Is molecular gastronomy a legitimate culinary thing? My roommate

Call him a faggot.

>>8253357
>firmly believes that the world should bend over backwards for him because he's a STEM major

call him a faggot

Is it the ping pong ball

>>8253357
Does he also say that cuckoldry is the "thinking man's fetish?"

>>8253426
It remains unchanged, doofus.

Is the ping pong perched on top of a pole or something?

>>8253357
Hit him where it hurts. Tell him his waifu isn't real and even if she was she would be disgusted by him and never love him.

I have nothing against molecular gastronomy though. Bringing some science into the kitchen to make your food taste better is fine by me. I just wish people weren't such insufferable faggots about it.

File: Here we are.jpg (95KB, 1200x863px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1200x863px

>>8253357
I dont know dumbass, why don't you watch this video and see what you think afterwards. I'll wait.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkEUbfQMtK8

>>8253444
>>8253426
>>8253472
Assuming the water displacement is identical, wouldn't it tip to the left because the slight weight of the ping pong ball and string will end up making the left side heavier?

The steel ball would add no weight because its being suspended.

>>8253472
the image says the ball is attached to a string

>>8253444
Care to explain? Because I think you're wrong and I'm right.

>>8253486
>Anthony Bored-meme
No thanks.

>>8253545
>I hate learning shit
if you had your opinion already decided you shouldn't have made a thread you giant cuck;

>>8253492
>>8253526
Well I may be off. Either nothing happens or it tips to the left. I think it tilts to the left

The reason for this is that the tension in the string keeps the ball from going up. The ball wants to go up, so theres a force from the string going down. Thus pushing down on the beaker

Idk

>>8253357
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stRPiifxQnM

so people stop trying to debate on shit they dont know

>>8253556
That video was proven to be a fake forever ago.

>>8253559
good point, im a dumbass

i have full faith in you

>>8253563
Girl or boy?

>>8253556
tfw brainlet

>>8253552
>The ball wants to go up, so theres a force from the string going down. Thus pushing down on the beaker
here's your (you)

Assuming the string and ping poll ball have no mass, the half with the ping poll ball would tip upwards.

In both cases there's an equal amount of water with an equal amount of weight, so we can ignore the weight of the water completely. Now, the ping pong ball will experience an upwards force equal to the weight of the water it displaces, pushing the ping pong ball, and thus the entire left side of the scale, upwards ever so slightly. The steel ball will also experience upthrust, but it won't have any effect due to the weight of the steel ball being greater than the force of upthrust, and also because the upthrust is exerted on a metal stand rather than on the scales.

If the weight of the ping pong ball and string is greater than the force of upthrust, then the left side tips downwards.

t. mathematician

>>8253581
K srry just saying what I think

>>8253623
>Assuming the string and ping poll ball have no mass, the half with the ping poll ball would tip upwards.
>string and ping poll ball have no mass
but in this case, the momentum around the middle of the beam would be zero, since the mass of the water on both sides is the same, no?

>>8253693
I have no idea what you're talking about, and thinking about this in terms of momentum is a stupid idea.

>>8253623
You have the correct motion but the wrong reasoning. The ping pong ball beaker only experiences a net change equal to the weight of the ball and string. Since the string is attached directly to the beaker, the buoyancy force is counteracted by the increased water pressure required to create it. The steel ball side on the other hand has a string that escapes the beaker-scale loadpath. Prior to submersion that string has a tension equal to the weight of the steel ball. After submersion the tension is lessened by the weight of the water displaced, thus the remaining force is exerted on the scale.

>>8253357
>How do I put him in his place?
Tell him he's a loser and an uptight faggot.

The balance tilts to the left btw

>>8253710
wot

>>8253711
>Since the string is attached directly to the beaker, the buoyancy force is counteracted by the increased water pressure required to create it
Source? Tell me what physical law this is.

>>8253623
>Assuming the string and ping poll ball have no mass
why would you assume that? Faggot

>>8253732
Because the mass is so small as to be negligible in this case. It's commonly used in mechanics, we call such objects "light".

>>8253693
>momentum for a stationary system
Shiggy

>>8253728
Williford's Law, Professor Bales Williford, 1868.

>>8253738
>momentum for a stationary system
>Shiggy
why not? civil engineering uses it all the time

>>8253744
Lmao, I googled it and literally nothing came up. Nice try, faggot.

>>8253728
Take the beaker as a control volume and do a free body diagram, the weight chamge will appear plainly. The detailed derivation of Archimedes principle contains the pressure behaviors.

>>8253747
>civil engineering
There's your problem.

>>8253758
so you don't believe in bridges?

>>8253763
Bridges are HRC shills.

>>8253763
Nope, libertarian.

>>8253736
Not in this case. The ball has mass.

>>8253357
If you want to fuck his shit up, tell him that cooking is not a science, but an art.

All the technology involved is reduced to mere technic, but the actual worth of the food is the thought you put into it, not the means.

>>8253794
t. Liberal Arts major working at Starbucks

This is a really nonintuitive question that is greatly simplified by creating a freebody diagram and calculating the the weight of each beaker. Steel side goes down. Ping pong ball goes up.

>>8253796
I actually have a STEM job, I was simply trying to find what would make me triggered as fuck.

Not a big fan of molecular though, it's an interesting experience, but it's more a "once in a while" kind of thing. I like hearty stuff more.

