fresighto

Rank #1559 on Content
no avatar Level 223 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to fresighto Block fresighto Invite fresighto to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 24
Steam Profile: Highinquisitorspaceduck
Date Signed Up:1/18/2011
Last Login:2/01/2015
Location:United states of texas
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#1559
Comment Ranking:#3143
Highest Content Rank:#542
Highest Comment Rank:#1044
Content Thumbs: 5087 total,  5594 ,  507
Comment Thumbs: 3020 total,  3353 ,  333
Content Level Progress: 24% (24/100)
Level 137 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 138 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 36% (36/100)
Level 223 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 224 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:5
Content Views:235318
Times Content Favorited:269 times
Total Comments Made:1434
FJ Points:6073
Favorite Tags: tower (3) | borderlands (2) | climbing (2) | FEMINISM (2) | is (2) | it (2) | stream (2)
No

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny text/links

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 48278
    Thumbs Up 1697 Thumbs Down 88 Total: +1609
    Comments: 286
    Favorites: 124
    Uploaded: 09/22/14
    Real feminists do exist Real feminists do exist
  • Views: 39667
    Thumbs Up 1211 Thumbs Down 88 Total: +1123
    Comments: 250
    Favorites: 33
    Uploaded: 12/19/14
    I'm lovin it I'm lovin it
  • Views: 24959
    Thumbs Up 727 Thumbs Down 33 Total: +694
    Comments: 65
    Favorites: 31
    Uploaded: 10/18/14
    Colombia to export new sugar substitute Colombia to export new sugar...
  • Views: 19811
    Thumbs Up 480 Thumbs Down 39 Total: +441
    Comments: 40
    Favorites: 24
    Uploaded: 11/17/14
    false flag fail false flag fail
  • Views: 12753
    Thumbs Up 300 Thumbs Down 13 Total: +287
    Comments: 19
    Favorites: 12
    Uploaded: 10/16/14
    Isis Isis
  • Views: 8157
    Thumbs Up 206 Thumbs Down 13 Total: +193
    Comments: 23
    Favorites: 24
    Uploaded: 09/30/14
    fight philosophy fight philosophy
1 2 3 4 5 > [ 28 Funny Pictures Total ]

latest user's comments

#309 - Honest with* 01/31/2015 on Science Shit : Black Holes. 0
#308 - You know man, to be perfectly ho eat with you, and I know fj h…  [+] (2 new replies) 01/31/2015 on Science Shit : Black Holes. +1
User avatar #311 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
i see what you mean.
with the way subatomic particles behave, and even the unknown logic behind quarks, it's very difficult to restrain from putting a man behind the curtain.
but science isn't finding the route to the conclusion, science is going along the path to wherever it may lead.
and maths (and certain features within science) are just a way to explain how we got onto that path and where it lead us.
before Einstein, who knew E=MC^2? before Newton, who knew calculus?
before science, who knew the world?
reality is imperceptibly complex and the laws that govern quarks permeate literally everything. the smaller we go, the more complex, but one day humanity will find the answer and everything would be obvious.
i hypothesise the things we already know aren't just laws that explain functions of the universe, i think they are features of the universe the best way we can describe them!
what's the difference between space and time? what's the difference between the fundamental forces of reality? what's the difference between electromagnetism and geomagnetism?
reality isn't a creation, it isn't a creator, it's just there and the biggest question asked by the wisest of us is the smallest question asked by the youngest:
Why?
#309 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Honest with*
#306 - And as far as the changes, we're not sure how to determine a &…  [+] (4 new replies) 01/31/2015 on Science Shit : Black Holes. 0
#307 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
well i can see easily why that would fascinate you to make it your expertise, imagine what we'll know once humanity have unlocked the behaviours of the quark flavours!
we might even begin to understand how the universe was born...
god damn.
#308 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
You know man, to be perfectly ho eat with you, and I know fj hates this, but the more I study quantum mechanics, the more I'm convinced it was a creators doing. Maybe not whole cloth, as is, but certainly designed, rules set, and paths plotted. Stuff at the atomic level and below gets too weird to not be for me. I mean, once you start working with electrons you're so deep in math its insanity. The father down the rabbit hole you go, the more complex it gets. Exponentially. But its all ordered chaos; our business is finding the rules. There isn't a thing yet that for certain cannot be mathematically defined; and since I'm not in the Pythagorean cult, I have to go the other way and instead of the numbers being divine, that the divine works with a logical intent, even if it is laberynthian.

