Notice: Home alone tonight?
Topic: Trans women piss me off
+Anonymous A — 10 months ago #66,487
As a straight man, trans women kinda piss me off a bit. I mean, in general, in society, as a man, you can’t show weakness. Any little flaw or any little thing that can be made fun of, and people will attack you instantly. You can never let your guard down or somebody’s gonna try and test you. And then when someone tests you once, if you don’t handle that shit, you get a reputation for it, and they’re gonna keep coming back. Even if you stand up for yourself, people are just gonna wanna fuck with you even more. So there’s nothing you can do except shut up, say nothing, and if someone does bother you, you can’t back down, you have to go all the way no matter how far that is. The other person decides that.
Then, these white dudes come along with all their white privileged and are like, "Hey I’m a girl now! I’m gonna grow my hair long and wear makeup and wear a dress out in public and get a handbag and high heels and date men!" And it’s like, that shit kinda pisses me off. Like, how the fuck are you secure enough with yourself that you can go around dressing up like a woman? Don’t you have a family? You’re not even worried about your family doing that? It’s like… Americans talk about freedom and all that, who the fuck has got that much freedom?
I don’t even have that level of freedom when I’m locked away in a room by myself. My own control over myself when I’m alone is more authoritarian than these people’s outward existence. Isn’t God watching us? Honestly, I’m masculine and everything, but if I’m being real, I’m afraid of killing people because I think God might be real. Some atheists are really confident but I’m not 100% sure God doesn’t exist. That’s why I’m scared of war and getting drafted and all that. I’d rather just die and not defend myself than kill someone else and keep living with the fear that, what if I unjustly killed someone? A lot of people killed people thinking they were in the right, that doesn’t mean they were. How do I know my actions are right by God? If I didn’t fear God, I could kill my enemies and conquer the world and be ambitious in a certain type of way people don’t normally get to be ambitious. But I can’t because I don’t give myself that level of freedom. Comparing trans women to emperors and dictators seems kinda strange but it’s like, do these people not freaking fear God or something? What the hell is this? It pisses me off.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 4 minutes later[T] [B] #662,337
It’s like when a muscular guy is too loose. Something about it just pisses ya off a little. You don’t hate the person for who they are or anything. It’s just like… man something’s strange here…
https://youtube.com/shorts/nOcloBtPPdc+Anonymous B — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,338
> I mean, in general, in society, as a man, you can’t show weakness. Any little flaw or any little thing that can be made fun of, and people will attack you instantly.
You sound like a little pussy, bro.
+Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 5 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,339
So you're saying that because you fear God too much, people who decide to change their gender are too arrogant?
I have a question for you. If God can predict the future, wouldn't God know that a person will one day go trans? So God is basically telling someone to go trans in the future, because they created the universe.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 3 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,340
@previous (C)
That’s a Protestant belief but I’m not Protestant. I’m not saying I hate trans people, I’m saying people being that secure with themselves pisses me off because I know I’m not.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 53 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,341
@previous (A)
So you don't believe that God can predict the future?
