[QUOTE=proch;30160069]Science is easy :science:[/QUOTE]
The field of science is constantly growing, and anything we don't already know is incredibly difficult to figure out.
[QUOTE=proch;30160069]Science is easy :science:[/QUOTE]
Bitch, build me a warp drive.
[QUOTE=sltlamina;30154376]We've been taught a guess and check method for Psi so far, and told that it can be done numerically. Is there any other, more precise way to do it that doesn't rely on best guesses and seeing if they fit, or plugging it all into a super computer?[/QUOTE]
Some PDEs can be solved exactly I dunno I'll find out in quantum mechanics in a semester or so.
In doing some revision for the relativity section I was looking at the equation for the addition of relativistic velocities.
For one question there was a rocket travelling at 0.8c relative to Earth, and it fired a missile away from itself at 0.9c. So I plugged the numbers into the calculation (with 0.9c being negative in value) and got the right answer of -0.357c.
Next question asked for the speed of an electron with relation to a proton, both travelling at 0.9c (one is going left, one is going right). Now, obviously I plugged these numbers into the equation with their positive value (to avoid the answer 0), and I got the right answer. But because they're travelling in opposite directions shouldn't one of them be negative, and one positive (the calculation doesn't work then, but isn't that the reality of the situation)?
:drugnerd:
Hmm, thinking about switching my uni course to just one in straight up physics.
I've got a philosophy towards science which is, "if you're gonna pursue science do it to the doctoral level or don't do it at all." Currently I'm doing a double degree and if I see it through to the end I'm realistically only gonna be taking one to the doctoral level (most likely physics anyway) because of monetary reasons and time, so I'm gonna have this barely useful B.Sc in nanotech sitting there.
[QUOTE=sltlamina;30175267]In doing some revision for the relativity section I was looking at the equation for the addition of relativistic velocities.
For one question there was a rocket travelling at 0.8c relative to Earth, and it fired a missile away from itself at 0.9c. So I plugged the numbers into the calculation (with 0.9c being negative in value) and got the right answer of -0.357c.
Next question asked for the speed of an electron with relation to a proton, both travelling at 0.9c (one is going left, one is going right). Now, obviously I plugged these numbers into the equation with their positive value (to avoid the answer 0), and I got the right answer. But because they're travelling in opposite directions shouldn't one of them be negative, and one positive (the calculation doesn't work then, but isn't that the reality of the situation)?[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure you've got that backwards since it would be 0 if they were moving the same direction, not opposite.
Someone brought a real human heart to class today.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;30183592]Pretty sure you've got that backwards since it would be 0 if they were moving the same direction, not opposite.[/QUOTE]
Oh, that's right... I guess that makes sense intuitively, but the equation still calls for V + U, however, and, y'know, given that velocities are vector quantities, in the strictest sense should one of those two values NOT be negative? Which would then give you 0.
That's where I'm getting confused with this.
[QUOTE=sltlamina;30181353]Hmm, thinking about switching my uni course to just one in straight up physics.
I've got a philosophy towards science which is, "if you're gonna pursue science do it to the doctoral level or don't do it at all." Currently I'm doing a double degree and if I see it through to the end I'm realistically only gonna be taking one to the doctoral level (most likely physics anyway) because of monetary reasons and time, so I'm gonna have this barely useful B.Sc in nanotech sitting there.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much this. If you take a scientific course where you can apply your knowledge you are stuck as a technician if all you have is a Bachelors/Masters.
God help you if you just have a bachelor's in something theoretical.
bachelor's in string theory
[QUOTE=Turnips5;30136456]
I'm proficient in mathematics/further maths/physics/chemistry up to A2 level.
[/QUOTE]
Same except mine is Electrical-Science instead of Chemistry; which is basically electronics.
I'm going down the route of becoming an engineer. Science is cool, but I find myself more interested in the applications its applied to rather than just the theory.
Old link: Symphony of Science (music videos about science)
If your interested in science to make a thread then this might interest some: [url]http://www.symphonyofscience.com/[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Howard_Menzel[/url]
That's my great grandfather
Anatomy and Physiology.
nuff said.
[QUOTE=Faren;30136217]My chemistry teacher is fucking horrendous. She is bad at explaining things and often says, "You don't really need to know this, but...", proceeding to confusingly talk about it for about 10 minutes
My physics teacher is an okay teacher.
My biology teacher is awesome.[/QUOTE]
my chemistry book was so bad that most the class(who didn't do their homework) had to use it for a day as punishment
i'm serious, an [b]entire chapter[/b] of it was condensed into an EXTREMELY simple chart
[editline]4th June 2011[/editline]
the teacher was fun though, everyone thought she was high
[editline]4th June 2011[/editline]
one time someone didn't secure their bunsen burner's gas input correctly and got it on fire, it was breathing fire out that crack like crazy and the flames extended all around the shut off thing, she reached her arm right up in there to turn it off
My chemistry book was one of those ones that the teacher claims is "college level", but I doubt it was.
I was a sophomore, why would we be using a college level book?
[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;30245862]My chemistry book was one of those ones that the teacher claims is "college level", but I doubt it was.