Complex conjugate vector space
It even sounds mean, and that's the grass on top of the rabbit hole.
User avatar #311 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
i see what you mean.
with the way subatomic particles behave, and even the unknown logic behind quarks, it's very difficult to restrain from putting a man behind the curtain.
but science isn't finding the route to the conclusion, science is going along the path to wherever it may lead.
and maths (and certain features within science) are just a way to explain how we got onto that path and where it lead us.
before Einstein, who knew E=MC^2? before Newton, who knew calculus?
before science, who knew the world?
reality is imperceptibly complex and the laws that govern quarks permeate literally everything. the smaller we go, the more complex, but one day humanity will find the answer and everything would be obvious.
i hypothesise the things we already know aren't just laws that explain functions of the universe, i think they are features of the universe the best way we can describe them!
what's the difference between space and time? what's the difference between the fundamental forces of reality? what's the difference between electromagnetism and geomagnetism?
reality isn't a creation, it isn't a creator, it's just there and the biggest question asked by the wisest of us is the smallest question asked by the youngest:
Why?
#309 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Honest with*
#305 - Kind of like observing an electron, squared. You observe the e… 01/31/2015 on Science Shit : Black Holes. +1
#303 - Not at all. Quarks are the particles that make up larger parti…  [+] (7 new replies) 01/31/2015 on Science Shit : Black Holes. +1
User avatar #304 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
how does observing a free quark work? does it change how it behaves? this is fucking fascinating!
#306 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
And as far as the changes, we're not sure how to determine a "regular" set of behaviors yet, since we just (relatively) figured out there's like eight different kinds (called flavors, because reasons) and are starting to break open subatomic particles to see what quarks they're made of.
#307 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
well i can see easily why that would fascinate you to make it your expertise, imagine what we'll know once humanity have unlocked the behaviours of the quark flavours!
we might even begin to understand how the universe was born...
god damn.
#308 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
You know man, to be perfectly ho eat with you, and I know fj hates this, but the more I study quantum mechanics, the more I'm convinced it was a creators doing. Maybe not whole cloth, as is, but certainly designed, rules set, and paths plotted. Stuff at the atomic level and below gets too weird to not be for me. I mean, once you start working with electrons you're so deep in math its insanity. The father down the rabbit hole you go, the more complex it gets. Exponentially. But its all ordered chaos; our business is finding the rules. There isn't a thing yet that for certain cannot be mathematically defined; and since I'm not in the Pythagorean cult, I have to go the other way and instead of the numbers being divine, that the divine works with a logical intent, even if it is laberynthian.