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 3 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,342
@previous (C)
Well the implication if God can predict the future is that humans don’t have free will since everything is already predetermined. But in Catholicism, the belief is that in Purgatory, you can decide to follow God and accept the forgiveness of Jesus Christ and make your way into Heaven no matter what sins you committed in life, or you can choose to deny the forgiveness of Jesus Christ and go to Hell. So really, choice is sort of fundamental, that God gave us agency and autonomy to make decisions for ourselves that are either good or evil out of our own free will. Of course, God hopes that we will choose good instead of evil, and we cannot be forgiven for our sins unless we confess our sins. If we can’t admit that our sins are sins, we won’t be forgiven for them. So generally, a universe where free will doesn’t exist wouldn’t really make sense in Catholicism. Although, personally, I don’t know if free will does exist, and I don’t think it makes much of a difference.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 3 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,343
@previous (A)
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,344
@662,342 (A)
Of course, technically in my religion, murder is not unforgivable. But I’m not 100% sure that my religion is correct that murder can be forgiven.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 40 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,345
+Anonymous D — 10 months ago, 2 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,346
@OP
Your reasoning doesn't make any sense, what kind of people have you been hanging around with throughout your life to develop that kind of mindset? Did you get bullied? Why do you also believe that there's a God watching your every move? You sound a bit schizophrenic, plus your texts are usually pretty long too which adds to the schizoness.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 31 seconds later, 27 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,347
@662,345 (A)
Thanks for answering. I kind of guessed you were young. In my opinion, and as a not young person, you lack one thing. Confidence. Confidence is a skill just like any other skill. There's also that phrase "fake it till you make it". You can fake confidence.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 5 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,348
@662,346 (D)
> Your reasoning doesn't make any sense, what kind of people have you been hanging around with throughout your life to develop that kind of mindset? Did you get bullied? Why do you also believe that there's a God watching your every move? You sound a bit schizophrenic, plus your texts are usually pretty long too which adds to the schizoness.
Maybe the point of using a website where posts aren’t attached to my name is to say thoughts I have that I can’t tell other people in real life? And to answer the question about God watching, just because you don’t feel something yourself doesn’t mean that someone who does is crazy. We live in a reality where there is something instead of nothing. If there is a reason for everything, then it follows that there is a reason why there is something instead of something. God is defined as a creator of the universe. The universe is everything that exists separated from everything which does not exist. If existence exists, which it does, it follows that the reason why existence exists also exists. So it’s isn’t irrational to think that God might exist. If God does exist, everything everywhere is equally the result of God brining existence into being. Everything that is something instead of nothing is equally "something." As much as people want to dismiss it because it doesn’t make sense to them, the more I think about it, the idea of the existence of God actually does make sense. That doesn’t mean I believe everything in the Bible though. I believe in evolution and science and the Big Bang and all of that. But none of that invalidates the central question of why there is something instead of nothing.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 6 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,349
@previous (A)
Also the idea that a conscious force of creation can’t exist because you can’t imagine it, isn’t really a valid argument based on evidence that a conscious force of creation doesn’t exist. We are conscious, and if you are an atheist, you must believe that souls do not exist. So if souls do not exist, and consciousness arises purely through physical interactions in our physical brains, that means that consciousness can physically exist in our universe. So if consciousness is a state that can physically exist in our universe, then if the initial reason for the formation of the universe was a physical process, if we don’t understand what consciousness is or how to make inanimate matter conscious, how can we actually know that the force of creation was not a conscious force? And atheists think an afterlife doesn’t make sense because, "we you die you are gone forever." But atheists don’t believe in a soul. So if you have no soul, nothing leaves physical reality. Before you were conceived, all the atoms that make up your body and your human brain were at one point billions of years ago, not part of any living organism. But they became part of a living organism that is conscious. So if you can go from death to life once, why would you think given an infinite amount of time, it can’t happen twice? There’s nothing about an afterlife that contradicts physics or requires a belief in souls or anything supernatural.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 10 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,350
@previous (A)
Also, some people might believe that this isn’t possible because the universe might not continue to exist forever. But I see a few problems with the idea of the universe suffering a heat death. Firstly, as far as we understand, stable isotopes of elements will continue to exist forever. Ideas that everything will eventually turn into iron are based on proton decay, which has never been observed (protons do decay outside of atoms but not inside of atoms). Personally, I don’t believe that protons do decay. The problem isn’t that atoms will stop existing, the problem is that atoms will stop moving around due to the expansion of the universe causing the universe to cool down and eventually become the same temperature everywhere. But the rate of the expansion of the universe is due to dark energy, and we don’t know why dark energy exists. And there are some theories, like the theory of inflation that the rate of expansion after the Big Bang was significantly faster than it is now. That could only be possible if there is some mechanism that could change the amount of dark energy in the universe. Except we can’t know that because we don’t know why dark energy exists in the first place. So the idea the universe will continue to expand forever and never collapse back in on itself is based on the idea that we can’t extrapolate current trends of expansion out to infinite and nothing will change in the meantime, which I think, we can’t actually be certain of. And then there are other theories based on the decay of protons that the universe will continue to expand forever, but if all matter decays into photons, since photons travel at the speed of light, they don’t experience the passage of time. So a heat death and a big bang could actually be the same thing. (Not saying I believe in that one though, just throwing it out there.)