>>8253803
What does that have to do with molecular gastronomy? Retard.

>>8253803
Let's be accurate here, steel side goes down until steel ball displaces a volume of water equal to the additional mass of the ping-pong ball and string, then the system oscillates about this point until damping stabilizes it.

>>8253357
BTW to all the anons bickering about the pictures, let me simplify this.

Imagine the same experience, but with the beakers void of water AND with the ping pong ball still going up because it's lighter than surrounding air (assume it's full of helium or something).
Which side goes down, now ?

>>8253878
Hahahahaha

>>8253878
Yeah, sure.

>>8253357
>stem is so bad that they're throwing out words they don't understand on the level of humanities majors

It's just used to describe what most chefs do already. It's also a good way to con people into buying a $60 set of basic shit.

>>8254019
What?

>>8253357
>2016
>not knowing the pleasures of sousvide

bet the mcchicken is the best fastfood sandwich, for you

>>8254158
No one cared who I was until I put on the bun.

>>8253357
"Moleculecular gastronomy" is the introduction of industrial processes and ingredients into cooking.

Then there is Nathan Myhrvolds cookbook which concerns itself with the physical chemistry of cooking.

>>8253552
What the actual fuck...

Tilts to left because of weight of ping-pong ball and string, steel ball and string adds no weight because it is suspended. The water displacement is the same, but irrelevant as it ads no weight.

im posting this on /sci/ for the keks
>>>/sci/8460698

Your roomate is an idiot

>>8253357

The steel ball side will go down.

>>8253357
Left. Steel ball is being held by an outside force, doesn't affect weight. Ping pong ball is being held by something on the scale, meaning left will be ever so slightly heavier.

What about the surface tension?
Looking at wheight alone, it is pretty clear that the left side is heavier, and thus goes down, but since a ping pong ball and a piece of string is so fucking light, I wonder if it could be affected by the surface tension of the water in the right beaker, sucking on the string.

Cooking isn't a science, it's an art. It needs real heart, love and passion.

Tell your friend he's a faggot.

>>8253426
It's actually the Steel Ball. No fucking idea why it adds weight despite being suspended but it does.

File: Modernist Cuisine.jpg (638KB, 2000x1326px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 2000x1326px

>>8256647
Hold it. I agree on some level. But without food science I don't know where we would be today.
You gotta take food science courses anyway if you want to become a chef. You also take catering classes and kitchen safety, etc.

>>8255382
>"Moleculecular gastronomy" is the introduction of industrial processes and ingredients into cooking.
'Cuisine moleculaire' was developed by a french chemistry and physics Professor Hervé This-Benckhard somewhere in the middle of the 80's... I remember reading his column about "canard a l orange destructured" or "the physics in chocolate mouse " in the european version of the scientific revue "Sciences" when I was younger ... Chefs like Pierre Gagnaire and Adrian Ferra used his work to create new dishes in the mid 90's ...

>>8256688
buoyancy

>>8253357
He's right and you're a prima fagola

>>8253486
Thanks for sharing, I don't normally like Bourdain but that was cool

>>8256647
Science is an art that requires heart and passion

The side with the ping pong ball will rise. Both the ping pong ball and the steel ball are displacing the same amount of water, but the ping pong ball is attached to the beaker, and the (albeit small) force of the ping pong ball trying to rise through the more dense fluid would be enough to tip the scales.

That said, tell him to take the stick out of his ass and remind him the world owes no one anything.

>>8253357
>WEEB

STOPPED READING RIGHT THERE.

File: McD-McChicken.jpg (2MB, 2800x1620px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2800x1620px

Tell him that, for you, it's the McChicken, the best molecular gastronomy sandwich.

He will get visibly upset and begin to tell you how wrong you are in a condescending tone. Tell him that millions and millions of dollars have been spent on R&D for the McChicken and various McDonald's products. Chemists and food scientists spent their entire young adulthood studying the science behind the food we eat just so that one day they could become one of team members that devised the McChicken. Everything that goes into McChicken has a purpose, to trigger emotions, memories, and create a desire for more. They've spent decades perfecting a tasty chicken sandwich available at a reasonable price. At this point your friend will most likely start naming some """pioneers of molecular gastronomy""" and listing their accomplishments. Tell him that some dickface in spain making mackerel semen foam tacos simply cannot compete with the team of scientists that McDonald's employs.

At this point your friend will concede. For him, it's the McChicken, the best molecular gastronomy sandwich.

File: 1473879019321.jpg (30KB, 290x245px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 290x245px

>>8258099
I am, for the most part, a total, fucking faggot.

I enjoy spending the majority of my time shitposting from some Europoor country in favor of McDonalds because I hate capitalism and cows being murdered and I can't find a sexy American girlfriend from over here in my stupid fucking country so I think that maye I'll outsmart the Americans and be cool by pretending to like what I dislike.


Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck me FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS

>>8258099
for him, that sounds like the perfect argument

>>8253357
Put your penis inside his butt while he slumbers.

File: IMG_79291-e1399458337169.jpg (92KB, 650x524px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 650x524px

>>8258610
I think it's just comical backlash at how pretentious molecular gastronomy has become. The industry itself is steering away from the ultra pretentiousness as well. Noma was the peak of it all.

>>8253357
NEVER post OPs with more interesting images than your boring post