Complex conjugate vector space
It even sounds mean, and that's the grass on top of the rabbit hole.
User avatar #311 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
i see what you mean.
with the way subatomic particles behave, and even the unknown logic behind quarks, it's very difficult to restrain from putting a man behind the curtain.
but science isn't finding the route to the conclusion, science is going along the path to wherever it may lead.
and maths (and certain features within science) are just a way to explain how we got onto that path and where it lead us.
before Einstein, who knew E=MC^2? before Newton, who knew calculus?
before science, who knew the world?
reality is imperceptibly complex and the laws that govern quarks permeate literally everything. the smaller we go, the more complex, but one day humanity will find the answer and everything would be obvious.
i hypothesise the things we already know aren't just laws that explain functions of the universe, i think they are features of the universe the best way we can describe them!
what's the difference between space and time? what's the difference between the fundamental forces of reality? what's the difference between electromagnetism and geomagnetism?
reality isn't a creation, it isn't a creator, it's just there and the biggest question asked by the wisest of us is the smallest question asked by the youngest:
Why?
#309 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Honest with*
#305 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Kind of like observing an electron, squared. You observe the effects of its effects of its effects and hope you figure out what's going on. Visual identification is by definition impossible because they're smaller than an electron.
#301 - Indeed. My favorite thing is the whole "shells are repre…  [+] (9 new replies) 01/30/2015 on Science Shit : Black Holes. +1
User avatar #302 - redstonealchemist (01/30/2015) [-]
this, this fucking right here is why i want to do college chem and physics.
fucking YES!
no idea about free quarks though
thought: basis similar to radiation?
#303 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Not at all. Quarks are the particles that make up larger particles such as mesons, Hadrons, etc. Which in turn make up atoms and so on. Free quarks are these blocks (either rare or fucking everywhere. Depending on who you ask) ungrouped. Like finding O instead of 02. They have this habit of phasing in and out of existence because why the fuck not. There is speculation that they are actually moving on the timeline. This is going to be my specific area of study once its all said and done. Crazy little bastards.
User avatar #304 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
how does observing a free quark work? does it change how it behaves? this is fucking fascinating!
#306 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
And as far as the changes, we're not sure how to determine a "regular" set of behaviors yet, since we just (relatively) figured out there's like eight different kinds (called flavors, because reasons) and are starting to break open subatomic particles to see what quarks they're made of.
#307 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
well i can see easily why that would fascinate you to make it your expertise, imagine what we'll know once humanity have unlocked the behaviours of the quark flavours!
we might even begin to understand how the universe was born...
god damn.
#308 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
You know man, to be perfectly ho eat with you, and I know fj hates this, but the more I study quantum mechanics, the more I'm convinced it was a creators doing. Maybe not whole cloth, as is, but certainly designed, rules set, and paths plotted. Stuff at the atomic level and below gets too weird to not be for me. I mean, once you start working with electrons you're so deep in math its insanity. The father down the rabbit hole you go, the more complex it gets. Exponentially. But its all ordered chaos; our business is finding the rules. There isn't a thing yet that for certain cannot be mathematically defined; and since I'm not in the Pythagorean cult, I have to go the other way and instead of the numbers being divine, that the divine works with a logical intent, even if it is laberynthian.

Complex conjugate vector space
It even sounds mean, and that's the grass on top of the rabbit hole.
User avatar #311 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
i see what you mean.
with the way subatomic particles behave, and even the unknown logic behind quarks, it's very difficult to restrain from putting a man behind the curtain.
but science isn't finding the route to the conclusion, science is going along the path to wherever it may lead.
and maths (and certain features within science) are just a way to explain how we got onto that path and where it lead us.
before Einstein, who knew E=MC^2? before Newton, who knew calculus?
before science, who knew the world?
reality is imperceptibly complex and the laws that govern quarks permeate literally everything. the smaller we go, the more complex, but one day humanity will find the answer and everything would be obvious.
i hypothesise the things we already know aren't just laws that explain functions of the universe, i think they are features of the universe the best way we can describe them!
what's the difference between space and time? what's the difference between the fundamental forces of reality? what's the difference between electromagnetism and geomagnetism?
reality isn't a creation, it isn't a creator, it's just there and the biggest question asked by the wisest of us is the smallest question asked by the youngest:
Why?
#309 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Honest with*
#305 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Kind of like observing an electron, squared. You observe the effects of its effects of its effects and hope you figure out what's going on. Visual identification is by definition impossible because they're smaller than an electron.
#296 - To put it how my professer did, ahem.. "Okay, so two …  [+] (11 new replies) 01/30/2015 on Science Shit : Black Holes. +2
User avatar #297 - redstonealchemist (01/30/2015) [-]
i at least understand that observing a subatmoic particle changes its state.
electrons in shells, the shells being nothing but an imaginary area where it's most likely to appear if you observe it. technically speaking depending on the test we could assume it's 'everywhere' in that area, but it's more accurate using a symbol to represent the unknown area.
i remember watching a video about looking at a prism through its rainbow through a method of intense magnification (i can't remember if it was a microscope or a telescope) and the result was seeing the rainbow in lines with specific black lines, these lines would be the electron configuration of the atoms within the prism and this method was used by a team of american women at some point in the last 200 years to categorise a truly vast number of stars, based sloely on their molecular shadows.
a truly fascinating subject.
#301 - fresighto (01/30/2015) [-]
Indeed. My favorite thing is the whole "shells are representative of statistical probability" thing, because an electron COULD be there, or it could be over by Saturn, chillin. An electron from Pluto could be living in your asshole. Its great. Electrons: the subatomic giver of no fucks.
Them and free quarks.
Honestly it amazes me that chemically, anything at all gets done. The electrons could just nope out and tell your reaction to go fuck itself. But, it doesn't. Shit like that and quarks having the (statistically possible, but high improbable) ability to construct a fully formed Victorian era chair with the correct carbon dating inside of you in an instant, just because fuck you and what you think.


