Science Thread - General - Facepunch Forum

I can't find any past papers. :( I found the syllabus though.

[QUOTE=Erasus;34277524]I can't find any past papers. :( I found the syllabus though.[/QUOTE] see if you can ask your teachers if they have any past papers - the school may have some.

[QUOTE=booster;34176789][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/EmissionNebula_NGC6357.jpg/636px-EmissionNebula_NGC6357.jpg[/img] Spectacular [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/EmissionNebula_NGC6357.jpg]Full res 17Mb[/url][/QUOTE] That's awesome.

Something that's been bugging me about astrophysics recently is that if the universe is calculated to be 93 billion light years in diameter but is only 13.7 billion years old, doesn't that mean matter would have needed to have expanded outwards at nearly 3.5 times faster than the speed of light on average? I'm obviously something missing here

No because space itself is expanding, and contains no information, so it can expand faster than light. We can visible light from much further than age of universe x speed of light because of this.

Some resources for you all: Biology: .....Khan Academy Biology: [URL]http://www.khanacademy.org/#biology[/URL] .....MIT Introductory Biology: [URL]http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/7-014-introductory-biology-spring-2005/video-lectures/[/URL] Chemistry: .....Khan Academy Chemistry: [URL]http://www.khanacademy.org/#chemistry[/URL] .....MIT Principles of Chemical Science: [URL]http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/chemistry/5-111-principles-of-chemical-science-fall-2008/[/URL] .....MIT Solid-State Chemistry: [URL]http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/materials-science-and-engineering/3-091sc-introduction-to-solid-state-chemistry-fall-2010/[/URL] .....Khan Academy Organic Chemistry: [URL]http://www.khanacademy.org/#organic-chemistry[/URL] .....Yale Organic Chemistry: [URL]http://oyc.yale.edu/chemistry/freshman-organic-chemistry/content/class-sessions[/URL] Physics: .....Khan Academy (not calc based) Physics: [URL]http://www.khanacademy.org/#physics[/URL] .....MIT Physics I: Classical Mechanics: [url]http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-2010/[/url] .....MIT Physics II: Electricity & Magnetism: [URL]http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/[/URL] .....MIT Physics III: Vibrations and Waves: [URL]http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-03-physics-iii-vibrations-and-waves-fall-2004/[/URL] Everything: [url]https://sites.google.com/site/scienceandmathguide/[/url] [url]http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/audio-video-courses/[/url]

I want to live in a communist state. It will be called |communist>. [editline]24th January 2012[/editline] Someday my jokes will be funny.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34380868]I want to live in a communist state. It will be called |communist>. [editline]24th January 2012[/editline] Someday my jokes will be funny.[/QUOTE] I don't get it.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;34437087]I don't get it.[/QUOTE] It looks like braket notation, used for showing quantum states.

What exactly is "The Great Attractor" ? Google keeps giving me mixed answers, some links say it's a huge cluster of galaxies, other say it's an empty void with a mass of tens of thousands of galaxies. Anyone here know anything about it?

[QUOTE=booster;34528491]What exactly is "The Great Attractor" ? Google keeps giving me mixed answers, some links say it's a huge cluster of galaxies, other say it's an empty void with a mass of tens of thousands of galaxies. Anyone here know anything about it?[/QUOTE] It's a massive clusterfuck (literally, a clusterfuck of mass) that seems to lie just beyond the observable universe and is pulling on things inside the observable universe. [editline]3rd February 2012[/editline] well, that's what I thought it was. but quite a few sites on google are also saying different things

[QUOTE=Turnips5;34528512]It's a massive clusterfuck (literally, a clusterfuck of mass) that seems to lie just beyond the observable universe and is pulling on things inside the observable universe.[/QUOTE] So if we fast forward time a couple of billions of years, wont that mass gradually become bigger and bigger (by pulling other matter to itself)? And since it has such a huge gravitational pull, will the "Great Attractor" become the only "galaxy cluster" in our universe? Please correct me if I'm talking out of my ass here.