I was a sophomore, why would we be using a college level book?[/QUOTE]
if it was college level it wouldn't be in one book.
my chemistry textbooks (and a chemical catalogue) are currently propping up my bed
[img]http://mikeh269.com/filedump/textbooks.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=mike;30246377]if it was college level it wouldn't be in one book.
my chemistry textbooks (and a chemical catalogue) are currently propping up my bed
[img]http://mikeh269.com/filedump/textbooks.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Hey, I have the same sort of text books. Didn't realise they split uni level chem courses into physical, inorganic, and organic world-round. Neat.
[img]http://i55.tinypic.com/2en18pe.jpg[/img]
There aren't many kinds of people I truly, genuinely hate, but...
I am seething with rage
I try not to hate anyone but people like that... I cannot resist.
BOOM ROASTED
:commissar:
[editline]6th June 2011[/editline]
I wonder if you could ever actually convince these people that science was important.
If I wanted to get them to think, I would probably start off by pointing out that they wouldn't be able to have the conversation without quantum theory.
I like how they picks on science for getting funding from the government, but what about the arts? I mean, I'm not one of those cunts who goes, "MY AREA OF INTEREST IS THE ONLY IMPORTANT ONE IN THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS USELESS!", but, if you DID have to prioritise, for examples, the arts against science... science would most DEFINITELY come on top.
That said, I believe culturally art is very important too. It is an important aspect of our history and, as such, deserves funding, but I think science is much more important all over.
Also, as to the 'Hawking radiation is useless' statement... maybe at current it's more or less useless outside of simply satisfying people's curiosity about the universe (and, anyway, what's so wrong with that? People have sought to understand the universe and our world around us since we first came into existence), but... eventually, given enough time, all abstract knowledge will probably come in useful.
I don't even want to point out how short sighted and foolish the 'Earth is not going to run out of resources' quote is. What a complete moron. "OH, IT WON'T EFFECT ME IN MY LIFETIME SO FUCK IT!"
Are you talking about art as in fine art, or art as in the social sciences?
[QUOTE=Contag;30276544]Are you talking about art as in fine art, or art as in the social sciences?[/QUOTE]
Both. They're both historically important in defining the culture of our species after all.
For the fine arts, for example: people like Van Gogh and Picasso were very influential on society and culture of their times (and not to mention the works of such artists have created huge tourist attractions to countries which boosts the economies of said countries). As such they, and the work they did are an important part of the history and culture of certain countries
And of course social science itself is incredibly important in the modern day world. I don't think anyone would argue that.
[QUOTE=sltlamina;30276707]Both. They're both historically important in defining the culture of our species after all.
For the fine arts, for example: people like Van Gogh and Picasso were very influential on society and culture of their times (and not to mention the works of such artists have created huge tourist attractions to countries which boosts the economies of said countries). As such they, and the work they did are an important part of the history and culture of certain countries
And of course social science itself is incredibly important in the modern day world. I don't think anyone would argue that.[/QUOTE]
But how can you talk about social science as discrete from hard(er, anyway) sciences, when I believe they are inextricably linked, and then join it with the fine arts, which are far removed from both social and hard science?
[QUOTE=Contag;30276790]But how can you talk about social science as discrete from hard(er, anyway) sciences, when I believe they are inextricably linked, and then join it with the fine arts, which are far removed from both social and hard science?[/QUOTE]
Because the 'hard' sciences are the natural sciences. The science describing nature itself, physical processes such as motion: Physics. The science which describes the nature of reactions between elements and compounds: Chemistry. And the science which describes life itself: Biology.
SOME social sciences like geography for example (if you want to consider it a social science) could probably be classified as part of a natural science, or an overlap of multiple natural sciences (in the example of geography that I gave). Assuming we're talking about physical geography and not social geography, that is.
Obviously things like economics and law, things which a university might consider a social science, aren't exactly linked too strongly with physics, chem, or bio.
[QUOTE=sltlamina;30276847]Because the 'hard' sciences are the natural sciences. The science describing nature itself, physical processes such as motion: Physics. The science which describes the nature of reactions between elements and compounds: Chemistry. And the science which describes life itself: Biology.
SOME social sciences like geography for example (if you want to consider it a social science) could probably be classified as part of a natural science, or an overlap of multiple natural sciences (in the example of geography that I gave). Assuming we're talking about physical geography and not social geography, that is.
Obviously things like economics and law, things which a university might consider a social science, aren't exactly linked too strongly with physics, chem, or bio.[/QUOTE]
I understand and agree, hard science is always quantifiable (at least in some cases in a probabilistic sense), but why join fine arts and social sciences?
[QUOTE=Contag;30276921]I understand and agree, hard science is always quantifiable (at least in some cases in a probabilistic sense), but why join fine arts and social sciences?[/QUOTE]
Iuno. I didn't make the rules. I still don't understand why you can get a Bachelors of Art in a science (as in a natural science) for example. Makes no sense to me.
That's just the way shit is, unfortunately.
Paleontology represent!
Fuckin' love Dinosaurs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