Crazy how nature do dat doe
User avatar #302 - redstonealchemist (01/30/2015) [-]
this, this fucking right here is why i want to do college chem and physics.
fucking YES!
no idea about free quarks though
thought: basis similar to radiation?
#303 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Not at all. Quarks are the particles that make up larger particles such as mesons, Hadrons, etc. Which in turn make up atoms and so on. Free quarks are these blocks (either rare or fucking everywhere. Depending on who you ask) ungrouped. Like finding O instead of 02. They have this habit of phasing in and out of existence because why the fuck not. There is speculation that they are actually moving on the timeline. This is going to be my specific area of study once its all said and done. Crazy little bastards.
User avatar #304 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
how does observing a free quark work? does it change how it behaves? this is fucking fascinating!
#306 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
And as far as the changes, we're not sure how to determine a "regular" set of behaviors yet, since we just (relatively) figured out there's like eight different kinds (called flavors, because reasons) and are starting to break open subatomic particles to see what quarks they're made of.
#307 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
well i can see easily why that would fascinate you to make it your expertise, imagine what we'll know once humanity have unlocked the behaviours of the quark flavours!
we might even begin to understand how the universe was born...
god damn.
#308 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
You know man, to be perfectly ho eat with you, and I know fj hates this, but the more I study quantum mechanics, the more I'm convinced it was a creators doing. Maybe not whole cloth, as is, but certainly designed, rules set, and paths plotted. Stuff at the atomic level and below gets too weird to not be for me. I mean, once you start working with electrons you're so deep in math its insanity. The father down the rabbit hole you go, the more complex it gets. Exponentially. But its all ordered chaos; our business is finding the rules. There isn't a thing yet that for certain cannot be mathematically defined; and since I'm not in the Pythagorean cult, I have to go the other way and instead of the numbers being divine, that the divine works with a logical intent, even if it is laberynthian.