I think nobody really knows yet and more research needs done [editline]3rd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=booster;34528550]So if we fast forward time a couple of billions of years, wont that mass gradually become bigger and bigger (by pulling other matter to itself)? And since it has such a huge gravitational pull, will the "Great Attractor" become the only "galaxy cluster" in our universe? Please correct me if I'm talking out of my ass here.[/QUOTE] You could replace our Sun with a black hole of the same mass and we'd just keep going round exactly the same (except it would be an endless horrible night and we'd quickly run out of usable energy and die). but I really don't know. Don't take my word (or anyone else's) on this matter for granted.

I thought density also interfered with gravity. then again, I'm basing myself off of those images of the spring mat and the weights :v:

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;34530184]I thought density also interfered with gravity. then again, I'm basing myself off of those images of the spring mat and the weights :v:[/QUOTE] Sure. I mean, we're all just playing the armchair physicist game at the moment

Science is fucking awesome

[QUOTE=booster;34176789][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/EmissionNebula_NGC6357.jpg/636px-EmissionNebula_NGC6357.jpg[/img] Spectacular [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/EmissionNebula_NGC6357.jpg]Full res 17Mb[/url][/QUOTE] It would be so cool if we could just look up into the sky and see shit like that.

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;34532674]It would be so cool if we could just look up into the sky and see shit like that.[/QUOTE] Buy a telescope equivalent to the Hubble and you can :v:

[QUOTE=booster;34540628]Buy a telescope equivalent to the Hubble and you can :v:[/QUOTE] Not really. You can get awesome pictures with "normal" gear. Like here. [img]http://www.starrynight.net/Orion_Nebula_1242A_6x4.8x72.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.astropix.com/IMAGES/SHOW_DIG/B33_Horsehead_Nebula.JPG[/img] (costs a few thousand bucks)

I have a cool telescope for years now but I can't have it assembled because it doesn't fit anywhere in the house :saddowns:

So I'm currently working on my bachelors in microbiology at Purdue University, and I've realized two things: Organic chemistry is easy, and it was a dumb idea to go for a minor in philosophy.

>> philosophy >> science [sp]Well, hey, if you enjoy it do whatever. But in an employment and future stand point, yeah it might've been a bit silly.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Collin665;34567280]>> philosophy >> science [sp]Well, hey, if you enjoy it do whatever. But in an employment and future stand point, yeah it might've been a bit silly.[/sp][/QUOTE] Actually, the internship interviewers were quite excited that I had a minor in philosophy.

I would bet, however, that my math major will be far more useful to me than a philosophy major or minor would.

I fucking love how the guy or girl who marked my last lab report has corrected my pluralisation of "apparatuses" to "apparata", and then goes on to tell me not to title a certain section because "your (sic) not writing a book" stellar.

"hey, could you take a submarine and go unerneath the earth?" "Underneath the earth? What?" "like if i wanted to get to cali, couldnt i just take a ubmarine and go underneath the earth" "no" ppfpfppfppfpp [editline]7th February 2012[/editline] Hadronization is really awesome omg. [editline]7th February 2012[/editline] Today in GR we derived Maxwell's equation from the principle of least action. It was awesome. Also, quote of the day, "Let's ignore the details, we're all physicists here."

I've been thinking whether I should go and study "Earth Science" after high-school. I've got good grades in Geology/Geography, and it does interest me a lot. But I'm not at the moment "qualified" to get applied for the program, and thus I'd have to spend an entire year studying chemistry, "advanced" maths and physics. Are there any "geoscientists" here, and if so, what can you tell me about it?

my sister is majoring in geology

I'm planning on doing geology at Oxford or ICL. Jobs are good out there for Geology, so it'd probably be worth it to do the extra year if you were passionate as well.

So the girl I want to get a gift for, for Valentine's day, is a physics/math dual major. What should I get her? I don't want to just get a generic chocolate/roses/something gift. Anyone know of any decent physics/math related gifts? There was some clothing I liked, like a shirt with the plot of a heart curve, but I don't know what size to get her... and I really want it to be a surprise, so I'm not going to ask. There is also a few rings made of silver/gold/platinum that had the elemental symbols and atomic numbers on the front, but they were way too expensive when we're not even dating. I may just have to resort to chocolate dipped strawberries, since she likes strawberries.