ITT: Your Scientific Epiphanies

>>8578786
By your analogy that would cause a net loss of energy which is the exact opposite of a fission reaction

>>8578838
fission reactions go 235 broken to 238. the heavier flywheel is less energetic, and the energy is released as photons. analogy holds.

>>8578844
Uranium-235 breaks into smaller neclei and a bunch of neutrons, there's no 238

Even if we take your analogy it doesn't make sense with fusion

>>8578846
read a book faggot. he's talking first initial vs. last final material. of course the analogy doesn't hold for fusion. but fusion analogies don't epiphany-ly explain fizzion.

>>8578838
There's always a net loss of energy with fission.

File: ifp.jpg (13KB, 350x271px)

13KB, 350x271px

>>8578786
> breaking the flywheel in Uranium-235
> flywheel
> in Uranium

The nucleus of an atom does not act as a flywheel. Your analogy does not hold.

File: Chin.jpg (44KB, 569x293px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 569x293px

>>8578857
If anything spins, it is a flywheel. You can test this theory by sticking your thumb of your ass and spinning.

File: Untitled.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>8578786
BOOM!

>>8578786
That sounds fucking retarded man

If we all had our own clones we would fuck them. Our own clones that is, not other peoples clones. Nobody is exempt.

>>8579471
Only egotists
I am an incorrigible egotist and would definitely fuck myself

>>8579471
>>8579476
I wouldn't. Other than a movie quote, I've no clue what is up with that.

Time will one day be defined by the regular increase of net entropy across the entire universe.

Right now we just approximate that idea by locking a second to the regular rate of decay of a little sample of the universe.

Also, the sine wave defines the path of flux that we label time.

>>8579694
>Time will one day be defined by the regular increase of net entropy across the entire universe.

It isn't constant is it? I mean relativity and all.