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 7 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,351
@previous (A)
* I misremembered that last theory. The theory of cyclic cosmology doesn’t necessarily involve proton decay, it involves gravitational interactions between stars in galaxies causing an effect similar to "drag" that would lead to stars getting swallowed up by the black holes at the centers of galaxies over trillions of years, and then those black holes would decay due to hawking radiation, and the hawking radiation would exist in the form of photons. (Although proton decay wouldn’t necessarily be incompatible with that idea.) but I misrepresented it.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 40 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,352
@662,350 (A)
Unfortunately you are incorrect about why everything turns into iron. The reason is quantum tunneling. Because the iron atom has the lowest energy value of all the elements, situations where a proton could escape one atom and go to a nearby atom are possible.
+Anonymous E — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 59 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #662,353
@662,342 (A)
That's not the Catholic understanding of Purgatory, but for the sake of brevity it is the 'entrance' to Heaven. God desires our free will assent to faith, to listen to Him, but nobody can be saved against their will. Theologians insist that God is "outside of time" but I say simply that He, in essence, is not subject to it, since eternity means a non-contingent existence, but that is not Who God is. In the fullness of time, according to His plan, the Father sent His Son into the world to save it. Saying God is 'outside of time' makes Him a 'concept' in the abstract, which makes Him seem distant and unreachable. He is near to whoever calls upon Him.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,354
@662,352 (C)
> Unfortunately you are incorrect about why everything turns into iron. The reason is quantum tunneling. Because the iron atom has the lowest energy value of all the elements, situations where a proton could escape one atom and go to a nearby atom are possible.
Is that possible in stable isotopes which don’t produce radiation?
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,355
@662,353 (E)
I’m not really sure which part of that disagrees with what I said. If you can’t be saved against your will, and your will is a choice of whether you want to accept the forgiveness of God, isn’t that saying the same thing two different ways?
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,356
@662,354 (A)
Yes, atoms can fuse together using fusion even at room temperature due to quantum tunneling.
·Anonymous E — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,357
@662,355 (A)
You said that those in Purgatory can choose Hell but that's not its purpose. It's a place of purification. Those who refuse to give Him a chance in this life have already made their choice. That's the distinction. The proselytizers like to say 'no salvation' for those outside, but the Catechism clearly teaches that those who do good, yet through no fault of their own do not know the Son, can and do come to God according to His will. So Muslim or Jew or what have you, no prayer is wasted and not act of kindness goes unrewarded. Remember how God looked after Ishmael and know that God has the care of all in mind.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,359
@662,356 (C)
> Yes, atoms can fuse together using fusion even at room temperature due to quantum tunneling.
Has cold fusion been observed before experimentally and then verified?
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,360
@662,357 (E)
I understand that the purpose of Purgatory is not for people to choose to go to Hell. What I meant was that the only way to go to Hell is if you don’t want to accept the forgiveness of Jesus which is a choice, a bad choice, but still technically a decision someone could make.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,361
@662,359 (A)
Maybe. It might have been discovered back in the 90s, it may not have been discovered.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 6 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,362
@662,360 (A)
Really what I’m saying is if someone is a bad person and they go to Hell, it’s their own fault, basically.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,363
@662,361 (C)
> Maybe. It might have been discovered back in the 90s, it may not have been discovered.
So, then how can you state it as if it’s a fact if we aren’t sure if it happens or not?
