User avatar
#176 - synthane (02/28/2016) [-]
No, you're not going to be logical because you've seen this question before and don't care to put any thought into it.

How about you sit down and be a normal person for once instead of trying to put everyone else down in a desperate attempt to try and feel better about yourself?
#179 - anon (02/28/2016) [-]
You like anime, undertale, and are saying batshit retarded things, so I'm gonna go ahead and come to the conclusion that you're fucking autistic.

If someone asks you how much water is in a tall glass that holds 100ml and a short glass that holds 100ml, you don't say "Well you see the tall glass holds more water in its vaporous form, so the tall glass has more water. God you guys just don't understand physics or chemisty"

Even that comparison would be more understandable than the one you're arguing.

Good day, enjoy being on your high horse..
Just know that it's a soapbox for your stupidity and we're all laughing at you.
User avatar
#180 - synthane (02/28/2016) [-]
OK, I really was going to let it end there, but I have got to say this because it shows that you really don't know what you are talking about.

A glass can't hold more vapor than it can liquid. When you started to pressurize the vapor into the glass it would condensate as a liquid. So... No, what I was saying before made more sense because it was actually true, while you just demonstrated a lack of even middle school science knowledge. Congrats to you, I guess.
#181 - anon (02/28/2016) [-]
Who said anything about compressing it?

I'm done here, enjoy downs syndrome.
#182 - synthane (02/28/2016) [-]
That... doesn't line up with what you said. At all. "a tall glass that holds 100ml and a short glass that holds 100ml". For a normal person, that would mean a tall thin glass and a short wide glass, because, you know, 100ml. You brought up how much vapor it could hold. Do you know how you test for how much vapor something can hold? You compress it.

Later, anon. Seems pretty clear you are either trolling here or need to pay more attention in class.
#183 - jasperthefennec (02/28/2016) [-]
And most people assume when you ask if 1 kg of feathers weigh more than 1 kg of diamonds you're asking for their literal weight and therefor respond with the correct statement of "They weigh the same".

What the fuck was that picture supposed to prove? There is clearly the same amount of water in both glasses, only one is taller.

Maybe you're not being logical because you've seen the question before and wont put any thought into it, hmm?

Kek, retard.
User avatar
#158 - synthane (02/28/2016) [-]
Sorry, wrote that wrong in the third paragraph. Should be "The more dense one will technically have a slightly higher effective weight."
User avatar
#125 - smittywrbmnjnsn (02/28/2016) [-]
A few do, but boy are they punished for it.
#169 - lmao you guys are worse than r/atheism with the amount of circ…  [+] (5 replies) 08/04/2015 on Gaston -4
User avatar
#179 - listerthepessimist (08/04/2015) [-]
and you still can't get a handjob
#221 - anon (08/04/2015) [-]
#182 - unfitninjuh (08/04/2015) [-]
#175 - anon (08/04/2015) [-]
>going to r/atheism

fuck off reddit faggot
User avatar
#257 - therealrainbowdash (08/04/2015) [-]
maybe, just maybe, he's making fun of them and he doesn't actually go there
#4349 - Trying again for 'nada **dregonslyer used "*roll 1, 1-99*"** …  [+] (2 replies) 07/07/2015 on Where will you be reborn... 0
#4356 - dregonslyer (07/07/2015) [-]
admin please stop the dubs, I just want to be reborn
**dregonslyer used "*roll 1, 1-99*"**
**dregonslyer rolls 48**
User avatar
#4352 - rabbithabbit (07/07/2015) [-]
Still free choice, technically a win?
#4345 - **dregonslyer used "*roll 1, 1-99*"** **dregonslyer rolls 77**  [+] (3 replies) 07/07/2015 on Where will you be reborn... 0
#4349 - dregonslyer (07/07/2015) [-]
Trying again for 'nada**dregonslyer used "*roll 1, 1-99*"**
**dregonslyer rolls 11**
#4356 - dregonslyer (07/07/2015) [-]
admin please stop the dubs, I just want to be reborn
**dregonslyer used "*roll 1, 1-99*"**
**dregonslyer rolls 48**
User avatar
#4352 - rabbithabbit (07/07/2015) [-]
Still free choice, technically a win?
#50 - fixed x2 07/06/2015 on fixed 0
[ 103 Total ]

user's friends