Complex conjugate vector space
It even sounds mean, and that's the grass on top of the rabbit hole.
User avatar #311 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
i see what you mean.
with the way subatomic particles behave, and even the unknown logic behind quarks, it's very difficult to restrain from putting a man behind the curtain.
but science isn't finding the route to the conclusion, science is going along the path to wherever it may lead.
and maths (and certain features within science) are just a way to explain how we got onto that path and where it lead us.
before Einstein, who knew E=MC^2? before Newton, who knew calculus?
before science, who knew the world?
reality is imperceptibly complex and the laws that govern quarks permeate literally everything. the smaller we go, the more complex, but one day humanity will find the answer and everything would be obvious.
i hypothesise the things we already know aren't just laws that explain functions of the universe, i think they are features of the universe the best way we can describe them!
what's the difference between space and time? what's the difference between the fundamental forces of reality? what's the difference between electromagnetism and geomagnetism?
reality isn't a creation, it isn't a creator, it's just there and the biggest question asked by the wisest of us is the smallest question asked by the youngest:
Why?
#309 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Honest with*
#305 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Kind of like observing an electron, squared. You observe the effects of its effects of its effects and hope you figure out what's going on. Visual identification is by definition impossible because they're smaller than an electron.
#294 - Yea, its pretty important to black hole theory. While youre at…  [+] (13 new replies) 01/30/2015 on Science Shit : Black Holes. +2
User avatar #295 - redstonealchemist (01/30/2015) [-]
i do understand quantum mechanics more than the average layman, but i haven't had any formal education in it other than GCSE-level stuff (one down from college-level)
#296 - fresighto (01/30/2015) [-]
To put it how my professer did, ahem..
"Okay, so two balls are speeding at each other in a vacuum. When they hit, which way is the one on the left spinning? Yes, you in the back. No, you can't, shut up.
Now that you people are done lying to me, because I gave you no data, imagine we have some. But now, imagine when you read it, it changes. No, not the whole thing. You read the position, and the diagram rearranges. Okay, that's how this is going to work. So sit down, strap in, because it's gonna get weird. And don't try to visualize during the math bit, I don't have time to clean your brain off the floor and I refuse to repeat my lecture. "
User avatar #297 - redstonealchemist (01/30/2015) [-]
i at least understand that observing a subatmoic particle changes its state.
electrons in shells, the shells being nothing but an imaginary area where it's most likely to appear if you observe it. technically speaking depending on the test we could assume it's 'everywhere' in that area, but it's more accurate using a symbol to represent the unknown area.
i remember watching a video about looking at a prism through its rainbow through a method of intense magnification (i can't remember if it was a microscope or a telescope) and the result was seeing the rainbow in lines with specific black lines, these lines would be the electron configuration of the atoms within the prism and this method was used by a team of american women at some point in the last 200 years to categorise a truly vast number of stars, based sloely on their molecular shadows.
a truly fascinating subject.
#301 - fresighto (01/30/2015) [-]
Indeed. My favorite thing is the whole "shells are representative of statistical probability" thing, because an electron COULD be there, or it could be over by Saturn, chillin. An electron from Pluto could be living in your asshole. Its great. Electrons: the subatomic giver of no fucks.
Them and free quarks.
Honestly it amazes me that chemically, anything at all gets done. The electrons could just nope out and tell your reaction to go fuck itself. But, it doesn't. Shit like that and quarks having the (statistically possible, but high improbable) ability to construct a fully formed Victorian era chair with the correct carbon dating inside of you in an instant, just because fuck you and what you think.


Crazy how nature do dat doe
User avatar #302 - redstonealchemist (01/30/2015) [-]
this, this fucking right here is why i want to do college chem and physics.
fucking YES!
no idea about free quarks though
thought: basis similar to radiation?
#303 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Not at all. Quarks are the particles that make up larger particles such as mesons, Hadrons, etc. Which in turn make up atoms and so on. Free quarks are these blocks (either rare or fucking everywhere. Depending on who you ask) ungrouped. Like finding O instead of 02. They have this habit of phasing in and out of existence because why the fuck not. There is speculation that they are actually moving on the timeline. This is going to be my specific area of study once its all said and done. Crazy little bastards.
User avatar #304 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
how does observing a free quark work? does it change how it behaves? this is fucking fascinating!
#306 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
And as far as the changes, we're not sure how to determine a "regular" set of behaviors yet, since we just (relatively) figured out there's like eight different kinds (called flavors, because reasons) and are starting to break open subatomic particles to see what quarks they're made of.
#307 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
well i can see easily why that would fascinate you to make it your expertise, imagine what we'll know once humanity have unlocked the behaviours of the quark flavours!
we might even begin to understand how the universe was born...
god damn.
#308 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
You know man, to be perfectly ho eat with you, and I know fj hates this, but the more I study quantum mechanics, the more I'm convinced it was a creators doing. Maybe not whole cloth, as is, but certainly designed, rules set, and paths plotted. Stuff at the atomic level and below gets too weird to not be for me. I mean, once you start working with electrons you're so deep in math its insanity. The father down the rabbit hole you go, the more complex it gets. Exponentially. But its all ordered chaos; our business is finding the rules. There isn't a thing yet that for certain cannot be mathematically defined; and since I'm not in the Pythagorean cult, I have to go the other way and instead of the numbers being divine, that the divine works with a logical intent, even if it is laberynthian.