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 15 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,364
@662,362 (A)
Hell doesn't exist. It's just a way of scaring people.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,365
@662,363 (A)
I'm talking about quantum tunneling. The whole 1990s cold fusion is about something unrelated.
Quantum tunneling is due to the fact that objects such as particles are fuzzy balls rather than actual objects. Everything has a wavelength, including people. You probably have heard of an electron microscope. Electrons have wavelength, you can calculate it with the de Broglie wavelength equation.
Quantum tunneling has been around for decades. It's used in tunneling diodes, they've been around for a long time.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 21 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,366
@662,364 (C)
> Hell doesn't exist. It's just a way of scaring people.
I’m of two minds about it. On the one hand, maybe it does exist and it’s a bad thing. On the other hand, maybe it does exist, and some people need it. Like when I look at people like Putin who do horrible things and end lives without a care in the world, if I’m being honest, I can sorta see the need for it.
Although, there’s also the argument that maybe even if Hell doesn’t exist, if you scare people into not doing things which are bad for society as a collective, then maybe that could be a good thing. (Not saying I believe that.)
Really, I’m Catholic, but for me (as an individual), I believe that whatever the truth is, I have faith that the truth as it is what’s best for us. Maybe there is a hell, maybe there isn’t, but I just trust that whatever the case is, it is correct.
·Anonymous E — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,367
@662,360 (A)
I see. I don't judge anyone since there are always mitigating circumstances which only God knows and He alone is Judge. This is why I don't hate anyone, because God doesn't.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 28 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,368
@662,365 (C)
> I'm talking about quantum tunneling. The whole 1990s cold fusion is related to something unrelated.
>
> Quantum tunneling is due to the fact that objects such as particles are fuzzy balls rather than actual objects. Everything has a wavelength, including people. You probably have heard of an electron microscope. Electrons have wavelength, you can calculate it with the de Broglie wavelength equation.
Right. I am aware that quantum tunneling can cause elements to fuse together, but generally, it happens at very high temperatures. For example, inside the core of the sun. Room temperature fusion would be cold fusion. If cold fusion is possible it would have incredible implications for energy production. It would make fusion reactors much easier to create. So, I’m not against the existence of cold fusion. It could have incredible implications for technologies which could benefit people a lot, so I’m not against it or morally opposed to it somehow. I just want to see evidence for it before I believe in it.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,369
@662,367 (E)
I’m gonna be honest, I definitely hate some people but I’m gonna wait until I get to Purgatory to work it out. Some people are too dangerous and untrustworthy to try and have an understanding with in this life, and I just kinda accept that. I definitely judge people, and on some level I know that it is wrong, but we aren’t perfect, and I don’t think we should try to be. If you can find a way to live life and hate no one, good for you.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 43 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,370
@662,368 (A)
The thing is there's two types of "cold fusion". One generates power in a second. The other generates power in ten to the power of 50 or so years.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,371
@previous (C)
> The thing is there's two types of "cold fusion". One generates power in a second. The other generates power in ten to the power of 50 or so years.