Complex conjugate vector space
It even sounds mean, and that's the grass on top of the rabbit hole.
User avatar #311 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
i see what you mean.
with the way subatomic particles behave, and even the unknown logic behind quarks, it's very difficult to restrain from putting a man behind the curtain.
but science isn't finding the route to the conclusion, science is going along the path to wherever it may lead.
and maths (and certain features within science) are just a way to explain how we got onto that path and where it lead us.
before Einstein, who knew E=MC^2? before Newton, who knew calculus?
before science, who knew the world?
reality is imperceptibly complex and the laws that govern quarks permeate literally everything. the smaller we go, the more complex, but one day humanity will find the answer and everything would be obvious.
i hypothesise the things we already know aren't just laws that explain functions of the universe, i think they are features of the universe the best way we can describe them!
what's the difference between space and time? what's the difference between the fundamental forces of reality? what's the difference between electromagnetism and geomagnetism?
reality isn't a creation, it isn't a creator, it's just there and the biggest question asked by the wisest of us is the smallest question asked by the youngest:
Why?
#309 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Honest with*
#305 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Kind of like observing an electron, squared. You observe the effects of its effects of its effects and hope you figure out what's going on. Visual identification is by definition impossible because they're smaller than an electron.
#1 - Yep, still doing weird **** . Japanese gotta jap. 01/30/2015 on lets check in on japan 0
#186 - First, its not warping time, its warping relative perception o…  [+] (15 new replies) 01/30/2015 on Science Shit : Black Holes. +2
User avatar #293 - redstonealchemist (01/30/2015) [-]
thank you so much, i love learning!
i'm going to have to look for hawking radiation on youtube, i appreciate the help
#294 - fresighto (01/30/2015) [-]
Yea, its pretty important to black hole theory. While youre at it, look into some of the quantum mechanics stuff. That's where my degree is. The universe loses its goddamned mind at the quantum level.
User avatar #295 - redstonealchemist (01/30/2015) [-]
i do understand quantum mechanics more than the average layman, but i haven't had any formal education in it other than GCSE-level stuff (one down from college-level)
#296 - fresighto (01/30/2015) [-]
To put it how my professer did, ahem..
"Okay, so two balls are speeding at each other in a vacuum. When they hit, which way is the one on the left spinning? Yes, you in the back. No, you can't, shut up.
Now that you people are done lying to me, because I gave you no data, imagine we have some. But now, imagine when you read it, it changes. No, not the whole thing. You read the position, and the diagram rearranges. Okay, that's how this is going to work. So sit down, strap in, because it's gonna get weird. And don't try to visualize during the math bit, I don't have time to clean your brain off the floor and I refuse to repeat my lecture. "
User avatar #297 - redstonealchemist (01/30/2015) [-]
i at least understand that observing a subatmoic particle changes its state.
electrons in shells, the shells being nothing but an imaginary area where it's most likely to appear if you observe it. technically speaking depending on the test we could assume it's 'everywhere' in that area, but it's more accurate using a symbol to represent the unknown area.
i remember watching a video about looking at a prism through its rainbow through a method of intense magnification (i can't remember if it was a microscope or a telescope) and the result was seeing the rainbow in lines with specific black lines, these lines would be the electron configuration of the atoms within the prism and this method was used by a team of american women at some point in the last 200 years to categorise a truly vast number of stars, based sloely on their molecular shadows.
a truly fascinating subject.
#301 - fresighto (01/30/2015) [-]
Indeed. My favorite thing is the whole "shells are representative of statistical probability" thing, because an electron COULD be there, or it could be over by Saturn, chillin. An electron from Pluto could be living in your asshole. Its great. Electrons: the subatomic giver of no fucks.
Them and free quarks.
Honestly it amazes me that chemically, anything at all gets done. The electrons could just nope out and tell your reaction to go fuck itself. But, it doesn't. Shit like that and quarks having the (statistically possible, but high improbable) ability to construct a fully formed Victorian era chair with the correct carbon dating inside of you in an instant, just because fuck you and what you think.