If somebody can show that either one exists, I’d be interested to see it.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,373
@previous (A)
I'll give you 10 minutes of my life to find that YouTube video of someone calculating quantum tunneling.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,374
@previous (C)
Here's the video I remember. It's very mathematical. 20 minutes long, your eyes will glaze over well before halfway.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,375
@662,373 (C)
Really what I’m getting at is that cold fusion of stable isotopes requires those isotopes to become unstable, and the only way for a stable isotope to become unstable on its own is through proton decay inside the nucleus of an atom. But according to the standard model, protons are stable because their baryon number is conserved. The theory for proton decay from what I understand requires magnetic monopoles. Except magnetic monopoles kinda don’t exist. So… I’m not a physicist or anything, and I could absolutely be wrong, but I feel like protons probably don’t decay.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,376
I'm really sorry, I forgot to post the link. Oopsie
https://youtu.be/EMq_QbyghMU·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #662,377
@662,375 (A)
I'm not talking about proton decay. I'm talking about quantum tunneling. I never really learnt about proton decay.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,378
@previous (C)
(This could be wrong) but my understanding is that it is possible for particles to leave the nucleus of an unstable isotope of an atom, which is what causes radioactive decay. But a stable isotope shouldn’t be producing radiation. So if it were possible for a proton to quantum tunnel outside of a stable isotope, then it would be possible to detect radiation coming from stable isotopes, except that would violate the definition of what a stable isotope is. So in order for a stable isotope to emit a proton, it would have to become unstable first. But in order to make it unstable, something would have to happen inside the nucleus of the atom in order to make this happen. And from what I understand (which could be wrong), the mechanism some people theorize could cause this would be the decay of a proton inside the nucleus of an atom. Except, according to the standard model, that should not be possible, and the decay of a proton inside the nucleolus of an atom has never been observed.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,379
@previous (A)
So basically, some people think stable elements have extremely long half lives and that’s why we don’t detect radiation from them, and other people think that stable elements last forever, but the only way to find out is to keep waiting until either we do observe proton decay, or we don’t observe proton decay. Except if protons don’t decay (which they might not), then we’ll never observe it. So we could keep waiting forever, and it could always be the case that the half life is just a little bit longer and if we just wait a little bit longer it might decay. So it’s not really possible to prove that protons don’t decay. But it is possible to prove if protons do decay, but only if they ever do.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,380
@662,378 (A)
The thing about quantum tunneling resulting in the fusion of atoms to make iron is that it's very slow. Too slow to measure.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 35 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,381
@previous (C)
I was looking around for a source somewhere on the internet that says all lighter elements will fuse together to make iron. I couldn’t find any examples of sources saying that cold fusion has been experimentally verified. However, I did find a Wikipedia article that says, "In 101500 years, cold fusion occurring via quantum tunneling should make the light nuclei in stellar-mass objects fuse into iron-56 nuclei (see isotopes of iron). Fission and alpha particle emission should make heavy nuclei also decay to iron, leaving stellar-mass objects as cold spheres of iron, called iron stars."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe
I looked up the title of that section which is called the "degenerate era" online when I searched it, it seems like the idea of the "degenerate era" comes from a book called, "The Five Ages of the Universe."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Ages_of_the_Universe
The Wikipedia article also referenced a paper from 1979
https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.51.447
According to the study, "In matter at zero temperature, nuclear as well as chemical reactions will continue to occur. Elements heavier than iron will decay to iron by various processes such as fission and alpha radiation elements lighter than iron will combine by nuclear fusion reactions building up gradually to iron."
According to our modern scientific understanding, "zero temperature" is not possible to reach in reality.
The paper was written by Freeman Dyson who is the same person who came up with the idea of a Dyson sphere.
If you want to look at the paper, I found a pdf online of it:
https://suli.pppl.gov/2019/course/RevModPhys.51.447.pdf
Honestly, you can make up your own mind about it, but he asserts that all elements will turn into iron in basically one paragraph out of a 14 page paper, and he doesn’t really give any evidence for it. He gives some math, but for the amount of claims he’s making, he only gives 5 single line equations to justify it.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,382
@previous (A)
The thing I did notice though, is that a lot of news articles came up when I was searching about that paper. It feels sort of like a pop-science thing, but it doesn’t feel super rigorous. It seems more like a guy who was theorizing about the future of the universe and he just said that all elements will become iron. He also did state in the original paper that all elements heavier than iron will fission into iron. I mean, I’m looking at a Wikipedia article about Freeman Dyson. He seems like he was a smart guy when it comes to math and physics, but he also liked coming up with sort of pop-science theories about space colonies and stuff. And that paper "time without end: physics and biology in an open universe" seems like it’s more of him speculating about the future really broadly more so than really rigorously proving stuff. I mean, in the paper, he mentions stellar evolution, the detachment of planets from stars the detachment of stars from galaxies, the decay of black holes in the hawking process, liquid matter at room temperature, the decay of orbits by gravitation radiation, all matter decays to iron, the collapse of iron star to neutron star, the collapse of ordinary matter to black holes, sentient computers … like it’s kinda all over the place. The whole paper he just asserts that things are the case. It almost sort of feels like he’s really just making a collection of what his opinions about the future of the universe were at the time. I feel kinda skeptical, but it’s all over the internet because he was a famous guy that came up with the idea of a Dyson sphere.
+Anonymous F — 10 months ago, 20 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,388
I found one Reddit post "need proof for elements heavier than iron will decay to iron by various processes such as fission and alpha emission - Freeman J. Dyson"
Someone commented:
"There is a difference between how highly conceptual, theoretical thinkers like Dyson come to their statements and how more practical thinkers like you want to construct proofs (e.g. in decay paths for each nucleus all ending in 56Fe). If you want to go beyond "for each nucleus heavier than 56Fe there is a positive potential energy difference per nucleus with 56Fe which implies that there is a finite probability (but for stable elements exceedingly small) per unit of time for quantum tunneling into a state of lower potential energy per nucleus" you'll have a hard time because for most stable elements this timescale is unknown."
Sooooo… there is no evidence and there is no proof, he just said a thing, and people quoted him on it, basically.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,389
@previous (F)
Okay but what about a proton just leaving the nucleus and going into a nearby nucleus? That might happen. You could just do the mathematics and see if the total energy of the system was less afterwards than before. Just count the mass of the initial system and compare to the final system.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
+Anonymous G — 10 months ago, 52 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,394
@previous (C)
> Okay but what about a proton just leaving the nucleus and going into a nearby nucleus? That might happen. You could just do the mathematics and see if the total energy of the system was less afterwards than before. Just count the mass of the initial system and compare to the final system.
That’s what radioactive decay is though… and stable isotopes don’t do that.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,396
@previous (G)
We're going back to quantum tunneling aren't we?
·Anonymous G — 10 months ago, 36 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,397
@previous (C)
> We're going back to quantum tunneling aren't we?
It’s got something to do with trans women.
+ducky !MwWb.dJjRc — 10 months ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,418
cuz they turn u on eh. who doesnt want a chick with a dick. complete package plus bonus pieces.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 12 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,449
Bumping for our friends on Minichan.
·Anonymous B — 10 months ago, 26 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,451
@662,339 (C)
> If God can predict the future, wouldn't God know that a person will one day go trans?
My belief is that parents will receive a trans child as karma after they throw the most idiotic gender reveal party. Remember such parties start forest fires.
·Anonymous B — 10 months ago, 39 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,452
@662,340 (A)
> That’s a Protestant belief but I’m not Protestant.
So, you're retarded?
·Anonymous B — 10 months ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,453
@662,449 (C)
The thread on
Minichan.
Why did you call yourself a 'nigga' there but a 'straight man' (doubtful) here?
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 5 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,454
@previous (B)
That wasn't me. But anyway I assume they didn't want to plagiarise the original post.
·Anonymous B — 10 months ago, 6 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,455
@previous (C)
I can lie on the internet too.
+Anonymous I — 10 months ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,456
I like how everyone found a way to contribute to this post in every way possible except talking about the topic of the actual original post.
·Anonymous E — 10 months ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,458
@662,454 (C)
Your posts aren't to be taken srsly since they're generally manic and incoherent ramblings so plagiarism is the least of your concerns.
·Anonymous E — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,459
@662,456 (I)
It used to be called 'derailing' but I don't know what it's called today.
It's b8
·Anonymous I — 10 months ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,460
@662,453 (B)
(OP here)
Honestly it’s funny they changed the word "man" to "nigga" as an attempt to make fun of my post, but then in the replies everybody’s just arguing with each other instead.