Crazy how nature do dat doe
User avatar #302 - redstonealchemist (01/30/2015) [-]
this, this fucking right here is why i want to do college chem and physics.
fucking YES!
no idea about free quarks though
thought: basis similar to radiation?
#303 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Not at all. Quarks are the particles that make up larger particles such as mesons, Hadrons, etc. Which in turn make up atoms and so on. Free quarks are these blocks (either rare or fucking everywhere. Depending on who you ask) ungrouped. Like finding O instead of 02. They have this habit of phasing in and out of existence because why the fuck not. There is speculation that they are actually moving on the timeline. This is going to be my specific area of study once its all said and done. Crazy little bastards.
User avatar #304 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
how does observing a free quark work? does it change how it behaves? this is fucking fascinating!
#306 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
And as far as the changes, we're not sure how to determine a "regular" set of behaviors yet, since we just (relatively) figured out there's like eight different kinds (called flavors, because reasons) and are starting to break open subatomic particles to see what quarks they're made of.
#307 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
well i can see easily why that would fascinate you to make it your expertise, imagine what we'll know once humanity have unlocked the behaviours of the quark flavours!
we might even begin to understand how the universe was born...
god damn.
#308 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
You know man, to be perfectly ho eat with you, and I know fj hates this, but the more I study quantum mechanics, the more I'm convinced it was a creators doing. Maybe not whole cloth, as is, but certainly designed, rules set, and paths plotted. Stuff at the atomic level and below gets too weird to not be for me. I mean, once you start working with electrons you're so deep in math its insanity. The father down the rabbit hole you go, the more complex it gets. Exponentially. But its all ordered chaos; our business is finding the rules. There isn't a thing yet that for certain cannot be mathematically defined; and since I'm not in the Pythagorean cult, I have to go the other way and instead of the numbers being divine, that the divine works with a logical intent, even if it is laberynthian.

Complex conjugate vector space
It even sounds mean, and that's the grass on top of the rabbit hole.
User avatar #311 - redstonealchemist (01/31/2015) [-]
i see what you mean.
with the way subatomic particles behave, and even the unknown logic behind quarks, it's very difficult to restrain from putting a man behind the curtain.
but science isn't finding the route to the conclusion, science is going along the path to wherever it may lead.
and maths (and certain features within science) are just a way to explain how we got onto that path and where it lead us.
before Einstein, who knew E=MC^2? before Newton, who knew calculus?
before science, who knew the world?
reality is imperceptibly complex and the laws that govern quarks permeate literally everything. the smaller we go, the more complex, but one day humanity will find the answer and everything would be obvious.
i hypothesise the things we already know aren't just laws that explain functions of the universe, i think they are features of the universe the best way we can describe them!
what's the difference between space and time? what's the difference between the fundamental forces of reality? what's the difference between electromagnetism and geomagnetism?
reality isn't a creation, it isn't a creator, it's just there and the biggest question asked by the wisest of us is the smallest question asked by the youngest:
Why?
#309 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Honest with*
#305 - fresighto (01/31/2015) [-]
Kind of like observing an electron, squared. You observe the effects of its effects of its effects and hope you figure out what's going on. Visual identification is by definition impossible because they're smaller than an electron.

user's channels

Join Subscribe fj-fitness
Join Subscribe warhammer40k
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 560 / Total items point value: 785

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #5 - luigipimp (12/15/2014) [-]
stop being mean
User avatar #7 to #6 - luigipimp (12/15/2014) [-]
im going to make a citizens arrest you
User avatar #3 - gugek (12/08/2014) [-]
You're awesome have a great day
#4 to #3 - fresighto (12/13/2014) [-]
Why thank you, random citizen!
User avatar #1 - miscarriage (11/02/2014) [-]
lel
#2 to #1 - fresighto (11/03/2014) [-]
Kek
 Friends (0)