·Anonymous I — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,461
@previous (I)
I’m honestly just impressed with myself that I managed to say something so weird on the internet people don’t even know how to get mad at it. Just argue about protons or whatever. Lol
+Anonymous J — 10 months ago, 16 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,462
@662,353 (E)
That's the great mystery of the Lord, isn't it. How can he be so far away, and yet so close?
I have my own probably heretical notions on the matter and form of the Trinity to address these issues.
·Anonymous I — 10 months ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,463
@previous (J)
> That's the great mystery of the Lord, isn't it. How can he be so far away, and yet so close?
>
> I have my own probably heretical notions on the matter and form of the Trinity to address these issues.
Even after I say it you all are still arguing with each other over what I said. Lol
·Anonymous E — 10 months ago, 9 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,464
@previous (I)
Nobody is arguing. If you knew how to have an actual conversation with other humanoids you might comprehend the distinction. Now please have the last word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdq4T3iRV80 ·Anonymous I — 10 months ago, 10 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,466
@previous (E)
Arguing against autism is a sensitive topic, as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex neurological condition characterized by a range of symptoms that can manifest in various ways. However, I can provide insight into how my ability to remember and link to a random YouTube song might suggest a different cognitive style rather than an indication of autism.
One of the characteristics often associated with autism is difficulty in social communication and a tendency to focus intensely on specific interests. In contrast, I find that my spontaneous linking to random YouTube songs often facilitates social interactions. Music serves as a common language, breaking the ice in conversations and establishing connections with others. The process of recalling a song, along with its emotional resonance, allows me to engage with friends, family, and even acquaintances in a meaningful way.
Additionally, my inclination to share music reflects a broader cognitive ability to navigate social cues and context. Rather than being fixated on a single interest, I draw from an eclectic array of musical genres, demonstrating a level of versatility that suggests a more generalized cognitive engagement. This adaptability can be attributed to a social-behavioral approach that prioritizes connection and communication over the focused interests typically associated with autism.
Ultimately, while the ability to recall songs does not confirm or deny autism, it showcases how I navigate the world in a way that fosters social interaction. By linking to a random YouTube song, I promote engagement and enjoyment, reflecting a different aspect of cognitive processing that prioritizes shared experiences over individual fixation. Through this lens, my relationship with music illustrates a social fluidity that is often celebrated in human connections.
In essence, music is not just a personal interest; it is a bridge that connects me to others.
https://youtu.be/y-T3wVJXzfg ·Anonymous E — 10 months ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,467
AI analysis was top notch so the thread wasn't for nothing. Hahaha...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojNrj-sWfpk·Anonymous I — 10 months ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,468
@662,464 (E)
This is how neckbeards imagine themselves fighting comment wars
https://youtu.be/91oYUrY6DBs ·Anonymous E — 10 months ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,469
@previous (I)
I couldn't get through the intro of that garbage, but all keyboard warriors look like this to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avJTANfvjiE ·Anonymous I — 10 months ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,470
@previous (E)
You wouldn’t know real music if it hit you in the face. I only listen to the classics.
https://youtu.be/SnRNsCu3ZqE ·Anonymous E — 10 months ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,472
@previous (I)
Isn't it a bit cliche for trolling purposes tho?
·Anonymous I — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,474
@previous (E)
I’m not an internet hipster. I accept homogeneity as a black man in American society. The way I see it, there are two types of music: mumble rap, and CCP propaganda songs.
https://youtu.be/bWMw4vE3J8s ·Anonymous I — 10 months ago, 49 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,475
@previous (I)
Just so we’re clear: he is speaking Mandarin.
·Anonymous I — 10 months ago, 7 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,477
@662,474 (I)
Although actually unironically, I like communist music even though I’m not a communist. It just sounds good.
https://youtu.be/oDZaBV3V4LM ·Anonymous I — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #662,478
@previous (I)
The best music is written at gunpoint.